Sitting of 28 April 1995

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

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  9.35 am
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I have a petition in support of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
  As you will be aware, Madam Speaker, it was the hope of the supporters of the Bill that it would have been placed before the House today for its Report Stage and Third Reading, but, as a result of action that has been taken elsewhere throughout the House, and because of its procedures, it has been blocked.
  I therefore have a petition, signed by several organisations, which organised itself in 24 hours, when it was finally discovered that the Bill had been stopped in Committee, or kept in Committee rather than being brought before the House.
  The officers and officials of the organisations concerned represent the Muscular Dystrophy Group of Great Britain, MENCAP in Northern Ireland, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire and its northern division, Lambeth Accord, Artsline, Scope, the GRAEA Theatre Company, the Greater London Association of Disabled People, React, the Disability Alliance, the United Kingdom Coalition of People Living with HIV and AIDS, the NAZ Project, the Denholm Elliott Project, DART and the All Aboard Campaign, the Centre for the Study of Integrated Education, the Trades Union Congress, the Carers National Association, People First, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and the National Federation of the Blind of the United Kingdom.
  The petition reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
  The Humble Petition of the officers and officials of organisations of, and for, disabled people
  Sheweth that the principles and provisions contained in the Civil Rights (Disàbled Persons) Bill, particularly its proposed strategic enforcement authority, the Disability Rights Commission, to provide practical assistance to those seeking redress and the establishment of legal precedents for others, represents a better means of moving towards equal rights for the United Kingdom's 6.5 million disabled people than the Government's alternative Disability Discrimination Bill
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Prime Minister, his Government and its supporters not to impede the passage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  And your petitioners, as in duty, will ever pray etc.
  It is signed by Sahra Ahmed and the representatives of the organisations I have mentioned.
  To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day
  Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill
    Clause 1
      JOINT ACCOUNT HOLDERS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, leave out clause 1 and insert the following new clause—

      RIGHTS OF SECOND-NAMED JOINT SHAREHOLDERS
      (".—(1) After section 102 of the Building Societies Act 1986 there shall be inserted the following section—
      "Rights of second-named joint shareholders.
      102A.—(1) This section applies where the terms of a transfer of business by a building society to the company which is to be its successor include such provision as is mentioned in section 100(1).
      (2) If—

      (a) a person ('A') held shares in the society throughout the requisite period;

      (b) any shares in the society held by A were jointly held for any period ('the joint ownership period') constituting the whole or part of the requisite period;

      (c) A was the second-named holder of the jointly held shares for the whole or part of the joint ownership period; and

      (d) no person who has priority over A for the purposes of this section held shares in the society throughout the requisite period,

      the jointly held shares shall be treated for the purposes of subsections (8) and (9) of section 100 as having been held by A alone.
      (3) The following persons shall have priority over A for the purposes of this section, namely—

      (a) where A was not the first-named holder of the jointly held shares for any part of the joint ownership period—

      (i) any person who was the first-named holder of those shares for the whole or part of that period; and

      (ii) where A was the second-named holder of those shares for part only of that period, any person who was the second-named holder of those shares for a later part of that period; and

      (b) where A was the first-named holder of the jointly held shares for part of the joint ownership period, any person who was the first-named holder of those shares for a later part of that period.

      (4) If a person dies during the requisite period at a time when he is named in the records of the society as a joint holder of any shares jointly held, this section shall have effect in relation to any later time as if he had never been so named.
      (5) In this section—
      'the first-named holder', in relation to any shares jointly held, means that one of the joint holders who is named first in the records of the society, that is to say, the person by whom alone, apart from this section, those shares would, by virtue of paragraph 7(5) of Schedule 2, be treated as held for the purposes of section 100;
      'qualifying day' has the same meaning as in subsections (8) and (9) of section 100;
      'the requisite period' means the period beginning two years before the end of the qualifying day and ending immediately before the vesting date;
      'the second-named holder', in relation to any shares jointly held, means that one of the joint holders who is named second in the records of the society;
      'the vesting date' has the same meaning as in section 100."

      1087
      (2) In paragraph 7 (joint shareholders) of Schedule 2 to that Act (establishment, incorporation and constitution of building societies), after sub-paragraph (5) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
      "(5A) In its application to section 100, sub-paragraph (5) above shall have effect subject to the provisions of section 102A." ")
      9.37 am
      Mr. Douglas French: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The first amendment gives the impression of being draconian. It introduces a new clause that replaces the whole of the original clause 1 of my Bill, which I introduced into the House on 17 January 1995. I emphasise that that is not a classic takeover operation. It reflects, rather, different schools of thought on drafting.
      The Building Societies Act 1986 is an extremely complex piece of legislation. Tampering with one part causes repercussions elsewhere. Although the aim of my Bill was simple, the task of giving effect to it on paper was the reverse.
      Therefore, although the principal clause, the new version of which we are debating first this morning, is drafted differently from the one that I placed before the House on 17 January, I emphasise that its legal effect is almost the same as that which I originally tried to achieve. There are a few tiny modifications, which I shall mention later.
      That is important, because the House did me the honour of permitting my Bill to pass through all its stages on 10 February without debate. I therefore believe that the House might have had legitimate difficulty in accepting from the other place a Bill with amendments that substantially altered its effect. I am pleased to confirm that no such dilemma exists.
      The central aim of my Bill and amendment No. 1 is to facilitate the payment of bonuses to second-named account holders when building societies are taken over or merge. Naturally, there is a current interest in the case of the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society. The Bill is also relevant to the proposed merger of the Halifax and Leeds building societies, and any other building society mergers or takeovers by banks that may happen in due course.
      Under the Building Societies Act 1986, bonuses to savers with investment accounts can be made only to a sole account holder or to the first-named person of a joint account, and then only to those who have invested continuously for two years. I support, and do not seek to change, thé two-year requirement, which rewards loyalty for long-term saving. Their Lordships took the same view.
      What I seek to change, and amendment No. 1 changes, is the restriction of bonus entitlement to first-named account holders only, which discriminates unfairly against several sorts of saver.
      First, it is grossly unfair to widows who have had a joint account with their husbands. If the husband dies during the two-year qualifying period, the bonus dies with him, even though the same account may continue in the widow's name alone, with the husband's name deleted. It makes no difference how many years the wife has previously contributed to the account: she gets no credit for it. The two-year qualifying period has to begin all over again.
      1088
      An example could be given in the case of the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society, where the qualifying two-year period is from December 1992 to December 1994. If a husband on the account—the first-named account holder—died during that period, the widow would be denied the bonus entitlement that she would otherwise have received had her husband lived.
      Secondly, the 1986 Act is unfair to newly marrieds. A single woman with an investment account savings history that qualifies her for a bonus in her own right, will fail to qualify if, on marriage, she redesignates her account jointly in the name of her new husband and herself. Her new husband, as the new first-named account holder, must begin a two-year qualifying period in his name. His wife's savings history no longer counts.
      Thirdly, the 1986 Act can be unfair to those who get divorced or separated.
      Fourthly, there are cases in which it has proved unfair to couples where the husband's name was deliberately taken off a joint account for sensible tax-planning reasons, consequent upon the introduction of separate taxation. I could give the House instances of where that has been done on the specific advice and recommendation of a building society branch. That well-intentioned step, made during the two-year qualifying period for quite different reasons, can result in the account holder losing his or her bonus entitlement.
      The new clause in amendment No. 1 can put right those injustices. I am bound to admit that it does so with greater certainty and precision than did my original clause.
      In the original drafting, I had the benefit of advice from three extremely distinguished firms of solicitors. I should like to record my thanks and pay tribute to them. I shall, however, refrain from mentioning them by name. I do not believe that they would thank me for doing so as, in the event, their efforts turned out to be capable of improvement. I suspect that taking advice from three firms of solicitors simultaneously—heavyweight firms, at that—may be a temptation best resisted.
      9.45 am
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does not my hon. Friend's experience suggest that, where two lawyers disagree, one might assume that one of them might be correct, but where three lawyers are in agreement, they are all bound to be wrong?
      Mr. French: I think my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, reminiscent of what is frequently said about economists—
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Especially when the three solicitors are in the Cabinet.
      Mr. French: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's sedentary comment.
      When the Bill was originally drafted, we turned first to the second schedule of the 1986 Act, which is where the provisions relating to joint account holders are to be found. We set about amending the schedule. In doing so, we produced, I freely confess, some unintended and unexpected results, including some risk that certain account holders might qualify for double entitlement. That was never our intention.
      I shall illustrate how that happened by reference to the original sub-paragraph (5C). In the case of divorce, where the wife was the second-named account holder, if the two

      1089
      of them opened separate accounts with the same building society, the wife would not qualify for a bonus, whereas, if the husband moved his account to a different building society, she would. Similarly, if the husband's name was taken off the joint account for some other reason, the wife would be entitled to a bonus if the husband had no other account with the society, but she would not if he did.
      Clearly, that was not what was intended. That example is one of a number of reasons why we are now discussing a redrafted clause, and it shows why that redrafting was essential.
      Parliamentary counsel wisely advised that, instead of amending the schedule, it was better to tackle the qualifications for cash and share distributions, as set out in section 100. There is little drafting that cannot be polished up by parliamentary counsel if they put their minds to it; and they did so in order to produce the new clause in amendment No. 1.
      The amendment, which becomes new clause 1, consists of a new section, section 102A, to the 1986 Act, and replaces clause 1 as originally drafted. Subsection (2) sets out four conditions that a mythical person—whom we shall call A—has to meet before he or she can qualify for cash distribution. First, he or she must have met the two-year qualifying period. Secondly, he or she must have held a joint share account. Thirdly, he or she must have been the second named person on that account. Fourthly, and rather importantly, there must not be anyone with a prior claim over his or hers. That is why subsection (3) is needed.
      If the first named account holder qualifies, it is important that the second named account holder should not qualify. It is not our intention that both should qualify. The first named takes priority over the second named, but, in the case of a widow, there is no first named, and the second named therefore qualifies.
      Subsection (3) sets out cases where another account holder has priority—where there is a prior claim over the bonus. Subsection 3(a) covers the situation where the mythical person A has never been the first named holder of jointly held shares. In the first example, she marries, she closes her account and opens a joint one on which her husband is the first named account holder. He then has priority over her. If he meets the qualifying period, he receives the bonus, but if he does not, she receives it. That avoids them qualifying twice, but ensures that one of them qualifies on behalf of their joint ownership of the account, which is what has always been intended.
      Mr. Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend's logic is absolutely impeccable, and I have been following it step by step. Are there circumstances in which there may be more than two account holders, and what would happen in that event?
      Mr. French: The Bill does not provide for circumstances where there are more than two account holders. I originally decided to address the subject of second named account holders, and the Bill's limitations are set by its long title. Ideally, I should also like to address the position of third, fourth, fifth and subsequent named account holders. However, that would require a more broadly drawn long titlé.
      In so doing, many complex issues that a small Bill of this type could not reasonably tackle would have come into consideration. The almost certain result would have
      1090
      been that, because the Bill had been cast too widely, the House would not have felt able to give it the fairly speedy passage that it has enjoyed so far.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I thank him for his interesting explanation of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) has obviously become an expert in the field, and he will have thought through the different aspects of the Bill very carefully during its long and successful passage through both Houses. Can he therefore inform the House to what extent he thinks that practical injustices and problems will be created by the Bill's failure to cover the theoretical existence of third, fourth and subsequent account holders?
      What kind of family or other circumstances does he envisage may arise whereby third, fourth and subsequent account holders may have an equity interest in the account which ought to be recognised in the event of the acquisition of a building society but, as a result of the restrictive scope of the Bill which my hon. Friend has explained, would not be enfranchised as a result of the legislation's passage into law?
      Mr. French: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which I shall approach from a different direction. A significant number of people will benefit if the House approves the Bill's passage, including a substantial percentage of those who are currently excluded under its provisions.
      The number who will not benefit because of the example given of third and subsequent account holders is very small. I fully accept that there is an element of unfairness in such cases, many of which have come to my attention. However, I argue that the Bill deals with the overwhelming number of injustices. I should have liked to see the very small number of remaining cases dealt with as well, but in the circumstances that does not seem to be a practical proposition.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has asked for examples of cases in which third, fourth and fifth named account holders could suffer. For example, if an account had six named account holders and, for whatever reason, the first three names were removed, the account would not qualify for a bonus.
      There are many variations of that example, and I could provide my hon. Friend with letters explaining them. However, in reality, the number of people involved is very small. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State introduces a more broad-ranging review of building societies—he has announced that that is his intention in due course—we will have the opportunity to address the remaining anomalies, of which the case of the third, fourth and fifth account holders is one, at that stage.
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: Many hon. Members are relying on the Library's excellent brief which explains the effect of the Bill. On page 16, it says that, on Report in another place, Lord Inglewood addressed the case of multiple accounts, particularly where an account is held by a mother, father and a child, and where both parents die. Lord Henley also referred to that case when he introduced the amendments to which

      1091
      we are now referring. For purposes of clarification, will my hon. Friend explain how the Bill as it is presently drafted will deal with that situation?
      Mr. French: I propose to address that question a little later. That is the closest that the Bill gets to dealing with the position of someone who might be interpreted as a third named account holder. A clause was introduced in the House of Lords to deal with the subject of orphans. For example, if a mother and father die in an accident, the position of a child who may be named on the same account will then be brought forward to take the place of the first two account holders whose names have been removed. I shall address that one exception a little later in my speech.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again, and I am very glad that his Bill addresses the case of orphans. That is obviously a rather dramatic example of an injustice that may have been created if the Bill had not addressed that sad eventuality.
      I put to my hon. Friend another case, which I think that he will agree is not entirely theoretical, where an injustice might be created. If six people decided to open a joint account for some common purpose, perhaps in connection with a society or association—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Chair finds it very difficult to hear the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) when he faces away from the Chair. His remarks are not catching the microphone and it is very difficult to hear what he is saying. I ask the hon. Gentleman to face the Chair.
      Mr. Davies: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I was putting a case to my hon. Friend which I think he will agree should be examined, because it could arise in practice. A group of people—half a dozen, 10 or perhaps more—may decide to open a joint account with a building society for some common purpose, perhaps in connection with an association, club or some other venture in which they are involved.
      As I understand my hon. Friend's legislation, if the building society where that account was opened is the subject of a bid, only the first named account holder would benefit from the bonus for the recognition of equity interest that that account represents. It may be a coincidence as to which of the individuals involved in that joint account—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not call the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding to make a speech; I called him to make an intervention.
      Mr. French: I shall respond to my hon. Friend's query in so far as I understand it. In that case, the account would qualify for the bonus entitlement via the second named account holder.
      Mr. Davies: But not the third or subsequent account holders?
      Mr. French: The account itself would qualify, and, if it is a joint account, it is right that all the account holders should receive one bonus which is shared among them.
      Mr. Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. French: I think that I should make some progress.
      I turn to subsection (3)(b), which covers the case where a wife may have been the first named account holder for part of the period of the joint account. For example, a
      1092
      wife and a husband may change the order in which the names appear on the account—Mr. and Mrs. could become Mrs. and Mr.; but it is more likely that John and Joan would become Joan and John. Therefore, both will have been the second named account holder at some stage.
      In that case, the subsection provides that the one who is the first named holder for the later part of the period will have priority. However, if the later first named holder has not held shares for the two-year qualifying period and the second named holder has, the latter would benefit.
      Subsection 4 is a provision that was added to the original Bill on Report in the House of Lords in response to suggestions made by Lord Eatwell. It is the provision relating to orphans that my hon. Friend mentioned a moment ago, and I welcome it. For the sake of clarity I shall briefly explain the background again.
      10 am
      The measure deals with cases of multiple accounts held by a mother, a father and a child. When both parents die—it is deliberately limited to circumstances of death alone—the child account holder moves up to fill the space, and is allotted a position as if he or she had been the second named account holder. Effectively, it regards the two parents as one account holder and the child as the second named account holder, although the child's name may appear third. For that reason, in those circumstances, the account qualifies for distribution.
      Hon. Members will realise from that that there are many variations and permutations, and I do not want to trouble the House with any more of them. Those who enjoy the minutiae will find much to savour in the speech of Lord Henley, in column 915 of the Lords Hansard of 15 March. Indeed, there was a suggestion that his Lordship's speech should become a schedule to the Bill. I have drawn on it fairly heavily, although I suspect that it is not necessary for it to become a schedule. However, it is there to be read, and I am grateful to those who drafted it for bringing clarity to what the House can see is a complex matter.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: If three people held the same account—mum, dad and a son—and the mother and father separated and then the mother, for whatever reason, died, would the son automatically become the first named account holder?
      Mr. French: I think that in that case, if I understand the facts correctly—I would be happy for others to put their thinking caps on, because we are dealing with highly technical issues—the son would qualify in those circumstances if the father did not. I believe that that is right, but it is worth spending some time on such matters. Perhaps the Minister of State may wish to turn his attention to such examples when he speaks to us later.
      I am deeply conscious that neither the new clause nor my original Bill attempts to cover every anomaly. Some have been mentioned, and in all fairness I should mention a few of the others. Obviously, the Bill does not cover cases in which there has been no continuity of saving through the two years. I never believed that it should do that, because the two-year requirement recognises loyalty, which is a sound principle.
      Borrowers are not covered, either—that is a whole debate on its own, in which I suggest the House should not become involved today, if it wishes to complete

      1093
      proceedings on the Bill. The Bill does not cover personal representatives of deceased account holders, other than in the examples that have been mentioned.
      Mr. Duncan: It strikes me that this is primary legislation designed to overcome a simple case of unfairness arising from the peculiar circumstances of a merger of building societies in my hon. Friend's constituency. As some instances are not covered by the new clause—inevitably so—does my hon. Friend think that the work of the building societies ombudsman, who was authorised by the 1986 Act which my hon. Friend's Bill would amend, could be enlarged so that his decisions could in future include the individual cases not covered by the Bill?
      Mr. Alistair Darling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may be doing Conservative Members an injustice, but I detect a whiff of a filibuster. Although the Government have restored the Conservative Whip to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I gather that they are anxious not to hear her speak later.
      My point of order arises from the fact that we are discussing building societies, while the Minister of State, Treasury, who is responsible for the regulation of building societies, is here. If the Government want to discuss building societies at length, and perhaps the ombudsman as well, would it be in order for the Minister to make a. statement on the Office of Fair Trading report on endowment mortgage sales that was published today?
      Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say whether he agrees with our call for an inquiry by the Personal Investment Authority, and for full regulation of the sale of mortgage business? The House would be better employed discussing issues of concern to the public and to those who may have been mis-sold endowment mortgages, rather than engaging in a filibuster to prevent the hon. Member for Billericay from speaking later.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is up to the Minister to decide whether to make a statement, and then it would be up to the Chair to decide whether it was in order. So far, the debate has been in order, and if it ever gets near being out of order, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be ruled out of order.
      Mr. French: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with complex matters, and as the House did not have the opportunity to debate them on Second Reading, I felt that it was right to go through the new clause and explain its effect. Perhaps I have been more indulgent 'than I should have been in accepting interventions, but if I may now proceed, I shall finish what I have to say on the new clause.
      The point that I was endeavouring to emphasise is that a reasonable balance has to be struck to focus upon the worst injustices with a reasonable expectation of success. That appeared to me to be a more attractive proposition than trying to put right every injustice related to building societies, and then failing altogether. My aim has always been limited.
      The substantial correspondence that I have received, and the cases drawn to my attention by people throughout the country, lead me to believe that I have struck the balance appropriately. I leave the remaining injustices to be tackled in more comprehensive legislation at a later
      1094
      stage. If the Bill had been too wide-ranging, we would probably not be debating it today; it would not have 'got as far as it has.
      At this stage, I remind the House of what Lord Hayhoe, who piloted the Bill so ably through the other place, said. He wisely and prudently advised that to introduce more complexities could have placed the entire passage of the Bill in jeopardy. That view was confirmed by Lord Henley, to whom I am grateful for having introduced the amendment, and amendment No. 2, which we shall debate next. Their Lordships agreed with the good sense behind that approach, and I believe that they were right.
      The passage of the Bill, and of the clause which lies at its heart, have been followed closely in the country. The British like fair play, and the Bill seeks to deliver it. I have a particular interest in fair play for the widows in my constituency who save with the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society. If the clause and the Bill are accepted, some of them will receive substantial sums, ranging from £500 to many thousands of pounds, under the terms of the Lloyds bank takeover of that building society. The House should be clear that those widows will not get the money if the House does not approve the Bill today. They will be direct beneficiaries of the legislation.
      The Bill's scope does not stop at the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society: it will also help members of the Halifax and the Leeds Permanent building societies, which have announced plans to convert to a bank after they have merged. Those societies have said that they will take advantage of the measure to give shares to second named joint account holders.
      In that context, perhaps I should declare an interest as a small saver with the Halifax and the Leeds, although I emphasise that I am not one whose position would be changed by the Bill.
      I must give other categories of hopeful recipients something of a warning. The Bill is permissive, not mandatory. It makes it lawful to distribute bonuses, but does not compel building societies to do so. One cannot know what other building societies may decide to do in the future.
      As for the Cheltenham and Gloucester, its transfer document confirmed that it would include widows in its distribution if the law permitted it to do that; but the transfer document makes no mention, and therefore would appear to have no intention, of including the other categories that this Bill will make lawful. That is, of course, a matter entirely for the boards of Lloyds bank and the Cheltenham and Gloucester to decide. One has to assume that they had their reasons for excluding newly-weds, divorcees and separate taxation people. One can only speculate on what those reasons are, but I wish to record my disappointment with their approach.
      One 1 February 1995, the Cheltenham and Gloucester announced that Lloyds bank had set aside £10 million, to be made available to second named account holders. Speaking in another place on 27 February, Lord Dubs—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote from the Lords Hansard, unless he wants to quote a ministerial statement.
      Mr. French: The noble Lord's point was that he hoped that the Cheltenham and Gloucester intended to include all second named account holders, not just widows.

      1095
      By the time of the publication of the transfer document, the sum of £10 million had risen to £25 million, in recognition of the realistic approach that the C and G was taking to its responsibilities which might arise under the new legislation. But, sad to say, the restriction confining the society to cases of death only remained firmly stated.
      As this debate and the one that follows it will deal with the improvements which, I submit, their Lordships made to the Bill, and since I know that proceedings in this House on Fridays can be rather peculiar at times, perhaps this would be the right time to place on record my thanks to Lord Hayhoe for piloting the Bill so ably through the Lords. I also record my thanks to Lord Henley, who tabled the amendments and explained them clearly and comprehensively. It was especially gratifying to find that, at all stages, support for the Bill in another place came from all parties.
      Before concluding, I should also like to record my thanks to Lord Dubs, who introduced a similar Bill in another place in January, but who kindly withdrew it to support mine. We both had the same idea independently at the same time, and I am grateful for his support.
      I should like especially to thank the Minister of State, Treasury, and his team of advisers. He will introduce his own comprehensive measures relating to building societies in due course, but he has been extremely supportive and helpful to me in assisting the Bill to make the progress that it has made.
      I am also grateful to representatives of the Building Societies Commission, especially Commissioner Geoffrey Fitchew and Terry Matthews, who has been enormously helpful. I also record my thanks to Ron Armstrong of the Building Societies Association; he, too, has been most helpful.
      Most of all I should like to thank the hundreds of people who wrote to me, sometimes supporting the broad principles in the Bill, sometimes setting out their own circumstances. The letters took a great deal of reading and replying to, but they were all interesting. If the House gives its approval to the Bill, I hope that, in some small measure, that will represent a response to the many people who wrote to me and who will benefit. This has been a team effort, to which I hope the House will this morning give its final approval.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on his initiative. I was pleased and proud to be associated with it as one of the original sponsors of the Bill. I congratulate him on his success in bringing it this far, and on the great expertise and astuteness with which he has steered it through.
      This Bill goes to the heart of the notion of equity interest in a co-operative or mutualised venture. It is perhaps rather unfortunate in this country that we have limited our consideration of this principle—an important one—to building societies, because they are only one type of co-operative venture. Indeed, they are only one possible type of mutual bank.
      10.15 am
      Unlike many other countries, in this country we do not have provision for mutual banks—apart from building societies. That is an unfortunate distortion and restriction in the framework within which deposit-taking institutions
      1096
      exist here. In the rest of the European Union, there are substantial mutual banks. Crédit Agricole is a mutual bank—a building society writ large—and is one of the largest deposit-taking institutions in the world.
      The essential principle at which the Bill is directed is whether someone who opens an account at a deposit-taking institution which is a mutual institution, not a joint-stock company, has the equivalent of an equity interest in that business. My hon. Friend's Bill came into being to deal with what happens when someone acquires such a business and, naturally, wishes to make a payment to acquire the equity interest in that building society.
      Then, to what extent and on what principles should the cash sum that that person pays over to acquire the equity interest be distributed between the customers or depositors of the mutually owned institution? In this case, we are talking about a building society, but I think that we can agree that this is the heart of the matter.
      One aspect concerns what happens when there is more than one account holder. To what extent can we say that all the account holders have an equity interest? Logically, I should have thought that they all do. There is considerable artificiality in starting by looking at the first account holder and then extending the definition—in line with the terms of the Bill—so that, in certain circumstances and conditions, subsequent account holders can be taken into consideration. In certain very limited circumstances, such as those of the orphan about which we heard this morning, the third account holder can have his equity interest recognised—but no other account holder can.
      Earlier, I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester a question which I believe was pertinent: what happens when several people come together to open a joint account in a building society? They may do that for any number of purposes—we do not need to go into them, because we live in a free society, in which it is quite natural that people should come together for some collective purpose.
      Many collective purposes involve opening bank accounts, so there may be an account with a mutual bank or building society under a large number of names-10, 20, 200 or possibly even 2,000, at least theoretically. In those circumstances, only the first named account holder would be recognised as having an equity interest, and would receive a sum in consideration of that interest in the event that someone acquired the equity of the whole building society. I think that I properly understand the purpose and sense of the Bill before us.
      The person who happens to be the first named account holder does not necessarily have a greater interest than the other account holders. The first named account holder might be there because he put down his name first or was the founder of the particular association, group or enterprise which caused the account to be opened. Perhaps his name starts with the letter A, and it was simply convenient to list the account holders in alphabetical order.
      I think that my hon. Friend might be about to tell me that the answer is that the first named account holder would in such circumstances be compelled to account for any bonus received by way of transfer equity interest to the other account holders.
      Mr. French: If I may say so, my hon. Friend is putting the position in a rather artificial way. The bonus

      1097
      entitlement does not get credited to the first named account holder as an individual but to the account. The eligibility for the bonus is determined by the position of the first named account holder, or, in the case of the Bill, the second named account holder.
      Mr. Davies: Indeed, but if for some reason the first named account holder is not in a position to collect the bonus, all the other account holders would lose the entitlement to it, as I understand it, except in the narrowly defined circumstance when the second named account holder is a widow, or in the other circumstances that are foreseen in the Bill.
      A separate point, perhaps, is the entitlement to equity in a building society. That raises wide issues—perhaps we should look at them in another context—which arise naturally out of our consideration of the Bill. We have already heard that the Bill is permissive. It does not establish what the rules are for recognition of equity interest by customers or depositors of building societies.
      The Bill does not establish what rules have to be adopted on that matter by all building societies or mutual banks in this country. It simply permits building societies to extend the rules for recognising second, or subsequent, account holders, in very limited circumstances, as entitled to that equity.
      I support the Bill. Indeed, as I have said, I was pleased and proud to be a sponsor of it, but we must recognise—I hope that it will complete its passage through the House this morning—that we have really only just begun to touch the very edge of this important issue. Everybody in this country, when establishing a relationship with a mutual bank or building society, whether as a borrower or lender, should know ab initio precisely what are the rules of the game, to what extent he or she is merely becoming a borrowing customer or depositor, and to what extent he or she is taking an equity interest in that particular bank or building society.
      If the rules are different from one building society to another, that is far from ideal. That is known in technical parlance as an informational problem. It is extremely difficult for the ordinary unsophisticated customer to know, when he is offered 5.75 per cent. on his deposit by the Halifax and 5.3 per cent. for the same term and on the same conditions by the Nationwide, the Cheltenham and Gloucester, the Swindon, or whatever. The equity interest that he or she is acquiring by placing a deposit on particular terms may be different in different societies.
      It is possible to brief a lawyer to advise whenever one makes a deposit or gets a loan from a building society. Indeed, if one has the enviable financial resources that my hon. Friend possesses, one might even ask three lawyers to give an opinion on that subject—and no doubt get three different opinions as a result. That is not really a desirable situation for the ordinary citizen of this country who wishes to make a deposit.
      It would be ideal if it were plain beyond peradventure precisely how one creates an equity interest in a mutual bank or building society; what activity and under what conditions and terms creates that equity interest; and what activity or relationship with those institutions does not create that equity interest. In that case, the Bill would not be necessary, because it would be defined in advance exactly who had an equity interest.
      1098
      A shared equity interest would be exactly the same as if a share is held in joint names—something with which company law has been familiar in this country for many centuries. As far as I know, no problems, ambiguities or informational gaps exist in that field. That would be a great improvement in the law.
      Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell us later that we cannot go that far, for whatever reason, and that what I have outlined would be a rather prescriptive and sweeping form of legislation. If we cannot go that far, the next best thing would be that every building society—I imagine that this could be done simply by secondary legislation or by the kind of rules that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can simply promulgate—should be compelled to hand over to any potential depositor or borrower a clear set of rules setting out precisely at the beginning what rights are being created when a business relationship is started between any citizen and a mutual bank or building society. That is a slightly different position, in which the rules of the different societies remain different.
      I suppose that one can say that we should not be too prescriptive in a free society. We should allow mutual organisations to be established on different principles and according to different rules. I find that argument, in many ways, seductive, although it conflicts with the earlier argument that I was making. At least it would be clear beyond peradventure, when somebody enters into a business relationship with a building society, whether an equity interest is being created, how it will be recognised, and, indeed, what it will be worth.
      That brings me to my next point: there is an unfortunate degree of confusion at present. There is regrettable obscurity about how one evaluates those equity interests. We are spending a lot of time this morning deciding whether first or second named account holders, whether they are widows, orphans and so forth, should be recognised as having an equity interest in the event that a building society is taken over. We have already agreed in the House that that is an important matter that must be looked at carefully and deliberated thoroughly, which we are doing as a result of the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.
      All that is academic if we do not understand exactly how an equity interest is to be quantified. What is the principle on which it is to be determined? What level of bonus is to be shared out, and on what principle, to the various deposit holders or borrowers in a building society in the event that it is taken over?
      It is all very well telling our constituents—those who hold joint accounts, perhaps husband and wife or the other eventualities that we have discussed—that they can rest assured that, in the event of a takeover of their society, both named account holders will stand to benefit, but what really matters to them, if they have a £2,000 deposit, is whether that means that they are likely to get £20 or £200.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been tolerant of the hon. Gentleman, but he is going rather wide of the debate. He must bring himself back to it. He knows the point I am making. The debate is not about all building societies or about what should be done in the future. We are debating the Bill in front of us.
      Mr. Davies: I have the highest regard, Mr. Deputy Speaker—accumulated over the years I have been in this

      1099
      House—for your judgment in these matters. I stand very much corrected, and I shall try to narrow the focus of my comments.
      I have set out the broad lines of the three main points that I wanted to make. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester agrees that one of the valuable results of his initiative in bringing the Bill before the House has been our consideration of the whole area relating to the rules affecting building societies, the framework within which individuals conduct their business with building societies and the extent to which the notion of equity in building societies or mutual companies is recognised in law.
      That area will now receive the attention it deserves as a consequence of it having been discussed both here and in the other place. It will be difficult to forget about it now, in the way that we have done for a number of years.
      10.30 am
      The debates on the new clause, both here and in the other place, represent several good days work by Parliament. We began with the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, which I much admire. He took outside legal advice from his three law firms. I hope that he and his family remain solvent and that generations of his descendants will not labour under the burden of the enormous liabilities that may have been incurred to pay for the quite awesome degree of professional advice. However, the fact that my hon. Friend was prepared to do that in the interests of better legislation counts enormously in his favour.
      However, not content with that, we have also had the benefit of the expertise of many other people—for example, the noble Lords in the other place, parliamentary draftsmen, a Treasury Minister and various officials. We feel a sense of awe when we think of the intelligence that has been mobilised and focused on the text before us. When I rose modestly to my feet today to make a few general comments on the issues raised by the Bill, I found myself somewhat intimidated in taking on such an enormous corpus of wisdom.
      The Bill has been carefully and thoroughly considered, and I hope that it proceeds to Royal Assent without delay.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I warn hon. Members that they must stick to the amendment we are considering, or my patience will become insolvent.
      Mr. James Clappison: I shall certainly follow your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. Some of what I wanted to say has been covered already and my concerns have been allayed. Nevertheless, it is worth spending some time examining the provisions relating to joint account holders. The Bill went through its stages in this House very rapidly. It then went to the other place, where it received quite radical surgery. It is a technical Bill with drafting complications. Therefore, it is worth taking time to examine the way in which it would remedy injustices.
      1100
      The time spent examining the Bill in another place was well worth while. It would have been a shame if the debate there had been foreshortened because it produced this important new clause, and in particular subsection (4), which will assist orphans and others in particular circumstances.
      It would be churlish of me not to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on the Bill. It is an important and worthwhile measure. It is a good example of how private Member's legislation can pass through the House, remedy injustices and help a number of people. As my hon. Friend said, it will assist many widows in particular, often at a time in their lives when they may be short of money and needing assistance.
      We need to consider whether other injustices might arise. As I have said, the Bill presented considerable drafting difficulties. I want to make two points. The first and obvious one—although it is not my main point—is the definition in new section 102A(2) of "requisite period", which is set at two years. I appreciate that the purpose of the distributions is to reward loyalty and, as an important part of policy, to prevent the destabilising flow of funds between financial institutions and building societies on the basis of market rumours. I well recognise the importance of that, but is it really absolutely necessary to provide for a period as long as two years? By the time two years has passed, any market rumour will have been lost in history. In this day of electronic communications, rumours pass very quickly.
      I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is conducting a review of building societies. Will he consider whether the two-years provision is necessary? I understand that a line must be drawn somewhere, but the provision might create an injustice for someone who has taken out an account for perfectly proper reasons—taking a long-term view, rather than on the basis of any rumour—within the two-year period. Would not such a person feel aggrieved at being excluded from any distribution?
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: My hon. Friend touches on an interesting point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). It is difficult to quantify exactly what is an equity interest in a mutual society or company. It is possible that, 18 months before the merger or takeover, somebody might have deposited a large amount of money in a mutual society as a share account holder, but he would not be rewarded, whereas someone putting in a nominal amount of money, who could therefore be said to have less of a quantifiable stake, would benefit.
      Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, which add force to my point. It is an example of how someone who is a serious, long-term investor in a society could lose out.
      Although the new clause remedies the problem of orphans, concern remains about the position of married women and divorcees. I want to give the House an example of that, which was also touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. It is clear that we need to read subsections (2) and (3) together to judge their effect in a particular case. My reading of them may be wrong—I am often wrong—but in this case I take some consolation from the fact that the issue has taxed very much better legal brains than mine, in very eminent firms of solicitors. I want to explore, in a brief example, the

      1101
      effect of the two subsections on marriage and divorce. If a woman is an account holder in a building society and marries, she will create a joint account with her husband. It is a common-place point, but I suspect that that is the way in which the overwhelming majority of the population will create a joint account—as Mr. and Mrs.
      Under the amendments, the wife would—to begin with at least—remain entitled to a distribution for two years. Although her husband would be the first-named account holder, he would not qualify until the account had been in joint names for the full two years. That is how I interpret the effect of new section 102A(2)(d).
      Under new section 102A(3), the husband would have priority, but he would need to have held the shares for the full period of two years. After two years, he would qualify under paragraph (d) as the person entitled to a distribution, and he would take precedence over his wife, even if she had been the original account holder and had decided, after marriage, to put the account into joint names.
      My argument may imply a comment on relations between the sexes, but as long as they remained married a problem would not arise because of their joint arrangements.
      My concern involves the effects of divorce on the arrangement under the clauses. The position that I have described may be fairly common. After two years of marriage, divorce may take place. Under subsections (2), and (3), if the couple divorce and split the joint account the husband remains the account holder. As he has held the account for more than two years, he would clearly qualify as the first-named account holder. He would therefore be entitled to any distribution that might take place. A potential injustice exists. As long as he maintains his account with the building society, the wife will not benefit from any distribution, however long she holds the account, or however much longer she held her account at the building society than her former partner.
      Under subsections (2) and (3), the only way in which the wife would benefit from a distribution would be if the husband decided to close his account with the building society and take his money elsewhere. She would then become the joint account holder and would be entitled to receive a distribution. That seems to leave the matter, at least as far as the wife is concerned, if not in the lap of the Gods, entirely at the discretion of her husband's decisions. Why should that be? Why should not the wife have a moral entitlement to receive the distribution as the longer account holder? Why should she be put at a disadvantage merely, first, because she placed the account in joint names, in which her husband comes first, as so often happens, and, secondly, as a result of her husband's decisions after divorce? The amendments leave a potential injustice at large.
      10.45 pm
      I listened carefully to the excellent exposition of the Bill given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. I accept his explanation about the amendments and about the way in which they came to be drafted. As always happens with such legislation, the more one spreads the net in trying to remedy injustices and prevent potential injustices, the more complications and situations arise. Those who seek to remedy injustices eventually must seek to remedy just some of the injustices, and they may leave further injustices at large.
      1102
      A problem still exists in relation to divorce. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that carefully. I know that he is conducting a review of the Building Societies Act 1986. The problem is well worth considering. I do not see why divorced women should, potentially, be put at a disadvantage by the clauses. I wonder whether some other way exists of dealing with the question of distributions, perhaps taking a radically different approach from that proposed in the amendments and going much further towards a recognition of shares.
      Obviously, one cannot give people more than one entitlement through an account—that would be unfair to all other account holders. A way must exist of dividing the account to prevent the injustices that I have outlined and other potential problems.
      That is the reservation that came to mind after I carefully considered the amendments. It is difficult to draft a Bill such as this and to effect the worthy intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, but a better way could be found, perhaps by better legal brains than mine, to deal with the matter so that we remedy potential injustices comprehensively. That should concern the House and is well worth considering.
      Otherwise, I warmly welcome the amendments. As I have said already, they will remedy the injustice faced by widows, which is probably the most common injustice arising from the Building Societies Act. It is salutary to think that, I believe, 3 million widows live in this country and that 500 women are widowed every day. A large number of them will hold building society accounts; quite a lot of them will benefit from the Bill because they have been widowed within the past two years. The amendments will do a good job of remedying injustice for many people. My hon. Friend deserves warm congratulations on introducing the Bill.
      Mr. Piers Merchant: I should start by declaring a minor interest: I hold a small amount of money in a Halifax building society account. As the Halifax is merging with the Leeds building society, I hope that I might benefit by a small sum. Needless to say, the Bill and the amendments from the other place will not benefit me or alter that position.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on introducing the Bill under the ten-minute rule procedure. It was apparent that something needed to be done to right what had clearly been an injustice. It is a shame that we did not have an earlier opportunity to debate the Bill in this place, even though a fairly full debate has taken place in another place.
      It is disgraceful that no Liberal Democrat Members are here today, bearing in mind the fact that the impact of present provision is felt by members of the public throughout the country and in all constituencies. It is important for the benefit of those people and for the many who may be affected by future building society mergers and changes of ownership that the law should be amended. For that reason, I strongly support the Lords amendments and the Bill.
      I should like not only to support the amendments but to raise some questions on the clauses that cause me a little concern. I do not wish to frustrate the passage of the Bill, because it will put right the problems to which I have referred and which have become apparent only recently.

      1103
      It is worth noting that those problems were caused, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) so ably explained, by the artificial limit enshrined in the Building Societies Act 1986—the arbitrary two-year period. In other words, the deregulation proposed in the new clause will solve a problem caused by regulation in the first place.
      Although I do not want to discuss the two-year limit in depth, it is relevant to the Bill. Its ostensible purpose was to prevent funds from being moved around in anticipation of takeovers. If such a legal requirement was binding on equity transfers in the stock market it would create a ludicrous situation and would totally change existing processes. Why such a limit, which is far too long, should apply to building societies completely escapes me. To suggest that "rumours", two years before a potential takeover might influence investing habits is difficult to accept in practice. That theory bears no resemblance to reality.
      I first learnt about the impact of the 1986 Act when I received a letter towards the end of last year from Mr. Mahoney, of Village way, Beckenham, a certified accountant. He enclosed a letter that he had written to the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society as a result of its takeover by Lloyds bank. It aptly describes the difficulties that the new clause is designed to correct. He. wrote of the different criteria that applied:
      "Is this fair in husband and wife cases, where there has been support for the Society for many years and unfortunately the husband dies—as opposed to the wife dying? You would give with one hand now and take it back at the worst possible time.
      How will a widow feel towards the Society if she is cruelly denied the expected 'cash payment', and, moreover, how do I plan for my other clients where the husband may be unwell and may not live until completion day?"
      That professional cited a real problem created by the 1986 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester introduced his Bill to remedy such problems.
      I took up that case with the Minister of State, Treasury, who wrote back in less co-operative terms than are now apparent from the Treasury and said:
      "For the reasons I have set out, we have decided that the controls on takeovers imposed by Parliament in 1986 should remain in place."
      I am glad to note that the Government have since realised that there is an urgent need to improve matters. I am glad that they support the Bill.
      The background to the need for the Bill is the rapidly changing circumstances affecting building societies. There was a time when one was hardly aware of changes in the ownership of building societies. If such changes took place, they were often the result of quiet mergers between small and larger building societies. That pattern started to change with the flotation of the Abbey National. Since then, two major changes have taken place—the takeover of the C and G by Lloyds and the proposed merger between the Halifax and the Leeds building societies. There seems little doubt that that changing pattern in the operation and ownership of building societies will continue. The difference between building societies and banks is now so blurred as almost to eliminate that distinction in the foreseeable future. The law must now address the fact that many more takeovers
      1104
      and changes in ownership will occur in the future. The 1986 Act is therefore now anomalous because it has failed to match reality.
      The new clause specifically recognises reality by protecting second account holders. The existing law discriminates against women in particular. I am sure that it does so through default and that that was not the intention of the 1986 Act. That discrimination may have arisen just because of the convention for the man's name to appear first in joint accounts held by married couples. It is purely a clerical device, yet it has caused legal complexities. It is right to end that active discrimination against women, as set out in the 1986 Act, as urgently as possible.
      As I have already demonstrated, the 1986 Act allows for specific. practical discrimination against widows—that group in the population who are in most need of support. The account that falls to them might be their only major asset on which they are relying absolutely. The proceeds of the joint account may become more significant to the widow than they did before her husband's death. Such an account is often more important to widows than other accounts are to most of their holders, not least because, apart from all the emotional trauma of widowhood, women often face financial hardship as well. It is grossly unfair for that group of people, of all groups, to be discriminated against. I am glad that the new clause will correct that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere quoted examples of problems that have arisen because of divorce. Problems also arise when a newly wed couple separate after two years. A single woman may have held an account at a building society for many years. On marriage, she may decide, for convenience, to put that account in joint names. Should that marriage unfortunately fail and should that woman seek to revert to being a single account holder, she will find that, under existing law—and even, I fear, under the new clause—she will suffer discrimination, should her former husband maintain his account at the building society. That woman may have held that account with the building society for many years in her own name, but by virtue of that sudden change in the title of the account, through marriage, she will, on separation, lose all her rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere did the House a service when he drew attention to the problems for women who lose their rights as a result of separation or divorce. I hope that a device will be found to rectify that problem before too long.
      Although the new clause gives building societies the power to act differently and to pay out in the cases that I have described, particularly to widows, I regret that that is not a duty on them. The final choice is still left with the building societies. When my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester referred to the C and G takeover, which was the impetus behind his Bill, he said how, originally, that building society demonstrated a willingness to pay out to all those people to whom the law could enable it to do so. It encouraged a change in the law, so my hon. Friend felt that it would be pleased with the proposed new clause. He then said how the C and G was beginning to step back from meeting that guarantee.
      I received a letter from Mr. Evans, the divisional manager of C and G, who had written to Mr. Mahoney. He said:
      "C and G shares your views on the 'unfairness' of the situation where a first-named joint account holder dies."

      1105
      Later, and somewhat erroneously, the letter continues:
      "The situation is regrettable, but must have been the Government's intention when passing the Building Societies Act. It is not the fault of C and G."
      It is true that the situation is not the fault of C and G, but I am not so sure that it was the Government's intention when the Act was passed. The problem is more a consequence of other intentions in that Act.
      The letter continues:
      "Unfortunately, there appears little that C and G can do about this situation and I hope that you will recognise that it was always C and G's intention to allow as many investors as possible to share in the Lloyds Bank payment."
      As the society has made that clear statement, I hope that it will, once the Bill is enacted, honour its pledge and use the legislation to enable payouts to be made to all those who are defined in the Bill.
      11 am
      I shall now raise a few other questions, which my hon. Friend the Minister may be able to address, about the full scope of the proposed clause, the extent to which it operates and why it does not operate a little more widely. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere raised the question of the difference between share and deposit accounts. It seems anomalous that people, whether joint or single holders of accounts, should find themselves in a different position as regards bonuses because of the name of their account.
      Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. He may know that before one of the building society takeovers, the society in question, before news of the possible takeover had come to light, urged investors to switch from share accounts, which would have given them an entitlement, to deposit accounts which did not. That action was urged on some building society members.
      Mr. Merchant: That is an interesting revelation and adds strength to the need for further changes to do away with the legal distinction between share and deposit accounts, at least when bonus payments are made as a result of takeovers. From the point of view of the ordinary investing public, there is no discernible difference. I doubt whether many building society account holders are aware whether their account is technically a share account or a deposit account. It is true that building societies sometimes encourage investors to swap from one type of account to another without the investor knowing the full consequences. That point has some relevance to the proposed clause and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address it.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will also address, at least to a limited extent, the impact of the two-year limit and why it exists. I hope that further scrutiny will be given to the position of third, fourth and even subsequent names on accounts. I also hope that further scrutiny will be given to the exact definition of eligibility for bonus payments.
      In the long term, it may be better if rather than tackling the problem via a complex, technical and narrow Bill—I accept that that is necessary, in the short term—we deal with it by legislation that clearly defines who should have the rights and on what basis they should have them. In other words, there would be a positive definition bestowing rights rather than a negative set of regulations
      1106
      which seek to protect individuals and building societies when they wish to exercise the powers that the law gives them.
      The simplest way in which to achieve our aim would be to give a clear right based on an account rather than a name. Whoever happened to be in charge of the account would thereby get the benefit of a bonus payment made when there were takeovers.
      I have some reservations about the limited scope of the Lords amendments and I believe that more needs to be done. However, I do not want to be carping about the very real achievement of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester in getting his Bill this far. I have no argument with the need for the Lords amendments because I recognise that from the point of view of drafting they are necessary to achieve my hon. Friend's purpose. For that reason, I very much welcome them. I wish the Bill a hasty final passage into law.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you allow me to inform you and the House that, during a debate that has been drawn out and repetitive, many disabled people are here in the Palace of Westminster expecting what is called the Barnes Bill—the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—to be debated on Report? That will not happen because, yet again, the Government have contrived to defeat the Bill, and—
      Hon. Members: This is not a point of order.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will decide whether it is a point of order. I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is difficult to do so because of the noise from Conservative Members.
      Mr. Clarke: The House will not be able to debate the Barnes Bill, which is overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the House and unanimously supported by organisations of and for disabled people, because of the Government's blocking action. There were 100 amendments in Committee—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That Bill is in Committee, and so is not a matter for the Chair. That is not a point of order for me.
      Mr. Clarke rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order for me that is different from the one he has just put, I shall listen to it.
      Mr. Clarke: I respect your view, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I make it clear that the Opposition regard the Government's behaviour on disability as being so outrageous that we shall raise it with the Nolan committee and we shall speak—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me and that is the end of it.
      Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
      Mr. Skinner rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Members who are rising may wish to raise the same point of order, but I have already ruled on it. If it is a different point of order, I shall hear it.
      Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order relates to the issue raised by my hon.

      1107
      Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), but it is a separate point of order. I seek your advice, or advice from Madam Speaker through you, about the procedures that will be available to me once the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has made its way through Committee; I am not discussing the quite serious problems in Committee. Once the Bill has made its way through the Committee, what avenues are open to me in my attempt to get the Bill returned to the Floor of the House? I understand that, technically, today is the last day that is available for debates on private Members' Bills.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can help the hon. Gentleman. The answer to his question is that he must name a day for the Report stage.
      Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You, I and just a few others are regarded as Friday aficionados. We are here to oversee events and you do an excellent job in seeing that hon. Members keep to the narrow amendments, as evidenced again this morning. You will be pleased to know that a lot of us appreciate the way in which you do that job.
      Can you assist in any way from the Chair, perhaps by passing on a message to the Speaker, in a matter that I have raised before, which has also been raised by my hon. Friends? Fridays are not satisfactory for getting through private Members' Bills. Do you agree that we are fast reaching the time when, instead of just having debates about relatively narrow Bills, matters that are controversial and important, like the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill should be debated? Yet we are fast reaching a time when those matters cannot be dealt with. I look forward to new improved Labour bringing about some changes in this matter.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can all look forward with hope, as I have been doing for a long time—hoping that I may hear a genuine point of order.
      Mr. Darling: We are having a very long debate on a very uncontroversial new clause, on a Bill which has all-party support and which every one of us in the Chamber would like to see passed into law as soon as possible. It is surprising that the proceedings have been drawn out. Whether it is because of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill or the fact that the Government, having returned the Whip to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), do not want to hear her speak in a later debate, I do not know, but it is curious that we are having such a long debate.
      I shall first deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant). He seemed to lay the blame for all the problems on too much regulation, especially too much regulation arising from the current legislation on building societies. It may surprise him to know that I tend to agree with him that one of the problems with the financial services legislation in general, and that on building societies in particular, is that there is too much regulation. That is an argument not for no regulation, but for reviewing the quality of regulation and for looking for a system of less regulation which works. It is important that, every time we introduce regulation in this sector, we ask ourselves what is it meant to do and
      1108
      what is it trying to achieve, and if it does not achieve what we want, we should get rid of it and introduce a different type of regulation.
      I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Beckenham, although I do not at all subscribe to the view commonly held by Conservative Members—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman holds this view—that regulations are the problem with the financial services industry and that we should return to the free-for-all, the self-regulatory regime, which I believe has been substantially discredited.
      Mr. Merchant: May I put it on the record that I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis? I was suggesting not that there should be no regulation at all, but that complex regulation which is unclear in its effect is bad. We want a clear set of regulations which people can understand and which are practical.
      Mr. Darling: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that position clear. Indeed, I suspect that that is one of the reasons why his own Front-Bench team will not introduce new legislation in this sector, or replace the Financial Services Act 1986. They know that, among hon. Members of all parties, the majority believe that the present system of regulation does not work and that we need to revisit it, to draw up a clearer, simpler system of regulation that is readily understood and actually works. If the Government choose to fill some of the empty days that we have just now with Government legislation—
      Mr. Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman for a few minutes and I seek your guidance on whether he is in order. He is not talking about the amendments at all—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) certainly must have been in order or he would have been ruled out of order.
      Mr. Darling: As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are quite right. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) may like to reflect on the fact that one can obtain video recordings of one's speeches in this House, although I have never got one.
      Mr. Duncan: We can understand why.
      Mr. Darling: I feel that once, I have spoken, I should leave the matter there. If the hon. Member for Hertsmere would care to nip down to the video kiosk, he would be able to find out that he, too, made what I might call a fairly wide-ranging speech. It is important, if such matters are to be raised, that they should be replied to and dealt with. I have on many occasions made the point about the need to revisit regulations, and I am pleased to see that it appears to have general support. A common thread has run through what Conservative Members have been saying. While they congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on what he has done, they point out that there are still a number of other necessary improvements.
      That brings me directly to the hon. Member for Gloucester. May I start in a non-partisan way by congratulating him on his tenacity of effort in the course of getting the Bill on the statute book? He is, at the moment, my parliamentary pair. I say at the moment because the future of that depends on how long he speaks in reply and on the next amendment. Some of us have pressing duties outside the House, some 400 miles away.

      1109
      At the moment, he remains my pair and I congratulate him. I am also very grateful to him for paying a proper tribute to my former hon. Friend, Lord Dubs, who introduced an almost identical Bill in the other place. All of us were trying to achieve the same thing.
      We support what the hon. Member for Gloucester is trying to do. I support the new clause because it deals satisfactorily with the problems with which the hon. Gentleman originally attempted to deal, although I am bound to say that it still leaves many other people out on a limb, which he readily recognised, as have all hon. Members who have spoken.
      11.15 am
      I shall, however, make one observation. The hon. Member for Gloucester said that the Bill had sailed through all its stages in the House of Commons almost on the nod. In fact, I do not think that a word was said. Now we are having, within your discretion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a rather wider debate than one may have anticipated on Lords amendments, which are normally dealt with fairly formally. I had exactly the same experience with what is now the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1988, which passed all its stages on the nod. That is not a satisfactory way in which to legislate. Clearly, there is much interest in this matter, although if the other Bills due to be discussed today had not been tabled for debate, not quite so much interest might have been evinced.
      Passing legislation on the nod is not a particularly satisfactory way in which to legislate, which is why I have always maintained that the extension of rights to the second signatories is a matter of public policy, and that the Government should have introduced appropriate legislation. Precious little Government business has been arranged as it is, as we can see from the business for last week, this week and next week. The Government have plenty of time to deal with the matter.
      If the Government had introduced an appropriate Bill, they could have addressed the many problems to which Conservative Back-Bench Members have referred concerning people who have not been dealt with, for understandable reasons, by the Bill. The hon. Member for Gloucester was trying to identify perhaps the most glaring problem: the second signatories, typically widows, who are excluded.
      The Bill does not of course make requirements mandatory but at least it opens the door, which brings me to the second point that has been raised on a number of occasions: building societies and banks which engage in mergers or acquisitions have discretion in many cases. The Halifax-Leeds proposals are quite different from the Cheltenham and Gloucester-Lloyds takeover. That is why I believe that the time has come to look at the Bill properly so that there are not any anomalies and so that people do not feel aggrieved because they think that they may have missed out.
      We take the view that if we are to revisit the legislation, membership should be defined as widely as possible and people who think that they are members of a building society ought to be treated as such. When one goes to a building society and is invited to open an account, usually one does not have a clue whether one is a member and whether one may participate in the building society. I was recently told to change my account at my building society, which is not the subject of a takeover—unfortunately, because if it were, I would command better interest rates.
      1110
      Nobody mentioned, until I asked, that I would lose certain rights. Such practices cannot be satisfactory, and that is yet another reason why the Government should introduce legislation so that we do not have to come back with another private Member's Bill to try to patch up the difficulties to which all of us have referred.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: The two-year delay has been referred to time and again. When such a delay was first raised by the Abbey National, we talked about six months. A number of widows still suffered because they had to keep their account there for six months and there had to be no alteration. Now we are talking about two years and four times as many people will be affected. Should that not be looked at?
      Mr. Darling: I am happy to look at the two-year delay. I understand fully why it is in the Bill—to stop people shopping around. I am pretty sure that a large section of the population are now opening accounts in every building society that they can think of. The stable door is now slammed shut, but everybody is outside it. We should consider that question and we should ask ourselves—I return to the point that I made in my introductory remarks—what are we trying to achieve.
      It is obvious that there will be a spate of takeovers. I spoke at a building society conference in October and said that I believed that there would be a lot of takeovers. I was told emphatically time and again that I was talking nonsense. The more that the building society people went on about it and said that it would not happen, the more that I thought that I had a point. In my experience, the more that people protest, the more one thinks that they may protest too much.
      In that short period since October, we have seen a spate of takeovers. Only recently, the Abbey National has shown an interest in the National and Provincial. Such developments are another reason for the Government, who are supposed to be responsible for public policy, to take a hand. It may be too late to do that this Session, but a new building society Bill for the next Session, should not be beyond the Government's imagination. It is difficult to see what Ministers are doing at present, so that task is one to which they could give their attention. When the Treasury Minister comes to speak some time before 2.30 pm, perhaps he will explain the Government's proposals and comment on the general question of regulation.
      There will be a spate of takeovers. Conservative Members highlighted a number of problems and I highlighted others. If we are to consider building societies, let us consider every aspect of them. Building societies have for a number of reasons enjoyed a great public trust, and justifiably so. It is not for us to say that building societies must retain their mutual status, but when the public are encouraged to surrender that status for a payment of £1,000, public policy considerations should to be taken into account.
      The nature of building societies and the way in which they conduct their business are beginning to change. I referred earlier to the Office of Fair Trading report on the sale of endowment mortgages. I urge an inquiry by the Personal Investment Authority, and I want mortgage sales properly regulated. Many building societies have got away with things that other institutions would not have got away with because the searchlight was on them. The insurance industry was under the searchlight because of

      1111
      pension transfers. Banks have always been under the searchlight because of their charging regimes. Building societies have in some cases been getting away with murder.
      I must not stray and test your patience too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the point has been made that it is time thoroughly and comprehensively to review building society legislation. It need not take long. If the Government are prepared to review the Financial Services Act 1986, which has a direct bearing on the way that building societies conduct their business, so much the better.
      I end as I began, in an unlikely alliance with some Conservative Members. We all know that the regulatory system is not working. Why will not the Government face up to that and introduce reform to benefit the hundreds of thousands of people who hold building society accounts and the millions of people who trade or operate in the financial services sector? They will look to the Government to take a lead, but I fear that they will look in vain.
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that existing financial services regulation needs overhauling, particularly in respect of mutual and building societies. Coincidentally, there was provisionally to appear on the Order Paper today my ten-minute Bill, which I introduced two months ago, on an insolvency commission to beef up self-regulation.
      The reason for lengthier debate than usual on Lords amendments is that we were unable to debate my hon. Friend's Bill when it first came before the House and the Lords amendments have significantly changed the Bill. I must declare an indirect interest, as my wife and son have a share account with the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society. Sadly, they are among the 27 per cent. of account holders who will not benefit because they have not held the account long enough.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) said that the Bill is an enabling measure. Although it addresses a particular inequity, it does not address all the inequities inherent even in the Cheltenham and Gloucester case. Although the two-year time limit in section 100(9) of the Building Societies Act 1986 seems to apply to that merger and to investors—of whom my wife and son are examples—it does not apply to depositors. If an account was opened before 31 March 1994, according to The Guardian report on the takeover in the Library brief, its depositor will not be eligible for the £500 per account. An enabling Bill does not necessarily mean equity, but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on his initiative on behalf of about 5,000 widows in the Cheltenham and Gloucester areas.
      I am surprised that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) is not present for the debate. I am sure that he will be the darling of widows in Cheltenham and Gloucester and much further afield, and that there will be many more merry widows. I do not mean to be facetious or light-hearted, because although the Lord amendments remedy an inequity, that relates to a bonus that society members could not have anticipated. I cannot agree with Lord Dubs who, introducing his similar Bill in the other
      1112
      place, spoke of extreme hardship. That cannot be associated with not receiving a bonus that one could 'not have expected. Nevertheless, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester will be warmly congratulated by the widows and others who will benefit from his Bill.
      Such legislation will become increasingly important. There are 3 million widows in this country and, sadly, that number increases by 500 every day. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central rightly said, rationalisation in the building society sector is proceeding apace and will continue. In addition to the Lloyds-Cheltenham and Gloucester merger, there is to be a merger between the Halifax and Leeds Permanent societies, and between the Abbey National and Provincial. Such mergers will be all the more likely, and bonuses all the more significant, if the Government adopt the deregulation task force suggestion that 5 per cent. of the value of a society taken over by, or merged with, another financial institution should be given as bonuses, compared with 1 per cent. at present, without a vote by members of the acquiring institution.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said that the Lords amendments address the flaw that confuses eligibility for a bonus with voting rights. One does not, and should not necessarily, follow the other. That interacts with section 100 of the 1986 Act. Schedule 2 of that Act defines representative joint holder. It would obviously be wrong for former wives, women who previously held an account in their own name and subsequently married or women who are the second account holders to be disfranchised if their spouse or a member of their family died. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester was able to clarify that Lord Inglewood's amendment covering the situation when both parents die is taken into account by subsection (4).
      Although the Lords amendments may be more rigorous in terms of the parliamentary draftsman, they are not necessarily more elegant than my hon. Friend's original proposals, following his expensive legal advice. In fact, the Lords amendments are precisely the opposite. It is ironic that my hon. Friend's Bill, which will benefit widows in the Cheltenham and Gloucester case, will benefit many others—but not in the Cheltenham and Gloucester case because that offer is particularly applicable to widows rather than to others caught by the situation.
      It is also ironic that we are debating a relatively small amount of money—albeit significant to the individuals concerned. I note, as a surrogate member of the Cheltenham and Gloucester, that its chief executive, Mr. Andrew Longhurst, will, as a result of the merger, be able to exercise share options valued at four times his already substantial salary and emoluments, which are in the region of £350,000. One should consider—
      Mr. French: My hon. Friend's statement implies that Mr. Longhurst might make that profit. It should be said that he is entitled to exercise options to that value, and the shares on which he will exercise his options can increase or decrease in value.
      11.30 am
      Mr. Coombs: I appreciate that. The takeover by Lloyds bank probably makes the former rather than the latter slightly more likely, and therefore he will benefit significantly.
      Mainly because the Bill has been more narrowly defined to speed its passage through the House, it does not tackle the position that has been tackled by Lord Dubs in his new Bill on switched accounts—the position that arises when an investor switches, during the two years, from a deposit to a share account and possibly back again and, as a result, loses their eligibility for bonus.
      I urge the Government, contrary to what Lord Henley said in the other place, to back that Bill. Although it is another example of the piecemeal legislation that we have said is not necessarily desirable in that sphere, it is a simple measure, and I hope that it would remedy that inequity, as the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester remedies the one that we have discussed.
      As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, the Bill should be regarded in the context of other desirable measures that are required to improve the accountability of building societies to their members. Obviously, indirectly, a clearer definition of what a member is in a mutual society should be part of that review. The definition of a member appears to be, not chaotic, but at least inconsistent.
      I have a great deal of sympathy with what hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), said when they spoke about the two years and whether that period is necessary in a time when technology has speeded up the financial process.
      I am pleased to see that the Minister of State, who will reply to the debate, said in a written answer on 24 February 1995 that the Government are committed, through primary legislation, to a series of measures that will make the relationship between building society members and building societies and other mutual funds more transparent. I especially express my support for an ending of the artificial distinction between shareholders and depositors as part of the definition, which was mentioned earlier. I also welcome the idea that any person who becomes a member of a building society should have a pack at the start, telling them of their rights. If we wish to ensure transparency in the relationship between a building society and its members, it is important that we improve the way in which building societies communicate with their members.
      I have received several complaints from constituents about building societies, and other financial institutions, which have not informed their depositors or members of changes in interest rates on accounts, or of accounts that may have been withdrawn or effectively become sidelines for the mainstream operations of those building societies. As a result, perhaps as a result of their ignorance, those people have found themselves in lower-yielding accounts. That should not be necessary if they are given a regular update about changes in interest rates on different accounts and about what new accounts are available. I suspect, although probably it would be churlish to say so, that some financial institutions—certainly not the building societies about which we have spoken today—use that
      1114
      ignorance to their advantage and therefore are slightly more reluctant to communicate with members about changes in interest rates than they should be.
      I urge the Government to introduce the primary legislation, which should be simplifying primary legislation, deregulating primary legislation, but nevertheless effective primary legislation. Subject to those reservations, I very much support the Lords amendments and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester on the work that he has done.
      Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) is in an unenviable position now, as obviously, if the legislation is passed, he will be besieged by a long line of rich widows in his constituency, wishing to express their gratitude.
      The Bill will remedy an injustice. I support the clause which has been amended in another place, but, as has been said this morning, although that solves a problem, it does not solve some remaining problems. We are simply tackling an injustice which was seen, which was clear, which was understood, and which needed to be tackled formally so that a building society could properly pass on to its account holders the money that is obviously seen to be due to them. Even now, the Bill only permits building societies to do so; it does not compel them to do so.
      However, the issue that I want to mention this morning, and which I mentioned in an earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, is that we must look behind the clause at the regime that will remain even when it has succeeded in tackling the specific issue that the clause tackles.
      My hon. Friend the Minister and I have been in correspondence through questions about the building societies ombudsman. It strikes me that the clause does not, but could, try to draw together the two extremes of the regime, the better to bring about the redress of grievances of building society account holders.
      At the moment, the Bill tackles the specific problem, but there are other aspects in which it is obvious that a category of saver has been affected by a decision, but that category of saver will not have its problems solved under the current regime.
      Let me give an example. I tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking whether he would introduce changes to the Building Societies Act 1986, which is the Act amended by the legislation before us, so that, when the building societies ombudsman confirms that maladministration is proven against the interest of a category of saver, all such savers should be recompensed, not only those who have registered a complaint.
      Under the regime of the building societies ombudsman, if an individual has had his account wrongly administered, that is specific to the individual. However, when an individual says, "Look at the way that the society has handled every single account of the sort I have," a reference to the ombudsman will give the redress of grievance only to that individual and not to all similar holders of the same account who have had their account administered.
      We therefore have a complete stand-off. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has introduced primary legislation specifically to tackle a problem, yet

      1115
      there are many other similar states of affairs where the ombudsman can only tackle the problems of an individual and not those of the whole category.
      My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in answering my question, said:
      "The purpose of the Building Societies Ombudsman scheme is to provide an alternative to legal action for settling individual disputes between societies and customers. Each case must be decided by the Ombudsman on its merits and the details of any two complaints are seldom identical."
      I agree with him. I think that is right. However, he also said:
      "it would not be appropriate for the decision of the Ombudsman in one particular case to be applied automatically to a number of other cases which had not been submitted to him."
      I believe that that is rather disingenuous and wide of the mark, because it is quite possible—there is an example in the amendment in the clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester will, I trust, succeed in passing through the House this morning—that an individual case brought in the regulatory regime of the 1986 Act can highlight a single problem that applies to a category of saver. However, the system at the moment does not allow the effect of that individual's complaint automatically to apply to all people who are in the same predicament. That is wrong.
      I should therefore be grateful if the Minister of State would consider once again the role of the ombudsman and the guidelines in the 1986 Act, which either would allow him to call on a building society to remedy such a defect for all its account holders or to continue with the regime whereby the Government simply allow the individuals to be picked off one by one, and the overriding problem is not solved.
      If my hon. Friend the Minister of State could take that issue on board, it would solve the problem of the amendment dealing with only the problems identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and leaving many other problems unsolved.
      All we are asking for is a little nod and a wink from the Treasury suggesting that the Building Societies Act 1986 should include an understanding that where malpractice or simply injustice involving one category of saver is identified—such problems are normally identified by straightforward, common-sense observation—such difficulties can be addressed without the need to resort to more primary legislation of the sort that my hon. Friend has successfully brought before the House this morning.
      Such a measure would solve the case of one my constituents, Mr. Adams, who spotted a deficiency. All similar account holders will not obtain redress unless they burden the building societies ombudsman with a series of individual cases that are exact repeats of the one brought before the ombudsman by Mr. Adams.
      I fully support the amendment, and urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to look, behind it and go further. I urge him to tweak the way in which the Building Societies Act 1986 works, so that it can improve the regulatory regime and address the specific problems which we know exist and which are not covered by the provision before
      1116
      us. By that simple step forward, we would have achieved a greater, more effective and more just regime for building society account holders.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on his persistence in ensuring that the problem is resolved. I understand that, if the Bill is not enacted by 31 July, 5,000 widows will lose their entitlement to bonuses. There is a definite need to get the problem sorted out. In addition, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, more mergers and takeovers will probably happen in future. If that is so, many other people could encounter the same sort of problems. We must get the difficulty sorted out as quickly as possible.
      I was in the House on 10 February when the Bill passed to another place. There was no debate then. There is consensus in the House that the Bill should become an Act. It is therefore important that we have the opportunity today to discuss one or two aspects of the Lords amendments that we believe will improve the legislation, so that many more people will benefit from it in future. As has been said, the Bill does not sort out all the anomalies. As was said in the other place, we want to ensure the Bill's swift passage. We may want to add all sorts of things to the legislation to improve it for many people, but in so doing we could jeopardise the Bill's passage.
      The legislation is extremely technical, although it is a short Bill in itself. Many of us have spoken today about the two-year period during which the account should remain exactly as it is in order for someone to benefit from the bonus. As has been said, that provision should be considered in future. Two years is far too long a period.
      I can understand the reason for having a length of time over which the account should have been opened. I can imagine the switching of accounts that would take place, particularly with the current speculation on mergers and takeovers, but I also agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that there must be many people in this country who hold accounts with many building societies just in case there could be a future merger or takeover. That is not a problem that troubles me, as I have no money. I have been blessed with that, and I do not need to open accounts everywhere, but a number of people must be opening accounts all over the country just in case.
      I am delighted that the new clause will have the same effect as that of the original Bill that my hon. Friend introduced on 10 February. It is most important to consider those widows who lost out under the Abbey National flotation of 1989. The account had to be opened and not changed for six months. Many widows lost out then, which was when the problem first arose. Now, with the two-year period, far more people will be affected.
      11.45
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) made an important point when he asked whether we should get so worked up, and said that some people think that it is only a bonus, not something that they already had. He said that we cannot talk about great deprivation when someone has never had the bonus in the first place.
      I have never accepted the notion that what one has never had in the first place, one will not miss. I am sure that there are many people who, like me, look at the six

      1117
      numbers in the national lottery on a Saturday night, realise that they have lost and feel a sense of trauma because they have already spent the money in their imagination, and have lost. However, we must address the problem of injustice, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester is doing with his Bill.
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: It is not deprivation.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: It is not deprivation, but we want justice to be seen to be done for many people.
      There is also a problem involving the account details of newly married couples, which will, in many cases, be changed when new joint accounts are opened. There is no sense in that action resulting in people losing their bonuses. There is almost a common-sense justification for keeping both accounts open in an existing building society and not changing the details.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has already said that there will be other problems for those who get divorced. That matter also needs to be considered. I understand that there was an initial prospect of reference under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 because it was felt that the policy discriminated against women. It was decided not to progress with that measure, because it was felt that one did not necessarily have to open a joint account as Mr. and Mrs.
      In 99.9 per cent. of cases, those accounts would be opened as Mr. and Mrs. when the married title is included. I know of no couples who are known as Mrs. and Mr. That is an anomaly, irrespective of whether one is not allowed to open accounts in the customary fashion of Mr. and Mrs. That issue must be considered.
      Although the issue of third and fourth subsequent holders of joint accounts is not covered by the amendment, it needs to be looked at. I understand why, for the sake of the Bill's simplicity, it has not been addressed now, but I hope that it will be addressed in future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said, that may be something for the building society ombudsman to look at in future. Perhaps his powers will enable him to address such anomalies. I am sure that there will be many more problems that we have not even mentioned today.
      It is also significant that the amendment deals with the situation in which a joint account was held and the mother and father die, leaving a son. I congratulate Lord Inglewood on dealing with that problem.
      The legislation is not a cover-all; there will be many other anomalies in future. But so many people will lose if we do not resolve the problem that we must ensure that the Bill is enacted as quickly as possible.
      I am therefore delighted to support the legislation. I hope that it passes through the House as quickly as possible, so that we can help the many people who will lose if we leave it as it is. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester on his persistence and determination in ensuring that a wrong is put right.
      Mr. Jenkin: I join my colleagues on this side of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on bringing the Bill to this stage. I look forward to seeing it reach the statute book.
      Some aspects of the new clause represent a continuing trend rather than an end to the argument. We are perhaps opening the way to allow the transfer of accounts through
      1118
      a chain of account holders without losing equity share, and staying within the guidelines of the two-year rule. We are perhaps also creating a situation whereby litigation may lead to splitting accounts which would continue to hold equity within the building society.
      The point I shall address specifically—I will speak only briefly in the debate, as I wish to see the Bill progress—is the fact that the Bill's provisions are not wide enough. The two-year rule was introduced to prevent new account holders from opening accounts with a building society immediately before a change of ownership. Building societies were not designed for the transfer of ownership in that way.
      The issue we are addressing has arisen because of the trend for building societies to become more like banks, including in their manner of ownership. This issue shows that we have not found an equitable way of distributing the ownership of building societies among their members. I do not believe that sticking-plaster efforts such as the two-year rule, followed by amendments such as the Bill, address the whole question.
      Unless we plan to allow building societies to remain rather diverse institutions, they shall continue to be forced to become more and more like banks. If that is to occur, surely it is sensible that they should be owned in the same way as banks. The ownership of those societies should be transferable among account holders in the same way as shares are transferable among the stockholders in a bank. Maintaining the fiction that building societies are owned by their members is to maintain an uneven distribution of their ownership.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) referred to the heads of building societies receiving large financial benefits from a change of building society ownership. One can see why there is a temptation the ownership of building societies to change. Senior executives in a bank that has a full quota on the London stock exchange can raise their sights and advance their careers far more readily than those who are trapped in an institution such as a traditional building society.
      One suspects that there must be a temptation for chief and senior executives of building societies to merge with other financial institutions not directly for the benefit of their members. They can limit the benefit to members; they can sugar-coat the pill in order to gain the consent of members who did not join the society originally to secure a capital gain.
      Mr. Darling: I am interested in what the hon. Member is saying. Does he agree that nothing would do more to damage the reputation of the building society movement than if its chief executives indulged in excessive share options and rewards in the course of takeover bids? If the Government are looking at introducing legislation in connection with building societies, they should ensure that that sort of irresponsible and greedy behaviour does not occur in the building society movement in the same way as it has occurred within the privatised utilities.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Patrick Jenkin.
      11.45 am
      Mr. Jenkin: It is Bernard, actually; my stature has not grown to that extent.
      I do not wish to cast aspersions on any senior executive in any building society. Whereas the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) leaps immediately to the

      1119
      conclusion to which the politics of envy lead him, I refer to the temptation that must exist because there is no instantly fair and equitable way to distribute the benefits of a change of building society ownership.
      I ask the Minister of State to consider whether we should make membership of building societies transferable. By all means still apply the two-year rule; building societies are not intended to be instruments of speculation, and the two-year rule would preclude short-term speculation. Why should not an individual who has a potential or an actual benefit in prospect as a result of holding a share account in a building society be allowed to sell that benefit to someone else in some kind of regulated market? We could speed up the process by adding some equity to it.
      Once ownership became directly transferable through the holding of accounts, control would be gained through the acquisition of enough accounts. I think that that would be a fairer way in which to transfer ownership, provided that there was legislation—perhaps similar to that which applies to the transfer of companies—in order to prevent the suppression of minorities.
      I leave that thought with my hon. Friend. The Bill addresses cases of injustice. Many of my constituents have written to me about the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society, and I am pleased to see their cases have been dealt with. However, we have not faced the truth about the way in which building societies are developing. They are evolving into completely different types of institutions.
      They were invented originally as local, mutual self-help groups for borrowing and lending purposes, but they are becoming vast financial institutions, which, thankfully, are having a very positive effect on retail banking in this country. They are making the market much more sophisticated. Many more accounts are held per employee in building societies than in the average retail bank. That will have the positive effect of forcing efficiencies to occur in retail banking in the future.
      We are not yet facing the full consequences of the development of the building society industry in this small measure, welcome though it is.
      Mr. Nelson: This has been an extremely valuable and thoughtful debate on the Lords amendments to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French). I join those hon. Members who have welcomed my hon. Friend's initiative and endeavour, the manner in which he has spoken to the amendments today, and the efficient organisation that has enabled his original ten-minute rule Bill to reach its final stages in the House of Commons.
      Many thousands of people outside the House—not least in my hon. Friend's constituency—will be very grateful for the efforts that he has made on their behalf today. The Government are also grateful to my hon. Friend, and we are happy to pay a tribute to him today.
      There are some 37 million building society accounts, and this debate will be of keen interest to those account holders. Although the purpose of the Bill and the amendments that we are considering are somewhat narrow, wider issues have been raised in the course of the debate which will have a resonance and will generate interest far beyond this place. Some 37 million building
      1120
      society accounts means many account holders. Therefore, I was very surprised to hear Opposition Members suggest that we were dragging out debate on this very important issue.
      It is not for us to determine the priorities of business in the House today, but as you will have observed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is almost exclusively Government Members who have contributed to the debate. Not a single substantive speech has been made by a Back Bencher from either the main Opposition party or any of the minor Opposition parties. Of course, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), as always, made a pertinent speech, and I shall endeavour to say a word or two about that in a moment.
      12 noon
      However, it should not go unmentioned that there has been virtually nobody on the Opposition side of the House today. People will make their own judgments about how real an interest the Labour Opposition take in the matters of personal finance and savings that are of such importance to my hon. Friends, as demonstrated by their presence and their speeches.
      It is certainly not true, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central alleged, that we have dragged out the debate in any way. I know that he is anxious to get away, because he said so, but I intend, as usual, to do hon. Members the courtesy of responding to the points that have been raised.
      The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester spoke for itself, and I have little to add to it. He presented the arguments extremely well for the amendments moved by Lord Henley in another place, and he has also demonstrated that he has been flexible within the narrow intention of his Bill in trying to deal with a wider range of anomalies that have arisen during the takeover.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) raised a theme that has subsequently been reflected by others—the nature of people's interest in mutuals, whether mutual banks and building societies or friendly and provident societies, of which there is a substantial and long-standing tradition in this country.
      The 1986 Act provides that investors and borrowers are members of a building society. Linking what my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding said with what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) said, it is important to appreciate that mutual societies are those in which, historically, people have had a provident interest, and a joint and several participation in the whole of the assets and the organisation.
      Often, that mutuality springs out of the provident requirement that in certain circumstances they will obtain benefits. Although those have become more closely defined and structured with the development of building societies and their service accounts, the fundamentals remain the same.
      With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North, who seemed to imply that mutuals should in some way become companies, or non-mutuals, with members having shares that could be traded, it would be difficult to move from the status of a mutual to a traded interest in non-corporate concerns. However, I should like to reflect on what he and others have said about that idea.

      1121
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding said that, when people join a building society, they should know rather more about the nature of the mutuality and the interest that they are acquiring, be it latent or direct, in that society, and about their rights therein. Indeed, that has been a theme and a conclusion of both stages of the review of the Building Societies Act 1986, which we have now finished.
      My statement at the end of that review made it clear that we intended to introduce requirements to ensure that building societies communicated clearly, and as a matter of course, with their members about the nature of their interests and about the rights, entitlements and responsibilities involved in taking out an account. Indeed, many already do that. Much progress has been made, but until the recent spate of mergers, conversions, takeovers and proposed takeovers, many people were unaware of the latent interest that they had in their building societies.
      My hon. Friend also asked how those values should be assessed. That is a difficult issue, given that people have varying amounts in their accounts, and do not necessarily deposit a given amount in a building society account on the basis that they are buying an increased share of the net assets of the business or of its profitability. Presumably they deposit money on a market basis, seeking to obtain a reasonable rate of return on their savings. It does not necessarily follow that the value of their interest in the society, or the value of the society as a whole, can be assessed on that basis. However, when a society is valued, as has had to be done by the commercial and financial advisers of the companies that have made bids, that is done on a conventional basis.
      Both in the 1986 Act and subsequently, we have been anxious to ensure that building societies as a movement continue, and that to the extent that change and amalgamations take place, and the number of building societies is whittled away by takeovers, that should happen in an orderly way.
      At the turn of the century, there were more than 1,000 building societies; there are now about 83. Recent events have led to some speculation that that process of diminution of the sector may gather pace. I do not know about that, and it is not for me to urge the process on or to speculate about it. But I am concerned to ensure that the good banking and savings practices of building societies, which have proved enormously popular, are not done away with. To use the colourful phrase that I used at the time, I do not want there to be a duck shoot of building societies.
      For that reason, in the initial stages of the review of the Building Societies Act 1986, we tried to ensure that we did not reduce or sweep away through repeal of that Act the thresholds and requirements placed on bidding companies, so that we did not make it even easier for them to decimate the building society sector.
      On the other hand, no Government should be in the business of trying to preserve a sector or institutions against the interests of its customers and members. In striking that right balance, the Government have sought to introduce measures to increase not only the powers but the accountability of the building societies, and thereby to bring them up to date.
      Mr. Jenkin: If transfers of ownership are purely in the interests of the customers, why are they always given a windfall gain on transfer? Why is not the benefit of a
      1122
      transfer of ownership an end in itself? It seems to me that the point of transferring ownership is to release the good will contained in the businesses, because the building societies are businesses at the point of their being transferred.
      If they are to be treated as businesses, there is a case for the proper and fair distribution of the equity, rather than an arbitrary distribution of equity by means of a fixed bonus distributed to various account holders, with other people benefiting in different ways.
      Mr. Nelson: I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's intervention, but he will be aware that it is possible to make differential consideration offers to members of building societies in the event of a takeover. That is not possible with share distribution. If shares were offered by way of consideration, there would have to be a standard offer in the case of a takeover. However, certainly for those who have been members for more than two years, cash incentives of differential levels can be provided over and above that. I believe that the proposals of the Halifax and Leeds merger and conversion may intend to provide for such a procedure.
      I hope that my hon. Friend was not suggesting that building societies do not have a value. They do, and that has to go somewhere on takeover. Clearly it would be wrong if it just went, for no consideration, to the bidder. There is a value that is owned by the members of the building society, and can only be owned by them. It is not owned by anyone else, such as the executives or other people with no equity interests in the society.
      The aim is to come to a fair conclusion about how one can estimate the individual value within the building society, given that there is no natural share, and bearing in mind the fact that the amount of money that people may have in a building society account is not necessarily a representation of their true interests in that society, because they may have deposited the money only yesterday. That is not necessarily a sign of an abiding interest in the growth and development of a society.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), in an excellent speech, asked, as did others, whether a period as long as two years was necessary. The 1986 Act, which set the period, was inevitably arbitrary. Some rough justice does occur as a result. The fact that the Act included this proviso or precondition, specifically to prevent the sort of building societies' duck shoot to which I referred earlier, is open to criticism; but it was designed to ensure that any change should be orderly and that there would be no disorderly movement of funds between building societies in speculative ways.
      There may be better ways of tackling the problem, but we cannot think of one that is significantly more equitable than the provision set down in the original legislation. It is a fact which the House must recognise that lots of anomalies do and will continue to flow from the arbitrary and capricious nature of a two-year threshold.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere was also worried about injustice that may occur following divorce—as was my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant). The problem that arises is that many people would consider it inequitable if a single joint account gave rise to two bonus distributions. Who precisely should qualify? It is a difficult choice.

      1123
      For divorce, it would be wrong to stipulate in legislation that both people, on separation of their marriage and their account, should have rights to consideration, because that would be to impose a settlement on the divorce process itself. Where there are assets on divorce, the couple's worth should be assessed, and would be subject to judicial separation. So I do not think that it would necessarily be right to carry forward separate and new entitlements to consideration by way of shared distribution.
      The rule is that, when the first named account holder continues as a member of the same society, he or she will be the beneficiary of such a distribution. I agree that that can sometimes be seen as a little rough, but I am afraid that it is almost inevitable, given the undesirability of a dual distribution from what was one account. I reiterate, however, that I shall reflect on this and other points raised in the course of the debate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham spoke about the changing structure of building societies, which he said should be reflected in law. Indeed it is. It forms the basis of many of the substantive conclusions to emerge from the first and second stages of the review.
      My hon. Friend also asked whether the Bill's scope was wide enough—for instance, where deposits are concerned. Lord Dubs has introduced a Bill in another place. We must wait and see what progress it makes there, but it would deal with part of the problem. That Bill, however, applies only to people who move from a share account to a deposit account, and not vice versa—whereas it is my impression that most of the problems arise when people move from deposit accounts to share accounts.
      We have been looking into this matter. The House will be aware that one of the recommendations that I have announced as part of the review is that we should do away with the differentiation between a member's account and a deposit account. Most people going into a deposit account with a building society have not been aware that they are doing away with their enfranchisement rights in the society. We intend to put a stop to that.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central spoke of anomalies, and made the slightly carping point that the Government, not my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, should have introduced the Bill. I certainly do not think that I could have done more justice to the issue than he has done, and I have no complaints about the fact that he is taking the Bill through the House, not I.
      The hon. Member made a point, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were kind enough to allow, about endowment mortgages, which of course are of topical interest. I cannot deal with them at length today, but I shall read carefully Sir Bryan Carsberg's report on endowment mortgages. I do not intend to give a peremptory reaction to it today.
      The hon. Gentleman will be aware that endowment mortgages, unlike repayment mortgages, are covered by the Financial Services Act 1986; and that, from the beginning of this year, the new regime for disclosure will—we hope and intend—substantially improve the avoidance of problems of mis-selling. I shall wish to consider carefully the cases that have given rise to concern—especially the disappointing persistence rates with endowment mortgages, which are referred to in the
      1124
      report. I shall also wish to examine methods of redress to allow people who feel that they have been sold a pup to go most legitimately to the regulator.
      Mr. Darling: I am grateful for the Minister's remarks, but I wish to press him on this point. He said that he was willing to consider cases of redress. Presumably he is not inviting people to write to him personally. Would it not be better to ask the current regulator, the Personal Investment Authority, to investigate these matters, so that, if people think they have a problem, they can go to someone to have them investigated?
      12.15 pm
      Mr. Nelson: I said what I said not because I am uninterested but because it is not appropriate that people should write to me about these issues. I shall want to read the report before saying what, if anything, I think should be done. But it is a matter of fact that people can go to the regulator about mis-selling if they feel aggrieved. I want to consider whether there are implications for the PIA in all this—but I do not want to be drawn any further today.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), who was courteous enough to let me know that he could not stay for the rest of the debate, said that the Bill did not deal with people switching between accounts. He was rather in favour of sweeping up such circumstances in legislation. But, as I said before, we are ending the distinction between deposit accounts and shareholder accounts: that should largely deal with the problem.
      Moreover, as I have told a number of hon. Members in correspondence, my hon. Friend's point would not solve any problems in respect of Lloyds bank and the Cheltenham and Gloucester, since legislation to enfranchise such people for distribution would have to be retrospective, and that would not be justifiable.
      I also rather doubt whether people who have had a deposit account in a building society for some time and who then suddenly switch to a member's account in that society should be entitled to a distribution. This, too, may be one of those areas of rough justice owing to the demarcation set out by the two-year rule and all that flows from it, but we have no proposals at present to move beyond what is set out in the Act.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton discussed the ombudsman's decisions. He said that, when the ombudsman has investigated a case and decided that there has been maladministration or improper dealing with people, his decision should apply generically to other cases. I shall consider the representations that my hon. Friend has put to me; each case, as he said, may be very different.
      I also have to be mindful of the compliance burden. Presumably, a complaint investigated by the ombudsman would have to be promulgated in some way so that the conclusions were known to all other building societies, which might, in some cases, have to review, identify and reassess an enormous number of accounts. That might be perfectly justifiable for a case of significant maladministration or injustice, but I doubt whether I should recommend to the House that we implant in legislation an automatic requirement that it should happen in most cases.

      1125
      The way in which it should work is that the Building Societies Commission, which is there as the regulatory body to oversee these matters, should take note of particular criticisms, of substance raised by the ombudsman, and should, through its prudential note procedures or in other ways, try to ensure that injustices are not reflected elsewhere. I would like to consider that point.
      Mr. Duncan: It seems that the sort of instance that I described falls between two stools—regulatory and primary legislation. Does the Building Societies Commission have the power at the moment to compel a building society to remedy a defect for a category of account where an individual case has shown the administration of that account to have been universally wrong?
      Mr. Nelson: No, it does not specifically have that power. The Building Societies Commission is a pretty intrusive body—in the best sense of that description—and it can, through prudential notes generally, and through advice and discussion specifically, carry a great deal of weight with the building societies. One of the reasons why I think that sector has been so popular with the saving public, and why there have been no collapses of building societies—as, I regret, there have been of banks—is in part because of the excellent job that the Building Societies Commission has done over many years in maintaining the integrity and fairness of the rules and operation of the building societies. If I asked the first commissioner of the Building Societies Commission about these matters, I would expect the commission, if a serious issue was raised as a result of an ombudsman's report into an individual case, to do something about it. If it did not, I hope that my hon. Friend or others would hold me to account. Let us see whether we can make such criticisms and reports work better within the existing system. If they do not work, perhaps we shall have to look at the matter again.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made an excellent speech in forthright support of my hon. Friend's Bill and the amendments that we are considering today. He said that, "a wrong had been righted," but also acknowledged that there were further anomalies, which he felt should be addressed. We will consider, both in the process of secondly legislation and in possible future primary legislation, a number of the points that he raised in his speech today. I am grateful to him for making those points.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), whose speech I referred to earlier, made an additional point about the incentive or personal interest of senior executives in building societies in takeovers. I must be quite frank. That is matter that has concerned me. I have the highest regard for the integrity of the boards of building societies and for the record and popularity of those institutions over many years, but it is a fact that, until recently, or until my proposal to change the regulations, building societies have not been under an obligation even to report to their members that they have been in receipt of a takeover bid or offer. One can only speculate about the reasons why they might not transmit to their members why they had received such an offer and decided not to proceed with negotiations. That is not at all satisfactory. Although some people have suggested that such approaches should be notified immediately they
      1126
      are received, it is difficult in law to differentiate between firm approaches and scurrying discussions. Therefore, I have proposed that such proposals should be brought forward at the next annual general meeting of building societies.
      That is only part of the issue. My hon. Friend is concerned, quite rightly, that such are the remuneration packages that are on offer—the big money that is available—to senior executives in building societies on takeovers, and so great might be the inducement, that they would be looking to be bought out or to move with alacrity out of the building society sector into becoming plcs. The responsibility of the Government and the House in that regard is to ensure that there is adequate transparency.
      I refer my hon. Friend to the regulations of 1988, which require that the prospectus for a takeover discloses the full details, including share options and the rest of it, of any remuneration package that would form part of a takeover bid. I am anxious to ensure that, before members consider or vote, even with the highest threshold requirements in building society takeovers, they are aware of the remuneration packages being proposed and the consideration that might be available to the senior executives. That is as far as the Government should propose to go for the time being, unless there were the most obvious abuse, to the detriment of members of building societies. I do not see such abuse at the present time. The figures involved have been given some publicity. I think that the right way forward—here, as in other areas—is to ensure that transparency is uppermost at all times.
      With those remarks, I hope that the House will conclude that I have answered a number of the legitimate and important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. His Bill and the amendments thereto put right an anomaly—an injustice, to use the word of some—and will be of very real value to many people, particularly widows.
      I hope that the measure will enjoy the whole-hearted support of both sides of the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done so far in achieving that end.
      Mr. French: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond as briefly as possible to a few of the points made by hon. Members.
      I am grateful for hon. Members' many contributions to the debate, particularly as a number of them, I am sure, have pressing business in their constituencies. It is good of them to be here today to debate the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Minister responded in detail to most of the points. I am grateful to him for his kind remarks and for the thorough way in which he dealt with them. He demonstrated that the forthcoming programme on building societies that his Department will introduce not only has an obvious coherence but will bring together, combined with provisions in the Bill, a regime under which building societies can operate and under which, one hopes, the vast majority, if not all, the anomalies that have been addressed this morning will eventually disappear.
      There were a number of recurring themes, very much set off by the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), who posed the important question: what is an equity interest? That same theme was echoed in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin),

      1127
      who drew attention to the fact that the operations of many building societies is now becoming much more like banks. It is necessary in law to recognise that that is happening. An ingredient of the transformation that is taking place is, of course, the current distinction between share and deposit accounts, which my hon. Friend the Minister has indicated he is minded to bring to an end. The reason why these matters were not relevant to my Bill is that my Bill seeks to amend the 1986 Act, which deals with share accounts only. Deposit accounts would, inevitably, have fallen outside the scope of what I have endeavoured to do.
      I want to comment on the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Colchester, North about the necessity or otherwise of the two-year qualifying period. It is clear that it is destined to be the subject of further debate. My instinct is that there is some justification for a two-year period because it recognises the contribution made to the business in question by its regular customers. That is an important ingredient in the concept of mutuality—so when dealing with a mutual institution, there are strong arguments in favour of the two-year qualifying period. I recognise that in the event of changes by institutions from mutual to non-mutual status, my arguments would have less force. I also accept that there will be changes in due course.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) mentioned depositors. In Lloyd's bank's takeover of the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society, the position of depositors was determined by the High Court; it did not fall under the 1986 Act. The High Court made a declaration on how the current law stood. The consequences for depositors in the society was that if the account had been opened before March 1994 it qualified for a bonus, but if it had been opened after March 1994 it did not. As my hon. Friend the Minister has made clear, that problem will be resolved in future because the distinction between deposit accounts and share accounts will be brought to an end.
      12.30 pm
      I was interested in the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) about the ombudsman, and in particular about the consequences of an injustice having been identified in the case of one saver. He questioned the degree to which that might affect other savers in the same category and whether the ombudsman, having identified the injustice for one saver, had the power to take steps to deal with other savers in the same category.
      My understanding of what my hon. Friend the Minister said is that, currently, the Building Societies Commission can go some way towards remedying the problem, but obviously it is another area that requires further consideration and debate, perhaps in the context of my hon. Friend's building society review.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has shown that if I ever have to go through this process again, I will not need to consult three firms of solicitors; instead, I can turn to my hon. Friend to do the job for me. Of course, what I do not know is how his fees compare with theirs, but no doubt I shall find out.
      1128
      My hon. Friend said that in divorce cases, if the wife withdraws from the joint account and opens a new account, but the husband keeps the existing account in operation, he will qualify for the bonus but she will not. My hon. Friend is correct. However, what happens in divorce cases is far removed from the scope of the Bill. It must be a matter for agreement between the divorcing parties. It would not be possible to devise a system in which every aspect of divorce could be accommodated. It is important that as well as ensuring that the law is what it should be, there must be a certain amount of good faith among those affected by the law.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) contributed to the debate, but has kindly apologised to me for the fact that he has had to leave on urgent business. I still have the privilege of being his pair and he mine. He made the point that the Bill was not adequately considered on Second Reading because it went through on the nod. I remind him, however, that the Bill went through on the nod on 10 February to avoid congestion in the Committee that considers private Members' Bills. It was not in order to avoid debate on the Bill in the House, but it was very much in order to accommodate other Bills in which he and the Opposition in particular have a special and legitimate interest. I hope that the shortage of debate on 10 February has been made up by this morning's thorough debate, and once again I thank all those who have taken part in it.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 2

      CITATION
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—
      ("( ) This Act shall apply in any case where the vesting date (within the meaning of section 100 of the Building Societies Act 1986) falls after the passing of this Act.")
      Mr. French: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      We are coming, I hope, to the conclusion of the proceedings. The Bill will come into force on Royal Assent. It will apply to any transfer where the vesting date comes later. This is an important provision that is designed specifically to deal with the circumstances of the Lloyd's bank takeover of the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society.
      The terms of the transfer include, as we heard earlier, a provision of up to £25 million to pay eligible widows and other survivors of deceased first-named holders, provided the Bill is enacted before the proposed vesting date of 1 August.
      Clause 2(2) removes any doubt about the application of the Bill. For example, it might otherwise have been argued that the Bill could apply only to cases where the transfer agreement had been signed between the bank and the building society, or where the transfer resolutions had been passed by the members after the enactment. Both those events are already past in the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society case.
      By passing the Bill today, the House will make it possible for the provisions in the transfer agreement of the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society to be enacted, even though the vote has already taken place and

      1129
      the vesting dates and distribution of bonuses are not destined to take place until 1 August. I hope that the House will therefore accept how essential clause 2 is.
      As the House knows, this has been a ten-minute Bill. Such Bills are rare and delicate flowers that must go down a perilous and treacherous path. It seems that few make it. I hope and believe that the House's mood today is that the Bill will make it. I look forward to that happening.
      Mr. Duncan: I add my voice in support of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. It is essential that the clause be included in the Bill. It would be appalling if we passed a Bill that was designed to clear up an anomaly and a problem, only to prompt a judicial review or a horrible law case because the triggering of the Bill is not clear. The Lords amendment clears the matter up to ensure that the legislation is not retrospective or, as it might be more properly be described, retroactive. The amendment must be incorporated in the Bill and I hope that the House will pass it today.
      Mr. Nelson: The amendment may appear to be a technical consequent amendment, but it arose as a result of, I believe, consultation with interested parties by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. A good deal of debate took place about the provision in another place. At that time, the points made by my hon. Friend for Rutland and Melton were deliberated.
      Both the Government and, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester received a number of representations on the matter. Undoubtedly, some
      1130
      unforeseen grievances and injustices would have arisen if we had not attended to it, and so the provisions on vesting dates were brought forward.
      As my hon. Friend said, clause 2 states the Bill's short title. The Government amended the clause in another place by adding a provision to the effect that the Bill will apply in any case where vesting day falls after the Bill has been passed. It will therefore come into force on Royal Assent.
      I hope that the House will agree to the further amendment. Although hon. Members may be supporting amendments that appear somewhat complex to the Bill, I hope that the explanation I have given in response to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, the latter of which refers to the important matter of vesting, will provide some clarity on those complex issues. By introducing the amendment, as well as amendment No. 1, we have provided for a reasonably wide range of possible situations that could arise in the course of a building society conversion or takeover.
      As I have already explained, the amendments do not attempt to deal with every possible anomaly. We have had to take care to have regard to the scope of the Bill and not to overload it with rafts of changes, which might have endangered its passage.
      The Bill, as amended in another place, will, I believe, now cure by far the majority of real inequities that have been identified in connection with takeovers and conversions. I hope that the House will now allow it to complete its final stages without further delay.
      Question put and agreed to.

Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill
Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Order for Third Reading read.
12.41 pm
Dr. Michael Clark: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House will recall that the Bill is about new drivers. Although new drivers do not necessarily equal young drivers, the vast majority of new drivers are young. On Second Reading, the House was reminded that, although young drivers make up just 10 per cent. of drivers on the road, they are involved in 20 per cent. of road accidents and 25 per cent. of road fatalities.
The Bill is designed to achieve better standards of driving from new drivers, particularly young drivers. The Bill provides that any driver who gains six penalty points in the first two years of driving will have his or her full licence revoked and will revert to a provisional licence until such time as that driver passes another driving test.
I was grateful to the House for its unusually warm reception of the Bill on its Second Reading on 3 February. I am also grateful for the support that I received from many organisations, notably the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club, from the Metropolitan police and other police forces. Many individuals, in particular, the parents of learner or newly qualified drivers, have also expressed their support. I have received many letters of support from my constituents and others in south-east Essex, as well as from people throughout the country.
I received an anonymous letter from one mother who does not live far from my constituency. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, hon. Members do not often take notice of anonymous letters, but I did on this occasion. She told me that her daughter, who had recently passed her driving test, had abandoned almost all the driving skills that she had been taught by her driving school and that she was unhappy with her daughter's driving style. The mother was unable to persuade her daughter to change that style and she thought that my Bill, which would subject that young lady to the threat of reverting to being a learner driver should she get six penalty points, would act as a good deterrent. One can understand why that mother wrote that anonymous letter—she did not want to be identified in case her daughter found out.
This is the first time that I have introduced a private Member's Bill and I dare say that the experience that I am about to relate is not unusual. When I presented the Bill on Second Reading, especially after the approval it received, I was convinced that it was perfect in every respect, or at least as close to perfection as any Bill can be in this imperfect world. As the weeks have gone by, various small matters have been drawn to my attention. I discovered that, in one or two fairly minor respects, the Bill was not quite as perfect as it might be. Putting right what I took to be one or two small matters has proved to be quite a complicated exercise mainly because, although the ideas behind the Bill are quite simple, the existing law on driver licensing and endorsement is remarkably complex.
Hence, we had an eventful couple of mornings, on 5 April and 19 April, in Standing Committee C in the course of which the Bill acquired no fewer than 50 amendments,
1132
all tabled either by me or by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, whom I thank for his co-operation and assistance at every stage of the Bill's passage. Although there were many amendments, they covered only three main issues, but for the three major changes to come into effect, a vast number of consequential amendments were needed in other parts of the Bill. In the circumstances, it was just as well that nobody else saw fit to table amendments in Committee. If they had, we should certainly not have been ready for the Report stage today.
For the benefit of hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee and who have not had time to digest the Hansard reports, I had better begin by explaining briefly the purpose and effect of the amendments that were agreed in Committee. They were all intended to improve the drafting of, or to close possible loopholes in, the original Bill. None represents a change in the original policy. Indeed, the Committee was remarkably unanimous in supporting that policy, reserving its criticism for points of detail. Those criticisms, from hon. Members on both sides, were constructive and helpful, and I thank all members of the Committee for that.
The first of the issues is what to do about the awkward squad who do not produce licences in court when required to do so, either because they have genuinely lost them or because they think that they will gain some advantage by keeping them tucked away for some other day. In its original form, clause 2 required the court to send the licence to the Secretary of State for him to revoke it, as he would have the power to do under clause 3. If people did not produce a licence, the Secretary of State could not revoke it. On the face of things, that seemed reasonable enough, but the provision rested on the assumption that the court would get hold of the licence at some time.
The courts have ample powers to get hold of licences under existing legislation, so I did not think that there was a problem. Section 7 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 requires a person who is prosecuted for an endorsable offence to deliver or to post the licence to the court clerk so that it is available the day before the hearing or to have it with him or her at the hearing. Section 27 of the same Act requires the licence to be produced to the court, if the court does not already have it, so that it can endorse it at the time of any conviction. Under this section, failure to produce a licence without good reason when required to do so is an offence that carries a level 3 fine up to a maximum of £1,000. Moreover, if a person fails to produce a licence when required to do so under this section, the licence is suspended and is of no effect, therefore, until it has been produced.
However, real life is not quite as simple. As my hon. Friend the Minister explained in Committee, the courts frequently face the choice of adjourning the hearing until they have got hold of the licence or proceeding without it. Different courts will handle that problem in different ways. Hon. Members who served in Committee with me will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) left the Committee in no doubt of the robust approach that she took during her time as a magistrate.
Given the pressure of business, and the nuisance of adjournments to all parties concerned, the increasing tendency is to get a print-out of the licence record from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which gives

1133
the courts all the information that they need to proceed with the case without seeing that licence. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Minister for also said, the print-out is often more accurate than the licence, giving details of convictions which were never endorsed on the licence because it could not be produced or was not produced—wilfully probably.
Of course, if the courts do not get hold of the licence physically, they cannot send it to the Secretary of State and he cannot revoke it. So we need, so to speak, a metaphysical or theoretical equivalent of sending a licence back. The courts simply notify the Secretary of State of the circumstances of the case, sending the licence, if they have it, so that it does not return to the offender. Even if the courts did not have the licence to send, the Secretary of State may revoke it and also has the right to get it back from the offender. That is not really putting a new burden on the courts because they have to send such information to the Secretary of State in any case, whenever they endorse a licence.
That seemed a simple enough change, but it required a large number of amendments, partly because there were several different references in the Bill to sending a licence and partly because, with more than one kind of notification, we need to be more explicit in our use of terminology. That large batch of amendments was duly voted into the Bill, mainly into clauses 2 and 3, which are the heart and soul of the Bill, but also into clause 9, which deals with interpretation and schedule 1, on which I shall say more in a moment.
As a result, it is now possible for the Secretary of State to revoke a licence even without it coming into his possession, although no doubt the DVLA will do its best to get hold of it, even if it has to require the help of the police, as I believe quite often happens at present in cases of disqualifications and so on. More importantly, the changes mean that an offender cannot avoid the licence being revoked simply by pretending that he or she has lost it or by not producing it when asked. That means that we have closed what could have been quite a serious loophole.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way while he is on that precise point. His Bill refers not merely to licences issued in this country but to those issued in other countries, especially other European Union countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements, which means that such licences are valid in this country. Clearly such licences can be endorsed, but will he explain how they can be revoked? Will he explain whether there is an alternative? Perhaps we may use the same system. Will he explain the procedure followed when someone with a licence issued by another EU country says that he cannot find it, that he has lost it and that therefore it cannot be sent to the issuing authority to be revoked? Is there an equivalent of the print-out from the DVLA to which we refer in this country and are procedures in place to enable courts in this country to receive documentation from the relevant continental authorities in the country in which the licence was issued?
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend asked a lot of questions, but I shall do my best to answer them. Let us take them one at a time. First, various licences are completely exchangeable for UK licences—those from, among other places, the Isle of Man, the Channel Isles and Gibraltar.
1134
If they are exchanged for a British licence, the date on which the test was passed is shown and therefore a probationary two-year period may be identified. My hon. Friend need have no concern on that score. Other countries in the European Union and European Economic Area have an understanding that licences can be exchanged. More importantly, on 1 July 1996, a European directive will be implemented to provide a common format for all licences in the European Union and in the economic area. It will include the date on which the holder passed his or her driving test and will therefore identify the 24–month probationary period. That licence will fit nicely with my Bill's provisions.
My hon. Friend asked also about a person with a European licence who wilfully or forgetfully does not produce his licence in court. I am a little less certain of my ground in that regard. The situation may be difficult between now and July 1996, but when the European model licence is introduced—even countries outside the orbit of the European Union are adopting it as the ideal model—the same provision should exist for notifying the central licence agencies in European countries that a licence has been endorsed, so that endorsement would be effective. I will conclude my replies to my hon. Friend, because I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister wants to be helpful.
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): It is slightly unusual to intervene at this stage in the debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) makes an important point. At a time when licences are increasingly used in various European Union countries, it seems sensible to apply UK law to someone who holds a French licence. At present, that is not easy to do. The French presidency expressed interest in harmonising European law so that there could be common understanding of offences for which a licence could be withdrawn. It is not for the British Government to withdraw a French licence. The French Government would withdraw the licence of a French licence holder, but acknowledging that an offence had been committed in Britain of a type agreed to be commonly regarded as dangerous. The British Government have been generally supportive, while recognising the great disparity of views throughout the EU of what constitutes an offence and of the treatment of offences. We cannot move immediately to a concrete proposal, but there is room to thrash out the concept of a Europe-wide scheme.
Dr. Clark: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) feels that 95 per cent. of his points have been answered. He leaves 5 per cent. doubt in our mind, and we must take account of that cautionary note. My hon. Friend's intervention was timely because I had just finished my first main point.
The second main issue is of marginally more importance than the first, but in terms of amendments it caused us much more trouble in Committee. It concerns a group of drivers that I had rather overlooked when the Bill was drafted. The main part of the Bill deals with the straightforward case of a qualified driver who has passed his driving test and has exchanged his provisional licence and driving test certificate for a full licence, on which he is now driving.
Schedule 1 originally modified those provisions to deal with the case of a qualified driver who has not yet exchanged his test certificate and still holds a provisional

1135
licence, so taking advantage of the two-year period of grace allowed in section 89 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, whereby a test certificate retains its validity and can still be exchanged. However, the original schedule 1 did not cover drivers who have passed the test in one class of vehicle and obtained their full licence, but have later passed a test in another class of vehicle and have not exchanged their pass certificate for the second test. There could be two or three tests if people have taken tests in two or three categories.
When we first considered that issue, those drivers did not appear to be so much of a problem as the ones with provisional licences only. At least they would have a full licence, with a date of entitlement on it, to show the court or fixed penalty clerk that they continued to be in their probationary period—or not, as the case may be. However, it gradually transpired that, if those drivers held an extra test certificate, there was the danger that they could abuse the system.
Let us take as an example the case of a person who obtained a full motor cycle licence and then passed a car test, but did not exchange the test certificate. Let us suppose that that driver has his licence revoked as a result of receiving six penalty points. The court returns the licence to the Secretary of State, but, as the Bill was originally drafted, the driver would not be obliged to produce the test certificate to the court. Indeed, the court would have no reason to know that he had one.
The driver then obtains a provisional licence under the Bill, because the full licence for the motor cycle was revoked. However, let us suppose that, by that time, he is not interested in driving motor cycles any more; he has had his period of driving motor cycles and he is far more interested in driving a motor car.
So the driver has lost his full motor cycle licence; it has been turned back into a provisional licence. However, he then has in his hands a provisional licence that comes from his downgrading of the motor cycle licence, plus the test certificate that he received for passing his motor car test. He realises that he continues to have the unexchanged certificate for passing his car test, so he sends that off, with his provisional licence, to apply for a full car licence.
As the Bill was originally drafted, the agency would arguably have had no option but to give the driver a full car licence, or at least would have had no right to refuse him one, so he neatly could have avoided being retested, as long as he did not take up motor cycling again.
Obviously, that was not right, so I had some amendments drafted. However, I had not anticipated that that involved rewriting almost all of schedule 1, which now appears very different from the original schedule 1. The difference in real terms is not great. It is simply that a new set of circumstances are catered for as well as the original set. However, the result is that we now have a most impressive-looking schedule 1 in five parts.
Hon. Members who have a copy of the Bill will notice that the five parts are as follows. Part I is a general part. Part II imposes a duty to provide a test certificate. Part III concerns newly qualified drivers with provisional licence and test certificate. Part IV concerns newly qualified drivers with full and provisional entitlements and a test certificate. Part V contains some of the supplementary
1136
explanations and provisions of the schedule. It has become quite a different schedule as different categories of drivers have become subsections of that schedule.
The third set of amendments, on which I shall not detain the House long, concerns the procedure that is used when the person threatened with revocation of his licence has a temporary stay of execution, if I may call it that, while an appeal is pending against the court decision that led to his receiving six penalty points, or when he receives a permanent reprieve by having his points reduced or eliminated on appeal—in other words, when the appeal is successful.
All those matters are dealt with in clause 5, and the amendments that were moved by my hon. Friend the Minister were about matters of detail, to adapt the powers better to current practice. They make no fundamental change to the principle. One or two small drafting amendments were made in Committee to clarify matters that might have been a trifle ambiguous. I shall not dwell on them as they are not of consequence, but have tidied and improved the Bill, which now reads better.
The important thing is that we had a successful Committee stage; the Bill returns to the House much improved as a result of the detailed scrutiny given to it by the hard-working members of the Committee. I am grateful to all members of the Committee, on both sides, for their patience and assistance. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who chaired the Committee so admirably.
1.4 pm
Mr. Piers Merchant: I shall not speak for long as I had the opportunity to speak on Second Reading and served on the Committee that considered the Bill.
I think that the House knows that I give my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) my full support, both for the theory behind the Bill and its practice. The House also knows of my admiration for the way in which my hon. Friend introduced it and piloted it through to this stage.
I shall sum up my main reasons for supporting the measure. Its main purpose is to help to avoid accidents. It is a road-safety measure, primarily aimed at cutting the carnage on our roads. It must be viewed in the context of accidents and what causes them. There are many reasons for accidents, some of which are impossible to categorise, but accidents can fall into three main causative areas: drink, speed and inexperience.
Other measures have, to a large extent, tackled the problems caused by drink driving. Today, while it still remains a problem, it is much less of a problem than 10 or 20 years ago. That shows that legislation, when carefully targeted to deal with a cause of accidents, can reduce the accident toll.
The second main causative factor is speed. Steps have been taken to resolve that problem, but I hope that in future the House will take further action to deal with the horrendous problems that can be caused by irresponsible drivers who regularly exceed the speed limit. Anyone who drives on our roads can see the risk, the threat and, ultimately, the disasters that can be caused by excessive speed.

1137
The third causative factor, which the Bill principally seeks to deal with, is the risk posed by inexperienced drivers. That is not to say that all newly qualified drivers are a risk; many prove to be careful, responsible drivers who do not have accidents. But a large proportion of accidents happen where a newly qualified driver—a driver with only two years' experience following the passing of his or her test—is either the cause of the accident or in some way involved.
The Bill ably seeks to minimise that problem, but it must be viewed alongside other measures that have recently been taken and will be taken in forthcoming years to deal with the specific problem. It must be viewed alongside greater education, tighter testing and the introduction of the theory test, which is imminent.
The next question that must be asked is: does the Bill successfully answer the tests that I have just set? The theory would suggest that it would meet those tests because theory is bound to lead one to conclude that any driver who has only recently qualified is bound to pose a risk as he is bound not to be as experienced as a driver who has driven on the roads for many years. That theory is also true in practice. To quote just one of the many statistics on the subject, one quarter of all fatalities result from accidents involving a new driver.
Statistics show that young drivers pose specific risks, but my views on the subject differ somewhat from those of several hon. Friends and I shall deal with the issue later in my speech.
Mr. Norris: I take the opportunity to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) that, ironically, it is 25 per cent. of young drivers, rather than new drivers, who are likely to be involved in fatal accidents. It is important to make that distinction and I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend will say on the subject.
Mr. Merchant: I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister says; I should have been more specific in my comments.
It is difficult to distinguish whether those accidents are caused by inexperience or youth because, by definition, a young driver will be newly qualified because one cannot get a licence before age 17. I will return to that point later in my speech.
The Bill deals not only with accidents—I sometimes wonder whether "accident" is the right word to use, because there is always a clear cause and disaster may be avoided—but with bad driving. Therefore, it will make our roads safer while making the experience of driving more pleasant. All drivers would agree that good driving practices would lessen the physical danger to life and limb associated with that activity as well as make driving more pleasurable, relaxing and acceptable. One realises how stressful and unacceptable driving can be when one drives in other countries where bad driving seems to be endemic.
A second benefit of the Bill is that it will make driving in this country more enjoyable, which I think should please all drivers and pedestrians.
The Bill will take reasonably newly qualified drivers who demonstrate poor driving practices off the roads as solo drivers. They will return to learner status and, when they do drive, they must be accompanied by an experienced driver. That practical effect of the Bill will prove extremely beneficial. The accumulation of six
1138
penalty points will demonstrate that, in one way or another, a driver is not behaving appropriately when in control of a vehicle on our roads.
Unfortunately, to that extent, the Bill will have the effect of locking the door after the horse has bolted as its provisions will apply only after a person has demonstrated that he or she is a bad driver—indeed, an accident may have already occurred.
More important, I believe that the Bill will act as a deterrent. It will become absolutely clear to all newly qualified drivers that they must exercise great caution because they face an additional penalty that does not apply to more experienced drivers—the loss of the ability to drive alone. I think that that deterrent is the more important of the Bill's effects.
Dr. Michael Clark: I am very interested in my hon. Friend's remarks. Does he agree that part of the deterrent to which he refers is the humbling of the macho male who will be forced to return to L-plates and ask auntie to sit beside him when driving?
Mr. Merchant: My hon. Friend has anticipated the third point that I was about to make. He is absolutely correct: that is an extremely important effect. Both of those effects will act as deterrents to bad driving and our principal aim must be to prevent accidents from occurring. By creating a probationary period—a significant new introduction—for newly qualified drivers, we are also telling them very clearly that they are not the same as fully qualified and experienced drivers. We are creating a third, in-between category of driver.
There would be, on the one hand, the learner driver who is protected—or rather, from whom the rest of the public is protected—by virtue of the specific requirements of being a learner driver, including having an experienced driver sitting next to him or her. The second category, which also already exists, would be that of the fully qualified driver, but we would insert between those two a third category of probationary drivers—those who are allowed to drive alone on the road but who must do so bearing in mind the fact that they will be treated differently by the law if they go wrong.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford is absolutely valid. The sort of people who previously felt the sudden thrill and exhilaration of being free after they had passed their test would know that they were not entirely free, but were being watched by the law and kept in that slightly controlled status. They could not behave as if they were unencumbered, as they would be able to once they had passed through their two-year probationary period.
I do not want to make heavy weather of the issue, but I shall return briefly to the question of experience and age. I do not for one moment challenge the assumption, which is no doubt valid, that young drivers, by virtue of being young, pose specific forms of risk. We have rehearsed that argument at previous stages, and I do not propose to go through it again.
Nevertheless, I must sound a note of caution. The Bill is not specifically about imposing probationary periods on young drivers. A Bill could have been drawn up to achieve that effect, which could have been in the title and the clauses could have proposed specified age brackets. The Bill does not do that; it is about newly qualified drivers.

1139
I accept that, by definition, most young drivers will be newly qualified, especially the under-20s, just because of the age limit for first qualification, so there is bound to be a close link between the two. However, I do not accept that the risk lies only among young drivers.
I wonder what the situation on the roads would be if most newly qualified drivers were over 50. One can envisage a different era in which that might be so. I suspect that we should still find that in the first two years of driving people would pose a much greater risk on the roads than they would after they had gained experience, because experience is so important in driving a motor car.
That is why it is right that the Bill deals with experience, and with a period of time after first qualification, rather than purely with age. It is important that when the Bill comes into practice people bear that fact in mind, and do not think that it is aimed only against young drivers. That would be both inaccurate and, I believe, wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford spoke at some length about foreign licences, and I do not therefore propose to repeat any of his comments, except to say that the subject posed some severe problems in Committee and has not been entirely resolved because of the changing nature of international law in that regard. The mere fact, that the House is aware of that small potential problem means that it can be ably dealt with in future.
Another suggestion made in Committee, which must form an important part of the consideration of the Bill, is that it should go further and that some form of mandatory training should be imposed on those who fall foul of the two-year probationary period. In Committee it was decided that that was not appropriate, and I strongly endorse that opinion. It would be wrong to go further at this stage, because I believe that the Bill strikes the right balance.
There is a need for further measures in other areas of traffic law, but not in that respect at this stage, although, as always with the law, as the years progress and the impact of the new Act is felt, it may indeed be considered necessary to strengthen it in one respect or another.
I throw out one idea, merely as a suggestion at this point, that at some future date it may be desirable to consider some outward mark on the vehicles of probationary drivers to show their status. That system applies in some countries.
Finally, I believe that the Bill will be strengthened when there is greater enforcement of general road traffic law. Certainly the Bill will act as a deterrent, but its practical impact will depend on enforcement of the law. People have to acquire six points on their licences before triggering the measures in this Bill, and that will require the enforcement of existing road traffic legislation. Here I enter a plea to the Minister for more effective measures to enforce road traffic law. My constituents repeatedly make it clear to me that many of our good driving laws—laws against speeding and others—are often honoured more in the breach than the observance. Modern techniques such as speed cameras can make enforcement much more effective and cheaper, and can ensure safer and better standards of driving. That is why I hope, for the sake of this Bill, that further action will be taken.
1140
I strongly support the Bill; I am pleased to be here to see it reach this stage. I often think that if as many people as are injured or killed on the roads suffered the same fate in any other area of life, there would be a tremendous outcry. We would not be here today to talk about this important, if limited, measure. There would be emergency sittings of Parliament to pass major laws if as many as 5,000 people died each year in rail accidents or air crashes—or in the construction industry or in the North sea. Imagine the fuss there would be, yet for some reason over the years we have become inured to high numbers of deaths on the roads.
The Minister and his predecessors have made huge strides in the past few years to tackle the problem. The death rate has consistently fallen even though traffic on our roads has increased. Year after year, ever more effective measures have been introduced as we have come to understand the causes of accidents and how they can be dealt with—drink-driving legislation is but one example of that.
I commend the Government's work, but today above all I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford for introducing the Bill, because it is so significant in this regard. It is part of a pattern of legislation that has successfully helped to reduce the number of road accidents. For me, the Act cannot come quickly enough. The sooner it is on the statute book and in force, the better.
1.22 pm
Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow that thoughtful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), and to lend my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark). I apologise for not being here for the Second Reading debate.
I have a great interest in this subject. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on the Treasury Bench today. I recall that he introduced an analogous measure in respect of displaying learner plates during a probationary period, but I am sure that he would agree that this Bill approaches the subject in a better way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford said that we had had to wait a number of years before seeing his first Bill. The wait has been well worth it. It is an important piece of social legislation which will make an enormous difference to British society and the way in which we drive. Perhaps hon. Members who preach social policies should bear it in mind that the way to change things is to apply a common-sense approach to everyday issues. Even though my hon. Friend, in Committee, had to watch his Bill being amended in a number of technical areas by my hon. Friends, it remains essentially simple and it will have a considerable effect.
The car is a great liberator. It has made an enormous change to the way in which we go about our everyday lives. Essex is the home of the motor car. It is where production of the first cars took place in this country. Cars are endemic in our society. With the growth of prosperity, two-car households are not the exception or the novelty that they were when I was growing up. They give people—particularly young people—a great deal of mobility and their first opportunity of independent travel.
I can remember when I was in the sixth form that a student who had a car was a novelty, but now we see car parks being extended in schools to accommodate pupils'

1141
cars. We know that the cars that those young people drive tend to be older than the current production models. We know that one of the factors in the great reduction in the number of car fatalities has been the improvement in standards of motor vehicle construction. Last year, I was involved in a fatal car accident as a passenger. I know that I would not be here today had it not been for an air bag and for the safety that is integral to a new car. I walked away with superficial injuries, whereas 10 years ago I would undoubtedly have died.
We see young people with slightly older cars experiencing that first taste of freedom. The Bill seeks to ensure that that does not turn into a nightmare. I deliberately used the words "young people" because I want to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham. I think that there is a distinction. I have a relative, my auntie Marjorie, who—I am sure that she will not mind me saying this—was in her mid 60s when she passed her test. She took the test following the untimely death of my uncle and passed first time. She is a very safe driver. Having travelled with her from the beginning, I can see an enormous difference. She has gained experience, but she knew from day one what her limitations were. That is the distinction. She realised that she was not as competent a driver as someone of her age who had been driving all their life, and was cautious in her approach. I think that the residents of my old home town benefited from that. I would be quite confident to travel any distance with my auntie Marjorie, who is a formidable woman.
I know that P. G. Wodehouse had views on aunts. Undoubtedly he would have approved of my auntie Marjorie.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Does she have a Ferrari?
Mr. Pickles: No, she does not have a Ferrari, but I am sure that she would handle one with great aplomb if she did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham was quite right about one point, and I commend it to the House: if the level of deaths that we are talking about, even though there has been a reduction, took place on one day in one place, there would be an outcry. Although there has been a considerable reduction—I believe that it is 37 per cent.—in car accidents since 1987—
Mr. Norris: Fatalities.
Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is quite right; I meant to say fatalities.
Although there has been a considerable reduction, we are talking in terms of about 80 fatalities a week. I have seen grief counselling up close. I can remember that, after the Bradford stadium fire, full resources were brought to bear on a community that was grieving, but road disasters take place in all our constituencies every week. The community is not geared up to offer the same help and counselling as we offer after major accidents. Family life is shattered by road fatalities. People never recover. I am sure that we have all seen in our constituencies the grieving parents of a young child whose life has been cut short, either as a pedestrian or as a newly qualified driver.
No doubt you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are a frequent traveller on motorways; no doubt, on occasion, you stop at motorway service stations. One feature of them is that
1142
they often contain a section with video games, and popular among those games is the opportunity to sit in a racing car or on a motor bike and attempt to go round a circuit. Another is to sit in the cockpit of a starfighter. I am sometimes amazed at the reactions of young people and their ability to drive a pretend car around a circuit with great skill: I could not do that.
However, there is a great difference between playing a video game and actually being behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. It is then that people learn that to avoid an accident they do not need the reactions necessary to fly a star fighter; they need the experience not to get into circumstances that make such reactions necessary. Good driving is courteous driving—it is knowing when to slow down; it is knowing not to travel too fast in snow, fog or rain. That knowledge comes only with experience.
I live close to the A12, near what is described as the Billericay shuffle. I am not referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), but to a roundabout just off the A12, close to my house. It is an unusual roundabout, but the major turn-off is not signposted until half a mile before it is reached. All too often, we see a car in the outside lane, sometimes with its lights on, travelling at speeds well above the permitted limit. The driver suddenly finds that he has to get on to the roundabout to go to Billericay. Accidents are avoided only because I and other drivers put a foot on the brake and allow the driver to get in. Quite often, that driver is a young person; sometimes he is not.
I cannot help but feel that such incidents would not happen so often if drivers had had the discipline over two years of knowing that if they did not obey the speed limits and show basic courtesy to others, they would lose their licences. The Bill will change behaviour because two years of having to drive in a certain way will create a habit that will stick with people for the rest of their lives.
My hon. Friend the Minister has the Chigwell motorway police control centre in his constituency. I had the opportunity to go out in a patrol car along a stretch of the M25 and the M11. Quite frankly, what I saw in just a couple of hours changed my view of how safe it was to drive on motorways. I saw inconsiderate driving, people exceeding the speed limit and people using mobile phones in a reckless manner, despite the fact that we were in a fully marked police car.
What brought it all home to me was what the police said when I asked what was the difference between travelling at 95 to 100 mph and obeying the speed limit. They told me to imagine that I was following a car that suddenly stopped, that I had to slam on my brakes at 75 mph and that I had managed to stop within an inch of the back of the other car. They said that if I attempted that from the same distance, but when travelling at 95 to 100 mph, when I was one inch from the back of the other car I would still be travelling at 75 mph. That is the sort of experience and understanding that my hon. Friend is dealing with.
I said that I thought that my hon. Friend was dealing with social change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said, the proposal is on the same level as the breathalyser. I think that I started driving in 1967. I can recall people at public houses drinking far too much and taking their car on to the road. I remember the old song by Frank Sinatra in which he sang, "One for my baby and

1143
one more for the road". It was regarded as a sign of manhood to swill back six or seven pints and still to take a lethal machine on to the road.
Such behaviour is now socially unacceptable. Although we will still find people prepared to drink and drive, their number is diminishing. Friends and acquaintances who have been convicted of drunken driving have one thing in common: they feel a deep sense of shame. That is what I mean by the change in social attitude.
We need to ensure that, if newly qualified drivers fail within the specified period, they feel shame and embarrassment at having someone next to them. We must also recognise, however, that they might live a lot longer because of that. If, having passed a test, people knock up six points within the short period of two years, they need to reassess the way in which they drive.
Those people will face something else that will change social attitudes: premiums on insurance. I am certain that a person whose licence is taken away and who must sit a new test will pay not only by feeling shame, humiliation and inconvenience, but by feeling it in their pockets, probably for the rest of their lives. I say to them, however, that it is better to feel it in their pockets for the rest of their lives than to hold their head in shame because they have killed someone through inexperience.
I have absolutely no doubt that because of the Bill there are people who will enjoy a full life who otherwise would not have done so. When the Bill reaches the statute book, it will be something in which he can rightly take considerable pride.
1.37 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) said that the Bill applies not only to young people but to older people, a point that I raised on Second Reading. The Bill's sponsor, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), said:
"The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) pointed out that he is a non-driver and, were the Bill to come into law, he—a man of mature years—would be caught within its provisions if he were to apply for a licence. Despite that, he welcomed the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 3 February 1995; c. 1356.]
I welcome the Bill, but I do not welcome the methods by which it has been pursued. After I had been lucky in the ballot for private Members' Bills, I received a letter from the Minister. It asked me to introduce the Bill and stated:
"The attached papers describe a Bill designed to improve the safety of new drivers by requiring those who offend to re-take their test."
It ended:
"If you are interested in taking this up, please telephone my Private Secretary".
I responded by saying that I was broadly in sympathy with the Bill but that I would be introducing other measures. I thought that, if the Government would only arrange the business of the House better, they would not need to seek the assistance of left-wing Back Benchers in pursuing their measures. I am a bit unhappy that, although this private Member's Bill is entirely in order—I am by no means challenging the procedures of the House—it is a pseudo-private Member's Bill because it is a Government Bill in disguise.
1144
Perhaps the Minister can also tell me why it took the Committee one hour and 40 minutes to deal with clause 1, when the promoter of the Bill has pointed out—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from Third Reading. A Third Reading takes place after the Committee, so he cannot debate any element of those Committee proceedings.
Mr. Barnes: I am in favour of the Bill and I do not believe that anyone will speak against it. We could easily vote for Third Reading now—in fact, that could have happened earlier in the day. After all, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) said that he did not intend to clog up the proceedings, so that the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill could advance.
I am concerned that the debates on clauses 2 and 3 of the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill, which were considered its the heart and soul, were dominated by entirely unrelated matters.
Although the Bill completed its Committee stage a week last Wednesday, it has reached the Floor of the House only today. It would have been technically possible—had the promoter so decided—to consider it last Friday. If he had done so, that would have left space for items—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate now matters that affect the running of the House and the relative merits of one Bill versus another. The House is charged this afternoon with the Third Reading of the Bill and other hon. Members still wish to catch my eye to speak. I would be grateful, therefore, if the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) addressed just the Third Reading and nothing else.
Mr. Barnes: I intend to sit down shortly to enable other hon. Members to speak. My speech would have been shorter if I had not fallen foul of your rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Although I cannot say anything else about our procedural arrangements, they have caused such feeling that they have prompted a disability march this morning to the House from the home of the hon. Member for Rochford. I have been involved in that, which is why I have been going in and out of the Chamber.
Dr. Michael Clark: I hope that you might show me the same indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you have shown the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), because I should like to explain that had my Bill reached the Floor of the House one week earlier, there would have been grave danger that the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill could have been disrupted. No one wanted that.
Mr. Barnes: I am a firm supporter of that Bill, but I believe that if the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill had been considered last Friday, arrangements could have been made—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Barnes rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman heard my ruling: either he will address the Third Reading of the Bill or resume his seat.
Mr. Barnes: Professor Oakshott, the theorist of Conservatism, wrote a book entitled "Rationalism in

1145
Politics" in which he said that Conservatives did not feel the necessity to speak. It is unfortunate that, on this occasion and on related ones, they have not adhered to that principle.
1.44 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I must disabuse the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who haunts Fridays like a spectre at the feast. He claimed that his Bill, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, had not had proper time. I assure him that not all Conservative Members are in favour of the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill. I do not want to spoil the consensus in the Chamber today, but I must tell hon. Members that I have some serious reservations about the Bill. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, who has offended many of us by prompting demonstrations at the House by people who are persuaded that they will thus gain publicity, should consider that—
Mr. Barnes: Is that in order?
Mr. Atkinson: If I am out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall return sharply to order. The Bill has laudable intentions; there is a real problem with inexperienced and especially with young drivers. However, there is a sense that the Bill comes out of the mould of "Something must be done. This is something so let's do it." That worries me. We often debate such Bills. on a Friday. We run the danger of introducing complicated and unnecessary regulation which, at the end of the day, may not achieve the desired result—which is, of course, an improvement in road safety, and especially an improvement in the driving habits, of young drivers. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), whom I compliment on steering through the Bill—he deserves great credit—could not have dreamt that it would be so complicated or that it would require no fewer than 50 amendments. However, at the end of the day, will the Bill achieve its objectives?
We have the salutary warning of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was passed because there was perceived to be a particular problem. It was pushed through the House to deal with the outcry in the press. As a consequence, we are left with a legislative muddle which will shortly have to be put right. I hope that the same will not apply to this Bill. I was surprised, therefore, that the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club leant their support to the Bill. Those organisations are there to defend drivers from unnecessary regulation, yet they are underwriting a Bill that will impose on them unjustified regulation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) touched on a flaw in the Bill, which is that we are dealing with a question of youth, but also a question of experience, which is the particular difficulty. I give an example from my constituency, which is an agricultural one. Young men and some young women have driven all-terrain vehicles and tractors from an early age and they are fairly competent drivers when they take their driving test at 17 and upwards. There is no doubt that many young people are extremely dextrous and competent when doing the kind of driving required to pass the current test and I have no doubt that those young people will pass the future improved test. It is not difficult for them. Driving tests cannot be a test of maturity; they can be only a snapshot of the driver's competence on the day.
1146
Here is the rub. Macho young men—let us be blunt and admit that that is what we are talking about—will not be put off by the idea that they may have to sit a driving test again. They will not see that as an awful insult to their manhood, but will simply book another test. In my part of the world, where the test centres do an excellent job, one can obtain a test within three weeks to a month if one is lucky. Within three weeks or a month of having to return their licence, these young men can sit the test once more and pass it with flying colours. When these young men drive cars, they may be reckless and irresponsible, as young men often are, but they are not incompetent; most are extremely competent drivers. We have, therefore, the problem that the Bill will not produce the desired result.
I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have read the reports and I note that some interesting research was carried out on the subject at Southampton university. It showed that the vast majority of the young male drivers studied rated their driving skills and driving safety as considerably above the average for their age group. This is the problem; they think that they are good drivers. My hon. Friend the Minister talked about his experience as a 17-year-old driver. When I passed my test, I was probably an extremely unsafe driver. I had a sporty car and I thought that I drove it extremely well. I have absolutely no doubt that I drove extremely recklessly, cornering at the limit of the car's ability and travelling far too fast, but it was in the nature of the young man. Therefore, I do not think that having to take my driving test again would be a distraction at all.
Dr. Michael Clark: While I am interested in hearing some of my hon. Friend's exploits as a young driver and his cornering on the limits of the car's safety, perhaps he should consider that someone who has fallen foul of the Bill's provisions and has to revert to being a learner driver would have Aunt Marjorie, the aunt of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), in the car with him. I am sure that Aunt Marjorie would ensure that he respects the other road users and the limitations of his motor car and that he would not, for the few months during which he is once again a learner driver, be testing the patience of other roads users to the same extent as he otherwise would have been.
Mr. Atkinson: I heard exactly what my hon. Friend said, but I also heard the sedentary intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, which perhaps the House did not hear. He said that when I started driving they had to have red flags in front of the car. I must deny that. Red flags had been abolished a few years previously. At the time, I would not have been a very good driver and I hope that I am very much better now.
I shall move on to another point, which causes me some agony: foreign drivers. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) intervened on the subject, but some questions are still up in the air. Perhaps I did not understand the answer of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford or that of my hon. Friend the Minister. If, as an Irish citizen, I arrived in this country with an Irish driving licence—an EC driving licence—issued by the Irish Ministry of Transport, with which I was perfectly entitled to drive, and was called on by a British court to surrender that licence, would my

1147
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is the recipient of such licences, have the power to revoke that licence? I find that difficult to understand.
Mr. Norris: The position is very clear. A visitor to this country using a foreign driving licence would not be susceptible to the actions of the British courts. The Secretary of State has no jurisdiction over the issuing or re-issuing of Irish driving licences. My hon. Friend must remember that a person who is resident in this country is required either to take a test and acquire a licence, or to exchange their licence if it is exchangeable. He will know from the previous proceedings that even if a person has not yet exchanged their licence but commits an offence for which points can be endorsed, those points will be registered on the DVLA computer and can be added to the exchanged licence the minute that it is exchanged. Very few people indeed will fall outside the scope of the Bill, especially bearing in mind the fact that it applies only during the first two years in which someone acquires a valid licence.
Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's clarification. I understand the matter slightly more clearly. What attracted my attention was that clause 1(3) specifically deals with Liechtenstein, which I find a rather curious legal anomaly. Since Liechtenstein does not appear to be part of the agreement, its citizens who are resident in this country and who commit an offence having passed their driving test more than two years previously will undoubtedly escape the provisions of my hon. Friend's Bill.
I took the trouble to go to the Library, and discovered that 27,000 people are resident in Liechtenstein; as most of it is mountainous, I do not think that that anomaly will pose a great threat to road safety in this country. One other interesting point about Liechtenstein, which I accept is totally out of order, is that it is one of the few states which has not—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman accepts that the point is out of order—he is not allowing me to make a judgment—I hope that he is not even going to raise it.
Mr. Atkinson: I shall return to order. I am sorry to have to deprive the House of a little nugget of information that may have amused hon. Members, but I abide by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to be able to contribute to the debate.
I am not a great supporter of my hon. Friend's Bill, and I have concerns about particular aspects. Perhaps they will be raised in the other place. However, as my hon. Friend has worked hard on his Bill, I hope that it receives a fair wind in the other place. If it were shown over time that the Bill's provisions were not having the intended impact, the legislation could be presented to the excellent Select Committee on Deregulation of which I am a member, which could remove it from the statute book.
1.54 pm
Ms Joan Walley: I will be brief because I am aware that the Minister has yet to comment and that the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) will want to reply.
1148
This is my first opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Rochford on his Bill, which has our full support. It is important that any measure to improve road safety and to reduce the number of casualties, particularly among young drivers, reaches the statute book.
The lottery of private Members' Bills greatly concerns the Labour party. Road safety proposals should be presented to the House in an integrated way, and the Third Reading of this Bill should be part of such a framework. I do not want to stray out of order, but time after time on Fridays it is not possible fully to deal with Bills of the sort introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady may not want to stray but she is doing so. I urge her to return to the Third Reading of the Bill before the House.
Ms Walley: I will endeavour to keep in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but making time available to deal properly with Friday Bills is a matter of concern.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) spoke about alcohol, speed and inexperience. Great progress has been made in dealing with drink-driving, but there is no increasing concern about the effect of speed. It is important to get rid of the macho image and to instil in young people in particular the importance of safe driving. I am all in favour of that being done in schools' road safety education and as part of the probationary licence procedure.
I regret that the Bill is being presented piecemeal rather than as part of an integrated approach. Its value has been amply demonstrated by the hon. Member for Rochford and by the Automobile Association, which perhaps played a large part in its drafting. The AA, as a representative of drivers' interests, should play a role, and I recognise its contribution to the Bill. I acknowledge also the support given by the parliamentary advisory committee on transport safety. It is concerned that the re-test should be a different sort of test. Perhaps we may consider that at a later stage.
Hon. Members who served on the Committee demonstrated the value of the Bill, which is appreciated by the general public, our constituents and anyone who has been involved in a terrible tragedy caused by irresponsible driving.
The need for the Bill has been demonstrated by statistics. I shall now introduce a controversial aspect into the debate because I notice that, on Second Reading, the Minister justified the support for the Bill on the grounds of the results of important research that had been carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory.
I bring to the Minister's attention the fact that, on the day that he made those comments—3 February 1995—in the same edition of Hansard as the Second Reading debate there was a reply to a parliamentary question that I had tabled, which stated that the Government are making considerable cuts in the number of people employed at the Transport Research Laboratory to do that very important research work.
All hon. Members know that that invaluable organisation, the Transport Research Laboratory, is in the process of being privatised. Where would we be if its important research had not been carried out? I have grave anxieties for the future as a result of that idiotic privatisation proposal, with which the Government are proceeding.

1149
It would be wrong of me not to refer to the sterling work that has been done in another place by Baroness Barbara Castle, who set up the Transport Research Laboratory. Her foresight has given us so much anxiety about the extent of road accidents and so on, and it is important that we support her campaign to retain the Transport Research Laboratory.
Many important issues were mentioned in Committee to which I wish to refer on Third Reading, one of which is the theory test. I should be grateful if, when the Minister replies, he would enlighten us about the most recent position regarding the theory test. Some time ago, the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), promised new proposals that would harmonise us with Europe in respect of the proposed theory test. I am still not sure what the theory test will be. I am not sure when it will be introduced and when we shall have an opportunity to debate it.
That subject is relevant to the present debate, because we are discussing driving licences. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us about that and deny categorically that there is any truth in newspaper reports that the Government are backtracking on a new theory test.
I should mention the argument made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) about motorway driving. We must carefully consider the way in which new drivers and young drivers are properly prepared to drive on our motorways and the scope that exists in the current test, or in the retesting that will take place, to ensure that people are capable of motorway driving and properly prepared to undertake it.
Other issues were mentioned in Committee. There was discussion about whether two years was the right probationary period and whether it should be longer or shorter. The issue of whether we are concerned with new drivers or young drivers also arose, and has been amply covered in the debate that we have just had.
Another issue that was mentioned in Committee was the form that our driving licence should take. I refer specifically to the debate that took place with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about licences and counterpart licences. We shall need to return to that subject, and it would have been better if we had had an integrated measure so that we could clear all the anomalies in respect of future European harmonisation now, rather than later.
Finally, there is the issue of the way in which people are prepared for driving tests. I bring to the attention of the House further replies that I have received to my parliamentary questions, which show that a very large number of days is lost as a result of sickness of examiners employed by the Driving Standards Agency. In 1994, about 29,965 days were lost as a result of examiner sickness. That is an important statistic because it has a great bearing on the way in which we prepare people for driving tests and then ensure that, having passed their test, they are able to drive vehicles safely.
With those few comments I should like to repeat that we support the Bill. However, I regret that we do not have an integrated framework to address the serious issue of road safety.
2.4 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I shall first pick up on the last point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who leads for the Opposition on these important matters. She advanced an astonishing proposition. She is critical of the Bill on the basis that it is a piecemeal, not an integrated, measure. In my experience words such as "integrated" are among the most dangerous in the English language. I know that an integrated transport policy means any transport policy other than the one being practised by the Government of the day.
I shall pass over that matter and merely record that when the hon. Lady talks about the measure being piecemeal and not integrated, it is clear that she does not have the vaguest idea what she is talking about. She referred to the desirability of incorporating legislation on counterpart licences. In Committee, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to that subject while relying on the patience of the Chairman. There were those of us who, in our untutored way, thought that those observations might be well out of order, but my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) is a generous man and he allowed the debate to continue.
I make that point merely to observe, in parenthesis, that the notion that any delay on the Bill was brought about by Conservative Members is exploded once one realises that in the last few seconds of the Committee stage, at about quarter to one, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) popped up, having deigned to visit us for a few seconds—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have already said, we cannot discuss today what happened in Committee. We must get on to the subject of Third Reading, however tempting it may be to reflect on the Bill's Committee stage.
Mr. Norris: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When one hears nonsense such as that spoken by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), it is intolerably difficult to restrain oneself. However, I understand that I cannot respond except to say how much of the responsibility for the Committee proceedings lay with Opposition Members.
I shall return to the subject of counterpart licences. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North is effectively saying that we should never legislate. The hon. Lady describes as piecemeal the current process whereby measures that will improve road safety and save lives can be brought before the House. The excellent measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) has been taken so far through the House, but the hon. Lady says that we should not proceed with it until we are ready to proceed on counterpart licences, which is likely to be years away. If that is what the hon. Lady means by integrated, I should like to be the first Transport Minister to say that, in that respect at least, I do not want an integrated policy. I want very little of what the Opposition have to offer on Transport, but I certainly do not want that definition of an integrated transport policy.
The hon Lady's reference to an integrated transport policy was about as relevant as her remarks on the Transport Research Laboratory. Even before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, invite me not to do so, I shall not proceed to debate the merits of privatising the Transport Research

1151
Laboratory. Even if the hon. Lady's comments had been relevant, which they were not, they were utterly outwith the scope of the Bill. That laboratory is an excellent organisation and will no doubt continue to do excellent research, much of which will be funded by the Department.
The hon. Lady made a number of points about the theory test—about its adequacy and about announcements. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be making an announcement about the theory tests, which is an important one of the four planks of our policy for new drivers—
Ms Walley: When?
Mr. Norris: We shall shortly be able to do that. If the hon. Lady imagines that it is a matter of no consequence that can be disposed of in a few minutes, that shows how unfitted she and her hon. Friends are for office.
I have searched the Bill and found not the slightest reference to theory testing. On that basis, it seems that it is an alleyway down which I should not proceed. It would be equally inappropriate for me to debate Driving Standards Agency absenteeism. It has come to a pretty pass when speakers who should address such matters as retesting new drivers attempt to tie in such concepts as absenteeism among DSA staff. That shows massive generosity on your part, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Ms Walley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he inform the House when he intends to introduce new measures about theory tests for drivers?
Mr. Norris: As I have said, my right hon. Friend will make an announcement about the theory test in due course. I am aware of the hon. Lady's propensity for making trouble and for spreading despondency when none is justified, so I make it quite clear that theory testing remains an important part of our armoury of measures in relation to new drivers. In any event, it is a requirement of the second European Community driver licence directive, as she should appreciate. We will bring forward our proposals in due course; we will certainly not be rushed into doing so by the hon. Member Stoke-on-Trent, North or by any of her hon. Friends.
I say to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East that perhaps it is best to view legislation of this sort from the perspective of a left-wing non-driver, which is how he described himself. I am not entirely sure whether "left-wing" relates to the fact that we drive on the left-hand side of the road in this country or whether it has political connotations. The implications of his statement have escaped me on previous occasions and they do so again today. It is the hon. Gentleman's practice in such matters never to be confused by the facts and, if possible, to talk from a position of total inexperience, because in that way he may indulge in the greatest flights of fancy.
The Department of Transport has welcomed the concept of the Bill. The Government are constrained in the amount of time available to introduce Bills of this sort, so we are very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford for his initiative and for the work that he has done in introducing the legislation. Its passage has not been easy—as he said, there have been a large number of amendments.
1152
In addressing the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), I suggest that there is no danger of the Bill meeting the fate that might have been accorded to the excellent Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. As former parliamentary private secretary to the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who performed excellently in that role, I have yet to be persuaded that that is not extremely useful legislation.
More to the point, this legislation was agreed throughout the Committee stage. Furthermore, and more importantly, it is not likely to be drawn to my hon. Friend's attention as a deregulatory measure. My hon. Friend should understand that, to the Government, deregulation has never meant any reduction in safety standards or in standards of consumer protection. Labour Members often allege that, when we deregulate, we automatically reduce safety standards. The Government have always made it clear that safety is one of our most important priorities.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that we are not performing the role of a good deregulator—that is, removing unnecessary legislation; eliminating unnecessary burdens on business is the principal function of deregulation—but are putting on the statute book legislation that will save lives. As an innate deregulator, I have no difficulty with that concept.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I remain concerned that the legislation will not achieve its objective. If it fails to influence the behaviour of young and inexperienced drivers, my point is that it must then be removed from the statute book.
Mr. Norris: I have no objection to the concept that if the Bill proves ineffective—I stress the fact that in my view and in the view of every professional organisation involved, that is extraordinarily unlikely—the first to want it removed would be my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford. Nobody is in the business of clogging up the shelves with additional legislation that has proved ineffective. However, it is true that my hon. Friend's point goes to the heart of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), in a thoughtful and helpful speech characteristic of his approach throughout our proceedings on the Bill, drew attention to the essential difference between an experienced new driver and a young driver.He said that there were two types of new driver—inexperienced drivers who, like Aunt Marjorie, the aunt of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), are no longer young, although they may be still in their first flush, and those who are both young and inexperienced.
We should not detain ourselves long on the issue, because, throughout the debate, the essential points have been made. My hon. Friend is right that the hallmark of inexperienced but mature drivers is an awareness of their own limitations. Because such drivers are more responsible, they tend to drive within those limitations. I agree that, statistically, they represent a significantly lower risk than young drivers in terms of their propensity to cause accidents.
My hon. Friend also made a point that has emerged throughout our proceedings—that young people are extraordinarily adept. Their reactions are fast and they are good at handling the vehicle itself. That is precisely what

1153
my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said, but what is wrong with that category of driver is often the attitude, not the technical competence.
Often, part of young drivers' attitude is a belief that they can drive on water, that they are utterly immune from any propensity to have an accident and that they know everything that there is to know about driving, despite the fact that they have held a licence for only five minutes. They tend to believe that they can control their vehicle in all circumstances, whereas the more one drives, the more one realises that that is never true, even with a car that one knows extremely well.
I suspect that the Bill was principally aimed at that distinction. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford decided to call it the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill, and I have no difficulty with his definition, but its important feature with regard to young drivers is that it talks in terms of attitude. The AA has introduced a questionnaire for new young drivers designed to make them confront their attitudes and to try to ensure that they approach driving as a serious business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham referred to the concept of the macho young driver, and it was the deliberate intention of the Bill that young people should face the consequences if they build up unnecessary points. They will have to go back to first base, sit next to someone else when they want to go out, display L-plates and put up with their friends sniggering behind their hands. I suspect that most young people would consider that a fairly serious consequence.
I must make one thing clear, however. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford wanted to avoid looking as if he was merely applying unreasonable pressure to young people. He could have drafted a Bill which said, for example, that if a young driver had accumulated any points in the first two years he or she should go back for a new test. He could have attempted to introduce a three-year term, but one with a lower number of penalty points—for example, six or even nine points in three years. He did not do that. Instead, he quite properly decided that this measure will have limited application, to a number of new drivers. It will be a useful deterrent in the context—it is crucial—of changing people's attitudes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, a noted cynic, appears to be equally cynical about the effectiveness of the Bill. I am prepared to give it a fair go. It may be of interest to him to know that many countries in Europe and beyond place restrictions on new drivers. Some countries hold such powers in reserve as long as those drivers generally behave themselves. That is what we intend to do here. Other countries again make use of probationary plates. Regardless of whether the new driver has committed an offence, he has to carry a plate denoting his lack of experience. The theory is that that helps other road users.
We have looked at the one place in the United Kingdom where the idea is already in force: Northern Ireland. There, people have to use an R-plate—it stands for "restricted"—meaning that the driver is subject to a speed limit. It has been in force already for about 25 years. We are evaluating research done by Queen's university, Belfast on whether the idea would benefit the rest of the United Kingdom. There are difficulties with establishing what the status quo ante was, because the number of
1154
accidents then was not in the minds of those who introduced the legislation in the first place. However,' the Government's mind is not closed to the proposition.
Almost everyone involved in road safety issues recognises that it is vital to deal with new and inexperienced drivers. This Bill is only one of four measures or ideas that we intend to introduce. First, there is the theory test, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, like us, attaches a great deal of importance. Then there is the Pass Plus idea, designed to help newly qualified drivers to obtain better experience—and, incidentally, lower their insurance premiums. Thirdly, there is the 16-plus pack, available in schools for young people who are about to become drivers. Those three positive measures are to be allied to this one—which is the stick that accompanies the carrot, and which suggests that it may be necessary on occasion to invoke the notion that there is a price to be paid if a young driver is given to a little recklessness.
There should be no doubts about who will be covered by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made the perfectly valid point that one or two people—the numbers are very small—might not be covered. I do not want at this point to investigate the status of Liechtenstein, interesting and unusual though it is, because we had a technical debate about that in Committee. The Bill applies only to the first two years of a driver's full licence. Secondly, even if a person residing in this country holds a licence from another Community country, he will exchange it for a British licence while residing here in Britain. So the only category of person not covered will be a visitor. And visitors, rightly or wrongly, are exempt from most of the provisions of the road traffic legislation. There is little point in prosecuting and going through the rigmarole of awarding penalty points to someone if, after enjoying his holiday here, he returns to a far distant country. In all those circumstances, we have accepted that the present arrangements are satisfactory for the overwhelming number of young people who qualify in this country, live in this country and will go on to be drivers in this country.
The most telling point was that made by one of my hon. Friends—forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I cannot remember precisely which one—who said that what we are doing is establishing in the minds of young drivers an attitude towards driving, which, we hope, will stay with them for the rest of their lives.
Mr. Pickles: It was me.
Mr. Norris: It was indeed my hon. Friend—my good friend and parliamentary neighbour—the Member for Brentwood and Ongar who made that point.
This is an excellent measure. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford for the way in which he has piloted it through the House, despite the tremendous interest, which was equal on both sides of the House, and the complexity of the amendments that were tabled.
I commend the Bill to the House.
2.25 pm
Dr. Michael Clark: With the leave of the House and with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall say a few words.
I thank everyone in the House for taking part in the debate. I would like to say a special word to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who,

1155
because of another commitment, has had to leave the House. I was very pleased indeed to have the hon. Lady's support for the Bill throughout all its stages. I know that she was absent on Second Reading due to circumstances beyond her control, but I know that she cares passionately about road safety matters. She spoke about the second test probably being more difficult than the first, but said that it is something that we should have. That is a matter to which we can return.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London for all his help throughout and for his support this morning. I am sure that such help is invaluable to a private Member's Bill.
If I may, I shall say a few words to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). Of course the AA and the RAC are organisations that want to protect motorists and their freedom, but they want to protect the freedom of the 95 per cent.—if not the 98 per cent.—of motorists who drive responsibly, and not that of the irresponsible 2 or 3 per cent. who drive badly. He asked several probing questions that were useful. I hope that he has received answers.
I now come to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). I shall paraphrase—it is only fair that I do—a letter from a young disabled man in Sheffield who wrote to me. He noted that my name had come up recently due to my private Member's Bill. He told me that he looks forward to any legislation from the Government that will assist him as a disabled person. He told me that, as he became disabled as a result of a road traffic accident in 1988, he must encourage me and my Bill at every stage. He told me that if anyone writes to ask me to drop my Bill, I should put their letters in the waste paper basket. That is another side of various arguments.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) in his place and not hurt overmuch by the terrible road accident that I know that he had. We all have family, friends or neighbours who have been hurt or killed in road accidents. It is important that we consider this as a road safety measure. I am sure that my hon. Friend was right when he said that people who are penalised under the provisions of the Bill will have their insurance premiums loaded. It is quite right and proper that they should.
Finally, I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), who has been so helpful throughout every stage of the Bill. I have just a minute to mention him. If I say nothing more, I thank my hon. Friend. He has taken an interest in road safety matters, and pointed out three aspects of road safety that are so important: alcohol, speed and inexperience. As he rightly said, the Bill will assist in preventing people with reckless inexperience from staying on the roads with a full licence. Some Bills are not a deterrent. My Bill is a deterrent. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  REFERENDUM BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put and negatived.

  TAMPONS (SAFETY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 July.

  WAR CRIMES (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Second Reading what day? No day named.

  SCHOOL TRANSPORT SAFETY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 July.

  ANIMAL HEALTH (EUROPEAN LAW) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  REGULATION OF DIET INDUSTRY BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [31 March].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 14 July.

  BREAST CANCER (NATIONAL PLAN) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 July.

  WOMEN AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 July.

  SPORTS (DISCRIMINATION) (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 July.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 July.

  TELEVISION SPORT (PUBLIC ACCESS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 July.

  CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [17 March].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 14 July.

  PENSIONS (DIVORCE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 July.

  TRANSPORT OF ANIMALS FOR SLAUGHTER BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [24 March].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 14 July.

  ENERGY-SAVING MATERIALS (RATE OF VALUE ADDED TAX) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [20 January].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 14 July.

  NATURAL DISASTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 July.

  CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 July.

  REQUIREMENTS OF WRITING (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Jenkin.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  CIVIL EVIDENCE (FAMILY MEDIATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Connarty.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  PREVENTION OF FRAUD (REGISTRATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Friday 5th May, the Speaker shall adjourn the House, without Question put, immediately after Prayers.—[Mr. Liam Fox.]

  Low-flying Military Aircraft
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  2.36 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I welcome the opportunity to raise in this short debate a matter of great concern to my constituents—low-flying military aircraft. I want to talk specifically about the Tornado, one of the three fast jets flown by the Royal Air Force.
  In one way or another, my constituents have long been associated with aviation. Tornado aircraft parts are manufactured in Pendle, and Rolls-Royce makes aeroplane engines in Barnoldswick in my constituency. Aviation is part and parcel of the region, but so too, unfortunately, is low flying. I pay tribute to the courage and skill of our pilots. So far as I have any criticism, it is not primarily directed at them.
  Let me make my position clear at the outset. Low flying should not be allowed over built-up areas. I do not include here tiny hamlets. Low flying over towns and other populated areas should generally be prohibited. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces told me, last month I think, that towns listed for low level avoidance were generally those with 10,000 or more inhabitants, and that all other populated areas were to be avoided by military aircraft wherever possible.
  That is not good enough. In my constituency, the two towns most affected are Barnoldswick, which has a population of just over 10,000, and Earby, which is half that size. My constituents in Earby probably see one or two aircraft a week flying overhead. Other villages such as Foulridge, just outside Colne, are also affected from time to time, but the incident that overshadowed all others happened on 30 January this year, when eight Tornadoes from RAF Bruggen in Germany flew very low over Barnoldswick and Earby.
  That incident was widely reported in the local press. One of my constituents, Mr. Paul Howarth, of Alma avenue, Foulridge wrote to the Barnoldswick and Earby Times to say:
  "Living in Foulridge, I was one of the residents whose houses the RAF Tornados flew over during recent low flying night exercises.Mr. Pendle's Diary"—
  an editorial or comment column in the local newspaper—
  "suggests that this must have been a terrifying experience for me and that I have a right to know who chose the route for the planes to fly on. On these two points I must disagree with Mr. Pendle. No, I did not find it a terrifying experience—not in the least—and secondly, I do not accept that I have a right to know who planned the route.
  I presume the RAF, possibly in conjunction with NATO, planned the route and here I do agree with Mr. Pendle that flying over the outskirts of built up areas is an essential part of training for the defence of the United Kingdom."
  Mr. Howarth then went on to criticise me on other matters in trenchant terms.
  Not everyone, unfortunately, is made of such stern stuff as Mr. Howarth. I have passed the names of those affected by the low flying on 30 January to Lord Henley, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence. Those people will be interviewed in due course by RAF police. They will speak, for example, to Mrs. Whiteley of Albion street, Earby and to her son, Paul, who edits the local paper, "The Town Crier". That paper was inundated with calls
  1160
  from local people. The RAF police will also want to interview Mr. Cliff Garnett of Gisburn road, Barnoldswick and Duncan Smith, a reporter on the Craven Herald and Pioneer, who happens to live in Earby.
  Duncan Smith saw the jets at first hand, and he described the experience for that newspaper in the following terms:
  "I was just leaving the house to take my dog for a walk when I heard the first formation approaching and as they came over, they did seem very low, very fast and very loud. I certainly checked the house roof to see if the tiles were still on!
  But the second formation took me completely by surprise. By then I was near the Station Hotel and directly under the flight path. The first I knew was when the lead jet soared above me, and the noise was incredible. It felt like being inside an explosion, like a volley of cannon fire exploding right above my head.
  Before I knew it, I was virtually crouching on the ground, having instinctively ducked low, and my heart was pounding. My dog was frantically pulling at the lead, obviously very scared. I watched the remaining jets fly over, still ducking instinctively each time at the noise.
  I wouldn't like to say how low they were, but I have never known them that low before and, having passed over the town, they seemed to pull up to clear Earby moor.
  With hindsight it was quite exciting. But in all honesty, if I'd been elderly, of a nervous disposition or with a weak heart I might not be here now to write this."
  A thousand questions spring to mind after reading that account. What about safety? Do we need low flying, and what is its purpose in the post-cold war world? The whole business of low flying is phenomenally expensive. It cost £177,000 for those eight Tornados to come here from their base in Germany. The local paper carried the headline:
  "£117,000 for night out in West Craven",
  and described that sum as "staggering".
  I hope that the Minister does not bridle too much if I mention that, while that overflight took place, a debate was raging on the ground about cuts to the education budget and how they will affect West Craven high school in Barnoldswick. That £117,000 would be an absolute godsend to that school. People make such connections.
  No one would want the country to be left without air defences, but is all low flying necessary? If it is absolutely necessary, why are people not warned beforehand? The Minister has told me that it would be impracticable to provide prior notice of all low-level sorties to Members of Parliament, but surely a flight of eight Tornados is worthy of a brief note to me.
  My constituents also want to know why we do not use other, less densely populated countries for low flying, if it is needed. Why do we not make more use of Goose bay in Labrador, or of areas in central and eastern Europe where countries are crying out for hard currency, instead of inflicting this scourge on heavily populated areas such as Pendle and the north of England generally?
  I have had the benefit of reading the seventh report by the Select Committee on Defence, which was published in July last year, and the Government's response to it. I do not have time to deal with all the issues raised in the report, but I want to touch on a few. I mentioned that I wanted low flying to be banned for safety reasons. I do not want to be alarmist, but I must tell the Minister that the Station hotel, where Duncan Smith had his frightening

  1161
  experience, is only 300 or 400 yards from Earby county primary school. That is the blink of an eyelid for the pilot of a fast jet which is streaking across the sky.
  I was reminded of the tragic incident in September last year when two RAF airmen died when their Tornado crashed into a hillside in Perthshire. It was the fifth Tornado crash in 1994. A report in The Herald on the following day, 2 September, quoted a Lochearnhead schoolteacher who said that low-flying aircraft often passed over her school. She said:
  "This plane crash was within half a second (travelling time) of this playground with 16 children in it."
  That incident prompted my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to call for a suspension of all military low flying until the cause of the crash became clear. He said—he was not being alarmist, either—that it was only a matter of time before there was a "Lockerbie-style" incident involving low-flying jets crashing into populated areas.
  I have read about the ALFENS project, the new notification procedure which is supposed to improve safety. From my reading of the Defence Committee report, it is clear that it is scandalous that the project is running years late. I hope that the Minister can tell me whether the project is likely to come on stream this year as promised.
  The Minister also told me in answer to a parliamentary question last month that 27 Tornado aircraft had crashed while on exercise over United Kingdom land and sea. The idea that we might witness an aircraft crashing in a populated area is not fanciful. I was told that 17 aircraft had crashed on land—mercifully, none into a built-up area. Tragically, 17 RAF personnel and two civilians were killed in the crashes. A further 15 Tornado aircraft have been lost overseas; six were lost in combat over the Gulf, another six as a result of air crew error and three others as a result of mechanical or similar failure.
  Leaving aside the human cost, the total cost of all the crashes is close to £1 billion. The Library tells me that, at 1994 prices, the cost of a Tornado aircraft is an astonishing £28 million, so the crashes in the United Kingdom since 1981 have cost £644 million, and those overseas have cost £345 million. It seems to me as a layperson that it is self-evident that flying at very low altitudes will increase the risk of something going wrong.
  I know that the normal minimum height for low flying in the United Kingdom is 250 ft. Operational low flying is allowed down to 100 ft. Planes are literally skimming across the treetops in three tactical training areas: in the north of Scotland, just north of the Great Glen, in the borders and in central Wales. It is not surprising that shoals of complaints are generated when planes travel at such altitudes.
  Last year, there were 5,778 complaints, which had risen from 5,738 the year before. I am absolutely convinced that those figures do not convey the real number of complaints. People generally do not know who to complain to, other than their Member of Parliament, if they see a warplane streaking overhead and disappearing over the horizon. They tend just to shrug their shoulders and get on with life. Most people have not even heard of the Royal Air Force police.
  To illustrate the point, only a few days ago I was speaking to another constituent of mine, Jim Skinner, who lives in Manchester road, Barnoldswick. I mentioned to
  1162
  him in passing that I was raising this important issue in the House, and he told me, completely unprompted, that at 11 o'clock—I hope that the Minister will want to take note—on Friday 21 April, another Tornado had screamed up Manchester road at a height of 300 ft before disappearing over the horizon.
  Our planes fly at lower altitudes than those of all other NATO countries. Does that necessarily produce better results? Malcolm Spaven of the International Security Information Service made some constructive points when he told the Select Committee on Defence:
  "It has been argued that the more frequently aircrew fly, the better their flight safety record. On that basis, one would expect the RAF to have a lower accident rate for its fast jets than similar types in other NATO air forces. If this was the case, then it could be put forward as a justification for the expense of additional flying effort, since it would have a pay-off in the husbanding of expensive combat aircraft resources and of aircrew trained at great expense. However, the reverse is true. Consistently throughout the 1980s and until 1992, the RAF's combat fast jets have had an accidental loss rate twice that of their US Air Force equivalents."
  Mr. Spaven went on to talk about the RAF's predilection for very low flying and of the experience of the Gulf war. He said:
  "One lesson learned from the Gulf War was that the RAF's hitherto exclusive concentration on low level attack was insufficiently flexible. The rapid switch of air-to-ground operations from low level to the medium level airspace was carried over to some extent into post-Gulf War training."
  Mr. Spaven also said that medium-level training is very much regarded—even now—as a secondary option by the RAF. In effect, that means that, for the foreseeable future, we have to suffer increased very low flying in my area.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley commented in September, he said that the Minister of Defence had broken a promise made in 1991 to cut the number of low-level flights by 30 per cent. He said then that the real fall was nearer to 3 per cent., mostly due to the reduced number of flights by the United States Air Force. Will the Minister comment on that?
  Is not increased activity being inflicted on us in Britain because of the decision by the Germans to ban low-level flights over Germany, for environmental and other reasons? Royal Air Force planes, such as the eight Tornados which came from RAF Bruggen, spend useless hours travelling so that they may fly at low level for 30 or 40 minutes in the north of England, before flying back to their home base.
  I would like the Minister to address the point that I made earlier about alternative areas in which low flying can take place if it is deemed to be absolutely essential. I am not the only person who wants answers from the Minister but many hundreds of my constituents, who are regularly inconvenienced, frightened and alarmed by low-flying jets screeching over the areas in which they live.
  2.54 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to this Adjournment debate, and will try to deal with a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) in the time that he has left me.
  I will explain why low flying remains essential, where the activity is carried out, and how it is controlled and monitored. While the prospects of a major conflict in

  1163
  Europe may have receded with the end of the cold war, instability and unpredictability have increased. Events around the world have demonstrated a continuing requirement for well-trained, well-equipped armed forces that will be able to defend our interests whenever and wherever the need arises. Clearly, the ability to fly low remains a vital element in meeting that requirement, and an important reason for low-flying training.
  Many nations possess modern, capable air defence systems. Wherever our armed forces are likely to conduct flying operations, we must and will be prepared for them to be opposed by air defences supported by a comprehensive network of surveillance radars and command and control systems. As such systems rely heavily on radar information, low flying is a vital tactic to minimise exposure to those defences.
  Attacking aircraft can use natural land features to mask their approach, but to press home their attack and to be successful, they must fly at high speeds and at heights of 100 ft and below. Such skills cannot be learned quickly. Nor can they be maintained without regular, rigorous and realistic training. It is essential that air crews achieve and maintain a high standard of proficiency in peacetime.
  We must never—and will never—send air crews into action in hostile operating environments without first training them to the highest levels. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we would never wish to put the lives of air crew at risk in that way. Regular low flying remains essential to meet our defence commitments.
  In an ideal world, we would train without causing any disturbance to those on the ground. Maximum use is made of simulators, but even the most advanced technology cannot be a substitute for low flying. Unfortunately, there are no uninhabited areas in the United Kingdom large enough to accommodate our training needs, so we aim at spreading the activity across the United Kingdom as widely as possible, to reduce the burden in any one area.
  Certain areas are excluded, such as civil aerodromes, major industrial hazards and large centres of population—generally, towns with 10,000 or more inhabitants, such as Barnoldswick. In addition, air crews do their best to avoid all populated areas, whether or not they are listed for avoidance.
  It is not always possible to avoid the outskirts of towns and communities, and people living on the outskirts of major towns, as well as in less populated areas, will see and hear aircraft from time to time. To minimise disturbance, we limit the amount of low-flying training to that which is strictly essential. Since 1988, we have reduced the volume of low flying by jet aircraft by more than 30 per cent., and are committed to maintaining that reduction.
  Night training is fundamental, but we keep it to the minimum for air crew to acquire and maintain the required skills. We also aim to complete training as early as possible, and before 11 pm whenever possible. Low flying by fast jets is rarely permitted after that time. The longer hours of darkness in the winter months allow sorties to be flown earlier in the evening, as was the case with the sortie that involved the flying in the vicinity of Barnoldswick and Earby on 30 January, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  1164
  We recognise that the general public have a right to be assured that low flying is conducted safely and responsibly. I emphasise that our pilots are subject to stringent flying regulations. Their performance is closely monitored, to ensure that the standards of airmanship, so vital to our operational capabilities, are kept to the highest level. They are brave, skilled and dedicated people—some of the best fast jet pilots in the world.
  We take seriously all complaints about low flying, and those that suggest a breach of regulations are investigated by the Royal Air Force police. The RAF police also carry out regular covert monitoring operations, sometimes assisted by a Skyguard radar system, which measures accurately the altitude and speed of an aircraft.
  I am pleased to be able to assure the hon. Gentleman that those checks have consistently shown that, rightly, there is a healthy respect for the regulations. That is not to say that breaches never occur, but such cases are very much the exception; flouting of the rules is not tolerated, and action is taken when breaches are substantiated.
  I emphasise that flight safety is at the heart of our flying regulations and operating procedures. All military aircraft accidents are investigated thoroughly, and any lessons learned are put into effect as a matter of priority. We ensure that our findings are publicised widely, not only among military allies but throughout the aviation world, and summaries of all those boards of inquiries are placed in the Library of the House.
  Although there has been a downward trend in the overall RAF accident rate recently, we are certainly not complacent. A range of safety measures is being progressively introduced to improve deconfliction and conspicuity in the lower air space. In addition, my Department has regular discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority and other civil agencies about a wide range of safety issues. Of course, no flying activity is entirely risk-free, but the risks need to be kept in perspective.
  As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, taking his line from the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who is perhaps the last master of the understatement in the House of Commons, the flying safety record of the Tornado compares extremely favourably with all other fast jet types. The number of losses since the Tornado entered service in 1981 is well within the expected attrition rate.
  I shall now discuss the incident on 30 January 1995. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, investigations by the Royal Air Force police continue. Those have so far established details of the sortie and of its planned route through the Barnoldswick and Earby district. It has not, however, yet been possible to determine the precise route followed by the aircraft, and especially whether any of them overflew the centre of Barnoldswick, which, as I said, is listed for avoidance. It is therefore necessary to speak to witnesses of the incident.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finally providing—after three attempts on our part to obtain those from him—the names and addresses of those of his constituents who are willing to be interviewed by the RAF police, a matter in which he has proved to be dilatory. Those interviews will now be conducted as soon as possible, and we expect the investigation to be completed shortly afterwards.

  1165
  Having read the coverage in the local newspaper, I have read the gross exaggerations that the hon. Gentleman used in describing the flight, and the stricture that has been administered to him in a leading article in the same newspaper.
  Mr. Prentice: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Soames: No; I will not.
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will then write to the hon. Gentleman setting out the conclusions that have been drawn.
  The sortie concerned was a routine training sortie by eight Tornado GR1 aircraft of No. 9 squadron, based at RAF Bruggen. It was intended to simulate a typical attack mission involving the penetration of a highly hostile air space at low level, under cover of darkness—not a mission that would be lightly flown.
  After carrying out a simulated low-level attack on a target in the lake district, the aircraft were transiting at low level to carry out a further attack on the range at RAF Wainfleet when they flew through the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The aircraft were authorised to fly down to 500 ft minimum separation distance; that is to say, they were required to maintain a distance of at least 500 ft from all objects, including the ground. They were making use of terrain-following radar, which maintains a fixed separation from the ground and allows the aircraft to be flown safely at low level at night.
  The planned route of the aircraft involved a turn from a south-easterly to a southerly heading slightly to the east of Barnoldswick; the aircraft should therefore have passed between Barnoldswick and Earby. As I have said, it has not yet been determined whether any of the aircraft deviated from that route. Because the sortie was being flown at night it was arranged in accordance with the rules of the United Kingdom night low-flying system. Those are specifically designed to minimise the risk of mid-air collisions between aircraft.
  1166
  The country is divided into a number of night-flying sectors, with only one squadron or unit allowed access to any sector at any one time. That squadron is then responsible for ensuring safe separation between its own aircraft. That is often achieved by all the aircraft involved flying the same route, with time gaps between them, which is what was done on this occasion.
  The eight aircraft involved were split into two groups of four. A 40-second gap was maintained between the aircraft in each group, and a three-minute gap between the two groups. I appreciate that flying in stream in that way, which would not generally be done in daylight, increases the disturbance experienced by those who live close to the route, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand the overriding safety considerations which make that necessary. Air crew do, of course, seek to vary as far as possible the routes chosen from day to day.
  I hope that what I have said has shown that, in planning and carrying out this essential training, due regard is given to safety and to minimising disturbance to the general public. Unfortunately, it is not possible to avoid disturbance completely, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman's constituents who were affected by our training on 30 January, although I think that the hon. Gentleman exaggerates the concern.
  I believe that we have the best air force in the world. Its deservedly high reputation owes much to the disciplined and thorough training and professionalism of its air crews. I note with pride that, already this year, every type of front-line aircraft in the Royal Air Force has been deployed or is deployed on operations around the world. Their ability to contribute so effectively to our security owes a great deal to the training which our air crews carry out at home. We are most grateful to the millions of people who have supported us in that training for more than 75 years.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Three o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament, and if he will list those with a statutory base. [21595]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Northern Ireland Court Service sponsor the following advisory non-departmental public bodies:

  Insolvency Rule Committee

  County Court Rule Committee

  Supreme Court Rule Committee

  Land Registration Rule Committee

  Family Proceedings Rule Committee

  Crown Court Rule Committee

  Advisory Council on Public Records

  Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct Council on Tribunals

  Law Commission

  Northern Ireland Court Service:

  Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI)

  Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax (NI)

  Advisory Committees on JPs in Northern Ireland

  Advisory Committees on Juvenile Court Lay Panel

  Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax

  Advisory Committees on JPs in England (excluding the Duchy of Lancaster) and Wales

  Judicial Studies Board

  All but the last six have a statutory basis.

  None is under a statutory requirement to publish its advice to Government.

  The Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct, the Law Commission and the Council on Tribunals are all required by statute to make annual reports to the Lord Chancellor. While there is no statutory requirement on the Advisory Council on Public Records to submit an annual report, there is a requirement that any report by it to the Lord Chancellor should be included in the Public Record Office's own annual report, for which there is a statutory requirement. All these annual reports are laid before Parliament by the Lord Chancellor.

  The Legal Aid Advisory Committee (Northern Ireland) is required to consider the Law Society's annual report on legal aid in Northern Ireland and the Lord Chancellor is required to lay before Parliament a copy of any comments or recommendations made by the committee.

ENVIRONMENT

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the number of public inquiries which were held in each year since 1985; [20998]

  (2) what was the average length of time it takes to obtain dates for public inquiries into planning refusals; [20999]

  (3) if he will list by local authority the number of (a) planning application refusals, (b) appeals, (c) public inquiries, (d) the estimated time to obtain a date and (e) the estimated costs for (i) 1992, (ii) 1993 and (iii) 1994. [21000]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have delegated responsibility for the provision of information on planning appeals to the Planning Inspectorate agency. I have therefore asked Mr. Chris Shepley, the agency's chief executive, to reply.

  Letter from Chris Shepley to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 25 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to provide replies to your Parliamentary Questions about:

  the number of public inquiries held each year since 1985 (PQ/20998)

  the average length of time it takes to obtain dates for public inquiries into planning refusals (PQ 20999);

  for each local authority, the number of (a) planning application refusals, (b) appeals, (c) public inquiries, (d) the estimated time to obtain a date and (e) the estimated costs for (i) 1992, (ii) 1993 and (iii) 1994 (PQ 21000).

  As these are all matters that have been delegated to the Executive Agency.

  20998
  The number of appeals against a refusal of planning permission determined following a public inquiry in each financial year since 1985/86 is shown in the table below. The information is taken from the Chief Planning Inspector's Annual Report.

  Year

  Appeals determined

  1985–86

  1,663

  1986–87

  2,098

  1987–88

  1,960

  1988–89

  2,204

  1989–90

  2,347

  1990–91

  1,960

  1991–92

  1,808

  1992–93

  1,505

  1993–94

  1,176

  1994–95

  1,108

  (20999)
  Our most recent check showed that over 95% of inquiry dates for planning appeals were finalised within the one month negotiation period recommended by the inquiries procedure rules.

  (21000)
  The information you seek in respect of each planning authority on (a) Planning Application Refusals, (b) appeals and (c) inquiries is not immediately available and will take a few days to compile and check. I will write to you again when the work is complete.
  I cannot, however, provide the information you seek in parts (d) or (e) of your question. The Agency does not keep records at a level of detail that would enable us to estimate for each planning authority either the time taken to obtain inquiry dates or the costs of inquiries.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the role of a parish council in the(a) preparation and (b) implementation of a village design statement. [20737]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Parish councils may have an enabling or co-ordinating role during the preparation of village design statements. They may also make representations on development plans and development control matters.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take if design constraints in a rural community inhibit(a) local affordable housing, (b) job creation and (c) creative use of areas of local land; and if he will make a statement. [20735]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Design issues—such as considering a building's context, its relationship to its setting, and its relationship to its proposed function—may be material consideration in determining a planning application or appeal. They will need to be assessed with other planning considerations in taking decisions.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to protect free-standing buildings in(a) villages, (b) whole parishes and (c) hamlets and less defined settlements; and if he will make a statement. [20736]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  National policy on the re-use of rural buildings is set out in planning policy guidance note 7, "The Countryside and the Rural Economy." There should generally be no reason for preventing the re-use of rural buildings, provided their form, bulk and general design are in keeping with their surroundings.

  DOE circular 26/92 advises on planning controls over demolition.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is given to local authorities in determining the relative priority which is accorded to(a) a village design statement and (b) other building development; and what guidelines apply in respect of the use of concrete blocks as building materials in villages. [20738]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Village design statements are being promoted by the Countryside Commission. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State supports this initiative, which enables local people to express views on how future development can make a positive contribution to a specific area. The Countryside Commission plans to publish advice on the preparation of village design statements later this year.

  Village design statements may be a material consideration in determining a planning application or appeal, and it is for local planning authorities to consider whether to adopt them as supplementary guidance to the development plan.

  The development plan system provides the framework for planning for new development and for delivering a quality built environment. Planning policy guidance note 1 advises planning authorities to reject obviously poor designs which are out of scale or character with their surroundings.

  Premises in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect 712
  of the image presented by former seaside guest houses and hotels now operated as unlicensed houses in multiple occupation in seaside towns on the prospects for trade in those towns. [20784]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Representations received by the Department of National Heritage from tourism operators and trade organisations strongly suggest that the growth in numbers of houses in multiple occupation in traditional tourism areas, particularly in some seaside resorts, is having an unfavourable effect on the tourist trade. My Department conducted a consultation exercise between November 1994 and February 1995 on the principle of a licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation and received similar representations. The Government hope to announce shortly the conclusions of this review.

  City Challenge, North Tyneside
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is given by his Department to North Tyneside city challenge project relating to the placing of contracts for security work; what contracts have been issued by North Tyneside city council for security work; if he will name the city challenge board members and officials who are responsible for such contracts; and how they are appointed. [21224]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department of the Environment has not given any specific guidance to North Tyneside city challenge, or any other city challenge partnership, about the placing of contracts for security work. North Tyneside city challenge has not let any such contract. The North Tyneside city challenge partnership undertakes no direct tendering or contracting relating to city challenge projects; this is the responsibility of project sponsors, who are required to achieve value for money. Where projects are assisted by city challenge funding, it is the responsibility of the contractor to assess the degree of risk and make the appropriate contractual arrangements for security.

  Agency Job Losses
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number and location of Building Research Establishment, Ordnance Survey, Planning Inspectorate, Security Facilities Executive and Buying Agency offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and what is the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland as the result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period. [21547]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on 25 April,Official Report, column 471.

  Household Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average weekly household expenditure on housing for(a) those in rented accommodation and (b) owner-occupiers in the United Kingdom; what were the corresponding figures in (i) 1987 and (ii) 1992; and if he will make a statement. [20899]

  Mr. Curry
  Estimates of average weekly household expenditure on housing for those in rented
  713
  accommodation and for owner-occupiers in the United Kingdom are as follows:

  Gross and net average weekly housing costs

  £ per week

  Gross Renters

  Net Owner occupiers

  Renters

  Owner occupiers

  1987

  26.80

  n/a

  17.20

  35.80

  1992

  45.40

  n/a

  28.00

  57.40

  1993

  49.70

  n/a

  29.40

  52.50

  Housing costs include rates, community charge or council tax as appropriate. The estimates of net costs allow for housing benefit, rent rebates and allowances, and rates/community charge/council tax rebates.

  Figures for gross average weekly housing costs for owner occupiers are not readily available.

  These figures are drawn from the family expenditure survey and are subject to sampling error.

  Pigeons
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional financial support he will provide to local authorities which have severe problems with pigeons, with special reference to Bradford. [21551]

  Mr. Curry
  Support for local authorities' revenue expenditure, provided through revenue support grant, is made in respect of all local authority powers and duties. Individual authorities make expenditure decisions on the basis of local needs and priorities. We have received no representations about problems with pigeons.

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to take to control the pigeon population. [21554]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issue annual general licences permitting authorised persons to kill or take 13 species of pest bird, including feral pigeons for specified reasons. Under part VI of the Public Health Act 1961, local authorities have a specific power to abate or mitigate any nuisance, annoyance or damage caused by the congregation of pigeons in any built-up area.

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many accidents due to pigeon droppings were reported in(a) Bradford and (b) West Yorkshire in the last year for which information is available. [21556]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department does not collect this information.

EDUCATION

  Philosophy Courses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State of Education how many people graduated from English higher education institutions with honours either in philosophy or in a joint honours or composite degree involving philosophy in 1994; what proportion of the total number graduating from English higher education this represents; and if she will make a statement. [20903]
  714
  Mr. Boswell
  Some 500 students graduated from first degree courses wholly or mainly in philosophy from English higher education institutions in academic year 1992–93, which represents one third of 1 per cent. of all graduates from these institutions. It is not possible to give data from courses where philosophy is combined with other subjects. Statistics on the numbers graduating where philosophy has been a minor element of the course are not readily available.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many higher education institutions in England currently offer single honours or joint honours degrees in philosophy; what percentage of the total number of higher education institutions in England this represents; and if she will make a statement. [20911]

  Mr. Boswell
  From the 110 higher education institutions in England which are members of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, 45 offered philosophy as an element of a first degree course in the UCAS "Handbook for 1995 Entry". This represents 41 per cent. of all English higher education institutions offering courses through UCAS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 24 April, column 339, if he will now reply forthwith to the letter sent to him on 25 April by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton.

  Mr. Newton
  I will write to the right hon. Member shortly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Children (Benefit)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportions of all children are in households claiming(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) housing benefit; and what proportion of (i) single parents and (ii) unemployed drawing income support or housing benefit have mortgages. [20391]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the tables. Figures are not available for housing benefit recipients with mortgages. Housing benefit is not payable for mortgage interest. Although there are a small number of cases where both housing benefit and mortgage interest are in payment, it is not possible to identify these cases separately.

  Children in households receiving benefit1

  Benefit

  Number (000)

  As a percentage of all children in Great Britain

  Income Support

  2,980

  25.8

  Family Credit

  1,086

  9.4

  Housing Benefit

  2,238

  19.4

  715
  1 Children can be in households receiving more than one benefit so figures cannot be totalled. For example, in May 1993 2,053 thousand children were in households in receipt of Housing Benefit, Income Support and/or Family Credit.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and to one decimal place.

  2. Children have been defined as dependents under the age of 16.

  Source:

  Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys Mid 1993 estimates.

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry Mid 1994.

  Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry July 1994.

  Housing Benefit Management Information Statistics annual 1 per cent. sample May 1993.

  Income Support claimants with mortgage interest included in the assessment

  Client Group

  Number (000)

  As a percentage of all claimants with mortgage interest included in the assessment

  Single parents

  120

  22.7

  Unemployed

  195

  36.9

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and to one decimal place.

  2. Children have been defined as dependents under the age of 16.

  Source:

  Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys Mid 1993 estimates.

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry Mid 1994.

  Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry July 1994.

  Housing Benefit Management Information Statistics annual 1 per cent. sample May 1993.

  State Pensions
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what challenges in court have been made to his policy on the date for commencement of payment of retirement pensions; and what discussions there have been of this policy at international bodies of which the Government are a member. [20816]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to pay retirement pensions so as to include the amount which is currently not paid for the intervening days from a person's date of retirement or relevant birthday to the Monday following. [20817]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None.

  Vaccine Damage
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what records are kept by the vaccine damage payment unit of claims for compensation; and whether such records are available for all claims made since 1979. [21323]

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of the vaccine damage payment scheme is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the acting chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Richard Burden, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the records kept of claims to the Vaccine Damage Scheme.
  716
  Information is available from the inception of the scheme about the total number of claims received and awards made. Statistics are also available from 1981 in respect of the reasons for disallowance within certain categories.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the number of current invalidity benefit recipients in Wales who will not qualify for incapacity benefit; and if he will make a statement; [20905]

  (2) what is his estimate of the fiscal impact of implementing the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994 on social security expenditure incurred in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [20906]

  Mr. Hague
  There are insufficient data on which to base a reliable breakdown of the national estimates provided for the effect of the new medical test, or to assess, on a regional basis, the public expenditure consequences of the Incapacity For Work Act 1994.

  Welfare Provision
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what studies he has instigated to determine the effect of the single market on welfare provision in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [20907]

  Mr. Hague
  No such studies have been instigated by the Department.

EMPLOYMENT

  Fair Play for Women
  Ms Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, if he will make a statement on the fair play for women initiative. [21284]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Fair play for women is a joint initiative between the Department and the Equal Opportunities Commission launched in April 1994. Ten independent consortia have been set up all over England to plan how woman can realise their full capabilities and to take suitable action within their regions. The Government and the EOC are encouraged by the wide range of organisations and individuals supporting fair play, and will be monitoring consortia activity.

  Workstart
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which Ministers have visited workstart schemes; which schemes were visited; and when they were each visited. [21127]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Workstart pays a subsidy to employers who recruit very long-term unemployed people. On 5 November 1993, the then Secretary of State for Employment visited Bishop's Move Distribution Service of Broadstairs, Kent, an employer who received a Workstart subsidy under the original pilots, which ended December 1994. Further pilots commenced this month.

  Grays Benefit Office
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 57, under which sections of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 Stapro insecticide was used at Grays benefit office on 5 October 1991. [21141]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 28 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about under which sections of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, Stapro Insecticide was used at Grays Unemployment Benefit Office on 5 October 1991.
  You will wish to note that, according to our records, spraying actually took place on 8 October 1991.
  My colleagues at the Health and Safety Executive advise me that Regulations 4(5) of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 allows use of a pesticide that has been approved by Ministers under regulation 5, provided that

  (a) the conditions of approval are complied with, and

  (b) the requirements of the consent of use (Schedule 3 as amended) are followed.

  The Regulations do not tie the use of pesticides to specific premises, but the conditions of approval specify, for example, who can use the product, the application method and the necessary precautions.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many hours of study people in receipt of severe disablement allowance will be able to undertake without jeopardising their benefit entitlement when the jobseeker's allowance is introduced; and if he will make a statement. [19753]

  Mr Hague
  I have been asked to reply.

  On its introduction in April 1996, jobseeker's allowance will allow unemployed people to undertake part-time further education courses of up to 16 "guided learning hours" a week. Severe disablement allowance is paid to people who are incapable of work through sickness and therefore cannot be claimed at the same time as JSA. SDA rules on hours of attendance on educational courses apply only to those recipients aged between 16 and 19 and the current limit on part time education is 21 hours a week. We are considering whether we need to change these rules.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about nurses' pay. [22336]

  The Prime Minister
  The report for 1995–96 of the Independent Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine was published on 9 February 1995. The review body recommended a 1 per cent. national increase in pay, with additional increases to be negotiated locally. The 718
  Government accepted the review body's recommendations in full.

  I am advised that offers have been made by 175 NHS trusts. Since the vast majority meet the nurses demand for a rise of 3 per cent., I assume that the offers are acceptable to them. It was that to which I was referring in the House yesterday.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if NHS trusts are permitted to appoint honorary non-executive directors in addition to the five paid non-executive directors. [20684]

  Mr. Malone
  There is no provision in either the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 or in the National Health Service Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990 for the appointment of honorary non-executive directors for NHS trusts.

  Psychiatric Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric beds were available in each health authority in 1979; and how many are currently available. [20686]

  Mr. Bowis
  Figures for 1979 are published in "SH3 National and Regional Summaries (DHSS Hospital Statistics) 1979" and for 1993–94, the latest year available, in "Bed availability for England, financial year 1993–94". Copies are available in the Library. Because of changes in the classifications of beds and health authority boundaries over the period, figures are not strictly comparable.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of each £1 spent on the psychiatric services is spent on(a) hospital beds and (b) community health services; and if she will make a statement. [20825]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current plans her Department has to fund Mindline; and if she will enter into discussions with MIND to do
  so. [20687]

  Mr. Bowis
  No such application for funding has been received.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health beds per 1,000 population were available in London, Newcastle, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool in each year since 1991. [21914]

  Mr. Bowis
  Hospitals in the cities listed do not provide services exclusively for the populations of those cities. The information is not, therefore, available in the form requested.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital Site
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 19, on the future use of the site of St. Bartholomew's hospital, if future health-related services could include a privately funded casualty, emergency or

  719
  acute hospital which could incorporate some of the existing facilities. [21063]

  Mr. Malone
  A project team, led by Sir Ronald Grierson, will look at the practical options for future use of the St. Bartholomew's hospital site, taking into account its historic health care connections. The team will work with the Royal Hospitals trust and other interested parties.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to reply to the letter of 17 March sent to her by Roger and Michelle Gould regarding the medical condition and treatment of their son, Jo. [21676]

  Mr. Bowis
  No such letter has been received in the Department. If the hon. Lady will arrange for a copy to be sent to me I will ensure that it receives urgent attention.

  Market Testing
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of staff employed and the establishment and running costs of the NHS Executive(a) information desk and (b) database relating to NHS market testing guidance. [21756]

  Mr. Malone
  The market testing information desk and data base is staffed and run by one half whole-time equivalent national health service executive executive officer at an approximate cost of £12,500 per year.

  Emergency Vehicles
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency vehicles run by(a) the London ambulance service, (b) the Northumbria ambulance service, (c) the West Midlands ambulance service and (d) the Greater Manchester ambulance service are more than three years old; and what proportion of the fleet this represents in each case. [21926]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Pensions Agency Targets
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the key targets for 1995–96 for the NHS Pensions Agency. [22133]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have agreed the agency's key targets for 1995–96. These are:

  Clearance

  To clear 95 per cent. of the projected 28,200 pension awards within four weeks of the application being accepted by the Agency and 99 per cent. within eight weeks.

  To send a substantive reply to all correspondence within four weeks of receipt.

  Efficiency

  To achieve a 7 per cent. increase in efficiency over three years, based upon the agency's cost-weighted activity index.

  Financial

  To deliver the business programme within the agreed allocations.

  Improvement

  To reorganise the agency into multi-functional client-centred teams by 30 November 1995.

  To implement a new pensions processing system by 31 March 1996.

  960 CW95-PAG1/6

  Medicines Control Agency Targets
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the key business targets for the Medicines Control Agency for 1995–96. [22134]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the Medicines Control Agency's business plan for 1995–96.

  Selected List Scheme
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations her Department has had with the Department of Trade and Industry over the implications to United Kingdom investment of the selected list scheme. [20629]

  Mr. Malone
  There are regular discussions between Government Departments, including the Department of Trade and Industry, and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry about matters of mutual concern.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in the level of industry investment into the seven therapeutic areas listed on the 1984 selected list scheme since the announcement of the categories. [20630]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what medical basis there is for retaining the category of contraception within the remit of the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs. [20638]

  Mr. Malone
  The basis for asking the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs to continue to review the therapeutic categories covered by the selected list scheme remains that there should be drugs to meet all real clinical need on NHS prescription as economically as possible.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, on what basis, and by whom, the category of contraception was chosen as one of the selected list of scheme categories. [20639]

  Mr. Malone
  Ministers decided which categories of drugs should be covered by the selected list scheme on the basis that they included a range of products at varying price levels which offered scope for savings while enabling all real clinical need to be met.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the hormonal contraceptives to be blacklisted under the current selected list scheme. [20640]

  Mr. Malone
  There are no plans to remove any hormonal contraceptive products from general practitioner prescription under the selected list scheme.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans her Department has to remove the category of contraception from the selected list scheme. [20641]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to extend the number of categories under the remit of the selected list scheme. [20642]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what basis the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs makes the decision that an oral contraceptive(a) offers a therapeutic benefit and (b) meets a clinical need; [20643]

  (2) how the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs makes the decision that the range of oral contraceptives available

  721
  on the NHS is sufficient to take into account the individual needs of women. [20644]

  Mr. Malone
  The Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs is composed of a number of independent medical and pharmaceutical experts. It makes its recommendations on the basis of the clinical and scientific knowledge and experience of these members and after examining the relevant published information and any evidence submitted by the manufacturers of the drugs under review.

  Birth Control
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what her Department's plans are for research into contraception and contraceptive methods. [20631]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. Research in this field is a matter for the Medical Research Council, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives, other than educational, her Department has undertaken within the last 12 months in order to meet "The Health of the Nation" target for teenage conceptions. [20632]

  Mr. Bowis
  Priorities set by the national health service chief executive for 1994–95 required authorities to ensure the provision, within available resources, of the full range of NHS family planning services which are appropriate, accessible and comprehensive and that emergency contraception and services for teenagers, including counselling, are publicised and readily available. This requirement was reaffirmed in the priorities set for 1995–96.

  Over £136 million per year has been spent on NHS family planning services in England. In addition, in 1994–95, more than £340,000 was allocated to key voluntary bodies working towards "The Health of the Nation target on teenage conceptions".

  In March 1995 the Department sponsored a Family Planning Association radio and magazine advertising campaign in London and Manchester to launch the Sexwise phoneline—a free, confidential service offering teenagers the opportunity to receive advice from a trained counsellor. There have been more than 45,000 calls to the line during its first six weeks of operation.

  The Family Planning Association and the Health Education Authority, in collaboration with Brook Advisory Centres and the Birth Control Trust, have also recently launched a national radio and magazine advertising campaign to raise awareness of emergency contraception. This campaign is supported by a telephone helpline.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women in the United Kingdom use hormonal contraception. [20633]

  Mr. Bowis
  According to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys 1993 general household survey, 25 per cent. of women in Great Britain aged 16 to 49 use oral contraceptives.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to the NHS of one year's course of hormonal contraception. [20634]

  Mr. Bowis
  Assuming that recommended doses were followed in all cases, the average net ingredient cost of one year's supply of hormonal contraceptives, including 722
  implants and injections, dispensed in the family health services authorities in England in 1994 was £18.39 per woman.

  This figure excludes dispensing costs or fees. Preparations for short-term and emergency hormonal contraception have also been excluded from the calculation.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures her Department has as to the cost to the NHS of(a) terminations and (b) maternities and births, resulting from (i) all pregnancies and (ii) unplanned pregnancies. [20635]

  Mr. Bowis
  The costs to the national health service of terminations and of maternities and births resulting from planned or unplanned pregnancies are not separately identifiable.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data her Department has on the increased likelihood of pregnancy when a woman changes the type of contraceptive pill she uses for family planning. [20636]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. The "Handbook on Contraceptive Practice", published by the Health Departments in England, Scotland and Wales and issued to doctors and nurses working in the family planning field, provides advice on avoiding the risk of pregnancy when patients need to change their pill formulation.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates her Department makes as to what proportion of pregnancies are(a) unplanned and (b) unwanted. [20637]

  Mr. Bowis
  The chief medical officer's report for 1990 estimated that almost half of all conceptions to women in England were in some sense unwanted or unintended.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether hormonal contraceptives are distinguished by her Department from other pharmaceutical products in any way. [20645]

  Mr. Malone
  Hormonal contraceptives are treated in the same way as other pharmaceutical products under the Medicines Act and the relevant European legislation. Unlike other products, people receiving hormonal contraceptives on NHS prescription do not pay a prescription charge in any circumstances.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many calls seeking post-coital contraception have to date been received by the helpline funded by the Health Education Authority and the Family Planning Association; and what specific advice is given to callers; [21733]

  (2) what public funds have been used by the Health Education Authority and the Family Planning Association to finance their national advertising campaign and telephone advice service promoting the uptake of the morning-after pill; what was the total cost of those campaigns; and by whom were they approved. [21732]

  Mr. Malone
  The campaign budget for 1994–95 was £300,000. It is funded by the Health Education Authority through the Family Planning Association. All expenditure
  723
  has been approved in the normal way. The helpline has received 30,000 calls to date relating to all aspects of use of emergency contraception.

  Smoking
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage of people over 16 years old who smoke; what are the corresponding estimates for(a) 1965, (b) 1970 and (c) 1980; and if she will make a statement. [20908]

  Mr. Bowis
  The available data are shown in the table. Differences in the questions in the two surveys means that the data from the two sources are not directly comparable.

  Percentage of adults aged 16 and over who smoke cigarettes

  Great Britain

  percentage

  Year

  Men

  Women

  19651

  54

  42

  19711,2

  51

  42

  19803

  43

  37

  19923,4

  29

  28

  Notes:

  1.Source: Tobacco Advisory Council. Percentage of those smoking manufactured cigarettes, excludes those smoking hand-rolled cigarettes only.

  2.No survey data are available for 1970

  3.Source: OPCS General Household Survey.

  4.The 1992 survey figures are the latest available.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many were treated for lung cancer in the NHS in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994; what percentage of these were smokers; and if she will make a statement; [20909]

  (2) what was the cost of treating people suffering from lung cancer on the NHS in (a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and if she will make a statement. [20910]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of episodes of hospital care in the national health service in England with a main diagnosis of lung cancer is shown in the table:

  Finished consultant episodes, ordinary admissions and day cases Malignant neoplasm—bronchus or lung (Diagnostic Codes ICD9 162.2–162.9)

  Number

  1992–93

  57,261

  1993–94 (provisional)

  56,317

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, 25 per cent. sample.

  Information on the smoking habits of patients is not available centrally, but it is estimated that four out of five cases of lung cancer are attributable to smoking. Information on the costs of treating patients with a diagnosis of lung cancer on the NHS is not available centrally.

  BST in Milk (Cancer Risk)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations she has conducted into evidence from research at Musgrove Park hospital, Taunton, that consumption of milk from cows treated with bovine 724
  somatotropin may increase the risk of tumours developing in humans. [21073]

  Mr. Bowis
  This research shows that increased cell division can occur in isolated intestinal tissue directly treated with the growth factor IGF-1. This result is not unexpected. Treatment of cows with BST can cause slight rises in the concentrations of BST and IGF-1 in milk, but the rises are very small compared with the natural variations in levels. There is no convincing evidence to suggest that IGF-1 can cause cancer. The ability of IGF-1 to cause cell division was one of the considerations taken into account by United Kingdom and European Union expert committees in their thorough assessment of the safety of milk from BST-treated cows. They concluded that the levels of IGF-1 and of BST in such milk will have no adverse effect on the health of consumers.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what is her policy with regard to the use of electronic tagging for hospital patients. [21425]

  Mr. Malone
  Selection of electronic tagging or other security equipment for national health service units is a matter for local managers to determine in the light of local needs, priorities and resources. Tagging is used to increase the safety of patients, but is in itself unlikely to offer a complete solution to security or safety needs. It should be used as part of a wider local strategy which places an emphasis on staff and patient awareness.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has issued regarding the electronic tagging of hospital patients. [21426]

  Mr. Malone
  No specific guidance has yet been issued on the use of electronic tagging. Guidance will be contained in a supplement to the national health service security manual and a report on a recent survey of security in maternity units, both of which will be published in July.

  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will identify which(a) NHS hospitals, (b) private or voluntary hospitals or (c) care or nursing homes currently use electronic tagging; and if she will specify the category of patient involved. [21427]

  Mr. Malone
  Decisions on security measures in individual units are the responsibility of local management in consultation, where necessary and appropriate, with clinicians, patients and their relatives.

  Parental Responsibility Agreements
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for making available joint parental responsibility agreements in registry offices for parents when registering the birth of their child. [21600]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government are considering whether a supply of forms for the making of parental responsibility agreements can and should be made available in registry offices.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the Crown post offices
  725
  converted to agency status in England and Wales, giving the parliamentary constituency in which they lie. [19484]

  Mr. Heseltine
  A list, obtained from the Post Office, showing the Crown post offices in England and Wales which have been converted to agency status, together with the parliamentary constituencies within which they are located, is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the agency post offices which were once Crown post offices, listing for each(a) how many staff were employed in them prior to agency status, and how many now, (b) the level of training before and after agency status, (c) what changes have occurred in respect of the business in which the Post Office is sited and (d) the occasions on which the Post Office has at any time had to move to other premises and the factors leading to the move. [20892]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 27 April 1995]: A list of Crown post offices which have been converted to agency status in England and Wales will be placed in the Library of the House in answer to a question from the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) today. As more than 700 Crown post offices have been converted to agency status, the specific information requested about each individual office could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the terms of reference of the efficiency audit of the Post Office. [21183]

  Mr. Heseltine
  A copy of the terms of reference of the Post Office performance review has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the tendering and cost of the efficiency audit of the Post Office. [21182]

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department has recently invited tenders for the Post Office Performance Review from five shortlisted consultants. I expect to make an appointment in May.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department was first informed of allegations that Singapore was a conduit for arms exported by the company BMARC to Iran; [19078]

  (2) if he will list those contracts involving the firm BMARC, which were notified to his Department as being potentially in breach of Her Majesty's Government's arms export controls; and on what dates this information was received in each case; [19079]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the number of occasions on which breaches of the rules applying to notification took place in respect of BMARC between 1988 and 1991. [19165]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information required to answer these questions is not held centrally. I will write to the hon. Member in due course and will place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  War Crimes
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Attorney-General how many second world war war crimes are still under investigation; for how long each of the cases has been under investigation; and when a decision on each case as to possible prosecution is due to be taken.

  The Attorney-General
  There are 20 second world war war crimes currently under investigation by the Metropolitan police. Fourteen of these allegations were received from the Home Office on 28 May 1991 on the formation of the Metropolitan police war crimes unit. One allegation was received on 3 June 1992. Three allegations were received on 11 March 1993, 9 August 1993 and 8 December 1993. Two allegations were received on 21 January 1994 and 25 March 1994. Decisions as to possible prosecution will be taken once all relevant evidence has been fully considered and analysed. I refer my hon. Friend to the answers that I gave in the House to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on 24 April 1995 Official Report, columns 517–18, concerning those allegations in the seven cases which have been the subject of initial advice from senior Treasury counsel.

WALES

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the quantitative impact on inward investment into Wales of an increase of(a) 1p, (b) 2p and (c) 5p on corporation tax; and if he will make a statement. [20897]

  Mr. Redwood
  The fact that corporation tax in the United Kingdom, along with levels of income tax, is among the lowest in European Union is undoubtedly an important factor in the attraction of inward investment but there are many other factors which need to be taken into account. These include the skill and flexibility of the work force; the competitive overheads that we have to offer; the excellent communications in this country; and the warm welcome offered by central and local government.

  Household Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average weekly household expenditure on housing for(a) those in rented accommodation and (b) owner-occupiers in (i) Wales and (ii) for each Welsh council district area; what were the corresponding figures in (1) 1987 and (2) 1992; and if he will make a statement. [20898]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Estimates of average weekly household expenditure on housing in Wales are as follows:
  727

  £ per week

  Gross housing costs

  Net housing costs

  Tenants

  Owner occupiers

  Tenants

  Owner occupiers

  1987

  27

  n/a

  15

  27

  1992

  41

  n/a

  23

  51

  1993

  45

  n/a

  28

  44

  Notes:

  n/a = not available.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey.Welsh figures are taken from the Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to sampling error.Figures for gross average weekly housing costs for owner occupiers are not readily available.Data are not available for district council areas because of small sample sizes.

  Philosophy Courses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people graduated from Welsh higher education institutions with honours either in philosophy or in a joint honours or composite degree involving philosophy in 1994; what proportion of the total number graduating from Welsh higher eduction this represents; and if he will make a statement. [20902]

  Mr. Richards
  The most recent data available, from Welsh office returns and the university of Wales registry, are for 1992–93. These data can identify only courses whose only, or main, component was philosophy. Courses in which philosophy was a minority component cannot be identified. On this basis, there were 100 first degree graduates in philosophy from Welsh higher education institutions. A total of 9,360 students graduated with first degrees in 1992–93. The proportion with philosophy degrees was therefore 1.1 per cent.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many higher education institutions in Wales currently offer single honours or joint honours degrees in philosophy; what proportion of the total number of higher education institutions in Wales this represents; and if he will make a statement. [20913]

  Mr. Richards
  The most recent data on courses offered by higher education establishments come from the University and College Admissions Service handbook for the academic year 1994–95. This shows that of the 15 higher education institutions in Wales, four offer first degree courses which have "philosophy" in the course title. This is just under 27 per cent. of the number of institutions.

  Badgers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many licences have been granted for interference with badger setts for the purpose of hunting in each year since 1991. [21112]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. There are no specific provisions under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 for the granting of licences to interfere with badger setts for hunting purposes.

  Local Government Electoral Arrangements
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who he is consulting on his direction to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales; on what basis; what deadline he has placed on the consultations;728
  and if he will place a copy of the consultation document in the Library. [21415]

  Mr. Redwood
  For the guidance of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales in undertaking the electoral arrangements reviews, I propose to issue directions under section 59(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of the directions in draft form have been sent for comments to the Commission and to the Assembly of Welsh Councils and the Council of Welsh Districts. Comments have been requested by 5 May.

  Section 59(2) of the 1972 Act requires me to consult associations which appear to be representative of local authorities. Since the directions will be issued to the Local Government Boundary Commission, I consider it appropriate to seek beforehand the benefit of their advice and experience in these matters.

  I have made arrangements for a copy of the draft directions to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list those with a statutory base. [21594]

  Mr. Redwood
  The Local Government Boundary Commission is under a statutory requirement to deposit copies of its reports and proposals to the Secretary of State at the offices of any principal council whose area might be affected.

  The Historic Buildings Council for Wales, the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales, and the Local Government Boundary Commission are under a statutory requirement to publish an annual report and lay it before Parliament. A report on the work of the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board must be contained in the annual report on the Industrial Development Act 1982, which must be laid before Parliament.

  The following have a statutory base: the Historic Buildings Council for Wales; the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales; the Local Government Boundary Commission; the Staff Commission for Wales; the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board; the NRA Advisory Committee for Wales; the Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees; the Welsh Dental Committee; the Welsh Medical Committee; the Welsh Optical Committee; the Welsh Pharmaceutical Committee; the Welsh Nursing and Midwifery Committee; and the Library and Information Services Council.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) of 24 April,Official Report, column 369, what interim payments had already been paid (a) to Balfour Beatty with respect to the Cardiff bay barrage construction contract and (b) to contractors carrying out the sewer diversion contract connected with the barrage. [21680]
  729
  Mr. Redwood
  Interim payments of £16.9 million have been paid to Balfour Beatty-Costain for barrage construction and £0.3 million has been paid for sewer diversion works.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on 24 April 1995,Official Report, column

  £ million

  To:

  31 March 1994

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Future

  Totals

  Totals

  22.3

  22.3

  44.4

  48.1

  36.6

  17.3

  191.0

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) of 24 April,Official Report, column 369, if he will list what categories of cost escalation apply to (a) the main contract with Balfour Beatty for the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage and (b) contracts for sewer diversion being funded by the Cardiff Bay development corporation; and if he will make a statement on how these categories have affected the difference between the October 1992 estimate and the present outturn forecast. [21681]

  Mr. Redwood
  This is an operational matter for the corporation and I will ask the chief executive of the corporation to respond.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) of 24 April,Official Report, column 369, if he will specify how much of the £15.4 million for preliminary design work and the presentation of Bills to Parliament was (a) for preliminary design work and (b) for presentation of Bills to Parliament. [21683]

  Mr. Redwood
  Of the £15.4 million preliminary design and barrage Bill costs, £9.30 million was for preliminary design work and £6,066 million was for presentation of Bills to Parliament.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) 24 April,Official Report, column 369, if he will specify what proportion of the construction of the barrage had been completed by 31 March. [21682]

  Mr. Redwood
  By 31 March 1995, the corporation estimate the construction of the barrage to be 8 per cent. complete. This does not represent the actual cost spent on barrage construction to date, which includes enabling works such as piling and dredging as well as construction materials already bought in.

TREASURY

  Interest and Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of increases in(a) interest rates and (b) exchange rates on the standard of living. [21404]

  Mr. Nelson
  Permanently low inflation provides the best environment for achieving sustained growth and higher living standards. Monetary policy is set to keep 730
  369, if he will give the details of the breakdown of the figure of £191 million, by each financial year in which any significant part of that expenditure has or will occur. [21684]

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of possible barrage expenditure to 1997–98 are as follows:

  underlying inflation within the Government's 1 to 4 per cent. target range and to bring it down into the lower half of this range by the end of the present Parliament. Movements in the exchange rate are taken into account, along with a range of indicators, when considering the prospects for underlying inflation.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effects of a half point rise in official interest rates in the United Kingdom upon the trade-weighted value of sterling. [21430]

  Mr. Nelson
  Movements in the trade-weighted value of sterling depend on many factors beside interest rates and it is not possible to estimate the effect of any one factor with any degree of confidence. Interest rates are set to meet the Government's objective of permanently low inflation.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is Her Majesty's Government's assessment of the effect on the rate of inflation of raising interest and the exchange rate when the output of manufacturing industry approaches full capacity. [21301]

  Mr. Nelson
  Interest rates are set to keep underlying inflation within the Government's 1 to 4 per cent. target range and to bring it down into the lower half of this range by the end of the present Parliament.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of increases in(a) interest rates and (b) exchange rates on the standard of living. [21404]

  Mr. Nelson
  Permanently low inflation provides the best environment for achieving sustained growth and higher living standards. Monetary policy is set to keep underlying inflation within the Government's 1 to 4 per cent. target range and to bring it down into the lower half of this range by the end of the present Parliament. Movements in the exchange rate are taken into account, along with a range of indicators, when considering the prospects for underlying inflation.

  Tobacco Duty
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what weight he attaches to the cost of NHS treatment of smoking-related diseases when determining the level of duty on tobacco; and if he will make a statement. [20914]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government recognised the importance of tax in reducing consumption in the continuing Budget commitment to raise tobacco duties, on average, by at least 3 per cent. per annum in real terms.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list those with a statutory base. [21593]

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 7 March 1995,Official Report, column 62.

  Pensions Offences
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many individual offences against section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986 have been recorded by the Securities and Investments Board since April 1988; and what measures have been taken by the Securities and Investments Board or his Department to notify victims that they have a legal right to ask the police to investigate these offences. [20833]

  Mr. Nelson
  Prosecution powers in relation to section 47 have not been transferred to the Securities and Investments Board nor are they exercised by the Treasury. These powers can be exercised by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Serious Fraud Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and the procurators fiscal in Scotland.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, on the various occasions that Treasury Ministers and officials have met pensions industry practitioners and regulators, they discussed(a) section 47 offences and pensions mis-selling and (b) the provision of information to victims that they had the right to ask the police to investigate such offences. [20835]

  Mr. Nelson
  No.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, on the occasion of its pensions initiative in October 1994, the Securities and Investments Board referred to(a) the gravity of the offence of mis-selling pensions, (b) prison terms possibly resulting and (c) the fact that victims have the legal right to involve the police in investigations. [20834]

  Mr. Nelson
  I can add nothing further to my answer to the hon. Member of 30 March 1995,Official Report, column 727.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how far(a) his Department, and (b) the Securities and Investments Board, have day-to-day policy control over offences under section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986; and what information about this control provided to those making representations over the mis-selling of pension and other investment products. [20836]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury is responsible for the general policy expressed in the legislation. On specific contraventions of section 47 and information provided in relation to mis-selling, I refer the hon. Member to my answers of 30 March 1995,Official Report, column 727.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors influenced the decision to impose vehicle excise duty on tower wagons; for what reasons vehicle excise duty was not imposed on mobile cranes 732
  and mobile concrete pumps; and what principle determined the different status of these items. [21126]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A wide-ranging reform of the system of vehicle excise duty exemptions and concessions was announced in the Budget.

  Tower wagons currently pay a concessionary rate of duty of £150. Under the new arrangements, they will pay full vehicle excise duty, in common with nearly all goods vehicles fitted with hydraulic platforms.

  Mobile cranes, including concrete pumps, currently pay duty of £35. Those weighing 3.5 tonnes or more will, under the new arrangements, be registered in the new special vehicles class and will be subject to duty of £150. Vehicles under that weight can register as normal light goods vehicles and pay £135.

  Mobile cranes use the road only between sites and their operations are restricted by their specialised construction which means that they cannot carry any load except necessary equipment. Tower wagons, on the other hand, are adapted goods vehicles which use the road more extensively than mobile cranes and are often parked on the road. Their impact on the roads and the environment is no different to that of normal goods vehicles. There has always been a significant duty differential between the two types of vehicle.

  Bilingual Bank Notes
  Mr. Cynog Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will discuss with the Secretary of State for Wales and the Governor of the Bank of England the issue of bilingual bank notes for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [21048]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 April 1995]: The Bank has no plans to issue bilingual English/Welsh banknotes.

SCOTLAND

  Badgers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many licences have been granted for interference with badger setts for the purpose of hunting in each year since 1991. [21111]

  Sir Hector Monro
  None.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the letter and attached documents JRE 110119 from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) of 21 April 1995 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, (1) what evidence he has that the Libyan position on trial of the accused has been one of constant prevarication, and to whom he refers as intermediaries and well-intentioned individuals; [21409]

  (2) what offers have been made by the Crown Office to Lockerbie to the German authorities of evidence relating to Lockerbie. [21410]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I did not write to the hon. Member on 21 April attaching the documents referred to. The document to which the hon. Member
  733
  appears to be referring was prepared for internal use and I am not therefore prepared to comment further on it.

  Drugs, Renfrewshire
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for the Minister of State, Scottish Office, to visit Paisley to meet the police and others involved in combating the drugs-related problems there; and if he will make a statement. [18994]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend has no such immediate plans. He has recently held constructive meetings with the hon. Member and with two other hon. Members who represent constituencies in Renfrewshire to discuss drug-related crime. Furthermore, he has been kept fully briefed on relevant developments by the chief constable of Strathclyde police.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what assessment he has made of the comparative proportion of unpaid water bills in Scotland and in(a) England and Wales and (b) Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [20352]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has made no such assessment. Domestic charges in Scotland are collected along with the council tax.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many cases of TB in cattle were reported in each region in each year since 1985. [20553]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Complete information in the form requested is not available and information which is available for the years 1985 to 1987 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the total numbers of confirmed cattle tuberculosis breakdowns in each region affected in Scotland in years 1988 to 1991 were as follows:

  Scotland

  Number of herds

  Number of confirmed reactors

  Aberdeenshire

  4

  9

  Argyll

  1

  1

  Ayrshire

  10

  65

  Berwickshire

  1

  1

  Kirkcudbright

  2

  3

  Midlothian

  1

  1

  Wigtown

  4

  5

  Shetland

  1

  1

  For the period 1992 to 1994, the number of confirmed cattle tuberculosis breakdowns in each of the administrative areas in Scotland covered by a divisional animal health office is as follows:

  Scotland

  Year

  Number of herds

  Number of confirmed reactors

  Aberdeen

  1994

  2

  4

  Ayr

  1993

  2

  52

  1994

  1

  1

  Galashiels

  1993

  3

  4

  734

  Scotland

  Year

  Number of herds

  Number of confirmed reactors

  Hamilton

  1992

  1

  1

  1994

  1

  1

  Inverness

  1993

  1

  1

  Perth

  1994

  1

  1

  Divorce
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of divorce have been reported during the last year; and what are the figures for each of the previous four years. [20706]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Provisional statistics indicate that there were 13,005 divorces in Scotland in 1994. In the preceding four years the final figures for divorces were:

  1993: 12,787

  1992: 12,479

  1991: 12,399

  1990: 12,272

  Prison Population
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current prison population; and what were the figures in each of the previous four years. [20776]

  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 E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 April 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the current prison population and the population in the previous four years.
  On Friday 21 April 1995 the prison population was 5,465.
  The table below shows the average daily prison population for each of the preceding four years.

  Average daily population for 1991–94

  Number

  1991

  4,839

  1992

  5,257

  1993

  5,637

  1994

  5,585

  Philosophy Courses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people graduated from Scottish higher education institutions with honours either in philosophy or in a joint honours or composite degree involving philosophy in 1994; what proportion of the total number graduating from Scottish higher education this represents; and if he will make a statement. [20901]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1993, the latest year for which information is available, 85 people graduated from Scottish higher education institutions with a degree where philosophy was the main or only subject; this represents 0.5 per cent. of all degree graduates from Scottish higher education institutions in 1993.
  735
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many higher education institutions in Scotland currently offer single honours or joint honours degrees in philosophy; what proportion of the total number of higher education institutions in Scotland this represents; and if he will make a statement. [20912]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Out of the 22 higher education institutions in Scotland, six currently offer degree courses in philosophy; this represents a proportion of 27 per cent.

  Hunting
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which(a) fox and (b) deer hunts have been issued with licences or permits to hunt live quarry on Forestry Commission land. [21108]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Forestry Commission has issued the following hunts with licences or permits to hunt on commission land:

  Fox hunts

  Ashford Valley

  Banwen Miners

  Barlow

  Belvoir

  Bicester with Whaddon Chase

  Bilsdale

  Blankney

  Blencathra Foxhounds

  Border

  Braes of Derwent

  Brocklesby

  Buccleuch

  Cambridgeshire

  Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray

  Cleveland

  College Valley and North Northumberland

  Coniston Foxhounds

  Cottesmore

  Cumberland Farmers Foxhounds

  Cumberland Farmers

  Cumberland Foxhounds

  Curre

  Derwent

  East Essex

  East Kent

  East Sussex and Romney Marsh

  Eglington

  Eskdale and Ennerdale Foxhounds

  Essex

  Farndale

  Fife Foxhounds

  Fitzwilliam

  Fowey Fox Beagles

  Gelligaer Farmers

  Goathland

  Golden valley

  Grafton

  Grove and Rufford

  Hampshire

  Haydon

  Hursley and Hambledon

  Hurworth

  Isle of Wight

  Jedforest

  Liddesdale

  Llangeinor

  Llangibby

  736

  Melbreak Foxhounds

  Middleton

  Milvain

  Monmouthshire

  Morpeth

  New Forest Beagles

  New Forest Hounds

  North Lonsdale Foxhounds

  North Norfolk Harriers

  Oakley

  Pennine Foxhounds

  Pentyrch

  Percy

  Puckeridge

  Saltersgate Farmers

  Sennybridge

  Sinnington

  South Nottinghamshire

  South Pembrokeshire

  South Wold

  Staintondale

  Suffolk

  Surrey Union

  Taf Fechan

  Talybont

  Thurlow

  Tredegar Farmers

  Virginstowe Beagles

  West Norfolk Foxhounds

  West Percy

  Woodland Pytchley

  York and Ainsty North

  Ystrad

  Deer hunts

  New Forest Buckhounds

  Quantock Staghounds

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to the Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list those bodies with a statutory base. [21157]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 April 1995]: The information requested is as follows: (a) Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland, Scottish Records Advisory Council, Secretary of State's (Electricity) Advisory Council; (b) Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland, Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, Parole Board for Scotland, Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board, Scottish Records Advisory Council, Scottish Valuation Advisory Council, Secretary of State's (Electricity) Fisheries Committee; (c) Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland, Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, Parole Board for Scotland, Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board, Scottish Records Advisory Council, Secretary of State's (Electricity) Fisheries Committee. Those bodies with a statutory base are: Advisory Committee on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland, Building Standards Advisory Committee, Children's Panel Advisory Committees, Consultative Committee on Freshwater Fisheries, Extra Parliamentary Panel, Hill Farming Advisory Committee for Scotland, Historic

  737
  Buildings Council for Scotland, Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland, Local Review Committees for HM Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions, Parliamentary Boundary Commission, Parole Board for Scotland, Police Advisory Board for Scotland, Scottish Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board, Scottish Police College Board of Governors, Scottish Records Advisory Council, Scottish Valuation Advisory Council, Secretary of State's (Electricity) Fisheries Committee.

  Prisons (Weapons)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) firearms, (b) knives and (c) other dangerous weapons or implements were found hidden in prisons in (i) 1979, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990 and (iv) the last year for which figures are available. [16828]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 March 1995]: The subject of the 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 E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 28 April 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of firearms, knives and other dangerous weapons or implements found hidden in prisons in 1979, 1985, 1990 and the last year for which figures are available.
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Collections
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish a definitive catalogue of all the works of art in the royal collections which are held by the Crown on behalf of the nation; if he will indicate how many of these works have been displayed to the general public; and for how long. [20990]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The royal collection is a department of the royal household and is not a responsibility of my Department. I understand that the royal household is completing an inventory of works of art in the royal collection, which is scheduled for completion by the end of 1997.

  Sport and Leisure Spending
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much is spent on sport and leisure in the United Kingdom by(a) the United Kingdom Sports Commission and the sports councils and (b) local authorities. [20996]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The United Kingdom Sports Council will not have spending powers until it has formally been established by royal charter. We expect this to be on 1 January 1996. The grant in aid expended by the four Sports Councils in 1994–95 was:
  738

  £

  GB Sports Council

  49,824,000

  Scottish Sports Council

  8,778,000

  Welsh Sports Council

  6,559,000

  Northern Ireland Sports Council

  2,158,569

  Total:

  67,319,569

  It is not possible to make cross-national comparisons of local authority expenditure as different definations are used. Local authority expenditure on sport and recreation in England for 1993–94, the last year for which figures are available, is estimated at £900 million.

  European Football Championship
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what actions his Department has taken to ensure that tourism benefits accrue from the 1996 European football championship. [20986]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Officials from my Department sit on the central co-ordinating committee responsible for the organisation of the 1996 European football championship. The statutory tourist boards, the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board, which are sponsored by my Department, are ensuring that all possible steps are being taken to maximise the tourism potential of the event. A full overseas marketing plan has been drawn up, supporting programmes of cultural events are being developed and a warm welcome for visitors is being prepared in the host towns and cities.

  New Novelists
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations his Department has received to encourage new novelists by means of securing their publication by HMSO in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [20991]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have received no representations. HMSO does not publish works of fiction and is therefore unable to support new novelists.

  Rugby Football (Broadcasting)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on News Corporation's bid for the rights to television coverage of rugby league football.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government believe that sporting rights owners should be free to dispose of their television rights in the way they choose. It is for the Rugby Football League to judge whether News Corporation's proposals are in the best interests of the game.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have(a) a statutory requirement to admit members of the public to all board

  739
  or committee meetings and (b) a statutory requirement to hold open meetings for the public. [20883]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 April 1995]: None.

  County Archives
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list by local authority the amount of current funding that is provided to maintain county archival records; and what were the figures for each of the last four years, giving the percentage increase or decrease. [20714]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  The figures requested by the hon. Member are not held centrally.

  VE Day
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recognition is being given in VE day celebrations of the role of the Merchant Navy in the second world war. [20993]

  Mr. Soames
  I have been asked to reply.

  Events to mark the 50th anniversary of VE day offer a welcome opportunity to pay tribute not only to the military but to the civilian contribution to the war effort. The Government are conscious of the vital role played by the Merchant Navy and look forward to seeing it well represented during this year's commemorations. Representation at each of the Government's key events over the VE day weekend is being co-ordinated through the Merchant Navy veterans; organisations and the chamber of shipping. I envisage that tribute will also be paid to the men of Merchant Navy in one of the pavilions in Hyde park, over the period 6, 7 and 8 May.

  In addition to their involvement in the May events, it is hoped that large numbers of merchant seamen will take part in the service and parade in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen which will take place in August, as part of the programme of events to mark the 50th anniversary of VE day.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Occupational Health and Safety Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 223, what assessment he has made of the effect on the outcome of the market testing exercise for the supply of occupational health and safety services at AWE Aldermaston, Burghfield, Cardiff and Foulness, of the availability of privileged information from the senior medical officer in the civil service occupational health and safety agency at Aldermaston as a director of the successful bidder company. [21078]

  Mr. Horam
  As both Hunting BRAE Ltd.—trading as AWE—and Trident Medical Services Ltd., the successful bidder company, operate in the private sector and the officer concerned has left the public service, no such assessment can be made.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 223, what permission was (a) sought and
  740
  (b) granted by the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office to the former senior medical officer at the civil service occupational health and safety agency Aldermaston to act as a director of Trident Medical Services in providing health and safety services to the Ministry of Defence Atomic Weapons Establishment plc, and what post-resignation quarantine period applies to civil servants of his grade with respect to acting for companies trading with his previous employer department. [21077]

  Mr. Horam
  No permission was sought or granted while the officer was serving with the OHSA. Within two years of leaving, a former civil servant of his grade must obtain approval before taking up an appointment if the following circumstances apply: if they have had any official dealings with their prospective employer during the last two years of Crown employment; if they have had official dealings of a continued or repeated nature with their prospective employer at any time during their period of Crown employment; if they have had access to commercially sensitive information of competitors of their prospective employer in the course of their official duties; or if, during the last two years of Crown employment, their official duties have involved advice or decisions benefiting that prospective employer, for which the offer of employment could be interpreted as reward, or have involved developing policy, knowledge of which might be of benefit to the prospective employer. The former officer concerned has been reminded of his obligations. Applications are considered on a case-by-case basis; there are no automatic or standard post-resignation quarantine periods at this level.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 223, if he will list the sanctions available, in cases where serving senior civil servants form companies for the purposes of bidding for contracts in market-testing exercises; and if he will specify which of those sanctions apply to (a) those civil servants and (b) the companies which they helped to form, whether successful or otherwise in market-testing competition. [21076]

  Mr. Horam
  Serving civil servants are required to seek permission before seeking any outside employment which might affect their work directly or indirectly; where a conflict of interest arises, they must declare their personal interest. Civil servants dealing with procurement or contracts work must report any approach offering employment whether or not they are considering taking it up. Breaches of these rules can lead to disciplinary action, with penalties up to and including dismissal. Civil servants must also observe the rules on business appointments after leaving the civil service. Companies seeking government business might wish to consider the propriety of sanctioning breaches of rules governing the conduct of serving and former civil servants.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list

  741
  those with a statutory base. [21597]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what key targets have been set for the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency for the current financial year. [22335]

  Mr. Horam
  I have set the following targets for Recruitment and Assessment Services to achieve in 1995–96:1. a financial surplus of £100,000 in accrual accounting terms;
  2. at least a 2 per cent. increase in efficiency over 1994–95 performance; and
  3. customer evaluation ratings for overall service of 96 per cent. for customers satisfied with the service they have received with 80 per cent. of customers giving "highly satisfied" or "more than satisfied" assessments.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Singapore
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evaluation he has made of the independence of the judiciary in Singapore from the Government of Singapore in relation to cases which have political or international significance. [21131]

  Mr. Goodlad
  None. The independence of the Singapore judiciary is a matter for the Singapore Government.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held(a) with the German Government or German diplomats in the United Kingdom and (b) with the Singapore Government or Singaporean diplomats in the United Kingdom relating to (i) the Barings affair and (ii) the extradition of Mr. Nick Leeson. [21179]

  Mr. Baldry
  There have been no discussions with the German authorities about either the collapse of Barings bank or the possible extradition of Mr. Nick Leeson.

  We and the Singapore authorities are co-operating in investigating the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the bank, including Mr. Leeson's activities. In response to questions from the Singapore high commission we confirmed that the Serious Fraud Office was continuing investigations to establish whether offences of serious or complex fraud had been committed which could be prosecuted in the UK.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from HM embassy or consular staff in Germany about the view of the German authorities on the extradition of Mr. Nick Leeson to Singapore. [21132]

  Mr. Baldry
  None. This is entirely a matter for the German and Singapore authorities.

  Iraq
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a742
  statement on the forthcoming visit by the Iraqi-British interest group to Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We were aware of the possibility but we have no specific details of a forthcoming visit. Before it last visited Iraq in February, the Iraqi British interest group neither sought, nor was given assistance by my Department. Under British legislation, introduced in support of UN sanctions against Iraq, all British companies visiting that country to discuss permissible trade—that is, trade of a humanitarian nature—must first obtain a communications licence.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department will give to the Iraqi-British interest group on its forthcoming visit to Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests for assistance his Department has received from the Iraqi-British interest group for its forthcoming visit to Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Mr. Riad El Taher about sanctions against Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We receive regular reports from Mr. El Taher about how he sees the situation in Iraq. Although he clearly has a keen interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people, and wishes to see an early end to UN sanctions, his reports consistently fail to recognise the Iraqi regime's failure to implement all the relevant UN resolutions.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations he has carried out into the activities of Dr. Riad El Taher.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of Dr. El Taher's activities and those of his organisation, "Friendship Across Frontiers", thanks to the numerous reports that we have received from him about Iraq.

  Mr. Edmund Sykes
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Department and Mr. Edmund Sykes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are unaware of any contacts between the Department and Mr. Sykes.

  Mr. Stephen Crouch
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department and Mr. Stephen Crouch. [21703]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), on 28 March 1995,Official Report, column 523. There have since been no further contacts with Mr. Crouch, and none are planned in the future.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communication Her Majesty's Government have received from the German authorities to the effect that they believe that the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103 was not put on the plane at the Rhein Main airport in Frankfurt. [21408]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Colonel Oliver North
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 6, for what reasons he declined to give details in answer to the question by the hon. Member for Linlithgow as to the reasons why Mr. Andrew Green of the Foreign Office met Colonel Oliver North on 24 July 1984 to discuss hostage rescue missions. [21406]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 18 April,Official Report, columns 5–6.

  VE day Commemorations
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which foreign heads of state and government will be attending the VE day commemorations.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Details of foreign heads of state and government and other ministers attending the VE day commemorations are as follows:

  President of the Republic of Albania

  Professor Dr. Sali Berisha

  President of the Republic of Armenia

  Mr. Levon Ter-Petrossian

  Minister of Defence

  Mr. Serja Sarkissian

  Minister for Defence for Australia

  The Honourable Robert Ray

  Federal President of the Republic of Austria

  Dr. Thomas Klestil

  President of the Azerbaijan Republic

  Mr. Heydar Aliev

  Minister of Foreign Affairs

  Mr. Hassan Hassanov

  President of the People's Republic of Bangladesh

  Mr. Abdur Rahman Biswas

  Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus

  Mr. Mikhail Nikolaevich Chigir

  Minister for Foreign Affairs

  Mr. Uladzimir Leonovich Syanko

  Duke of Brabant

  His Royal Highness Prince Philippe

  President of the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina

  Mr. Alija Izetbegovic

  744
  President of the Republic of Botswana

  Sir Ketumile Masire GCMG JP MP

  Minister of Foreign Affairs

  Lt General Mompati Merafhe

  President of the Federative Republic of Brazil

  Senhor Fernando Henrique Cardoso

  Minister for External Relations

  Senhor Luiz Felipe Lampreia

  President of the Republic of Bulgaria

  Dr. Zhelyu Zhelev

  Prime Minister of Canada

  The Rt Hon Jean Chretien PC QC MP

  President of the Republic of Croatia

  Dr. Franjo Tudjman

  Deputy President of the Republic of Croatia

  Mr. Hrvoje Sarinic

  President of the Republic of Cyprus

  Mr. Glafcos Clerides

  President of the Czech Republic

  Mr. Vaclav Havel

  Her Royal Highness Princess Benedikte of Denmark

  President of the Republic of Estonia

  Mr. Lennart Meri

  President of the Republic of Finland

  Mr. Martti Ahtisaari

  President of the French Republic

  Monsieur Francois Mitterrand GCB

  Federal President Federal Republic of Germany

  Herr Professor Dr. Roman Herzog

  Federal Chancellor Federal Republic of Germany

  Herr Dr. Helmut Kohl GCMG

  Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs

  Herr Dr. Klaus Kinkel

  Deputy Chief Minister of Gibraltar

  The Hon. Mr. Joseph Pilcher

  President of the Hellenic Republic

  Mr. Constantinos Stephanopoulos

  Minister of the Presidency

  Dr. lannis Pottakis

  President of the Republic of Hungary

  Dr. Arpad Goncz

  Minister for External Affairs of the Republic of India

  Mr. Pranab Mukherjee

  President of the State of Israel

  Mr. Ezer Weizman

  745
  President of the Italian Republic

  Signor Oscar Luigi Scalfaro

  Governor-General of Jamaica

  The Most Honourable Sir Howard Cooke ON GCMG GCVO CD

  His Majesty King Hussein I bin Talal GCB GCVO King of the Hashemite King of Jordan

  His Royal Highness Prince Hamzah bin Al Hussein

  President of the Republic of Kazakhstan

  Mr. Nursultan Nazarbaev

  President of the Kyrgyz Republic

  Mr. Askar Akaev

  President of the Republic of Latvia

  Mr. Guntis Ulmanis

  Minister of Foreign Affairs

  Mr. Valdis Birkavs

  King of Lesotho

  His Majesty King Moshoeshoe II

  Minister of Defence

  The Honourable S. Motanyane

  President of the Republic of Lithuania

  Mr. Algirdas Mykolas Brazauskas

  Minister of Foreign Affairs

  Mr. Povilas Gylys

  His Royal Highness The Grand Duke of Luxembourg

  Her Royal Highness The Grand Duke of Luxembourg

  President of the former Yugoslave Republic of Macedonia

  Mr. Kiro Gligorov

  President of Malta

  Dr. Ugo Mifsud Bonnici

  Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs

  The Hon. Professor Guido de Marco

  First Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova

  Mr. Ion Gutu

  His Majesty King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev of Nepal

  Her Majesty Queen Aishwarya Rajya Laxmi Devi Shah of Nepal

  Her Majesty The Queen of The Netherlands LG

  Prime Minister of New Zealand

  The Rt. Hon. James Bolger MP

  His Royal Highness The Crown Prince Haakon of Norway

  Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland

  Mr. Wladyslaw Bartoszewski

  President of Romania

  Mr. Ion Iliescu

  Minister of State. Minister of Foreign Affairs

  Mr. Teodor Melescanu

  746
  The Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation

  Mr. Viktor S. Chernomyrdin

  President of the Slovak Republic

  Mr. Michal Kovac

  President of the Republic of Slovenia

  Mr. Milan Kucan

  Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa

  Mr. Thabo Mbeki

  King of Swaziland

  His Majesty King Mswati III

  Minister for Foreign Affairs

  The Honourable Solomon M. Dlamini MP

  President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago

  Mr. Noor Mohamed Hassanali

  President of Turkmenistan

  Mr. Saparmurad Niyazov

  The Vice-President of the United States of America

  The Honourable Albert Gore Jr.

  State Counsellor of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan

  Mr. Bakhtiyor Khisamovich Gulyamov

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rabies
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the incidence of rabies in(a) Belgium and (b) other EC member states. [21093]

  Mrs. Browning
  We welcome the steady progress being made in the mainland EU member states towards the eradication of rabies in their countries, although we are disappointed to see the increase in the number of reported cases in Belgium in the third quarter of 1994. This was apparently due to a single focus of infection in foxes in the Belgian province of Luxembourg. We shall continue to monitor the situation carefully.

  Badgers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on badger culling. [21095]

  Mrs. Browning
  In those areas in the south-west of England and parts of Wales where there is a recent history of badger-related herd breakdowns in cattle, badger removal operations may proceed on breakdown farms on the judgment of Ministry staff, providing detailed epidemiological investigations have attributed the source of infection for that breakdown to badgers. Where detailed epidemiological investigations indicate that badgers are implicated in a herd breakdown but where there is not recent history of badger-related tuberculosis, it is a requirement that a badger removal operation must first be sanctioned by a sub-committee of the consultative panel on badgers and bovine tuberculosis. This sub-committee includes farming, veterinary and conservation
  747
  representatives and ensures that the decisions made and action taken are subject to independent scrutiny.

  Of those breakdowns which meet the criteria for the trial of the live test, announced in December 1993 and started in November last year, half will be subject to a live test, which will be undertaken on the breakdown farm and surrounding area so that only badgers from setts containing infected badgers will be culled. On the other half, a badger removal operation will be undertaken following the criteria laid down in the independent report of Ministers by Professor Dunnet in 1986. The trial will run for five years, with the objective of comparing the effect on the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle of the strategy recommended by Professor Dunnet of the live test strategy and of the removing no badgers if the breakdown farmer refuses a badger removal operation.

  In all situations where breakdowns do not meet the criteria for the trial, the farmer will be offered a badger removal operation in accordance with the Dunnett criteria—the "interim strategy". This means that action against badgers is confined to that part of the breakdown farm where it is believed tuberculosis was transmitted to cattle, or to the whole farm if it is not possible to be more precise.

  It is estimated that fewer than 3,000 badgers will be humanely killed in Ministry badger removal operations in 1995. This in no way represents a threat to the species, whose Great Britain population is estimated at about 250,000 adult badgers.

  Mr. Morely
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences have been granted for interference with badger setts in each year since 1991 for the purpose of hunting; and which purpose this comes under in section 10 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. [21109]

  Mrs. Browning
  None. There are no specific provisions under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 for the granting of licences to interfere with badger setts for the purpose of hunting.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 102, and of 4 April, Official Report, columns 1057–58, when he expects to be able to make a statement on banning the export of calves to be reared in veal crates. [21113]

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. Friend has already explained on various occasions that it is not his policy, for both practical and legal reasons, to ban the export of calves to be reared in veal crates. Lawyers are currently examining, at his request, the complex arguments, recently submitted by the RSPCA and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, as to how they consider that a ban might be legally defended.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to stop people with convictions for cruelty to livestock from being allowed to continue exporting livestock. [21329]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) in the House on 23 February 1995,Official Report, 23 February 1995, column 475.

  Mink and Arctic Fox
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will insist that mink and arctic fox farms are listed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976; and if he will make a statement. [21105]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 27 April 1995]: The Farm Animal Welfare Council has recommended that consideration should be given to the inclusion of mink and arctic fox in the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. The views of interested organisations have been obtained on this recommendation and we are currently considering how this matter should be taken forward.

  EC Welfare of Livestock Convention
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) which EC member states have been in breach of the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes over the past 12 months; [19818]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the European Convention on the Protection of Animals kept for farming purposes; whether the provisions of the convention are mandatory; what assessment he has made of whether all EC member states are taking action to adopt these provisions; and what action he is taking to encourage them to do so. [19819]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 24 April 1995]: The European Community and its member states are all contracting parties to this convention, which lays down general principles for safeguarding the welfare of animals kept for farming purposes, in particular those kept in intensive farming systems. Detailed recommendations for the welfare of individual species are elaborated by a standing committee established under the convention. By adoption of Council decision 78/923/EEC, the European Community approved the convention, while in Great Britain its principles were implemented in provisions which are now incorporated in the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 (SI 2126).

  We do not have detailed information on how other contracting parties implement and enforce the convention and the subsidiary measures adopted under it: the Government agree with the European Commission's view, indicated in its communication on the protection of animals of 8 September 1993 (8442/93), that Community legislation is necessary to ensure uniform application of the convention and its subordinate recommendations within the Community. We are therefore continuing to press for the adoption of high welfare standards on a Community basis.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service Costs
  Mr. Mike O' Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the Prison Service in real terms in each of the last 15 years. [20385]

  Mr. Maclean
  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.
  749
  Letter from B. Landers to Mr. Mike O'Brien, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the cost of the Prison Service in real terms in each of the last 15 years.
  The costs of the Prison Service in England and Wales are set out in the attached table. They are at 1993–94 prices and include notional depreciation and superannuation.

  Year

  Cost: £000

  1979–80

  845,366

  1980–81

  908,605

  1981–82

  943,003

  1982–83

  1,011,316

  1983–84

  1,075,395

  1984–85

  1,055,005

  1985–86

  1,132,401

  1986–87

  1,163,164

  1987–88

  1,239,017

  1988–89

  1,334,463

  1989–90

  1,483,377

  1990–91

  1,667,722

  1991–92

  1,747,796

  1992–93

  1,711,000

  1993–94

  1,638,200

  Prison Population
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total numbers of(a) adult and (b) juvenile prisoners held in custody in each of the last 15 years. [20386]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Mike O'Brien, dated 28 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the total numbers of adult and juvenile prisoners held in custody in each of the last 15 years.
  Within the prison system, adults are defined as aged 21 and over. A breakdown of the prison population from 1980–1994 into adults and young persons is given in Table 1. Before the introduction in October 1992 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, young persons in Prison Service establishments between the ages of 14 and 16 were defined as juveniles. Since the 1991 Act came into effect, young persons aged between 15 and 17 have been treated as juveniles. Information on juveniles aged between 15 and 17 in Prison Service establishments is only available from 1987 and is contained in Table 2. More detailed information on the population of young persons up to 1992 is published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (Table 3.2 of the 1992 edition).

  Table 1: Population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, annual averages 1980–19941

  Thousands

  Year

  Adults2(aged 21 and over)

  Young persons (aged under 21)

  1980

  30.1

  12.5

  1981

  29.9

  13.1

  1982

  30.3

  13.0

  1983

  31.0

  12.5

  1984

  30.5

  12.5

  1985

  33.1

  13.0

  1986

  34.3

  12.3

  1987

  36.5

  12.2

  750

  Table 1: Population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, annual averages 1980–19941

  Thousands

  Year

  Adults2(aged 21 and over)

  Young persons (aged under 21)

  1988

  37.9

  11.8

  1989

  38.0

  10.4

  1990

  36.2

  9.3

  1991

  36.8

  8.8

  1992

  37.3

  8.2

  1993

  36.1

  7.8

  1994

  39.8

  8.3

  1 Remand and sentenced, excluding non-criminals.

  2 Includes some 21 year old sentenced persons classified as young offenders.

  Table 2: Population of youths (aged under 18) in Prison Service establishments,on 30 June, 1987–93 England and Wales1

  Year

  Number

  1987

  2,877

  1988

  2,473

  1989

  2,088

  1990

  1,595

  1991

  1,345

  1992

  1,328

  1993

  1,304

  1 Remand and sentenced, excluding non-criminals.

  UK Passport Agency
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement about the recent results of the UK Passport Agency on number of passports issued and levels of customer satisfaction; [20755]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the current UK Passport Agency review of size, number and location of passport offices; and what assessment he has made of the capacity for an increased work load and further improvements to customer service of a network of professionally staffed offices; [20758]

  (3) how the confidentiality and security of the passport issuing process is to be protected under UK Passport Agency management proposals to seek private sector involvement in this process; [20769]

  (4) what plans he has to increase the numbers of evening shifts worked at the UK Passport Agency and the number of casual workers with a consequent reduction of permanent staff numbers; and what effect he expects this to have on productivity; [20756]

  (5) what rise in demand for standard passports he expects with the abolition of the British visitor's passport; and what plans he has to alter staffing levels at UK Passport Agency offices; [20768]

  (6) what considerations underlie his proposals to farmout to the private sector work currently undertaken by the UK Passport Agency; and for what reasons the agency's management is being instructed to seek reductions in numbers of permanent staff employed; [20754]

  (7) what measures he is taking to ensure that the management of the UK Passport Agency is discouraged from breaching unilateral industrial relations agreements within the agency; and what assessment he has made of the contribution of those agreements and the subsequent

  751
  co-operation among management and staff within the UK Passport Agency to the performance of that agency. [20766]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the UK Passport Agency under its chief executive, Mr. David Gatenby. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Gatenby to Dr. Kim Howells, dated 28 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department has asked me to reply to your Questions about the UK Passport Agency.
  The Passport Agency has significantly improved its performance since it was established as an executive agency of the Home Office in April 1991. Demand has risen to record levels (we provided almost 4 million passport services in the year ended 31 March 1995) but the maximum time for processing straightforward applications has been reduced from 95 working days in 1989 to 16 working days in 1994. Since 1991 efficiency has been improved by 13.7% in real terms. Very high levels of customer satisfaction are being achieved.
  In November 1994, in confirming the Agency's status as an executive agency for a further 5 years, the Home Secretary indicated his expectation that the Agency would further improve the quality of its service, and its efficiency and that, in accordance with Government policy, the private sector should become progressively involved in the issuing of passports. As part of this process, to improve the convenience and accessibility of its service to the public, the Agency plans to establish, by October 1995, partnerships with travel agents, banks, and the Post Office covering the initial handling of passport applications. This approach has been fully discussed with the Agency Trade Union Side (TUS). I have indicated to them that once the partnership arrangements are effectively in place we will wish to develop them further. It is accepted on both sides that changes to the partnership arrangements will be subject to prior consultation.
  To explore the scope for achieving greater efficiency, we shall shortly commence a review of ways or involving the private sector in the issuing operation after the decision to grant a passport is taken, and in the provision of support services. Until the reviews have been undertaken I am unable to say whether or not private sector involvement is likely but if it is I can assure you that the Agency would require the system to be equally as secure and confidential as the present operation. There has been no secrecy about these reviews which were mentioned in the Home Secretary's statement, and in briefings to our staff.
  We have also undertaken a review of the size number and location of the Agency's offices and this has recently been completed. Once we have sought Ministers' approval of the findings and recommendations we will advise our staff and consult the TUS.
  The review has taken into account the Agency's current and future business needs and the needs of its customers and staff. We are committed to continuing to improve customer service and to maintaining the professionalism of staff. The outcome of the review will in no way diminish the Agency's resolve in these two very important areas.
  As you will appreciate we are duty bound to carry out Government policy which as clearly explained in the two recent White Papers on the Civil Service requires us, among other things, to absorb increases in pay and prices through efficiency improvements. In seeking efficiency savings we simply cannot ignore our staff costs which currently account for more than 50% of our unit costs. The passport business is demand led. Passport demand shows a marked seasonality with demand averaging 100,000 applications per week between mid January and mid July, but tailing off rapidly to under 50,000 per week immediately after the main holiday season.
  Our policy which I believe is a sensible one, is to match our staffing resources more closely to the pattern of passport demand. Over time this will mean some reduction in permanent full-time staff resources as we introduce more flexible and efficient staffing arrangements. These are likely to include the continuation of shift working which is already being used very successfully in four of our offices is providing job opportunities which would not otherwise exist and is proving very popular with those who prefer evening
  752
  work to daytime work. My aim, so far as is possible, is to achieve these reductions in full-time permanent resources through natural wastage. I have given an assurance that there will be no redundancies as a result of introducing those arrangements in the coming year to the end of March 1996. Overall, however, we are likely to be employing more, rather than less staff, although not all staff will work the full year. This will be jobs in place of the former practice of working excessive overtime in the first half of the year.
  I do not believe we have breached agreements with the Trade Unions. In certain areas they have been overtaken by events, and we must have regard to the overriding imperatives of Government policy. We shall shortly be consulting our Trade Unions about a review of these arrangements to check that they remain relevant to the Agency's present and future needs. I remain committed to the maintenance of good industrial relations, and to proper consultations with the TUS.
  As you are aware Ministers have already announced the withdrawal of the British Visitor's Passport (BVP) from 31 December 1995. The Agency is already seeing a steady increase in demand as people switch away from the BVP and we expect these increased levels to continue for the remainder of this year and most of next. Thereafter we will return to lower levels. We have taken a number of measures to cope with this temporary extra demand including increasing the number of seasonal staff we employ and extending the evening shifts. I am confident that these measures will enable us to cope with the expected increase.
  I expect all of the measures I have outlined in my letter to lead to improved productivity reduced unit costs and an even better service for our customers. I should perhaps re-emphasise that we are currently coping with record levels of demand with an average turnround time of less than seven days and shift working is contributing to this success.
  I hope my letter has satisfactorily answered your concerns. If there is anything further you wish to know or if you would like more details of our plans I would be pleased to meet you to discuss them.

  Policing, Sussex
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received on the level of policing in Sussex(a) since October 1994 and (b) between May 1994 and October 1994. [21094]

  Mr. Maclean
  The numbers of representations received were as follows:

  Since October 1994: 40

  Between May 1994 and October 1994: 3

  CS Gas Attacks
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the increase in number of CS gas canister attacks on the public; and what advice he is giving concerning them. [21550]

  (2) what action he proposes to take to stop CS gas canister attacks in public places. [21553]

  Mr. Maclean
  Under section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968, as amended, devices capable of discharging a noxious substance are classed as prohibited weapons. We consider that CS gas canisters are covered by the terms of section 5(1)(b). Their possession, acquisition, purchase, manufacture, sale and transfer are prohibited without the authority of the Secretary of State.

  No information is available centrally on numbers of attacks involving CS gas canisters. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has increased the maximum penalty for the unauthorised possession of a CS gas weapon, or of any other prohibited weapon, to ten years imprisonment.
  753
  The Government take crime prevention very seriously. The Home Office booklet, "Your Practical Guide to Crime Prevention", gives detailed advice on how people can reduce the risk of assault. More than 17 million copies have been distributed to date.

  Live Animal Exports (Policing)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with representatives of the Essex Constabulary on the use of the Public Order Act 1986 at Brightlingsea docks. [21092]

  Mr. Maclean
  None, beyond requests by officials for factual information.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the police operation at(a) Dover port and (b) Brightlingsea docks on (i) 20 and (ii) 21 April. [21114]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that the estimated additional costs of policing the demonstrations against live animal exports at Dover port on 20 and 21 April were £32,000 and £17,000 respectively.

  I am told that Essex police's estimate of the additional costs of policing at Brightlingsea on the dates in question is not yet available. However, the additional pay costs incurred on 20 and 21 April were £7,700 and £2,970 respectively.

  Firearms
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further action he proposes to take in respect of the availability of firearms. [21552]

  Mr. Maclean
  None. There are already stringent controls designed to restrict access to firearms to suitable persons.

  West Yorkshire Police
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide additional financial resources to the West Yorkshire police to enable them to deal effectively with violent crime in the area. [21679]

  Mr. Maclean
  The police authority has taken full advantage of the additional funds already made available for 1995–96, and set this year's force budget at £249.83 million. This is an increase of £8.94 million, or 3.7 per cent., over the base budget for 1994–95.

  Sunday Dancing
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for relaxing the restrictions on Sunday dancing. [22132]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have today published a consultation paper proposing that the prohibition imposed by the Sunday Observance Act 1780 on admission charges for public dancing on Sundays should be removed. Our proposals also include amendments to the Licensing Act 1964 so that extensions of licensing hours at places where public dancing takes place may be granted on Sunday evening in the same way as they are on weekdays.

  We have in mind to implement these changes by means of the order making power in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994; and we would hope that they could be introduced before Christmas, as Christmas eve
  754
  and new year's eve, which are popular nights for dancing, this year fall on a Sunday.

  Copies of the consultation paper, to which responses are requested by Friday 26 May, have been placed in the Library.

  Prison Service News
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost, including cost of compilation, cost of production, cost of distribution, and all other costs, of Prison Service News for April 1995.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 21 April 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.

  Letter from B. Launders to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 28 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the cost of producing the April issue of Prison Service News.
  The total cost, including paper, colour separations, proofing, printing, distribution and staff wages was £9,913.70.
  Set against this cost was £2,373 of advertising revenue.

  Premises in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the standard of enforcement of fire safety regulations in former seaside guest houses and hotels now used as houses in multiple occupation and located in the Kent coastal towns. [20782]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  Enforcement of standards for fire precautions and means of escape for houses in multiple occupation is the responsibility of the local housing authority. No particular study of the adequacy of enforcement of these powers in Kent has been made, but the Government are undertaking a more general review of HMO enforcement powers and hope to make an announcement shortly about their proposals for change.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what firms have failed to respond to inquiries from the Fair Employment Commission about progress with affirmative action measures and goals and timetables; and what fines have been issued as a result of such breaches since the implementation of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. [19859]

  Mr. Ancram
  To date, the commission has sought information concerning affirmative action and goals and timetables without resort to formal powers of inquiry under section 32 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what firms have failed to respond to inquiries from the Fair Employment Commission about the regular review of practices or about the composition of monitoring returns; and what fines were issued as a result of such breaches since the implementation of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. [19858]
  755
  Mr. Ancram
  The commission has powers under section 32 of the Act to obtain certain information from employers with regard to their reviews and their monitoring returns. To date, no formal inquiries under this section have been made with regard to the composition of the monitoring returns. No concern has failed to respond to a formal inquiry for information concerning regular reviews of practices.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what firms have failed to register with the Fair Employment Commission and what fines were issued as a result of such breaches since the implementation of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. [19856]

  Mr. Ancram
  The commission is unaware of any concern which fulfils the requirement to register and has not made applications for registration.

  Technology Graduates
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many technology graduates have been employed in companies under the supervision of the industrial research and technology unit and their university since 1989; and how many of these placements led to permanent employment. [19827]

  Mr. Ancram
  The industrial research and technology unit is not involved in the supervision of any employees in companies. However, the industrial research and technology unit is one of several sponsors of the national teaching company scheme which provides support for technology transfer projects within industry undertaken by young graduates under the joint supervision of the company and the university. Eighty-seven such graduates commenced two-year programmes under TCS in industry in Northern Ireland in the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1995. No information is available on the numbers of these graduates in permanent employment.

  Energy Efficiency
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the reasons for the differences in the trends since 1989 in the number of low income households applying for grants from the homes insulation scheme and of businesses applying for the equivalent scheme, the energy management assistance scheme, as published in tables 6.29 and 6.30 of the Northern Ireland Expenditure Plans and Priorities 1994–95 to 1996–97. [19865]

  Mr. Ancram
  The two schemes are not comparable as they are targeted at different groups and provide different forms of assistance.

  Regarding the homes insulation scheme, the reduced number of completions from 1989–90 were the result of (i) changes in the eligibility conditions from 11 April 1988 and (ii) action by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to insulate its own properties in parallel with the homes insulation scheme.

  The energy efficiency survey scheme was launched in June 1988 and the figures reflect a normal build up of applications. This was given further impetus in 1992 when the scheme was replaced by the energy management assistance scheme which provided grant aid for a wider range of energy efficiency measures.

  Peace Initiative
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the principle of additionality applies to the special European Union funds being channelled to Northern Ireland through the peace initiative. [20321]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have made it absolutely clear that the European Union's programme will be in addition to the British Government's own expenditure plans for Northern Ireland.

  Security Vetting
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to review the Hurd principles on security vetting procedure; and if he will make a statement. [20322]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It has been Government policy, as set out in the parliamentary written answer of 27 June 1985,Official Report, column 451, by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to withhold Government assistance from community groups where the Secretary of State was satisfied that there was a grave risk that such assistance would have the effect of improving the standing or furthering the aims of a paramilitary organisation, whether directly or indirectly. This policy is kept under active review in the light of wider developments in Northern Ireland.

  Salmon
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of smolt produced in the River Bush in each of the last 25 years; and what percentage and numbers were lost in each year as a result of predation by cormorants. [20586]

  Mr. Ancram
  Records of the numbers of smolt produced in the River Bush are available only for the last 21 years. These are set out in the table. The only research carried out into the number of smolt lost to cormorants occurred in 1986. I have arranged for a copy of the research paper, which contains the only statistical data available, to be sent to the hon. Gentleman.

  River Bush smolt counts

  Year

  Wild smolt

  Farmed smolt

  Total

  1974

  44,513

  4,349

  48,862

  1975

  33,437

  4,475

  37,912

  1976

  21,011

  37,370

  58,381

  1977

  16,639

  10,557

  30,196

  1978

  27,093

  10,642

  37,735

  1979

  24,286

  10,631

  34,917

  1980

  20,489

  4,841

  25,330

  1981

  1—

  2,702

  —

  1982

  10,779

  1,338

  12,117

  1983

  26,968

  5,733

  32,701

  1984

  30,034

  2,683

  32,717

  1985

  30,519

  17,966

  48,485

  1986

  19,066

  25,159

  44,225

  1987

  22,156

  17,064

  39,220

  1988

  22,994

  16,054

  39,048

  1989

  17,812

  7,431

  25,243

  1990

  17,354

  27,076

  44,430

  1991

  18,471

  32,879

  51,350

  1992

  10,008

  22,384

  32,392

  1993

  1—

  14,726

  —

  1994

  14,145

  5,508

  19,653

  1 Incomplete count (traps flooded out).

  Banbridge District Council
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the public service offices other than local government offices and the number of persons employed in such offices in Banbridge district council in(a) January 1992, (b) January 1993, (c) January 1994 and (d) January 1995. [20458]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  Offices

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  DOE

  Road service:

  Banbridge

  32

  31

  30

  31

  Corbett

  5

  4

  5

  5

  Katesbridge

  3

  3

  2

  3

  Water Executive

  Banbridge

  58

  54

  55

  52

  DED

  Banbridge Training and Employment Agency

  12

  16

  23

  22

  DHSS

  Banbridge social security office

  55

  55

  54

  49

  Contributions unit area office1

  —

  —

  —

  20

  DANI

  The agricultural development centre2

  —

  —

  —

  17

  1 The contributions unit area office moved to its present location in Banbridge on 18 April 1994. It was previously based in Lurgan SSO.

  2 The Banbridge office is a sub-office of the Department of Agriculture. Information held on numbers of staff based in sub-offices is not held centrally as they can vary according to need. Currently 17 DANI staff use the Banbridge office on an ad hoc basis.

  University Students
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons resident in Northern Ireland who applied for a place in a Northern Ireland university in each of the last three years failed to get a place and are now attending a university in Great Britain. [20614]

  Mr. Ancram
  Due to the different mechanisms for processing applications to universities, the information cannot be supplied in the form requested.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many university students from Northern Ireland are at present attending university in(a) Great Britain, (b) the Irish Republic, (c) other EC countries and (d) elsewhere; and, of these students, how many are following courses leading to a qualification which is available at a university in Northern Ireland. [20613]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1993–94, the number of Northern Ireland domiciled full-time undergraduate students 758
  attending university outside Northern Ireland was as follows:

  Number

  (a) Great Britain

  10,763

  (b) Republic of Ireland

  1,117

  (c) Other

  10

  It is not possible to separate (c) into EC countries and elsewhere.

  Information on NI students following courses leading to a qualification which is available at a university in Northern Ireland is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students there are on each campus of each university in Northern Ireland broken down into(a) full-time undergraduates, (b) part-time undergraduates, (c) postgraduate and (d) doctorate level; and, of these, how many are from (i) Northern Ireland, (ii) the Irish Republic, (iii) Great Britain, (iv) other EU countries and (v) elsewhere. [20615]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  University of Ulster 1993–94

  Undergraduates

  Postgraduates

  Doctorates

  Domicile

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Belfast Campus

  Northern Ireland

  616

  1

  41

  16

  Great Britain

  42

  0

  7

  2

  Republic of Ireland

  60

  0

  4

  2

  Other EU

  9

  0

  2

  0

  Elsewhere

  3

  0

  2

  0

  Total

  730

  1

  56

  20

  Coleraine Campus

  Northern Ireland

  2,702

  100

  456

  126

  Great Britain

  211

  0

  17

  9

  Republic of Ireland

  695

  5

  86

  34

  Other EU

  202

  0

  3

  3

  Elsewhere

  62

  0

  3

  11

  Total

  3,872

  105

  565

  183

  Jordanstown Campus

  Northern Ireland

  4,738

  2,005

  2,228

  175

  Great Britain

  72

  4

  6

  6

  Republic of Ireland

  535

  22

  73

  16

  Other EU

  28

  1

  5

  4

  Elsewhere

  28

  1

  20

  15

  Total

  5,401

  2,033

  2,332

  216

  Magee Campus

  Northern Ireland

  856

  418

  412

  21

  Great Britain

  49

  0

  7

  0

  Republic of Ireland

  266

  98

  89

  4

  759

  University of Ulster 1993–94

  Undergraduates

  Postgraduates

  Doctorates

  Domicile

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Other EU

  25

  0

  2

  0

  Elsewhere

  8

  0

  5

  1

  Total

  1,204

  516

  515

  26

  Queens, Belfast 1993–94

  Northern Ireland

  7,832

  1,076

  2,116

  637

  Great Britain

  229

  3

  57

  48

  Republic of Ireland

  520

  20

  187

  86

  Other EU

  70

  21

  29

  15

  Elsewhere

  273

  6

  90

  90

  Total

  8,924

  1,126

  2,479

  876

  Otters
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of otters now present in each river system in Northern Ireland; what was the number five and 10 years ago; and

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Armagh

  176

  114

  52

  118

  314

  386

  404

  592

  519

  973

  Dungannon

  178

  75

  69

  83

  102

  158

  194

  242

  239

  351

  Enniskellen

  123

  152

  190

  148

  160

  174

  117

  225

  343

  242

  Newry

  165

  125

  266

  622

  1,100

  1,270

  2,050

  1,607

  1,831

  1,215

  Newtownards

  257

  197

  171

  261

  217

  214

  284

  627

  1,349

  983

  Ballymena

  218

  84

  51

  49

  105

  277

  341

  228

  348

  377

  Coleraine

  125

  70

  43

  50

  66

  93

  212

  436

  518

  439

  Larne

  204

  167

  162

  84

  295

  379

  432

  512

  860

  420

  Londonderry

  10

  33

  26

  33

  31

  64

  17

  25

  90

  57

  Omagh

  51

  23

  13

  22

  103

  109

  57

  107

  146

  181

  Total

  1,507

  1,040

  1,043

  1,470

  2,493

  3,124

  4,108

  4,601

  6,243

  5,238

  Seals
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of seals of each species present in Northern Ireland coastal waters; how much fish of each species they eat annually; and what research he has carried out in recent years on the effect seals have on salmonids. [20587]

  Mr. Moss
  It is estimated that there are approximately 500 common and 200 grey seals in Northern Ireland coastal waters. Data on the species composition of seal diets are not available, but adult male common seals are known to eat approximately 4 kg fish daily and grey seals 5 kg. Taking account of the fact that females and sub-adults eat less, the total consumption is estimated to be approximately 700 tonnes per annum. No local research has been carried out on the effect of seals on salmonids, but from other studies it has been concluded that salmonid fish comprise a very small proportion of the diet of both species.

  Craigavon Borough Council
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the public service offices other than local government offices and the 760
  what research he has carried out in recent years into the (a) fish species, (b) birds and (c) mammals eaten by otters, and the effect of such predation on the number of prey species. [20588]

  Mr. Moss
  There is no specific information on the numbers of otters, but surveys have confirmed that otters are present in most parts of Northern Ireland.

  The Departments of Environment and of Education have sponsored research which shows that otters are entirely opportunistic in their feeding behaviour and the choice of prey depends on availability; however, mammals and birds are rarely taken. No information is available on the effects of otter predation on the numbers of prey species.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many cases of TB in cattle were reported in each county in each year since 1985. [20552]

  Mr. Ancram
  Statistics on the number of cases of TB in Northern Ireland are recorded on a divisional veterinary office basis and are not available by county. The number of animals in which TB has been detected in Northern Ireland since 1985 in each DVO area is shown below:

  number of persons employed in such offices in Craigavon borough council in (a) January 1992, (b) January 1993 (c) January 1994 and (d) January 1995. [20459]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  Offices

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  NIO

  Civil Representatives

  Magowan House

  —

  —

  —

  9

  DHSS

  Lurgan Social Security Office

  85

  88

  86

  81

  Portadown Social

  Security Office

  60

  70

  62

  59

  Contributions1 Unit Area

  Office

  —

  20

  20

  —

  DANI

  Watercourse

  Management Division

  Seagoe Industrial Estate

  30

  30

  28

  27

  DFP

  Valuation and Lands

  Agency Marlborough

  761

  Offices

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  House

  234

  33

  31

  35

  DED

  IDB Regional Office3

  5

  4

  3

  6

  Portadown Training and Employment Agency

  19

  21

  20

  21

  Lurgan Training and Employment Agency

  18

  18

  13

  12

  Craigavon Training Centre

  49

  46

  39

  30

  DOE

  Central Claims Unit

  Craigavon

  6

  7

  7

  6

  Countryside and Wildlife Oxford Island

  Craigavon

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Craigavon

  15

  15

  14

  14

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland Craigavon

  14

  14

  14

  13

  Planning, Craigavon

  47

  49

  51

  48

  Rate Collection Agency Portadown

  15

  14

  14

  14

  Roads Service Marlborough House

  Craigavon

  140

  137

  137

  134

  Carn, Craigavon

  58

  47

  47

  52

  Transport Licensing and Enforcement Craigavon

  —

  4

  2

  4

  Water Executive Craigavon

  81

  86

  84

  87

  Portadown

  97

  93

  97

  93

  Works Service Portadown

  4

  4

  4

  4

  1 The Contributions Unit Area Office was set up on 7 December 1992 and was originally based in Lurgan SSO. The Unit Area moved to its own location in Banbridge on 18 April 1994.

  2 Figure from April 1992.

  3 Until end March 1995, IDB had a Regional Office in Craigavon, this is now closed along with the other Northern Ireland Regional Offices in Londonderry and Antrim.

  Development Capital Fund
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications were received to manage the Northern Ireland development capital fund; and if he will list the companies and publish the applications. [20467]

  Mr. Ancram
  Ten applications were received with Hambros Bank plc subsequently selected as the manger of the new fund. However, for reasons of confidentiality, the applications cannot be published or the names of the unsuccessful candidates revealed.

  Philosophy Courses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many higher education institutions in Northern Ireland currently offer single honours or joint honours degrees in philosophy; what proportion of the total number of higher education institutions in Northern Ireland this represents; and if he will make a statement. [20900]

  Mr. Ancram
  Two; that is 100 per cent. of the higher education institutions in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people graduated from Northern Irish 762
  higher education institutions with honours either in philosophy or in a joint honours or composite degree involving philosophy in 1994; what proportion of the total number graduating from Northern Irish higher education this represents; and if he will make a statement. [20904]

  Mr. Ancram
  Seventy-one, or 1.34 per cent. of the total number graduating from Northern Ireland higher education institutions.

  Badgers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many licences have been granted for interference with badger setts for the purposes of hunting in each year since 1991. [21110]

  Mr. Moss
  No licences have been issued as there is no provision for doing so under the Northern Ireland legislation.

  Social Security Agency
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Social Security Agency for the current financial year. [22198]

  Mr. Moss
  The targets are included in the agency's 1995–96 business plan, which was published today. A copy of the plan will be placed in the Library. The targets are in line with the Government's policy of improving the service provided to customers and fully support the standards established in the Northern Ireland citizens charter. I am satisfied that the targets present a demanding challenge for the agency. They are as follows:

  1. BENEFIT CLEARANCE TIMES1

  Social fund crisis loans

  on the day the need arises2

  Social fund community care grants

  70 per cent. in seven days

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  Income support

  71 per cent. in five days

  90 per cent. in 13 days

  Incapacity Benefit

  60 per cent. in 10 days

  85 per cent. in 30 days

  Child benefit

  68 per cent. in 10 days

  94 per cent. in 30 days

  Family credit

  57 per cent. in 13 days

  95 per cent. in 42 days

  Disability living allowance

  68 per cent. in 30 days

  85 per cent. in 53 days

  Retirement pension

  65 per cent. in 20 days

  95 per cent. in 60 days

  Unemployment benefit

  75 per cent. in 12 days

  2 BENEFIT ACCURACY
  763
  Income support

  to pay the correct amount in at least 87 per cent. of cases

  Incapacity benefit

  to pay the correct amount in at least 94 per cent. of cases

  Child benefit

  to pay the correct amount in at least 98 per cent. of cases

  Family credit

  to pay the correct amount in at least 93 per cent. of cases

  Disability living allowance

  to pay the correct amount in at least 98 per cent. of cases

  Retirement pension

  to pay the correct amount in at least 99 per cent. of cases

  Unemployment benefit

  to pay the correct amount in at least 97 per cent. of cases

  3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

  90 per cent. of customers to regard the agency's service as satisfactory or better

  4. FINANCIAL RECOVERY

  recovery of social fund loans—£19.10 million

  recovery of income support overpayments—£1.70 million

  recovery of centralised benefits overpayments—£0.42 million

  benefit savings from detection and prevention of fraud—£ 14.00 million

  to carry out 3,800 national insurance contributions surveys, including 1,020 employer educational visits

  identify £1.12 million class I arrears as a result of compliance work

  5. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

  to live within a gross allocation of £31.74 million for social fund loans and community care grants

  to live within the agency's gross administration budget of £138.70 million, of which £135.40 million relates to running costs

  to achieve cash efficiency savings of the order of £4.50 million

  Notes:

  1in all cases, clearance time is measured from the date of receipt of a claim or application in the office to the date on which the claim or application is decided. The measure, therefore, excludes the time taken to issue notification of the decision and any payment.

  2 Monitored against 95 per cent. in one day.

  Emergency Provisions Act
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many notices to attend interview have been issued under schedule 5 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 in each year since 1991. [20232]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 24 April 1995]: The information is contained in table 14 of "Annual Statistics on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act," a copy of which is in the Library.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner,
  764
  (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20662]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: The remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner does not extend to executive non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration investigates complaints of alleged injustice as a consequence of maladministration by Northern Ireland Departments, including their agencies, while the function of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints investigates similar complaints against local and public bodies.

  The current list of executive non-departmental public bodies which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints is as follows:

  Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  Education and Library Boards

  Enterprise Ulster

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

  Industrial Training Boards

  Labour Relations Agency

  Laganside Corporation

  Livestock and Meat Marketing Commission for Northern Ireland

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment

  Northern Ireland Sports Council

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Office of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  Trustees of the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  Trustees of the Ulster Museum

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  There are no executive non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland which are subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission.

  The following executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  Independent Commissioner for Police Complaints

  Training School Management Board Rathgael and Whiteabbey

  The responsibility of the National Audit Office does not extend to the six Northern Ireland Departments, which have their own similarly appointed body—the Northern Ireland Audit Office. The following executive non-departmental public bodies are subject to scrutiny by the NIAO:

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  Northern Education and Library Board

  South Eastern Education and Library Board

  Southern Education and Library Board

  Western Education and Library Board

  765

  Enterprise Ulster

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  Executive of the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland

  Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessments

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  Ulster Museum

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  The executive non-departmental public bodies which are subject to the statutory provisions for open government are those bodies listed as under the jurisdiction of the NI Commissioner for Complaints.

  All executive non-departmental public bodies listed in the publication "Public Bodies 1994" are subject to performance indicators and the provisions under the citizens charter. A copy of the "Public Bodies 1994" is available in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Executive Agencies
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets he has set for the executive agencies in his Department. [22100]

  Mr. Norris
  The following key targets have been set for the Department of Transport's executive agencies. The targets are set out in the agencies' business plans, which also include management objectives, performance indicators and key tasks, where appropriate to the agencies' businesses. Copies of the business plans will be placed in the Library in due course except that for the Transport Research Laboratory, whose plan is commercially confidential and will not be published.

  The key targets for the Coastguard Agency are to:
  discharge the Secretary of State's responsibility for maritime search and rescue through the agency's own or dedicated assets by:

  (i) maintaining a 24 hours SAR co-ordinating capability within, and including the coasts and shoreline of, the United Kingdom search and rescue region, UKSRR;

  (ii) maintaining a comprehensive radio reception and transmission coverage of the UKSRR which enables SAR co-ordination action for the duration of incidents without interruption or equipment malfunction; and

  (iii) testing contingency plans for major maritime SAR incidents, particularly those involving ferries, by undertaking six major live exercises;

  review the recording of SAR incidents, by October 1995; and after consideration of the pattern and type of incidents to make proposals for improving the effectiveness of the current SAR prevention strategy by March 1996;
  maintain a fully operational 24-hour channel navigation information service covering the Dover strait traffic separation scheme, in concert with the appropriate French authorities;
  766
  discharge the Secretary of State's responsibility for dealing with marine pollution by the maintenance of a national contingency plan and in particular:

  (i) activate the plan within 30 minutes of notification of an incident;

  (ii) commence action at sea to deal with a spill of dispersable oil within four hours of notification of an incident;

  (iii) test the effectiveness of the plan by undertaking a major exercise and to report on the outcome by 31 March 1996;

  carry out 625 hours a year aerial surveillance of the sea area for which the UK has responsibility to detect or deter incidents of marine pollution, including illegal discharges from ships; deliver the key targets and key tasks in the business plan within the agreed running costs budget.

  The key targets for the Driving Standards Agency are to:
  achieve unit costs of £24.75 for car tests; £56.00 for vocational tests; £33.40 for motorcycle tests; and £40.80 for the activities associated with the register of approved driving instructors;
  achieve a national average waiting time of no more than six weeks for car tests; no more than three weeks for vocational tests; no more than four weeks for motorcycle tests; and no more than five weeks for the approved driving instructor practical test;
  to answer 90 per cent. of telephone calls to booking offices within one minute.

  The key targets for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are to:
  make an efficiency gain, on the basis of overall efficiency index, of 2.2 per cent.;
  complete successfully 460,000 VED enforcement cases by imposition of penalties and recover through penalties and duty from induced relicensing at least £2.65 for every £1 full cost spent by DVLA on VED enforcement;
  deliver 95 per cent. of ordinary driving licence cases to customers within 11 working days of receipt, 95 per cent. of vocational driving licence cases within 10 working days of receipt, and 95 per cent. of first provisional driving licence cases within 10 working days of receipt;
  for medical cases, deliver 80 per cent. of first applications for ordinary driving licences within 35 working days of receipt, and 80 per cent. of first applications for vocational licences within 29 working days; and for cases of notification of medical condition reply in 80 per cent. of cases involving ordinary driving licences within 40 days and in 80 per cent. of cases involving vocational licences within 50 days;
  deliver 95 per cent. of registration documents for new vehicles within 13 working days;
  deliver 95 per cent. of changes to vehicle registration documents within 13 days;
  deliver answers to 95 per cent. of written inquiries within eight working days;
  answer 80 per cent. of telephone inquiries within 30 seconds;
  achieve percentages of documents without DVLA induced error of 96 per cent. for driving licences, 98 per cent. for registration documents for new vehicles and 93 per cent. for changes on registration documents.

  The key targets for the Highways Agency are to:
  complete the implementation of the agency's restructuring plans to achieve running cost savings of 20 per cent. by 1996–97, compared to the 1993–94 costs, by:

  (i) reducing the number of office locations from 18 to 11 by October 1995; and

  (ii) reducing the number of permanent staff from 2,280 at 1 October 1994 to 1,975 full-time equivalents by 1 October 1995;

  using existing management information systems, report on the agency's internal unit costs for the management and supervision of new construction schemes over £3 million in value, compared to costs in the last three years.
  Introduce and develop an activity costing and information system enabling:

  767
  unit costs for the agency's activities on new construction, maintenance and network stewardship to be developed;
  specific proposals for unit cost targets to be submitted to Ministers by the end of November 1995; and
  subject to ministerial approval, the introduction of comprehensive targets for unit costs to be set from 1996–97 onwards.
  In line with the objective of reducing the time taken to complete schemes, state in the agency's annual report:
  the average time taken to complete schemes that are completed in 1995–96 compared with the performance in recent years;
  and the average time between milestones for all those schemes that reach milestones in 1995–96, and compare this with previous years' performance.
  Complete all schemes within the approved scheme brief with performance to be measured by the number of schemes submitted to the Central Transport Group because of changes of scope or cost initiated by the Agency.
  Monitor, and state in the annual report, the unit cost of new construction.
  Monitor, and state in the annual report, the unit cost of carriageway renewal.
  Monitor, and state in the annual report, the benefit-cost ratio for the national roads programme based on the scheme briefs and agree with the Central Transport Group a target level for 1995–96 and following years below which the average should not fall.
  Carry out post-scheme evaluations on all appropriate schemes as agreed with the Central Transport Group.
  Reach scheme milestones for schemes in the roads programme and listed in annexe B of the business plan, as follows:
  award main works contracts for six of the eight publicly funded schemes;
  reach 90 per cent. of the other scheme milestones.
  Report in the annual report on progress towards the target of letting 30 per cent. of new construction contracts, by value, as design and build contracts by the end of 1996–97.
  If tenders represent good value for money, award four DBFO contracts and, subject to ministerial decisions, invite tenders for a further four DBFO contracts.
  Start 14 of the 16 major network enhancement projects listed at annexe C of the business plan and 85 per cent. of the smaller network enhancement projects listed at annexe D of the business plan.
  Maintain the trunk road network cost effectively by undertaking a programme of capital maintenance to preserve past investment at an optimum whole life cost, with the minimum disruption to traffic, and to ensure that roads are safe, reliable, and offer an acceptable quality of ride; and to ensure that, from 1 January 1999, all vehicles up to and including the new 40 tonnes maximum gross weight standard can use all structures supporting trunk roads and other important routes over trunk roads by, in 1995–96:
  renewing 134 nearside lane kilometres of motorway and 261 nlks of all purpose trunk road;
  assessing the structural capacity of 820 structures and upgrading 86 structures.
  Contribute to the Government's target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000 compared to the annual average for 1981–85, by reducing casualties on the trunk road network to an average of not more than 35,000 a year over the three years 1993 to 1995.
  Publish, as part of the agency's annual report, a section reporting its activities to promote road safety, including the accident rate on motorways and trunk roads.
  Publish as part of the agency's annual report, a report on environmental aspects of new schemes, and network management and maintenance activities demonstrating that the agency has given full weight to environmental issues in carrying out its functions, and has struck a balance accordingly. Meet the aims and targets enshrined within the citizens charter, the road user's charter and the agency's charter standard statement, "Your Home and Trunk Road Proposals".
  768
  Continue to develop systems for measuring the performance of the network, including quality of service indicators; collect data during 1995–96; make specific proposals to Ministers by the end of November 1995; and, subject to ministerial approval, agree targets for 1996–97.
  In accordance with the normal rules of Government accounting, avoid breaching the cash limits on the budgets voted by Parliament for both total expenditure and running costs.
  Introduce accrual accounting procedures to enable an auditable set of commercial-style accounts to be produced for the 1996–97 financial year, including a balance sheet, income and expenditure account, and a cash flow statement.
  Produce certified appropriation accounts by August 1995.

  The key targets for the Marine Safety Agency are to:
  review the recommendations of the IMO panel of experts convened to consider ro-ro passenger ferry safety and report by 30 June 1995 to the Department's Shipping Policy Directorate on the way forward to achieve improved safety standards;
  undertake trials by 31 March 1996 involving the fitting of radio transponders on a selected number of ships and press IMO through the Marine Safety Committee meeting for international acceptance of transponders including the development of performance specifications;
  following consultations with industry make proposals by 31 December 1995 for the introduction of intermediate safety equipment inspections of fishing vessels of 12 metres and over, and on their delegation;
  on deregulation, complete the internal review of all groups of merchant shipping legislation by 31 March 1995;
  maintain survey fee levels in real terms below those applied in 1994–95 whilst recovering the full economic cost of providing the service;
  work with the EU to ensure arrangements are in place by 31 December 1995 for the mandatory application of the international safety management code for passenger ships, class I and II, by 30 June 1996;
  undertake port state control inspections of 30 per cent. of foreign flagged vessels using UK ports including inspections of ro-ro ferries and fish factory ships;
  achieve an average output of 100 completed surveys and/or inspections per marine office surveyor while delivering the planned programme of surveys and inspections;
  manage efficiently the agency's resources so as to deliver the key targets and key tasks in the business plan within the agreed total running costs budget.

  The key targets for the Transport Research Laboratory are to:
  conduct its business pre-privatisation so as to meet its full costs over the 12-month period;
  manage the business pre-privatisation so that over the 12-month period direct fee earning costs as a percentage of total operating costs are greater than 56 per cent.;
  achieve average staff utilisation in research resource centres of at least 1,300 hours per year on direct fee earning work;
  ensure that 94 per cent. of project outputs to be assessed by customers as satisfactory or better on project assessment forms; and
  facilitate achievement of the privatisation objectives announced by the Secretary of State on 14 March 1995.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Inspectorate trading fund are to:
  achieve an efficiency improvement of 6 per cent. as measured by the agency's aggregate cost efficiency index;
  break even while achieving a 6 per cent. real rate of return on capital employed, taking one year with another;
  achieve an HGV/PSV test exemption rate of less than 0.01 per cent.;
  achieve an HGV/PSV test error rate of less than 0.47 per cent.;
  achieve a roadworthiness prohibition error rate of 0.5 per cent. or less;

  769
  return 95 per cent. of maintenance assessments for 'o' licence renewals and variations within six weeks and 99 per cent. within 12 weeks;
  decide 99 per cent. of all MOT statutory appeals against refusal to issue a test certificate within five working days;
  produce 95 per cent. of traffic enforcement reports for the traffic commissioners within four weeks or other agreed deadline;
  examine a minimum of 1.4 million HGV and 145,000 PSV tachograph charts;
  weigh a minimum of 115,000 goods vehicles; and
  achieve DOT weighbridge site equipment availability at 90 per cent. level nationally.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Certification Agency are:
  to achieve a net unit cost no higher than £70.80;
  to achieve such quality in the production of certificate that, after issue, at least 98 per cent. do not need correction as a result of VCA-generated errors;
  where errors in certificates do occur, to issue corrected documents within three working days in 80 per cent. of cases;
  to audit at least 50 per cent. of VCA's approved quality procedures;
  to receive a satisfactory appraisal report on VCA's technical performance from the Department's chief mechanical engineer.

  National Bus Company
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the current owners of the 70 former subsidiaries of the National Bus Company. [21673]

  Mr. Norris
  The 72 subsidiaries of the former National Bus Company, which included engineering works and holiday and service companies, were privatised between 1986 and 1988. Since then, there have been various changes in ownership, the structure of groups, and in operating territories, which makes it impossible to provide an exact correlation between original subsidiaries and present ownership.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the latest total estimated cost of the M11 link road; [16549]

  (2) on what estimated total cost the cost-benefit analysis study of the M11 link road was based; [16545]

  (3) if accidents including fatal ones were included in the COBA study of the M11 link road and what numbers and costs were used. [16550]

  Mr. Norris
  The current estimated total cost of the link road at today's prices is £340 million. This figure includes the preparation of designs and the supervision of works by our consulting engineers, the works contracts, the cost of diversion of statutory undertakers services and land costs; it also includes VAT where applicable.

  The cost-benefit analysis at the 1987 public inquiry used a present value of total costs of £39.11 million calculated in accordance with then current practice of using 1979 prices discounted to 1979. Future cost savings attributable to anticipated reduction in all accidents were included in the cost-benefit analysis. Details are given in the letter and in section 4.5 and table 7.1 of inquiry documents D2 and D45 respectively, which were sent to the hon. Member at his request by the Highways Agency on 20 December last.
  770
  The present value cost was based on a construction cost of £101.02 million and land cost of £23.3 million at 1986 prices.

  A comparison of these figures with the present £340 million estimated total cost indicates that the main areas with increases from the 1987 estimate are an update of works cost to 1995 prices of £29 million; land costs of £12 million; statutory undertakers costs of £22 million; preparation and supervision costs of our consulting engineers of £21 million; the introduction of secant piling retaining walls to reduce the effects of construction on adjoining properties and London Underground in Leytonstone of £32 million; various changes such as the cost of making provision in the scheme for the Chelsea-Hackney underground line, changes following receipt of soils investigation, and increased use of brick for screen and boundary walls and an improved standard of finish generally of £39.5 million; improved signs, lighting and communications in the tunnels of £4 million; security costs of £10 million; and VAT, £46 million.

  Airports
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will consider introducing legislation to give airports the power to impose fines on aircraft deliberately straying from officially recognised approach and departure flight paths. [20465]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government announced in March 1993 their intention to introduce, at a suitable parliamentary opportunity, new legislation to give aerodromes power to prepare and enforce noise amelioration schemes. The announcement followed extensive consultation, and included consideration of powers to impose fines for poor track keeping.

  Noise preferential routes for departing aircraft are in place at most major UK airports. There is, however, no consensus on what constitutes an unacceptable deviation from track, since track keeping, especially on turns, may be affected by operational factors, including weather. Operational factors also make it more difficult to devise comparable routes for landing aircraft.

  For safety reasons, air traffic controllers have complete discretion to direct aircraft off noise-preferential routes when necessary.

  Purchase Guidelines (Motorway Widening Schemes)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether new guidelines will be introduced for the discretionary purchase of property affected by a proposed motorway widening scheme, which take into account loss of value of the property. [21277]

  Mr. Watts
  Yes.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider the cases of homeowners in Hadrian's way, Baldock, when new guidelines are introduced for the discretionary purchase of properties affected by a proposed motorway widening scheme. [21275]

  Mr. Watts
  I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would write to me about these cases.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will introduce new guidelines for the discretionary purchase of property affected by a proposed motorway widening scheme. [21278]
  771
  Mr. Watts
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on 23 March,Official Report, column 317.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for interim measures pending the introduction of new guidelines for the discretionary purchase of property affected by a proposed motorway widening scheme. [21276]

  Mr. Watts
  Applications from owners whose property may be seriously affected by scheme proposals will continue to be considered against the current guidelines, which I have placed in the Library. Applications which are refused under the current guidelines during this period will be reconsidered when the new guidelines are introduced.

  Motorway Restrictions (Heavy Goods Vehicles)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he is giving to restricting heavy goods vehicles to the inside two lanes on four-lane motorways. [21549]

  Mr. Norris
  None. To do so would deny the road haulage industry the benefits of motorway widening and could have an adverse effect on road safety.

  Drivers' Hours Regulations
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce proposals for changes in the road vehicle drivers' hours regulations during the current Session of Parliament. [21660]

  Mr. Steven Norris
  The only change that we expect to propose in this Session is a minor one to clarify that the application of the UK regulations to certain vehicles used by health authorities extends as well to similar vehicles used by health trusts.

  British Railways Board
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the current subsidiaries and other commercial or operational units of the British Railways Board. [21658]

  Mr. Watts
  This is a matter for the board of British Rail. I have asked it to reply to the hon. Member.

  Passenger Coaches
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what checks are being made on the roadworthiness of passenger coaches. [21548]

  Mr. Norris
  A check of the roadworthiness of a passenger coach is made at the annual test. In addition, passenger coaches are examined for roadworthiness at enforcement checks both at the roadside and at operators, premises, where they may be prohibited from use if found to be defective.

DEFENCE

  Haymes Garth
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether advice was sought from an interior 772
  designer in respect of the redecoration and furnishings for Haymes Garth. [20612]

  Mr. Soames
  An interior designer was commissioned in November 1992 to provide advice in respect of the redecoration and furnishings for Haymes Garth.

  Turkish Forces
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military training has been given by his Department within the United Kingdom or Turkey to members of the Turkish military forces during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [20358]

  Mr. Soames
  Training has been provided in the UK to members of the Turkish armed forces during the past 12 months, as is normal practice between NATO nations. Pursuant to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs Clwyd) on 28 March 1995,Official Report, column 633, it is not normally our practice to disclose the precise details of military training given to any particular country as such details are regarded as being confidential between Governments.

  Sub-strategic Capability
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the transfer of the United Kingdom's sub-strategic capability from free-fall bombs to Trident missiles will allow a reduction in the overall number of weapons assigned to the sub-strategic role. [20569]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our practice to comment on the details of nuclear forces assigned to different roles.

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what change there will have been in the total number of nuclear warheads deployed by the United Kingdom when Trident is fully deployed compared with the 1990 level. [20567]

  Mr. Soames
  By the time Trident is fully in service, the UK's total stockpile of nuclear weapons will be 14 per cent. smaller than in the 1980s.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment his Department had made as to the advantage that might accrue to the United Kingdom in terms of demonstrating restraint in its nuclear weapons policy if Her Majesty's Government declared the number of nuclear warheads it deploys. [20571]

  Mr. Soames
  The restraint exercised by the United Kingdom in its nuclear weapons policy is amply demonstrated by the fact that total deployed UK nuclear warheads will be less than 10 per cent. of the strategic nuclear forces available to Russia or the United States even when the START 2 ceilings are implemented.

  Military Hospital, Aldershot
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the recent upgrading of toilets at Cambridge military hospital, Aldershot; and who ordered the upgrading. [20672]

  Mr. Soames
  While there has been no upgrading of lavatories at the Cambridge military hospital itself, the lavatories in the officers' mess were recently brought up
  773
  to normal standards at a cost of around £1,100. The work was authorised locally in line with established procedures.

  Edmund Sykes
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department and Mr. Edmund Sykes. [21688]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no relationship with Mr. Edmund Sykes.

  Mr. Stephen Crouch
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department and Mr. Stephen Crouch. [21687]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no relationship with Mr. Stephen Crouch.

  Arms Sales (Lebanon)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what official business was discussed at the meeting between the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, column 395. [21740]

  Mr. Freeman
  Discussions covered a range of topics of mutual interest to the MOD and Mr. Makhzoumi.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions on which the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), as Minister for Defence Procurement, discussed with Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi defence sales possibilities involving Lebanon. [21739]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have nothing to add to the answers that I gave to the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 24 April 1995,Official Report, column 395.

  Portland Naval Base (Closure)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the expected departure dates from the Royal Navy base at Portland of(a) the Defence Research Agency, (b) the Sea Systems Controllerate, (c) the Naval Support Command and (d) other units; what is the expected departure date of units from the rest of south Dorset; and what are the numbers of personnel involved. [21405]

  Mr. Soames
  On current plans, the departure dates of units from south Dorset and members of personnel involved are as follows:

  Defence Research Agency: all operational staff will have left the naval base by June 1995.

  Sea Systems Controllerate: Staff relocating from Portland to Abbey Wood are expected to move between August and October 1996.

  Naval Support Command: options for the location of the headquarters are still under consideration. It is not yet possible to say when these moves will take place.

  Other units: if the Front Line First proposal is agreed that the Royal Naval air station Portland should close, the expected relocation of units to Yeovilton would be phased over a period, leading to the final closure of RNAS Portland by 1 April 1999. On current plans flag officer sea training personnel will move to Plymouth on 21 July 1995. It is also expected that Royal Marines personnel will relocate to Poole in June 1995.
  774
  For numbers of personnel involved, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 27 April, column 692.

  Overtime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19687]

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: Separate records are not maintained for all the individual defence agencies and it would require disproportionate cost to provide this information. We are, however, able to supply the overtime information requested at (a) and (b) for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the Met Office. The information set out below relates to non-industrial and industrial staff for the financial years shown:

  (a) Overtime hours worked

  (b) Amount paid £ million

  1992–93—MOD including Agencies

  Non-industrial

  8,463,679

  67.7

  Industrial

  8,279,479

  52.2

  Total

  16,743,158

  119.9

  1993–94—MOD excluding DERA

  Non-industrial

  8,591,769

  63.6

  Industrial

  7,372,299

  48.1

  Total

  15,964,068

  111.7

  1993–94—DERA

  Non-industrial

  687,759

  4.7

  Industrial

  314,763

  2.1

  Total

  1,002,522

  6.8

  1994–95—MOD excluding DERA and Met Office

  Non-industrial

  7,201,061

  50.5

  Industrial

  7,233,424

  48.3

  Total

  14,434,485

  98.8

  1994–95—DERA

  Non-industrial

  714,186

  5.2

  Industrial

  227,960

  1.5

  Total

  942,146

  6.7

  1994–95—Met Office

  Non-industrial

  558,407

  3.5

  Industrial

  454

  0.003

  Total

  558,861

  3.503

  (c) 1992 Total MOD including agencies

  Non-industrial

  709,745 days

  Industrial

  No data available

  1993

  Non-industrial

  737,963 days

  Industrial

  No data available

  1994

  Data is not yet available for this year

  775
  It is not possible to give a figure for the monetary equivalent of the total number of days lost to sickness. There are too many variables involved in this calculation and it would be difficult to rely on the accuracy of any such calculation.

  Agency Job Losses
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the number and location of Army Base Repair Organisation, Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Defence Accounts Agency, Defence Analytical Services Agency, Defence Animal Centre, Defence Operational Analysis Centre, Defence Postal and Courier Services, Defence Research Agency, Duke of York's Royal Military School, Hydrographic Office, Meteorological Office, Military Survey, Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation, Queen Victoria School, RAF support command's Maintenance Group Defence Agency, RAF Training Group Defence Agency, Service Children's Schools offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will list the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland as a result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period. [20036]

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 27 April 1995]: I have asked the chief executives of the agencies mentioned in the question to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. Drew to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply directly to your parliamentary question concerning the number of Army Base Repair Organisation offices closed in Scotland, and the transference of workload between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
  It might be helpful if I begin by briefly explaining how the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO) is organised. The Agency is responsible for the delivery of a repair and refurbishment service for Army equipment. This service is delivered through a network of workshops and contract repair offices located throughout the United Kingdom. Agency Headquarters is at Andover. The repair service comprises two distinct categories. First is the planned repair of the Army's equipment fleets, known as base repair. Second is the unplanned repair and support of equipment held by Army units in the geographical area covered by each workshop and contract repair office. Both the planned and unplanned repair workload is divided between ABRO's workshops and private industry. This could well change in the future as our Competing for Quality strategy matures.
  The Agency has a workshop situated at Stirling, and I can confirm that there has been no transference of workload into or out of Scotland, and therefore no loss or increase in jobs other than that associated with the normal fluctuation of the annual workload. However, given the character of the work, there can be substantial variations. The future may well see further reductions throughout the agency as Defence Costs Study decisions are implemented.
  During June 1992 the ABRO Contract Repair office based at Inverness closed with the loss of two technical posts (HPTO, PTO) and one and a half clerical posts. The workload was transferred to the Glasgow office with no increase in staffing levels at that location. Subsequently, the ABRO Contract Repair office at Glasgow relocated to Stirling during March 1994, co-locating with the workshop with the loss of one clerical post.
  I hope this information is sufficient for your purposes.

  Letter from P. Trevelyan to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 April 1995:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Defence to reply, on behalf of the Defence Accounts Agency, to your Parliamentary Question number 7343G. You asked for the number and location of Agency offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as
  776
  a result of Agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period.
  The answer to both parts of your question is Nil.

  Letter from P. Altobell to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your question about jobs lost or gained as a result of Agency work transferring to or from Scotland over the past five years.
  For the period concerned the Defence Analytical Services Agency have had no offices in Scotland.

  Letter from A. Roache to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Under Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question No 7343G, relating to numbers of Agency offices and jobs in Scotland.
  The Defence Animal Centre operates from a single site here at Melton Mowbray and has no connection, past or present, with jobs or offices in Scotland.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Letter from T. Brown to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply on behalf of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency to your question about the number of offices closed and jobs lost or transferred as a result of work moving between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.
  In the period requested this Agency has not closed or opened any new offices. In addition no work has been transferred from Scotland to other parts of the United Kingdom, or vice versa.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 April 1995:

  1. I am replying to your parliamentary question about changes in employment in Scotland over the last 5 years in the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).

  2. The DERA was formed on 1 April 1995 out of the Defence Research Agency (DRA), the Defence Operational Analysis Centre (DOAC), the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE), all Agencies of the MOD, and a number of other MOD directorates and establishments providing scientific and technical support to the department.

  3. I am therefore now responsible for three former Agencies listed in your question. Of these, only the DRA, which was formed in April 1991, has sites in Scotland, DOAC and CBDE are both confined to single sites in the south of England.

  4. Since its launch in 1991 the DRA has neither closed offices or lost jobs as a result of any of its work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom nor has it opened offices or gained jobs in Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period.

  5. I hope this information is useful.

  Letter from W. Spreadbury to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 April 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your PQ 7343G on behalf of the Chief Executive who is absent on duty.
  In response to your request to list the number of offices closed and jobs lost or transferred from Scotland and also of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland for the same reason, I have to report that the answer in respect of the Duke of York's Royal Military School is nought in all cases.

  Letter from R. Cotton to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 April 1995:

  1. You recently asked The Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question concerning the number of Offices closed and jobs lost or transferred from Scotland to other areas in the UK as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland over the past five years. As your question was, in part, related to the Hydrographic Office, the Secretary of State has asked that the Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Office should reply to you direct. Unfortunately,

  777
  Admiral Essenhigh is at present away from the Office on official duty so I am replying on his behalf.

  2. The UK Hydrographic Office, located in Taunton, Somerset, became a Defence Agency on 6 April 1990. Its primary task is to provide nautical charts and publications to the Royal Navy, but it also offers similar services to the mercantile marine and other commercial shipping agencies both within the UK and overseas. To support the Royal Navy, a number of chart maintenance units (CMU) exist throughout the UK to provide a waterfront service for the Fleet. Two such CMUs are located in Scotland, one at Rosyth and one at Faslane.

  3. Since 1990 there has been a reduction from 10 to 2 posts in the complement of the CMU at Rosyth; some of these posts have been lost while others have been transferred to other CMUs within the UK. No posts have been lost at Faslane, where the complement remains at 2. This reduction has been caused by a combination of a reducing Fleet, baseport transfers and a reduction in stockholdings arising from ongoing efficiency improvements.

  4. I hope the above has served to answer your question. If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to get in touch.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 25 April 1995:
  I am responding on behalf of the Meteorological Office to your Parliamentary Question concerning job gains and losses in Scotland over the past five year.
  As an operational organisation responsive to changes in customer requirements we have periodically to move jobs around within Scotland as well as 'importing' and 'exporting' posts to and from the rest of the United Kingdom. However the net effect of these changes over the years in question has been neutral in terms of Meteorological Office staff in Scotland.

  Letter from A. J. Hoon to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 20 April 1995:
  I understand that you have asked the Secretary of State for Defence to give the number Military Survey offices closed, and the number of jobs that have been lost or transferred result of Agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom, over the five years. Likewise for the creation of such in Scotland. Acting on behalf on the Chief Executive of Military Survey I have been asked to reply with regard to this Agency.
  Military Survey has no offices in Scotland. There have, therefore, been no closures of nature identified and no job losses resulting in the last five years. Neither have there been transfers to Scotland during the period.

  Letter from W. S. Graham to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 April 1995:

  1. The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question concerning offices and jobs changes in the NARO DA over the last 5 years.

  2. My response to your 2 part question is as follows:

  778

  (a) Transferring from Scotland: Nil.

  (b) Transferring to Scotland: Nil.

  Letter from Brian Raine to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question No 7343G about Agencies and jobs lost or transferred out of Scotland.
  As a result of Queen Victoria School being designated an Agency in 1992, no offices or jobs have been lost or transferred to other parts of the United Kingdom, nor have any jobs been created.
  I hope this answers your question satisfactorily, but if there is anything on which you would like to me to elaborate, please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Letter from Richard Kyle to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 April 1995:
  You asked Secretary of State for Defence if he would give the number and location of RAF Logistics Command's Maintenance Group Defence Agency's offices closed, and the number of jobs lost or transferred, as a result of Agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will list the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period.
  The Maintenance Group was established as a Defence Agency on 1 April 1991. The Defence Agency has no offices or establishments located in Scotland and no offices or jobs have been transferred from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom since the creation of the Defence Agency.

  Letter from A. A. Nicholson to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 April 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO PQ7343G—TRAINING GROUP DEFENCE AGENCY REPLY
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State asked me to reply, in respect of my own area of responsibility, to the question you asked of him about Defence Agencies and Jobs Lost and Jobs Transferred.
  I am able to tell you that no Training Group jobs have been lost in Scotland since the launch of Training Group Defence Agency on 1 April 1994, nor have others been transferred to Scotland since the same date.
  I am copying this letter to the Agency's owner, the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Personnel & Training Command.

  Letter from Ian S. Mitchelson to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 April 1995:

  1. The Secretary of State has referred to me for reply to your Parliamentary Question asking for the number of Service Children's Schools (amongst others) closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of Agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom in the past 5 years. You also asked for similar information about offices opened and jobs gained.

  2. Service Children's Schools (North West Europe) formed as a Defence Agency in April 1991. Under the arrangements set out in the Agency's Framework Document the Agency operates solely overseas in North West Europe. The Agency does not have any responsibility for Scotland.

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

Finance Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
It seems that a relatively short time has passed since we were discussing the 1994 Finance Bill. Today we are here to debate the 1995 Bill in full, following our earlier discussion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Statement on 10th December. The Bill contributes to the Government's overall economic policy of promoting sustained economic growth and rising prosperity, through structural policies to improve the long-term performance of the economy, by maintaining a stable macro-economic environment.
The key consideration underlying the 1994 Budget was the need to keep the economy on track to achieve sustainable and non-inflationary growth by maintaining firm control over public finances. Borrowing is set to fall rapidly. We are projecting a PSBR of £21½ billion in 1995–96, falling to £13 billion in 1996–97, returning to balance by the end of the decade. That reduced borrowing should provide an added stimulus to business confidence and further strengthen the economy.
The improvement in the public finances has been due in no small part to tight control of public spending. Spending will be almost £30 billion lower than previously projected over the survey period. We have introduced a wide range of policy measures designed to target resources to areas where they are most needed. We have launched a major crackdown on social security fraud which is set to save over £2 billion over the next three years. Reforms of housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest will keep costs under control while protecting those most in need. We are continuing with our tough drive for economy in administration. Central government running costs have been reduced by £300 million for 1995–96, compared with previous plans.
The Budget itself included a number of tax and other measures to help business, aimed at improving the prospect for jobs and strengthening the long-term performance of the economy. That included a package of measures worth £1.7 billion over the next three years, to help small businesses. We recognise the difficulties faced by such businesses and their crucial importance to the British economy. That is why we have taken a great many opportunities to provide help in the area since 1979.
The Budget included a cut in employers' national insurance contributions for the second consecutive year, transitional relief for business rates, tax reliefs for venture capital trusts and an enhanced enterprise investment scheme to stimulate investment in small firms, and numerous measures to ease the burdens on small
1150
businesses. That easing of burdens, particularly through deregulation, is a long-running theme of the Government's policy towards small business. Changes in the Budget include: allowing more firms to account quarterly for PAYE; consultation on a possible move to annual VAT returns, and on a simplified scheme of VAT accounting for small traders. The new venture capital trust scheme and the enterprise investment scheme will encourage the flow of investment into small and growing businesses, filling one of the gaps in the range of financing options available to growing companies. The measures that I have mentioned have been welcomed widely by many and will reinforce the Government's commitment towards ensuring that we have a healthy and vigorous small firms sector for the future economic well-being of the country and to achieve higher levels of employment. That theme is particularly important when one considers that 96 per cent. of the 2.7 million firms employ fewer than 20 people.
The Budget was intended to have a broadly neutral effect on the public finances compared with previous plans. But it followed, of course, two Budgets in which taxes have risen. We did not want to have to increase taxes, and we will reduce them as soon as it is prudent to do so; but we did it because it was economically necessary. It was a hard decision, but being in government is about making hard decisions. I should, however, point out at this time that, no matter how hard the decisions, the Government remain committed to ensuring that those more vulnerable members of our society are not neglected. With that in mind, I am sure that noble Lords will be pleased to note that from 6th April this year personal allowances for the over-65s were increased by £430—that was £330 more than was necessary by indexation—and that the lower 20 per cent. tax rate was widened by much more than was necessary for inflation.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Budget Statement that the British economy is currently facing the most favourable set of economic circumstances it has seen for many years. The Budget was designed to create the right environment, strengthen British business, create jobs and keep the economy firmly on track for growth that can last.
I now turn to the Bill. Once again we have a long Bill before us and I accept there has been some concern about its complexity and its length. However, approximately 80 pages are devoted to self-assessment, a major reform of the tax system. Another 25 pages or so are dedicated to venture capital trusts, which I mentioned earlier. And about 30 pages result from a long overdue rationalisation and simplification of vehicle excise duty. The Bill also legislates for many of the Budget measures which give help to businesses and which provide further opportunities for savers.
The Government though are aware of how complicated tax legislation has become and remain committed to making it as simple as possible, consulting in advance wherever we can on our proposals. There has been extensive consultation with tax experts and with interested parties on almost two-thirds of this Bill. Over 60 clauses have been made available in draft to help the Government get the legislation right. And we will

1151
continue to consult wherever we can. Again, we have published explanatory Notes on Clauses. These have been welcomed as an aid to understanding the measures being proposed more fully.
I now turn to the detail of the Bill and I should like to begin with those clauses covering indirect taxation. As a result of the decision taken in another place on 6th December to leave the rate of VAT on fuel and power at 8 per cent., my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a number of measures on 8th December to ensure that the public sector borrowing requirement would continue to fall in line with the Budget strategy. I delivered this Statement concurrently to this House and, as a result, Clauses 3, 7, and 11 of the Bill we have before us today provide that the duty on alcoholic drinks be increased by around 4 per cent. and specific duties on most tobacco products increased by some 3.7 per cent. (on top of the increase of between 5 per cent. and 6.4 per cent. in Clause 10). There will be no further increase on hand-rolling tobacco but duties on road fuels (leaded and unleaded petrol and diesel) have also been increased by 1p a litre (including consequential VAT) equivalent to between 2.5 per cent. and 3 per cent. above the 8.3 per cent. in Clause 6.
Clause 12 reduces pool betting duty from 37.5 per cent. to 32.5 per cent. This reduction was implemented in response to the real concerns of the pools industries which have faced stiff competition and loss of turnover since the start of the National Lottery. Clause 13 increases the rates of duty on gaming machine licences by 20 per cent. This is the second increase since the March 1993 Budget but the two increases together do no more than restore the real value of the duty to 1987 levels. Clause 14 and Schedule 3 amend the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 to widen the scope of gaming machine licence duty to include amusement machines and to allow payment by instalments for annual licences on all machines subject to the duty from 1st November this year. Clause 18 raises vehicle excise duties on cars by £5 to £135. Clause 19 and Schedule 4 contain amendments to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. They are designed to simplify the vehicle taxation structure—reducing the number of concessionary clauses from 132 to 11—and to introduce other measures to combat evasion from excise duty, and to make minor changes in the administration of the duty. Clause 21 provides for an 8 per cent. rate of VAT to apply (with effect from 1st April this year) to fuel and power for domestic or charity use. This clause, through amendments to the VAT Act 1994, establishes the rate of tax and the scope of its application. Clause 25 is related to groups of companies and amends the registration provisions, and is designed primarily to counter a particular type of tax avoidance scheme.
Clause 30 increases the scales used for charging VAT on fuel used for private mileage in business cars in line with the Inland Revenue fuel scales with effect from 6th April this year and introduces a separate scale to be used by businesses on annual accounting periods. The scale charges to petrol cars are increased by 5 per cent. and for diesel cars by about 4 per cent.
1152
Turning now to direct taxation. Clauses 35 and 36 set the income tax rates and allowances for 1995–96. The rates of tax are unchanged from 1994–95. The lower 20 per cent. rate limit is set at £3,200 of taxable income, compared with £3,000 in 1994–95, an increase which is more than double that required by indexation. It is also worth noting that most allowances and thresholds were indexed in the last Budget. We also provided additional help for pensioners. The age related personal allowance has been increased by more than inflation and this will offset the effect of the restriction of the married couples allowance on the elderly. Likewise, the widening of the lower rate tax band overcompensates for inflation. This represents a tax cut for the less well off and we should not forget that over 5 million people—one in five taxpayers—now pay tax at only 20 pence in the pound.
Clause 44 exempts accessories for the disabled from an income tax charge when fitted to a company car. The exemption applies not only to special accessories designed solely for use by a disabled person but also to optional accessories, such as automatic transmission and power steering, where these are needed to enable a disabled employee to use the car, where the employee is an orange badge holder. These changes have been widely welcomed as ensuring fair treatment for disabled employees with company cars.
Clauses 70 to 73 and Schedules 14, 15 and 16 cover the measures in the Bill relating to venture capital trusts. Individuals will have relief from income tax on dividends from venture capital trusts for investments of up to £100,000 a year. Capital gains tax relief will also be available. Along with the enterprise investment scheme, the VCT proposals put in place an effective set of measures aimed at generating equity investment in growing companies.
The measures contained in Clauses 103 to 129 continue the work to introduce self-assessment. The new system aims to streamline the present complicated rules for assessing and collecting tax. A lot of consultation has already taken place in this area and the Government are determined to develop extensive education and publicity to help people to understand the new rules.
Clause 137 removed the existing restrictions on the inclusion of part-time workers in tax-relieved employee financial participation schemes. Clause 155 increases the rate of inheritance tax agricultural property relief for let farmland from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. where the tenancy starts on or after 1st September 1995 for transfers made on or after that date.
Much of what I have said will not come as a surprise to those noble Lords who have followed the passage of the Bill closely. The Bill implements many of the measures announced by the Chancellor in the Budget last November. The Budget was designed to keep Britain firmly on track for growth that can and will last and which will strengthen British business, create more jobs and lay the foundations for sustained rises in prosperity.
The Bill implements many important parts of the Budget. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Henley.)
11.21 a.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for providing such a clear and concise, if somewhat leaden, summary of a large and complex Bill. Of course, in dealing with the second largest Finance Bill of all time—he ably summarised the largest Finance Bill of all time last year—it is not surprising that he could not cover everything. However, there are some important elements in the Bill which he failed to bring to your Lordships' attention which led to an overall picture of the Bill and of the state of the British economy which is, I am afraid, more than a little misleading.
Although the noble Lord talked about tax simplification, he failed to draw your Lordships' attention to the historic significance of Clause 160 of the Bill. This is the first clause in living memory which has been introduced into a Finance Bill against government opposition. The noble Lord's omission was all the more extraordinary because Clause 160 is about tax simplification. One might think that the Government would be in favour of that, but in fact Clause 160 was opposed by the Government in Committee. Clause 160 requires that the Government prepare a report on tax simplification, lay that report before Parliament and publish it before 31st December 1995.
I shall not embarrass the Minister by asking him to explain why the Government are opposed to that clause which encourages simplification of the tax system. One might think, uncharitably, that they are afraid that their voracious appetite for higher and higher taxes would be exposed if the tax system were easier to understand. However, I shall ask him to give an assurance that adequate time will be provided in your Lordships' House for consideration of that important report. Can the Minister also assure the House that the report will include a comprehensive consideration of the whole structure of personal and corporate taxation with concrete proposals for reform and simplification?
The noble Lord also passed somewhat rapidly over the significance of Clause 21. That is the clause which fixes the rate of VAT charged on domestic fuel at 8 per cent., not the 17.5 per cent. which the Government wanted so desperately to impose on the British people and over which they were defeated in another place. Will the Minister give an unequivocal undertaking that there will be no more attempts, in the short time which this Government have left, to increase the tax on domestic fuel, given the terrible damage that such a tax does to the living standards of some of the poorest people in this country?
The Minister failed to mention Schedule 17. Perhaps that was a matter of both political and personal embarrassment. Noble Lords will remember that Schedule 17 was discussed in your Lordships' House on 2nd February this year. At that time the schedule proposed, among other things, the taxation of the non-existent interest on interest-free loans. On 2nd February the noble Lord, Lord Henley, announced that the Government were withdrawing that provision as it applied to charities. Noble Lords will be glad to know that, perhaps as a result of their interventions on that day,
1154
and despite the protestations of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at that time, the provision to tax a wide variety of interest-free loans has now disappeared altogether.
That is an interesting example of how your Lordships' House can, if given the opportunity, make valuable and constructive suggestions about the contents of the Finance Bill. It reinforces the point often made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that there should be a procedure whereby this House could examine the Finance Bill at greater length and at a time when arguments made here could be taken into account. If that were possible, the very considerable expertise available in your Lordships' House could be deployed to the ultimate benefit of government and taxpayers.
Finally on taxation, as everyone knows, this Finance Bill is the culmination of a series of tax-raising Finance Bills initiated two years ago by Mr. Lamont and pursued with messianic zeal by Mr. Clarke. The persistent increases in personal taxation since the last general election have resulted in two new Tory records: a record number of taxpayers paying record levels of tax. The noble Lord failed to mention that.
He did mention, however, that buried in this tax-increasing Finance Bill is a remarkable tax-cutting clause—Clause 155. That clause is likely to eliminate an entire category of tax revenue. Clause 155 will provide 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax on agricultural land which is let to tenants on or after 1st September this year. That is an almost perfect device for avoiding inheritance tax for anyone with sufficient capital, whether or not they are involved in farming. There is no need actually to farm the land; no need to hand over assets seven years before death, with all the risks that that involves; just put your capital into land early and lease it out.
It may be that that measure will increase the amount of land available to let. But is it not clear that it is a perfect avoidance device which will push up the demand for agricultural land by passive holders and thereby increase the price of agricultural land, to the detriment of prospective small farmers? That clause is damaging to the integrity of the tax system. What is the Treasury estimate of the fall in inheritance tax revenue which will be precipitated by Clause 155? If it is less than 80 per cent. I do not believe it. Clause 155 is a device for tax avoidance—not pure, but certainly simple.
Those are some of the detailed and important clauses of the Bill which the noble Lord treated rather lightly in his précis. What he did tell us was that the economy was performing well. It would be not only churlish but downright inaccurate not to agree with him—at least in part. Growth is at 3 per cent.; inflation is rising, it is true, but at a low level; unemployment is falling; and the growth of the economy is being driven primarily by exports.
As I have argued in your Lordships' House on previous occasions, the policy mix which has brought about that desirable set of circumstances comprises: first, the devaluation of the pound; secondly, a sharp increase in personal taxation, needed to tackle the folly of that reckless consumption-driven boom of the late 1980s; thirdly, insecurity, negative equity and general gloom in the housing market which has been an important factor in

1155
keeping consumption down; and, fourthly, falling world commodity prices, which drew the inflationary sting from devaluation.
That has been the policy mix which has brought about the "success". The question which the Minister has persistently failed to answer on previous occasions, and the question to which your Lordships deserve an answer, is this: are the Government going to continue with that policy mix? Are the Government going to devalue further? Are taxes to go up further? Is insecurity to be maintained in the housing market; or is further devaluation to be resisted, taxes cut, and a new boom launched in the housing market?
While the noble Lord, Lord Henley, totally failed to answer those questions—he did not even bother to address them—some were confronted, at least indirectly, by the President of the Board of Trade in his speech to the Institute of Directors on Wednesday of this week. Ever since the World Trade Organisation revealed just before Easter that, despite the devaluation, Britain's exports have grown little faster than world trade as a whole, we have all—with the exception of the noble Lord opposite—become somewhat less euphoric about Britain's trade performance.
Wednesday's speech revealed Mr. Heseltine in a distinctly downbeat mood. There was no economic success story in Mr. Heseltine's speech. Instead he argued that the UK has a "fundamental problem" of carrying too many weak firms. He told us that Britain is facing growing competition from high cost, well paid competitor countries like Germany and Japan. He stated:
"The best of our companies are the equal of anything to be found in Germany. But too many of our companies are not".
We are "outcompeted" by Germany. We are outcompeted by the country whose currency has been sharply revalued—the country which rejoices in its adherence to the social chapter, which has absorbed the derelict East Germany, and whose exports last year grew in real terms as fast as ours did. No wonder Mr. Heseltine is worried. Devaluation does not seem to be enough. With manufacturing investment still stagnant, at levels which, as a share of GDP, place us at the bottom of the G7 league table, it is not surprising that he is worried. No wonder Mr. Howard Davies—by the way, we congratulate him on his appointment as Deputy Governor of the Bank of England—has argued this week that UK companies' ability to penetrate growing export markets is,
"beginning to be seriously constrained by a serious lack of capacity".
It was not only Mr. Heseltine who revealed some of the truth about Britain's economy last week. The IMF provided some insights too. Perhaps when he winds up the noble Lord will tell us why, if the British economy is so strong and doing so well, at the first sign of currency turbulence international investors sell pounds. Be that as it may, the IMF argued in its latest World Economic Outlook that the weakness of the pound,
"argues for earlier steps to raise interest rates further than would have been required otherwise".
Do the Government agree with the IMF' s analysis? If so, what will be the implications for the investment which is so desperately needed?
1156
The IMF did not confine itself to the question of exchange rates and interest rates. Its spokesman addressed the problem of British taxes too. Professor Michael Mussa, the chief economist of the IMF, argued that it is important that the British Government carry through the tax increases and public spending plans that they have already announced, and keep to their aim of balancing the budget by the end of the decade. In other words, there is no room for tax cuts.
In Washington, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to agree. He announced that any tax cuts must be earned by further spending reductions. Mr. Clarke's position is understandable given the fact that we now know that government borrowing is running above forecast rates. But will the noble Lord tell us exactly what the Chancellor had in mind? What further spending reductions are there? Already public spending is set to rise at only 1.5 per cent. in real terms over the next two years and therefore will fall as a share of GDP. So what is to be cut? Education? Health? Social security? Defence? If not those, what? Perhaps the noble Lord will give us a clue.
While we are considering further cuts in public expenditure, will the noble Lord tell us the Treasury estimate of the increase in public expenditure which will necessarily derive from the impact of the sharp falls of the dollar on our subscription to the European Union budget? As noble Lords will be aware, a falling dollar automatically leads to higher CAP expenditure on agriculture export subsidies. Someone has to pay for that higher spending on the CAP. How much extra will the British taxpayer have to pay?
The European Union Budget Commissioner made a most interesting statement about that on Wednesday. He said:
"it is possible … that we will have to go to EU governments to raise the revenue ceiling under arrangements agreed at the Edinburgh Summit in 1993".
Will the noble Lord tell us what Mr. Liikanen meant? What arrangements were made at Edinburgh to raise the revenue ceiling above that already agreed? Have the Government agreed in advance to further payments to the European Union budget should spending be forced upwards "automatically" by such phenomenon as the falling dollar?
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, told us nothing of those problems. Yet they are the problems that must be faced if the current performance of the economy is to be sustained. What we want to hear from the Government are not empty slogans about tax cuts, or empty rhetoric about the imaginary dangers of the social chapter. Instead, we need to know how the growth of exports is to be sustained, how investment is to be encouraged, and how we are to avoid the uniquely destructive power of one of those old-fashioned, Tory, tax-cutting, inflationary consumer booms.
The truth is that anything about the economy that is working well today is not because of the policies that the Government espoused at the last general election, but in spite of them. The British people know that. They know that this Government cannot be trusted on taxation; they cannot be trusted on education, and they cannot be trusted

1157
with the health service. They know that this Government cannot be trusted with the economy. The sooner they go, the better for all concerned.
11.37 a.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, despite the illuminating, most interesting and enviably well informed speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, it is the custom of your Lordships' House not to discuss the Finance Bill in great detail—given the weight of it, that must be a matter of great relief to many of us —but to talk more about general economic policy, of which the Budget, and the Finance Bill as its instrument, is a most important element.
However, I intend to talk in rather more general terms than the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, not least because I do not have the research facilities or the expertise that he displays so admirably. If we were discussing the Bill in detail, I should start by saying that what is required in taxation is a much greater degree of simplification. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, paid lip service to the idea of simplification of tax; but does this enormous document suggest that in reality any real simplification is taking place?
The noble Lord reminded us that a high percentage of the people employed in industry are employed in small firms. The complexity of the tax system for the small and medium-sized firms to which the noble Lord paid tribute—and rightly so—and whose importance he rightly recognised must surely be a considerable problem. How can such firms be expected to cope with the complexities that the present tax system presents? I do not blame the noble Lord for not listening to what I am saying—it is not particularly interesting—but it is rather depressing to see him reading papers at the same time, if I may say so. Surely we must press for greater simplification. Some small steps need to be taken in that direction; a great many more are needed.
However, the Budget is, first and foremost, an instrument of economic policy. Shades of Mr. Gladstone, my Lords! What would he have thought of these detailed elements in the Finance Bill, in which there is very little to indicate that the Government have a grip on the vast economic problems of this country, which will not get better without drastic measures? There is little in the Bill to indicate that the Government have a long-term strategy for maintaining economic recovery. Nor had previous governments. But I do not propose to go into party politics in great detail this morning. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, accusing the Government of not saying where the money will come from to do all the things we need, I longed to ask him what his party would do and to explain to us where all the money would come from, if and when his party gets into power, to do all the admirable things he wishes. We would all like to do them if we could find the wherewithal.
The primary point I wish to make is that we are up against competition. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. The competition we will be up against increasingly in the future, which will become not easier but more difficult to deal with, requires policies. Those policies must, above all, maintain stability and will need to be continued year in and year out to meet the problems we face.
1158
We have been into the subject in a great many previous debates, but with what is happening in the eastern countries, the Pacific Rim, Japan and America, we shall find it extraordinarily difficult to hold our own. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out, there are signs that some members of the present Government are well aware that that is the position.
It will mean hard decisions. What do the manufacturers, the wealth creators in the country, really require? Will they get it from the Finance Bill and the Budget? They require stability in the economic scene so that they can make their forecasts for investment with some idea of what the future is likely to contain. One recognises that in the present world, with the volatility of finance and all the rapid changes in modern communications, stability and the ability to forecast with confidence what the future will be like are extremely difficult to produce. However, that must be one of the major objectives.
The sudden fall in the value of the pound must create considerable difficulties. It helps manufacturers to sell, but what does it do for the import crisis? To date we have been lucky not to be affected by the changes in import prices, as many of us reasonably expected would happen with devaluation. The recent devaluation and fall must have a drastic effect on import prices, and we cannot go on expecting that we shall avoid the consequences.
Stability is one of the first requirements if we are to be able to meet the competition as we should. However, it has often been said, but bears repeating, that we need far greater encouragement to invest than we have had up till now. There are points in the Finance Bill which give encouragement to investment. It is true that industry is investing more now than in the past. There is some slight improvement in recent years in industrial investment.
However, that investment is nothing like enough. Because of modem technology and the rapidity of technological advances, with new opportunities appearing, much more investment is required to back up the advances than in the past when the change in technology was nothing like as great. That raises the whole level of problems of investment and companies' needs in order to meet the problems.
Another side of investment is the requirement to encourage savings. In this country we are not adequate savers. Almost certainly we pay out too much in dividends. We ought to put the money earned into investment in industry rather than dividends. What is being done about that? I believe that there have been occasions when the CBI—and I have heard Mr. Howard Davies say this—has said that we need to have much more restraint over dividends, as our competitors do, in order to build up a much greater degree of investment than in the past. The Government need to give greater attention to that.
It is also important that appropriate investment should be made by the Government themselves. Much industrial development must come from the people who run industry. But the Government are also important investors in infrastructure and, as we have so often said, in education. I do not wish to turn this debate into a further discussion on education, but it must be underlined that the changes needed in education will be expensive. We are

1159
way behind others. That is probably the main reason for the difference between our performance and the performance in Germany, even though there are other reasons. The Germans and our competitors in Asia have educated and trained people so that the workforce can cope with modem technology as that technology becomes more complex and demanding.
I know that the changes and the money that has been put into education are an improvement on the past and that previous governments of both parties did all too little for education in this country. But it is a major issue if we hope to compete. We must face the fact that we shall not have a return—we will not get consumer booms—even if we do the things that are needed. Consumer booms are the last thing we want in this country, and the Government ought to have the courage to say so. If we are to have the kind of society we would like, we must find the social policies which make acceptable the economic changes that we face. The Government must ensure that money is available for the social as well as the educational policies that are required if we are to meet the challenges of the future.
If we want a decent, successful society, we must pay for it. I checked with my party that I would not be too unpopular for saying this, and it is not a popular point to make, but a decent society requires that we spend the money that is needed in order to achieve it. It is my belief that if the country really understood what we are up against, if the Government made clear what is needed, the sacrifices that are needed and the cost of getting things right, people could be persuaded to accept them. I do not want a headline: "Liberal Democrats want to put up taxation". In the past we have said that we would tax people more to improve the education system. Nevertheless, I believe that that policy can be sold to the public if an attempt is made to sell it in the right way. We all want a decent society; people would subscribe to that. Spell out what it means in terms of policies and costs and then sell it to the public. That is what we want in the Budgets of the future.
11.47 am.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I was glad that in the course of a most interesting speech the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, indicated that he thought that debates on the Finance Bill in this House served a valuable purpose. They did so in particular in mobilising the amount of expertise to be found in the House and in educating public opinion. I strongly share that view. The fact that we cannot amend this Finance Bill as it is a money Bill does not exclude our exercising great influence on opinion. I disagreed with a good deal of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, but I was glad that he began by saying that this was a valuable exercise.
I say to my noble friend Lord Henley that I do not think the Government have gone far enough in the arrangements which they have made. We are dealing with an enormous Bill, with 163 clauses and 29 schedules. One of the schedules has 12 parts. We all find it difficult to make a speech which is relevant to the Second Reading of an enormous Finance Bill such as this and at the same time deal individually with the important matters which arise
1160
on each clause. I say to the Minister that the Government have not gone far enough in the direction which was commended by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. We ought at least to have an opportunity for a general debate such as takes place on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place. We should then have something equivalent to the Committee stage in another place where one deals with individual clauses about which one is concerned. That is not all of them, of course; there are 163, many of which are of great importance.
I understand the unwillingness of the Government to let us debate these matters, and the unwillingness of the usual channels as manifested through the Procedure Committee, to allow proper and full debate. Nonetheless, I urge my noble friend that on future Bills we should have at least one debate such as the present one at Second Reading, and another equivalent to Committee or Report stage to deal with individual items. As it is, one has to insert general propositions, such as the noble Baroness just did, into a debate in which one also comments on extremely important and interesting individual items.
Perhaps I may now touch upon one or two such items which seem to me to be very important. First, Clauses 1 and 2, dealing with the duty on wine, and Clause 3, which deals with the duty on beer, are very important in the light of their relative weight and impact compared with similar taxes in Europe.
Since it has been possible, to go on a trip to Europe and bring back, duty free, wine or beer that one wishes to consume oneself, it has meant direct competition between wine merchants and brewers in this country and those in Europe. That is very unfair to British producers. In this country we produce some excellent wine and probably the best beer in the world. It is a great unfairness to producers here that any of us can go over to Calais and buy wine or beers, as the case may be, which carry a very much smaller tax than if we buy them at the shop or the pub round the comer. It really is not right, now that the free access provision is in place, to impose a higher rate of tax on wine or beer produced here than is imposed by our continental friends on the wine or beer that they produce in their own country.
I am also interested in Schedule 3, which deals with the amusement machine licence charge. I shall be interested to learn from my noble friend what is the yield of the tax in that respect. Is it to be increased by the present Bill; or will it just remain static, and if so, at what sort of figure?
I should also like to indicate an objection to Clause 15 of the Bill dealing with air passenger duty. It is quite wrong to impose a tax on people who travel by air when there is no similar tax for people who prefer to go by sea, train or bus. Why is there discrimination against the airlines? Why is it necessary to tax people who travel by air when it is not thought necessary to tax those who travel by other means? British civil aviation is of very great importance to this country. I speak with some feeling on this matter. Some noble Lords may recall that I was the first chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. It seems to me to be an act of extraordinary discrimination to impose a tax just on airline passengers while travellers using other means of

1161
transport are not taxed at all. If there is an explanation or a justification for that, I shall be very grateful if my noble friend will be good enough to tell the House what it is.
I turn now to Clause 33, on VAT. VAT is a very bad tax. It is inflationary in its effect: it directly puts up prices. Although I am glad the Government recoiled from their earlier intention to impose a very high rate of VAT on domestic fuel, it still seems to me to be a mistake to impose this still very heavy tax on domestic fuel, which is necessary for all of us, rich and poor alike, if we are to stay healthy and warm in winter.
I am afraid that there are several bad taxes in this Bill, of which VAT is certainly one. Despite the heavy taxation that it involves, we shall still be involved in a deficit that is the result of excessive expenditure. I therefore ask my noble friend, when he replies, to deal with the question of expenditure. If we are to maintain taxes at this level and still have an overall deficit, we are obviously spending more than we should.
I know that that is an easy comment to make, and it is much more difficult to say what could be cut. But I stress one example rather strongly; namely, legal aid. The cost of legal aid is mounting rapidly. Over the past two or three years, despite the most gallant efforts on the part of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to restrain legal aid, it has risen enormously. There is a question as to whether we can afford legal aid at all.
There is an alternative. We could adopt the American expedient of allowing lawyers to charge by results, and therefore not find it necessary to extract their fees from the taxpayer when they represent people of limited means. Legal aid is extremely expensive. It is a new addition to the charges that our country imposes on its people. I suggest that if, as seems to be the case, we are still spending too much, one of the targets for reduction, or indeed elimination, should be legal aid.
We have before us an enormous Bill; one which is extremely important. On its operation depends very largely the future of our economy and therefore the well-being of the whole of our people. As I ventured to say, it is right that noble Lords should discuss it very fully, and that we should discuss individual items particularly where new and additional taxes are imposed. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will indicate that the Government are prepared to listen to the views of this House. I hope that they will bear in mind the fact that it includes a very large number of people with experience both of public and private finance, and that we can make a big contribution to the good sense and judgment of public opinion on the finances of the country if we are allowed full opportunities to debate this matter.
Therefore, I hope that this debate today will be the predecessor of an enlarged and continuing process of discussion before your Lordships' House on finance Bills and indeed—dare I say to my noble friend?—consolidated fund Bills, too.
12 noon
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to take up a short furnished tenancy of a place on the Cross-Benches to make myself more comfortable while I make my speech.
The first question that I put to the Minister is this: when are we going to bring the lottery into the Finance Bill? It is obvious that what is happening in the lottery is quite ridiculous and it is not too early to begin to take notice of it. At the present time, wherever I go I hear the same comment from the public about the jackpot: "It's ridiculous —£17 million; it's ridiculous!"
We are not taking into account the economic circumstances of that new feature in our financial affairs which generates £45 million a week and pushes it into the economy. What happens to it? What difference is that money making? Many charities will say that it is making a great deal of difference to them before any worthwhile money has been distributed for charitable purposes. We now find that a good slice of it is to be given away through our Heritage Fund for a purchase which has given rise to considerable criticism.
I shall not say any more on this matter, except that I believe that a national lottery justifies a special tax regime of its own. The provision of 12 per cent. allocation from lottery receipts to taxation is not enough. One way to ease the disappointment of those who win a £5 million jackpot (regretting that it is not £7 million, £9 million or £17 million) would be to have a threshold of 95 per cent. tax on all winnings over £1 million—or something quite moderate like that.
Your Lordships' imaginations are as good as mine, and probably better, as to what we might do with the lottery money to fortify the national revenue. It might stop Chancellors of the Exchequer sipping a glass of whisky, to fortify the Revenue, when introducing their Budgets. They might have something encouraging to say about the contribution of the lottery to the national revenue. That would help greatly and make them more popular.
I support in more than one way the comments made just now by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. With him, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Eatwell, on making one of the most competent speeches on a finance Bill, relevant to the Finance Bill, that I have ever heard in your Lordships' House. Generally speaking, we go into the realms of the economy and the wider issues of the national condition; but we have deserted the terms of the Finance Bill itself. We ought to come nearer to the Finance Bill in these debates.
I regret that the Finance Bill is set down as a kind of secondary legislation to be discussed on Friday in this House. It ought to have a primary place in our order of business. Ever since I came to this Chamber, in conjunction with other noble Lords, I have tried to bring the Finance Bill to life in your Lordships' House and not pass it through all its stages—as I once saw happen—without a single word being said. I found that shocking. I attribute that to the state of mind created by the Parliament Act 1911, which seemed to strike the peerage a fatal blow in its pride and realisation of its functions. It is time for this timid House of Lords to reassert itself in the necessary quarters.

1163
Let us consider the Finance Bill as it is before us today. It has more than 20 clauses, from Clauses 103 to 123, to deal with the preparation for self-assessment. Clauses 103 to 118 wholly anticipate management changes. The last time that we had before us a taxes management Act was in 1970. That Bill was a very big one. It brought into a more modern perspective all the antique stuff in the Income Tax Act 1918. That Bill was open to debate in your Lordships' House and received a good deal of attention.
A few years ago, however, when we were discussing VAT, following the Keith report on enforcement—one of the most mischievous documents ever to come from an advisory committee on the subject—the Customs and Excise decided that they wanted to have powers to levy mandatory penalties taken from the courts and given to the bureaucracy. A whole schedule of mandatory penalties, which are as objectionable as the mandatory destruction orders for dogs (I must mention them), went through the other place but were considered to be outside the scope of debate in this House.
I tried to raise the question that, if there are to be mandatory penalties for failures of the VAT system under the Finance Bill, why should there not be some prizes, benefits and rewards for those taxpayers who perform their functions dutifully and accurately to date. After all, those who pay VAT to Customs and Excise are the agents of the public, who transfer the VAT paid by the public to the receiving department. Customs and Excise are merely a receiver-general of the taxes and products from VAT.
We must bear in mind the possibility that we may be asked—perhaps in the next finance Bill—to look at some more vital operative clauses on self-assessment. In this Bill there are 20 clauses anticipating the introduction of a system which we have not yet approved. That is the old dodge of the Government: to get as much done with the least amount of trouble in an area which is likely to be controversial.
Self-assessment is a revolution in tax affairs. The last one of its size was the introduction during the war of the tax deduction scheme which we call pay-as-you-earn. That was a real change. It needed an enormous amount of administrative attention and a great deal of care and public opinion to get it accepted and made workable, even in wartime, when the TUC was quiescent and the unions took it. Fancy allowing the hand of the Inland Revenue to go into the pockets of the workers, as they did under pay-as-you-earn, without those workers ever seeing the money or having any discretion as to when they paid it. It became a part of the system of pay-as-you-earn alongside all those assessed in Schedule D who had a tax called "pay-as-you-like". We must bear that danger in mind. Self-assessment will transform the whole tax system. It is time for us to give some attention to it. There should be some supervision of what is happening in the preparatory stages of such a revolutionary change in taxation. It may go so fast that the momentum cannot be stopped at the last post.
The Taxes Management Act, to which I referred earlier, should now become an issue. Your Lordships should protest against putting in the Finance Bill, year by year, under the protection of a money Bill, matters which are
1164
not matters of taxation but of criminal law. I refer to the penalties on the public, the fines. In the Customs and Excise scheme of VAT, the mandatory penalties are mandatory on the department and on its officials, just like the mandatory destruction of dogs. They say, "We are sorry, we have no discretion. The Act says we can do it. When we find that you have done this or that, the penalty is this. If it is repeated, it is twice as much. We are sorry, but that is the situation".
But there is a saving clause; the words "without reasonable excuse". What a beautiful let-out—"without reasonable excuse". The case law being built up in the Customs and Excise department at the present time in relation to the words "without reasonable excuse" will make history in fiscal circles later on. After all, unlike the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise has not had over 100 years to build up its case law; it is having to make it up quickly as it goes along, otherwise it does not have the answer to many questions. For example, it did not have the answer to the question concerning biscuits. Are biscuits in tins subject to VAT? Are the biscuits food? What can be taxed? It was decided that if Customs and Excise could not tax the biscuits, at least it could tax the tins. It went to the Court of Appeal and I believe the verdict was that the court had no difficulty in coming to the view that biscuits in tins were biscuits and therefore exempt from VAT.
That is the kind of nonsense that goes on. Another case involved a plea of being late in making VAT returns. The man said that unfortunately he had left all his papers in another room at home and his little child, who was a tiresome little brat, had picked up a bundle, taken them to the lavatory and pulled the chain on them. He said that that meant he had to put fresh records together, which took time. Was that a reasonable excuse? The Customs and Excise said no and the court said yes. So, all right, you might give a tip on this matter to your grandchildren so that they know when to he mischievous and when not.
We are on the threshold of this great scheme of self-assessment. The public will be vitally interested in it. A pilot scheme was recently completed which involved 1,000 volunteers throughout the country. The aim was to see what they made of it. Nearly half of those involved made at least one mistake, though some of them were not serious. It was discovered, with some surprise, that a great many people in Britain today cannot transpose figures accurately and cannot add up at all. I fully understand those handicaps because I possess them both. But I have lived a long time to get into this condition and in many cases those people were much younger than I am. Another experiment which began a week or so ago is in a much more useful and sensible area —the City of Leicester. Just consider what the City of Leicester comprises today. That pilot scheme is in progress and it will be interesting to see what it makes of self-assessment.
Time is running on and I shall not keep the House more than a few minutes. I want to refer to the consequences of self-assessment upon the members of staff of the Inland Revenue. I fear that this Government are destroying the whole ethos of British public administration which has been our standby throughout the centuries and is the envy of the world today. There is nothing to compare with the purity and integrity of the administration that we have in

1165
Britain. We see scandals taking place here and there among those who ought to know better and who are paid to be honest; they are all in the private sector or areas which come near to being private enterprise. It is a reflection of the times. We do not find inspectors or collectors of taxes being put in the dock. They possess a standard of honesty to which I pay personal tribute.
It will be 80 years in July since I first entered the Inland Revenue and I have lived with its affairs ever since. For 38 years I was secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation and saw it through some very formative years with important reorganisation. Do not neglect its members. Do not mess them about and chop them up. Many of them feel that their jobs are up for sale or that they are being asked to teach people in the commercial sector how to do their jobs only in order that they may be given the sack themselves. That is shocking. It is a blot on our record if we in this House cannot give some attention to Her Majesty's Civil Service. It is evident from what we have heard recently that we need more than ever to keep track of what is happening in the public sector at the present time.
The Civil Service is up for sale and that is shameful. It is much better to have honesty and integrity than to have slick stuff that goes out to computers and members of staff specially recruited. Where do the part-time workers come from? Many firms are introducing a new regime of work—the part-time job. They involve two shifts and it is mostly to catch women. There are morning and afternoon shifts because it is felt that more work can be obtained from two shifts than from one in a single day. That is what they are watching; output and economy.
I have delivered my message and I shall take every opportunity over the next few months of bringing some of these matters to the attention of your Lordships' House. I am sure everybody will be interested in what is happening to Her Majesty's Civil Service and, more particularly from our point of view, the Board of the Inland Revenue and its thousands of members of staff who have rendered incalculable service to Parliament and the public. They have got us through every fiscal crisis that I remember since 1915. Now they are being treated as though they are disposable and can be replaced by commercially recruited staff employed by those who have an interest in the public; but it is questionable whether they have their minds on the public interest.
Perhaps I may now return to my customary seat.
12.19 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I am sure that I echo the sentiments of all your Lordships in saying how delighted we always are to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, whether he speaks from the Labour Benches or indeed from the Cross-Benches. His speech, particularly the part about the National Lottery, was very intriguing. Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with the Finance Bill. Indeed, having spoken about the National Lottery, I thought that he might have brought in some dogs.
Today we should be looking at the overall economic picture. All economies depend on competitiveness. An economy cannot be successful unless it is competitive. I
1166
welcomed the Budget. My noble friend who opened the debate mentioned some of the points in it but there are other points in the Budget which I think are worthy of mention. One is transitional relief for business rates which will particularly affect small businesses. That is a concession of some £600 million and it helps nearly 1.5 million small companies. There is extra funding for the ECGD which will mean that the insurance premium for exporters can be cut by as much as 10 per cent. That is on top of the small business tax of 25 per cent., which is the lowest in the European Union. The top rate of corporation tax is only 33 per cent. We are extremely competitive compared with our European partners. The comparatively recent set-up of information centres up and down the country to advise small businesses on how they might market their products and conduct their business is another help.
My noble friend mentioned unemployment. We should talk about our achievements a little more often than we talk about gloom. Unemployment has fallen by 632,000 since 1992. It is falling at the rate of about 1,000 a day. We have the lowest rate of unemployment in the European Union. Vacancies are increasing. Those are both pointers in the right direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, spoke about the social chapter. Business generally accepts the fact that if we adopt the social chapter there will be an increase in unemployment. That will also be the case if we adopt the minimum wage. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, avoided mentioning the minimum wage because, apparently, the Labour Party cannot make up its mind whether it will introduce a minimum wage. Even if it does, it does not know what the amount should be. There seems to be a difference of opinion. I can well understand why the noble Lord did not mention it.
We heard a lot of criticism from the noble Lord, but we did not hear about one aspect of future Labour policy if the party opposite ever became the Government. I agree with the noble Baroness that the party opposite should spell out to the general public how much all its schemes will cost and where the money will come from. That is crucial.
The result of past Budgets under this Government has been the lowest inflation for 30 years. That is an achievement. In the second half of last year the balance of trade was in surplus and this year it is expected to be in complete surplus. Our exports are healthy. Just under half go to Europe but nearly 55 per cent. go to the rest of the world, We are competitive in that regard. Manufacturing output has increased by 3.9 per cent. Some may say that that is not much and that the figure should be higher. Of course it should be higher, but it is a step in the right direction. The car industry is very healthy and satisfactory. One point is seldom mentioned. Invisible earnings from the City amount to around £20 billion, which means a great deal of money for the Exchequer.
The accusation is sometimes levelled that the rich have many taxation advantages. Ten per cent. of the rich paid 44 per cent. of taxation last year. In 1979 the rich paid only 35 per cent. of the revenue. There is proof positive that lower taxation gives higher revenue to the Exchequer. In 1978–79 national insurance contributions and income tax accounted for 18.5 per cent. of GDP. In 1995–96 direct

1167
taxation has come down to 16.2 per cent. We should also remember that, while there have been increases in indirect taxes, welfare benefits have gone up to compensate those on the lowest incomes. More than 5 million taxpayers in this country now pay tax at the 20 per cent. rate. In the Finance Bill the limit was increased by more than inflation.
The reverse side of the coin for the Exchequer is the public sector borrowing requirement and the control of public expenditure. I sometimes wish that we could go back to the old system when we used to have above and below the line. Above the line was revenue; below the line was capital. That would give a far better balance sheet. If we are investing, we cannot charge it all to revenue. If the capital were deducted from this year's PSBR of £30 billion or £35 billion, the PSBR would probably be around £5 billion, which is containable. That is a much smaller figure than £30 billion or £35 billion.
Although direct plus indirect taxes have gone up, there is no question but that the standard of living in this country has increased tremendously. Since 1979 real take-home pay has gone up by some 40 per cent—by £80 or so a week. We should be proud of that. Living standards have risen. Everyone's disposable income has increased tremendously. I am delighted that in his opening remarks my noble friend mentioned the pensioners. The age allowance for pensioners has been increased year after year, and in this Finance Bill it has again been increased. More than 3 million pensioners will benefit from that.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that these Bills are becoming too technical. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, it is time to sit down and go through the Finance Acts to see whether we can consolidate and simplify. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned self-assessment. That will be a burden not only on the taxpayer but also on employers because in order to fill in the self-assessment form, employees will be asking their employers for more and more information. The CBI is very keen on self-assessment, as it is in relation to flexibility for occupational pension schemes. The Budget provides flexibility for personal pension schemes but that does not apply to occupational pension schemes. That should be remedied.
With regard to the future, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take serious note of the loss of revenue caused by people on ferries bringing in cheap wine, beer and tobacco. The duty being lost is extremely high.
The other aspect which should be welcomed in relation to small businesses is the introduction of measures to ease the paying of PAYE. That is a nightmare for some small businesses, as is VAT. This Bill makes provision to alleviate the problems in relation to that.
Over the years, PEPs, TESSAs and venture capital have all helped investment. I agree that we want more and more investment. In many cases, that investment is not taking place because companies wish to pay good dividends to ward off predators. We must watch that in our economy. Of course, there is also help for the long-term unemployed.
1168
Again, I should like to say to my noble friend in relation to small businesses that we should look at seriously the imposition of mandatory interest for debts. Many small businesses are profitable but they do not have a positive cash flow because their customers are not paying.
As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, it would be good to hold more debates on the economy and the Finance Bill because, as they quite rightly said, there is a tremendous amount of expertise in this House. While constitutionally this House cannot change a Money Bill, it can give advice. That advice is given publicly. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, defend the House of Lords and point out in very strong terms the advantages of keeping the House of Lords. I was delighted to hear that from a noble Lord of his stature.
In party politics we are always talking down and criticising. Let us stop that self-criticism. Let us talk about our achievements. We have many achievements. It should not be said that that is old hat. We have been pursuing those achievements year after year and we shall continue to do so.
12.34 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, first, I join with those noble Lords who have said that we should find some device whereby this House can discuss the Budget before it becomes too late to do so. I understand that there are constitutional problems because the Bill must be passed by 5th May and, therefore, there is not much time available to us to discuss it. I wish that the usual channels could find a way to afford us a general discussion on the Budget soon after it has taken place. We cannot amend a Money Bill but that should not prevent us discussing the details of such Bills before it becomes too late. If we did that, we should be able to send a message across to another place that we have some ideas about the matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, surely one effective way of doing that would be by arranging to debate the Consolidated Fund Bill, which almost always follows the Budget within a matter of weeks.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I have never quite understood the technicalities of the Consolidated Fund Bill. But I have been in your Lordships' House for only four years and if I am given a few more years, I may be able to grasp it. I wish that we could have a debate on the Wednesday that follows the Budget on the Tuesday. We should have a general discussion on the economy and when the Consolidated Fund Bill is before the House, we could have another discussion on the economy. There should be a way to do that because I agree that, once the other place has sent the Bill to us, there is never enough time for us to look at it and the pressure is such that we have only one debate.
There are two ways in which to discuss the Finance Bill. One can either go into the details of taxation, as did my noble friend Lord Eatwell and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, or one can follow the path of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and discuss the generalities. I am going to stick to the general economic debate rather than talk about taxation in any great detail.

1169
Having said that, perhaps I may just say something about the tax on wine and beers which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned. We must think systematically about harmonisation and Europe. It will not go away. It is time we thought more about that. I do not agree with the noble Lord that the tax on wine and beer is a tax on British brewers because, after all, you can buy British beer in Calais and bring it back. It is really the retailers who are suffering more than the manufacturers. But we must find a way to equalise the disadvantage which the domestic shopper has vis-à-vis someone who can go across to the Continent on the ferry.
Perhaps I may extend the objection which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, takes in relation to air travel. I too do not understand why only air travel is taxed. I believe that the ferries should be also taxed. But then again, I like taxation and have a weakness for it. If ferry travel were to be taxed, that would cancel the disadvantage for the domestic shopper and would not single out the air traveller for taxation. That would be one way in which to equalise the disadvantages.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Clark, that what he said about above and below the line is beginning to happen in the Budget. If the noble Lord looks at Table 4.2 in the Red Book, he will see that there is a clear demarcation between current and capital expenditure. The Red Book is not very consistent and in earlier parts of it, privatisation receipts are treated as negative expenditure, which is extremely mystifying. There has never been a proper separation. When Mr. Lamont was Chancellor he promised to separate capital and current expenditure, and that is beginning to take place, although it is not yet fully transparent. We should have a clear separation between current and capital expenditure and treat privatisation receipts as any proper business would do and not have them appear as a negative expenditure.
Perhaps I may move on to the state of the economy. If we look at the longer term needs of the British economy, we all agree that we need more investment. But as some noble Lords have already said, we need to have more savings. We must somehow bring down the consumption from the very high levels that it reached in the mid-1980s so that it is at a level at which we can generate domestic savings.
There is a hidden movement to convert income tax into an expenditure tax. I would very much welcome it if they explicitly made income tax into expenditure tax, whereby all the savings made by individuals could be taken out of tax. TESSA and other schemes are rather arcane ways of doing it. Some noble Lords will remember the Royal Commission on taxation in the 1950s which advocated an expenditure tax. Given the pace at which things happen in the Treasury, 40 years should be a long enough period in which to implement the Royal Commission proposal.
There is another problem related to the structure of taxation. Despite the short-run fall, we have the problem of structural unemployment not only in this country but all over Europe. We tax labour far too much. When one thinks about it, the national insurance contribution is an outrageous tax. It is a tax on earned income, and it is a regressive tax because of the ceiling. I believe that we ought to rethink the national insurance contribution in a way that encourages employment rather than taxes it,
1170
perhaps shifting the burden of taxation away from taxing labour and to taxing our over-exploitation of natural resources, environmental pollution and matters of that kind. I believe that for the medium-run we need to think of a scheme that takes taxes off the working person and puts them more on the consumption either of goods and services or natural resources. I believe that that would be a healthy way of encouraging long-run sustainable development in the economy.
I turn to the immediate short run. I know that the Finance Bill is not concerned entirely with the immediate short run. The point that I am about to raise I mentioned in a recent debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Prior. The Chancellor still has a credibility problem as far as financial markets are concerned. That is demonstrated by the fact that the interest rate that the United Kingdom Government pay on medium gilts is about 1 per cent. above what the German or American Treasury pays. That shows that the market does not yet trust the United Kingdom Chancellor, whoever it happens to be. That arises because there is a great temptation to politicise certain items in the Budget, especially what I may term the dangerous talk of tax cuts. I find it astonishing that the party opposite should behave like the US Republicans. They do not mind what the deficit is as long as they can give tax cuts to their rich friends.
I believe that unless and until the Budget has been brought into a healthy state and we are following the Maastricht conditions and rules—I am referring to a balanced budget over the cycle and a deficit of no more than 3 per cent. of GDP; conditions that have not prevailed for the past few years—all forms of tax cuts should be treated as frivolous and dangerous. If by any chance the Chancellor is tempted to follow that advice I predict that the markets will punish him for it. We will have to pay a much higher interest rate. We are already paying £25 billion in interest charges on a debt of approximately £300 billion. I believe that it will do us no good whatsoever in the medium run if we fall for tax cuts. I would say the same if we had a Labour Chancellor. Given the need for investment, to establish credibility and to bring down long-term interest rates, I believe it is very important that a proper, stable fiscal framework is established and that we do not go for short-run political decisions.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Minister's speech may have uplifted the spirits of noble Lords opposite, but I do not believe that the business community will agree with it. Apart from the major problems of small companies, it did not deal with the important problems faced by industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Clark, said that we should speak about our achievements. I agree. However, we should do so in a balanced way. Let us take as an example our export achievements. The satisfaction with our export performance must be balanced by the determination to continue the effort. Although the Minister cited the improvements that have been achieved in selected markets, we have not maintained our share of total world trade. As the President of the Board of Trade told us at the Institute of Directors, we are not losing out to low-cost

1171
labour countries, but to high-wage countries such as Germany, Japan and the USA. Twenty-five per cent. of our exports are made by a small handful of world-class companies. The Government's cuts in the training budget do not help to bring other firms up to the level of the best.
Another example is the prices charged by the privatised utilities. Yes, there have been price reductions, but many believe that the price reductions, particularly for electricity and gas, should have been greater. There is a suspicion that the increase in electricity prices before privatisation facilitated the price cuts after privatisation. Today, any businessman worth his salt who is engaged in manufacturing industry knows that he will be out of business in five years' time unless he achieves unit cost reductions each year. Of course, we welcome the price reductions in gas and electricity, but in today's business environment they are only to be expected. The real question is whether they are enough and whether they will be continued.
The same argument applies to the transitional relief for business rates. That point was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Clark. Business welcomes the relief, but at the same time questions the need for an increase in business rates at a time when unit costs have to come down in order to remain competitive. The reduction in employers' national insurance of some £2 a week per employee is welcome, but that has to be balanced with the costs of the additional sick pay to be borne by many employers.
The Government need look no further than the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality for the reasons for their loss of credibility. In doing that, they fall into the very trap of which they were warned by the Engineering Employers' Federation. In its Budget submission last autumn that body said:
"Today there is a real danger that recovery from deep recession will be seen as evidence that the UK economy is healthy and that no further policy changes are needed. The EEF does not agree. The cyclical economic recovery which is now happily occurring will not be sufficient to ensure continuing growth of employment and living standards. For sustained future growth it will be necessary permanently to increase investment, by a large amount".
That warning still applies as we are currently near the bottom of the OECD investment league—to be precise, 22nd out of 24—based on the share of national income devoted to investment. Certainly, the Finance Bill contains welcome measures to encourage investment, but so have all previous Finance Bills. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what is different about the present Bill.
At this point I make a special appeal to the Minister in regard to the venture capital trusts and enterprise investment schemes that are mentioned in the Bill. They are obviously intended to encourage investment in higher risk and higher tech areas of business. As those schemes proceed, can the Minister ensure that they do not attract savings into property-backed, low-risk investments as has happened all too frequently in the past?
What is missing from the Finance Bill are steps towards a more positive engagement between the private sector and government. That co-operation is needed both for economic regeneration, and to defend the victims of the ruthless market conditions in which we now find ourselves. A confident Finance Bill would be trying to promote that relationship. A confident Finance Bill would
1172
also be seeking to encourage the healthy public interest in more open disclosure of information by our companies. A more confident Finance Bill would try to satisfy the current concern about the imbalance between the need for enterprise and long-term investment; the needs of shareholders; and the rights of employees and others with a stake in the company. A more confident Finance Bill would encourage business people to get on with running their companies without the need to second guess the Government. The Finance Bill has no fewer than 377 pages, as noble Lords said, and makes use of secondary legislation enabling the Secretary of State or Commissioners to make regulations. Business really is getting tired of the Government's tendency constantly to refashion institutions, and from what my noble friend Lord Houghton said, so are many public servants.
I turn to the Bill itself, and knowing how generous and even-handed the Minister is, I am surprised that he did not give a word of thanks to the Opposition for the changes they forced on the Government during the debates on the Bill. This is not a good Bill, but without those changes it would have been even worse. Noble Lords opposite should be grateful to the Opposition for forcing the Government to cut VAT on fuel to 8 per cent. Without that cut the Government would be yet more unpopular. I am surprised that there was no word of gratitude to the Opposition for forcing the withdrawal of the government proposal to extend tax breaks on executive share options to part-time directors. This matter of share options and the privatised utilities illustrates the poor judgment of the Government on business matters, and extending those privileges to part-time directors would have only compounded that poor judgment. Perhaps a little generosity of spirit would have been in order.
Fortunately, the Government listened to public opinion (both directly and also channelled through the Opposition) so that there has been a whole string of other changes during the debate on the Bill. There is the change mentioned by my noble friend Lord Eatwell, but public opinion also prevented the imposition of further vehicle excise duties on carriers in the Scottish Isles and the Scilly Isles. We also stopped increases in vehicle excise duty for farming vehicles and forced a cut in vehicle excise duty on recovery vehicles.
Tax concessions were secured to assist housing associations, universities, and accident and injury victims. The Minister mentioned the concessions on accessories for disabled drivers of company cars, but he did not mention the source of those concessions. The concession which may have the most long-lasting effect is the one mentioned by my noble friend Lord Eatwell. It is the agreement to examine the simplification of the tax system. Why the Government should be opposed to that baffles everyone except, perhaps, the accountancy profession. Yet, the Government call themselves a government of deregulation!
Of course the main reason why business people have become increasingly disillusioned with the Government is their broken promises over tax. As my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, we were promised tax cuts in 1992, but instead we had tax increases. A typical family is paying now £800 per year more in tax since the tax cuts were promised, as a result of some 20 different tax increases.

1173
I shall add only that taxation is part of the contract between the governed and the Government. Once that contract is broken, there is no credibility left. It cannot be put right by desperate attempts to promise tax cuts in the future. The Chancellor needs flexibility. These matters cannot be decided years in advance. Judgments have to be made at the time, and it must be wrong to limit the Chancellor in any way. The reversal of the decision on domestic fuel illustrated that. No, once this contract has been broken, the only solution is for the party that broke the contract to go.
12.55 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as always, we have had a well-informed and well-balanced debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and others that debates in this House on the Finance Bill and the economy serve a useful purpose, despite the rather strange gloss that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, put on what I said when responding some weeks ago to his Question on interest-free loans. I said that I believed that these debates served a useful purpose and that we had had a good debate, and I am sure that those points were noted by the usual channels and by my noble friends the Lord Privy Seal and the Chief Whip. I am sure that they will take account of those points when deciding what time can be found for appropriate debates in the future.
I had considerable sympathy with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, and I shall be interested to know in due course whether his party has the same sympathy with his views. No doubt that can await some elucidation on another occasion.
The purpose of any Budget is to ensure that the economy continues to strengthen. Since the Chancellor's statement, much has been said about the increasing tax burden that has been placed on individuals. Make no mistake, no Conservative Government ever like to increase the tax burden but, as I said in my opening remarks, tough decisions on taxes and spending were needed to restore the public finances and sustain the recovery. We have been acutely aware of the need to share that burden equally. The whole programme of tax changes since 1993, not just this year's, was shared fairly across income groups, with those who could afford to pay most making the biggest contribution. The better off now pay a higher share of the income tax yield.
My noble friend Lord Clark was right to stress that the figures are up from 35 per cent. in 1979 to 44 per cent. now for the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers. In that context it is also worth noting that the real incomes of the vulnerable groups have increased since 1979. Again, my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston was right to stress the figures that he gave to the House.
This year's tax changes have also attracted a degree of comment from the Opposition. When one looks at the actual figures involved, the picture is very different from that painted by dissenting voices. In fact, all of the direct and indirect tax changes since last November have cost households on average just £2.30 a week. And with personal disposable income expected to rise by 1.5 per cent. this year, households are expected to be about £5 a
1174
week better off on average after tax and inflation. It is also worth making the point that people are much better off than they were under Labour.
I was rather amused by the picture that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, tried to paint of the Labour Party being, I suppose, the taxpayer's friend. We remember that under Labour the highest rate of tax on some incomes was 98 per cent; now it is just 40 per cent. Married couples on average earnings are better off by £80 a week after inflation and tax. That demonstrates the Government's commitment not to return to the Labour Party's punitive high tax rates which so stifled enterprise and initiative in the past and to which it will have to return if it wants to spend as much as it sometimes seems to suggest.
I should like to deal with a number of the more technical questions on various aspects of the Bill put to me by noble Lords. Perhaps I may start with Clause 155 which relates to agricultural tenancies and which the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, claimed was an avoidance device. I can assure him that it is not that. It is there to support the Government's proposals to reform agricultural tenancy law and create new tenancies. It is not designed as an avoidance device and, like all reliefs, we will keep it very much under review. We estimate that its cost will be less than £5 million per annum.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked why we opposed Clause 160, which commits us to producing a report on simplifying tax law. As the noble Lord knows, we are committed to simplifying tax law, despite the length of this year's Act. On 16th February, my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary announced that he had asked the Inland Revenue to focus on that work. We opposed Clause 160 precisely because we felt that it was unnecessary as work was already in hand. The Government are perfectly happy to accept the thrust of Clause 160 and I am sure that the noble Lord looks forward to reading the report. As I am sure that he appreciates, the question of whether there will be time to debate it will be a matter for the usual channels, but I am sure that the usual channels will note what the noble Lord said about the matter.
The issue of cross-border shopping was addressed by my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Clark, and by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, from a slightly different point of view. The annual loss of both duty and VAT to additional legitimate cross-border shopping is estimated at £200 million in respect of both alcohol and tobacco. The total loss due to smuggling is estimated at £65 million per annum. That must be set against total duty receipts of some £6.5 billion in respect of tobacco and more than £5 billion in respect of alcohol.
I stress those figures purely to keep the problem in proportion. Cross-border shopping resulting from the single market amounts to approximately 2.5 per cent. of the United Kingdom drinks market and to even less of the tobacco market —approximately 1 per cent. We believe that some of the cross-border shopping for alcohol is additional consumption. I do not know whether my noble friend believes that that is good or had but, in terms of

1175
revenue, one can say that it is additional consumption rather than consumption taken away from legitimate sources—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I raised the issue not so much from the point of view of loss of revenue but in respect of what appears to be the unfair treatment of brewers or wine producers in this country.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, there is no unfair treatment of brewers or producers. I accept the argument that it can have an effect and that possibly in some areas it does have a disproportionate effect on retailers. I was trying to put the point in perspective in terms of the figures and to assure my noble friend that Customs will continue to act as vigorously as possible to protect United Kingdom revenue and trade from smuggling and illicit action of that kind. That is important.
My noble friend asked about gaming machines. The increase in the rates of duty on gaming machines will raise £30 million in a full year. The extension of duty to amusement machines, such as video games, will raise a further £10 million to £15 million in a full year. Those are legitimate sources for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider.
As regards whether there is discrimination against air travellers in terms of the air passenger tax, I do not accept my noble friend's point. He should note that in some respects air transport is subject to less tax than other forms of transport; for example, in accordance with international agreement there is no duty on most aviation fuel as there is on other fuels. Trains and buses face fuel duty on the fuel that they consume.
I turn to the National Lottery. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, reverting to what we call "old Labour"—although at times he sounded "old Tory" in respect of some of his views—suggest a 95 per cent. tax on winnings of over £1 million. I do not intend to address that particular point; I am not sure that the suggestion would go down very well with those who invest in the National Lottery. However, perhaps I may address the point about the 12 per cent. that is raked off into Her Majesty's Exchequer. The noble Lord implied that that was not sufficient. The lottery duty of 12 per cent. was chosen because we intend the lottery to be tax-neutral. It roughly offsets the tax yield from the sources of money invested in the lottery which we would otherwise have received if the lottery had not been introduced. We believe that the total effect should be neutral.
I turn to the issue of self-assessment. Obviously, we share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the value of the Civil Service. I would be more than happy to repeat those. We have set out our views in the recent White Paper. However, I do not agree that self-assessment will destroy the integrity of public administration. Self-assessment introduces clearer and simpler rules for taxpayers to understand. It removes bureaucratic and routine processes, so releasing Inland Revenue staff to spend more time helping taxpayers with their tax affairs. I believe that it will improve public administration and
1176
benefit taxpayers individually and the taxpayer in general. My noble friend Lord Clark spoke of it being a burden on employers. We have consulted extensively on self-assessment and any additional costs to employers have been kept to a minimum. Clause 93, for example, introduces a change precisely aimed at reducing employers' costs.
As this year's Finance Bill draws to a conclusion, it is worth outlining the current prospects for the United Kingdom economy, for which the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked. He accepted that on this occasion they were not that bad. We believe that continued economic growth is obviously the only way of raising living standards for all. It is the Government's objective to secure sustainable growth with low inflation. That means that growth should be balanced. We do not wish to return to the days of "boom and bust". I hope that that addresses one of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. We might feel good for a while, but it does not last. That painful lesson has been learnt. Steady improvements in the standard of living are the prudent course.
The Government's prudent fiscal and monetary policies have contributed to the best set of economic indicators for a generation. Last year growth was around 4 per cent. It is expected to slow to a more sustainable rate this year, but the United Kingdom economy is still forecast to grow as fast as those of our major European Union competitors—and that after two years when the United Kingdom economy grew faster than any other major European Union economy.
We are experiencing healthy growth. It has come increasingly from exports, which are up nearly 9 per cent, Similarly, investment has risen by some 3 per cent. The noble Baroness believes that we should spend further on investment and she cited the case for spending yet more on education. I appreciate that that is Liberal Democrat Party policy. I can tell the noble Baroness that we spend more as a percentage of our GNP on education than, for example, the Germans. It is not so much a question of how much money you spend; it is very much a question of how you spend it.
As I said, investment has risen by some 3 per cent. and consumer expenditure is up by 2.5 per cent. We expect exports and investment to grow faster than the economy as a whole this year. Coupled with low inflation and sound public finances, the prospects for the UK economy are very good indeed.
Perhaps I may deal with an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, which related to public finances. The noble Lord asked whether the fall in the dollar would increase our expenditure in terms of increased expenditure on the CAP. At the moment I do not intend to be drawn into the rights and wrongs of the CAP. However, I can tell the noble Lord that the new budget discipline decision makes it clear that any increase in the agricultural guideline can be made only by unanimity. I stress the phrase "by unanimity", and I assure the noble Lord that the Government will not agree to raising the agricultural guideline. Therefore, there can be no unanimity—
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I wonder whether I may press the Minister on the matter. I do so because the increase in export subsidies which must be paid under

1177
the CAP as a result of the fall in the dollar is automatic. There is no change in the regulations or, indeed, in expenditure plans which will bring that about. It is an automatic consequence of the fall in the dollar. Therefore, expenditure on the CAP as a whole must rise unless there are cuts elsewhere.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was trying to make it quite clear that any increase in the agricultural guideline can be made only by unanimity. As the noble Lord put it, that might involve hard decisions. I am not sure whether I quite understand the full detail of the noble Lord's question. I should prefer, if I may, to write to him on that point. However, I should like to stress to the noble Lord—this is important —first, that increases in the guideline require unanimity; and secondly, that unanimity will not be there because there will not be the agreement of Her Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord also asked where there would be cuts in government expenditure. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, quite rightly, asked for cuts in government expenditure and then put forward his own suggestions relating to legal aid. Obviously, my noble friend would not expect me to comment on that particular aspect. Similarly, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, would expect me to detail where restraint might be made in public expenditure, other than to say that, of course, we shall continue to subject the expenditure of every single department to the most detailed and scrupulous scrutiny in terms of looking for necessary savings. That is why I stressed in my opening remarks that we were looking for savings of some £300 million over original planned increases in government administrative costs over the next three years. We shall continue to look for savings throughout the whole range of public expenditure.
As I have stressed, we believe that the prospects for the United Kingdom's economy are very sound indeed. Certainly foreign companies still think so. Moreover, since the Budget, inward investment has continued to come into the United Kingdom, creating new jobs—and has continued to come in at the rate that applied before, with some 40 per cent. of Japanese inward investment to Europe coming to this country, together with a similar figure of American inward investment.
Unemployment has been falling by about 1,000 a day, and employment has been increasing. For the first time, I believe, since figures began, the numbers employed in manufacturing have shown an increase. As my noble friend Lord Clark quite rightly stressed, and as I said, unemployment has been coming down by 1,000 a day, and living standards are rising and will rise further this year. We have now had 18 months with inflation at below 3 per cent. —a record not seen since 1961. That certainly means much greater certainty and stability for individuals and businesses as they plan for the future. I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, accepts that that is part of our commitment to the stability that we certainly see as necessary for business in the future.
On the question of employment, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that we taxed labour far too much. I certainly have much sympathy with the noble Lord's views on the subject. However, I have to say that we tax labour
1178
much less than most of our European colleagues. I dread to think what would be the result of signing up to the social chapter, as the noble Lord's party suggests, and I wonder whether we would see a dramatic increase in the non-wage labour costs that manufacturers already have to face.
We believe that manufacturing has been revitalised. The skills and hard work of British management and workers are bringing success once again. Manufacturing output, investment, exports and productivity are all up, while unit wage costs fell last year. The performance of our exporters and the returns from prudent and valuable overseas investment have resulted in the current account returning to broad balance in 1994.
The United Kingdom's economy is strengthening month by month. The statistics are not just one month's figures. The momentum of recovery has been maintained. Businesses are continuing to capture world markets and our competitive position has been maintained as costs have been contained. More people are in work. Incomes are rising.
This Finance Bill ensures that the economy will strengthen further; that economic growth will be sustained; that inflation will remain low, and that the living standards of all will rise.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may give him the opportunity to correct the extraordinary error that he made just now when he said that manufacturing employment is rising for the first time since figures began. I can assure the noble Lord that, throughout the 1960s, manufacturing employment rose virtually every year, year on year, and that manufacturing employment is now 2 million below what it was in 1979. The small upturn that we have seen this year is not a compensation for those significant falls.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in no way did I say that it was compensation. Obviously it is not the numbers totally employed in manufacturing that matter but the total output and that, as we know, rises. I am prepared to look at what I did say and correct my figures should it be necessary to do so. Certainly, they have recently increased, and it is the first time in a very very long time that they have done so. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 24th April), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Myanmar (Burma): Human Rights
1.16 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they intend to take to bring pressure to bear on the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) regime in Myanmar (Burma) to respect the human rights of the Karen and other ethnic national minority groups in that country.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise in your Lordships' House the tragedy confronting the people of Myanmar, or Burma as it is better known, who are suffering from the brutal policies being carried out by the State Law and Order Restoration Council—the Orwellian name adopted by a regime which refused to acknowledge the results of the 1990 democratic elections; and still refuses to do so today.
The situation has deteriorated recently and the lives of tens of thousands of civilians are now endangered by military offences, by attacks on their places of refuge, by lack of essential supplies of food, medicine and shelter; and many other innocent civilians are suffering from grave violations of human rights, such as illegal imprisonment, torture and forced labour, tantamount to slavery.
The SLORC regime's policies are responsible for turning Burma into one of the worst places in the world today, in terms of the suffering cold-bloodedly inflicted on vast numbers of people, especially ethnic minorities such as the Karen and the Mon. Moreover, many others who have dared to try to promote fundamental principles of freedom and democracy, such as the democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, have paid and are still paying a high price for their commitments.
There are so many issues to be raised, so many questions to be asked and so much suffering which needs to be documented that I am most grateful to other noble Lords who will be making their distinctive contributions to the debate. For example, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will be speaking in detail about the issue of forced labour. I shall, therefore, touch only very briefly upon that outrageous policy being perpetrated by the SLORC regime. I believe that my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery will remind us of the courage of the Karen soldiers who fought alongside the British with great valour and who now feel deeply disappointed by Britain's apparent lack of concern for the plight of their people. As I do not have a right of reply at the end of the debate, perhaps I may now thank all noble Lords taking part and also my noble friend the Minister for making possible today's debate on this important and tragic topic.
My own contribution will focus primarily on those aspects of the situation with which I have some first-hand acquaintance. Last November, I spent some time with some of the ethnic minorities who have been suffering at the hands of the SLORC regime. Under the auspices of Christian Solidarity International (CSI for short), I visited Manerplaw, where I met leaders of the Karen and of the Mon peoples and other members of opposition groups. I also visited many of the Karen people, displaced from their homes by the constant attacks of the SLORC troops on their villages, and now living in camps along the border with Thailand. I also met Karen soldiers inside Burma trying to defend their territory.
CSI is a human rights organisation, working for victims of repression, regardless of their colour, creed or nationality. We tend to focus on people who are often inaccessible to other organisations and to the media.
1180
Many of the people suffering as a result of the SLORC regime's policies come within this sad category of forgotten people. I will therefore give a brief overview of the current situation, with particular reference to the escalation of military offensives by the SLORC regime against ethnic minorities; the suffering caused by violations of human rights by the SLORC; the urgent need for more humanitarian aid; and the implications for the international community in general and the British Government in particular.
In January the SLORC broke its own guarantees of multilateral cease-fires which had been agreed with the ethnic minorities and the democratic opposition. Taking advantage of religious differences within the Karen National Union (KNU), SLORC started a massive offensive against Manerplaw, the headquarters of the main opposition groups. Manerplaw had to be evacuated and some 10,000 to 15,000 refugees had to flee across the border into Thailand. A student camp at Dagwin also had to be evacuated and in the following weeks the SLORC consolidated its hold on surrounding areas, preventing the further evacuation of thousands more villagers who are now trapped behind enemy lines. Many of these are Karen civilians who had previously had to flee from SLORC assaults on their villages and had sought refuge in areas protected by Karen soldiers.
Following the capture of Manerplaw, the SLORC intensified its attacks on Kaw Moo Rah, the Karen army base north of Maesot. Despite numerous attacks by SLORC troops over the past 20 years, and their vastly superior numbers and weaponry, the Karen had always managed to hold on to this base. But this time the SLORC offensive was unprecedented in its ferocity and in its use of weapons, including, allegedly, chemicals and gas.
The loss of Manerplaw, Kaw Moo Rah and surrounding territory has exacerbated the already desperate situation of the opposition and particularly of the Karen people living in these areas. Tens of thousands have had to flee to camps along the border with Thailand; countless others are trapped behind SLORC lines, cut off from major aid agencies and vulnerable to attack. If captured, they face murder, torture and/or enslavement—a fate which has already befallen many thousands of innocent civilians.
When I was in the area four months ago I received first-hand accounts of atrocities perpetrated by the SLORC against villagers and indeed I saw the evidence on their bodies of torture which they had suffered. Therefore there are a number of urgent issues which need to be addressed. First, there is the breaking of the cease-fire by the SLORC troops in their ferocious attacks against the Karen and other groups, and reports of the use of gas and/or chemical weapons. During my visit I received disturbing circumstantial evidence of the possible use of germ warfare by SLORC troops on previous occasions. I have in my possession one of the meteorological devices used in suspicious circumstances which is part of that circumstantial evidence. A few weeks ago one of my colleagues from CSI Australia, Dr. Martin Panter, who has worked for many years with the Karen people, met soldiers who had signs and symptoms consistent with the use of chemical and/or

1181
gas weapons. They described in detail the type of gas used and he saw third degree burns on exposed skin caused by highly corrosive chemicals.
Secondly, there are increasing reports of attacks by troops against civilians sheltering in camps, including those inside Thailand. These cross-border incursions result in murder and abductions and are causing intense fear amongst the displaced villagers who are already suffering from the tragedy of displacement and shortages of essential supplies, despite the valiant efforts of aid organisations, such as those working with the Burma Border Consortium (BBC). Thai military forces are making efforts to protect the camps, but cannot always defend them effectively against the type of raids launched against them.
For example, on 24th April, there was the following report in The Nation:
"Burmese soldiers and Karen rebel defectors have raided two ethnic Karen refugee camps in Thailand, abducting several people and threatening to burn the camps down…As many as 300 troops, the majority of them Burmese junta soldiers, swept into Mao Lor Ta and Mae Wee Klu refugee camps, deep in Thailand's Tha Song Vang district, early on Sunday, a KNU official said".
This report is consistent with a letter I have just received, written by Dr. H. M. Singh, the Karen medical officer of health, to my colleague from CSI, Dr. Martin Panter. I quote the following excerpt:
"There is an emergency situation in one of the Karen refugee camps. The said camp, Ka Maw Lay Klo, is about 77 km north of Maesot. On 25th April, two companies of combined DKBA and SLORC troops entered the camp at about 11.20 p.m. and set fire to it. About 250–300 houses were gutted down and about 1,500 people made homeless. The enemy used RPGs and M79 grenade launchers…The people in the camp are in dire need of help. All their belongings were lost in the fire…Please advise me what you can do at your earliest convenience".
Many of the camps for the displaced have had to be moved two or three times; the people are living in constant fear; and as the camps are relocated in places more inaccessible to SLORC troops they are also more inaccessible to aid organisations and the plight of the people is increasingly desperate. So, what can and should be done in response to this appalling suffering inflicted on its people by a regime whose brutality cannot be denied? I finish with some recommendations and requests.
First, I suggest that the international community cannot be seen to be condoning the policies of a regime which has kept a democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for nearly six years and has imprisoned many others, including politicians, journalists and students. Nor, surely, can the international community ignore the well documented violations of human rights, such as persistent attacks on villages inside Burma and forced relocation of villagers from their own land, the use of forced labour to build another railway, or of civilians as human mine-sweepers or military porters, many of whom die from exhaustion and/or maltreatment. Can the recent escalation of military offensives, including the possible use of gas or chemical weapons, be ignored?
The response of the international community has been varied. The USA has made strong representations and has warned Burma of the possible downgrading of relations. The US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State referred on 8th March to the possibility of,
"further restrictions in US-Burma relations".
I understand that the British Government have been associated with some expression of concern by the European Union. But the policy in Rangoon of promoting "British Week" in February has caused deep dismay to many who are disturbed by SLORC's brutal policies and has deeply upset many of those suffering as a result of those policies. It appears incongruous and unprincipled to be actively promoting trade with a brutal regime, when other countries are trying to put pressure on that regime to desist from its gross violations of human rights.
Secondly, there is an urgent need to establish protective measures for those suffering from the war, both within Burma and across the border in Thailand. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the United Kingdom is supporting any initiatives by the international community to help to put pressure on SLORC to desist from attacks on camps for the displaced? Thirdly, can Britain increase assistance with humanitarian aid to those now destitute, whose suffering will be exacerbated with the onset of the rainy season? Can my noble friend also give some indication of what might be done to take aid to civilians trapped behind SLORC troops?
Fourthly, given the evidence of continuing widespread atrocities being perpetrated by SLORC against civilians inside Burma, especially in remote areas such as the Irrawaddy delta region, can my noble friend say whether the British Government will urge SLORC to allow access by human rights monitors to visit all parts of the country? Will he also give an assurance that the Government will not be satisfied if that important and principled request is not met?
I conclude by referring, with appreciation, to the UN resolution which was sponsored by Australia, Chile, Hungary, the European Union and the United States on 8th March. It declared that the UNHCR was "gravely concerned" over reports of extremely serious violations taking place in Burma, including torture, political arrest, enforced labour and displacement, abuse of women, lack of freedom of expression and association, and the oppression of ethnic and religious minorities. It also reiterated its call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners. Will my noble friend the Minister therefore reassure the House, and all those who care deeply about these matters, that the British Government will desist from offering the regime any further comfort in the form of encouragement of trade by "British Weeks", and that the United Kingdom will join other countries in principled condemnation of SLORC until that regime stops its brutal violations of human rights, seeks a peaceful solution to its conflicts

1183
with opposition groups and ethnic minorities, and adopts policies based on the fundamental principles of freedom, democracy and justice?
1.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are all deeply indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for her continuous and amazingly energetic endeavours in the defence of human rights all over the world. With that tribute I couple Christian Solidarity International, of which she is such an ornament, and with which I have had some peripheral dealings. I am full of admiration for its work, but particularly for the way the noble Baroness goes into far-flung parts of the world and brings a note of authenticity to our debates on human rights which would otherwise be lacking.
The noble Baroness has never been more convincing than in her description of the appalling sufferings which are endured by the people of Burma under the SLORC regime, particularly the atrocities which have been inflicted on the ethnic minorities in the border area between Burma and Thailand as a result of military operations there by the Tatamadaw, as the army is called. As the noble Baroness pointed out, that has resulted in an increase in the number of refugees in Thailand of 10,000, to a total which is now in the region of 80,000.
There have also been reports this week from various sources of the crossing of the border by Burmese troops and their Karen auxiliaries. That has resulted in the attacks on refugee camps which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned. Further incursions have been reported by the Thai army in which camps have been destroyed, displacing refugees, some of whom had to flee into the forest to protect themselves from the atrocities which were being inflicted on them.
That seems to me to be a violation of international law in that the Burmese troops crossed an international frontier. The UN Charter has been violated, and the Security Council should take action to stop those incursions. This is the second case which has occurred in recent months of a state marching into the territory of its neighbour, harassing and kidnapping refugees and killing civilians with impunity. I suggest that if the international community had taken a firmer line against Turkey when she illegally invaded Iraqi Kurdistan that might have deterred the Tatamadaw from its present adventures.
What protection are the Thai forces giving the refugees against those attacks? Are the Thai authorities allowing the UNHCR and other humanitarian organisations freedom of access into the border region, as the noble Baroness said, in order to help the victims? It was reported that the Thai Third Army region commander, General Surachet Dechatiwong, has been investigating the situation, that he met his Burmese opposite number, General Khet Sein, on 25th April and that the Burmese general said that he was unable to control the activities of the Karen auxiliaries. However, the so-called Democratic Karen Buddhist Army is
1184
financed and armed by the Tatamadaw and there are regular meetings between them. Therefore, I do not think that they can get away with that excuse.
Burmese forces also launched an offensive against the Shan leader Khun Sa's positions at Loi Hpaleng on 11th March. Three days later they attacked Huanamsai, north of Pangkawtai. Heavy fighting has continued around Burmese positions at Tachilek. Unfortunately, the SLORC offensive has been given support by the US State Department, which sees Khun Sa as a drug baron. If we allow the Burmese armed forces to continue attacking ethnic minorities in this way, there is no chance of a peaceful political solution which, as the noble Baroness said, was on the cards until very recently.
Whatever the outcome of those military operations, as Prime Minister Sein Win of the NCGUB said at the Copenhagen Summit last month, the democracy movement in Burma never intended to restore democracy through armed struggle. The KNU provided the democracy movement with a base from which to operate inside the country, and there are still areas that are not under SLORC control, but the NCGUB now operates mainly from Washington and would continue to function even if SLORC, with its 2 billion dollars worth of arms purchased from China at the expense of its own people, managed to wipe out the armed opposition within the country completely.
Sein Win believes that the SLORC's change of tactics from a policy of seeking reconciliation with each of the armed opposition groups to an attempt to secure outright military victory over the KNU, the most powerful of them, arises from the perceived weakening of the international community's position on human rights during 1994. From being a virtual pariah, Rangoon became an avidly sought partner in various forms of international dialogue, including the European Union's "Critical Dialogue". Do the Government see any need for a reappraisal of that approach in the light of Rangoon's military operations and the human rights abuses associated with them?
It could also be that SLORC always intended to follow the two policies simultaneously, on the one hand making deals through negotiation with some of the minorities, or parts of the minorities, and dealing with the more intransigent groups by military force. It would not have acquired such a huge arsenal from China for external defence purposes, because there is no conceivable outside threat to Burma's territorial integrity. I believe that there was a long-term plan to use those weapons against the minorities, and the Chinese are accomplices in SLORC's policy of dealing with political problems by military force.
What action will the European Union and the US take to criticise China's arms sales policies, which undermine the international community's attempts to scale down the diversion of resources away from peaceful development in the third world? Will the Government now suggest to our EU partners that a new approach should be made to China to halt the sale of weapons which are partly being used against the civilian population of Burma?

1185
The main purpose of my intervention in the debate is to draw attention to the horrendous use of forced labour by SLORC and to ask what the Government are doing about it. The United Nations General Assembly, in its most recent resolution on Burma in December 1994, urged:
"the Government of Myanmar to fulfil its obligations as a state party to the Forced Labour Convention 1930 (No. 29) and to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention 1984 (No. 87) of the International Labour Organisation".
That is a recurring theme of almost every report about human rights violations under SLORC. The UN Special Rapporteur on Burma, Mr. Yozo Yokota, says in his latest report of 12th January 1995 that workers in Myanmar do not enjoy basic labour rights, including in particular freedom of association and the right to organise. He relates that he has received
"many complaints from several reliable sources that men, women and children from the age of 14 are allegedly used for forced labour for the construction of railways, roads and bridges".
The military use forced labour to carry heavy loads of ammunition, food and other supplies in areas which are inaccessible by vehicle.
The special rapporteur notes that the ILO convention committee established to consider Burma's violations of the Forced Labour Convention concluded that the exaction of forced labour and services, in particular porterage services, is contrary to the convention, which was ratified by Burma in 1955.
These reports from UN agencies are fully supported by the information gathered by NGOs. Human Rights Watch/Asia, in a paper on abuses linked to the fall of Manerplaw described the experiences of civilians who were forced to carry supplies for the Burmese military in the battle of Naw Hta, south of Manerplaw. They mentioned one elderly man who was press-ganged while on his way to hospital for treatment. He pleaded with the soldiers to let him go but they refused. They piled him into a truck where, he having been all day in conditions of enormous overcrowding in the back of the truck, at the truck's destination they found that he had died on the journey.
All the porters were beaten regularly with fists and rifle butts. Some had their feet blown off by mines and received no medical attention. Others were pushed over the edge of cliffs when they could no longer carry the heavy loads imposed on them—estimated at between 90 and 126 kilograms. They were given almost no food, and had to sleep on the bare ground in the freezing temperatures of December.
Apart from the porters, Human Rights Watch/Asia describes forced labour on other military projects such as road building, construction of latrines, cooking and cutting bamboo. These workers fared a little better in that for the most part they were not physically abused. But, like the porters, they still received no pay and had to supply their own food, cooking utensils and shelter.
Anti-Slavery International also reports on forced labour in some detail. It mentions in particular the work on roads and other construction projects which are believed to be related to gas pipeline projects from the Andaman Sea, where Total, Unocal, Texaco, Nippon Oil and Premier, which is a United Kingdom company, are
1186
operating. One way in which people in the West can demonstrate their feelings about SLORC is to boycott the products of companies doing business with the dictatorship. There has been a good example recently. Berkeley City Council in California decided that it would not buy goods produced by any of those companies, including the oil companies I mentioned—an initiative which follows its similar action a few years ago against apartheid in South Africa.
Women are not exempted from the forced labour conscriptions, a point I hope our representatives will underline at the Beijing women's conference in September. Anti-Slavery International reports that even pregnant women and mothers with children have been press-ganged by the military, and soldiers are particularly brutal towards women belonging to the ethnic minorities. Women are often the main victims because the men flee when the military approach, expecting to be conscripted into the army. ASI says that the worst human rights abuses against women, including beatings, rape and murder, have been perpetrated when they are doing forced labour.
Another horrendous form of women's forced labour is the kidnapping of women from Burma, and in particular women belonging to ethnic minorities, to become prostitutes in the brothels of Thailand. ASI says that between 40,000 and 100,000 women are engaged in that vile trade at any one time. Any women who try to escape from that sexual slavery are killed if they are caught. If they succeed in returning to Burma, they will also be killed if they are found to be HIV positive. But according to the World Health Organisation, as many as 400,000 people in Burma are now HIV positive.
In the past week, Anti-Slavery International has been reporting at the UN Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery on the evidence that it has collected. The question is this: Where do we go from here, as the noble Baroness asked, when the practices in question have been condemned many times already without making the slightest impression on the junta?
First, what can be done in the working group itself? The problem with all UN human rights operations in Geneva is that it is almost impossible to obtain their reports. I suggest to the Government that they disseminate the conclusions of the working group to Parliament, trade unions and political parties, and that the UNDP, which already publishes much useful material from the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Secretary General's office, should have this material available on its Internet Gopher site so that it is readily accessible by those who wish to learn about human rights violations. There is also a clear need to consider what additional procedures can be developed for use when the practices have been "round the loop" several times, as has the question of Burmese forced labour, without any change in the conduct of the state. Every year for the past four or five years, those matters have been examined in the working group which reports to the sub-commission in August, and it in turn reports to the full Commission the following February. Then the process begins all over again the next April. There has

1187
to be a special track for what I might call recidivist states like Burma which leads to the imposition of some kind of penalties.
Secondly, will the Government work closely with our partners in the European Union and others, including the Burmese Government, to organise a direct contact mission by the ILO? That can only be done if the Burmese Government agree to it, but since they have stopped denying the practice of forced labour, and now justify the policy, presumably they would be glad to have their arguments examined methodically by the ILO.
It seems to me profoundly unsatisfactory that the ILO can apparently send a mission with the consent of the accused state only; and I suggest that Britain asks the governing body of the ILO to consider whether we cannot have a compulsory mechanism, such as exists in the OSCE, however rarely it may be used. If a state is violating human rights, and refuses to comply with the recommendation of the ILO, at present the international community has no mechanism to deploy in the last resort.
Thirdly—this is a point the noble Baroness mentioned—one of the main uses being made of the forced labour is for the restoration of Burma's ancient sites and associated facilities in preparation for the 1996 Year of Tourism. Will the Government discourage the British tourist industry from helping to achieve that aim? In particular, will they consider what the State Department says about the conscription of the whole population of Mandalay to work on the restoration of the palaces there which are now to be a source of attraction in order for the Myanmar regime to bring tourists from overseas into the country? I agree with the noble Baroness about the British week. It was unfortunate that that should have taken place at the residence of the British Ambassador.
The SLORC regime has defied world opinion for many years. Not only has it got away with it, but states are now eagerly competing for its business. One can be under no illusion that what is said today is likely to have much effect on that process, but neither can the Government imagine that their failure to act vigorously against the military regime will pass unnoticed. I know that it will be said, as Ministers have stated in correspondence over the years, that our direct influence in Burma is small notwithstanding the historical ties between our countries. But we could play a bigger role in the EU, the ILO and the UN in seeking to ensure that SLORC's gross and persistent human rights violations, and the use of forced labour in particular, incur concrete and substantial penalties which might cause it to mend its ways.
1.48 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for bringing this quite desperate situation before the House. Her dedication is indeed legendary. I have been moved by all remarks to date. A clear message is being sent to the authorities in Myanmar that we in the United Kingdom do not tolerate behaviour of this nature.
1188
My Lords, there is only one question. What will be the most effective policy to ensure a reversal in human rights abuses, and a return to the democratic process? For her part, Britain has severed defence links, suspended official non-humanitarian aid, and complies with a general European arms embargo.
But what has been achieved? A joint declaration following the 11th ASEAN-European Union ministerial meeting in Germany last September stated that the Ministers noted that there had been some positive developments in Myanmar. On the surface there were initial hopes that the need for reconciliation in dialogue had finally been accepted by the ruling generals of the SLORC government. Political prisoners were released, but there have been no positive moves since. By the end of October it was recognised generally that any possibility of further sustained improvements was not going to be forthcoming. So who is in the sphere of influence to effect change? I regret that it is not, I believe, the European Union. Britain has done more than most and has led the way on European action, pursuing a policy of critical dialogue, but to little avail. Late last year, the United States offered the regime two visions of a future relationship: increased co-operation linked to positive developments by the regime on issues of importance to the international community; or heightened isolation if progress is not forthcoming.
I would caution on the latter as possibly leading down the path of confrontation. The key to reform, in my opinion, lies in maintaining pressure, which the West is implementing, to make good Myanmar's programme of reforms, combined with trade and inward investment to be linked with conditions for reform from the ASEAN countries, Japan and China, if she could be encouraged so to do.
Her Majesty's Government should exert their influence with the ASEAN countries, and particularly Japan, to link further investment to improvements. The communiqué from the ministerial meeting in Germany supports that by emphasising that:
"they expressed the hope that Asean's policy of constructive engagement, and the European Union's willingness to engage in a critical dialogue will eventually contribute to achieving more sustainable improvements in all fields".
Indeed, a reversal of their human rights record and stepping down the road of democratic process would be in the interest of those who are investing in that country. Stability, as always, is the key to sustained growth.
Myanmar's "open door" policy has introduced a liberal foreign investment law which enables the country's long-closed economy to be integrated with the world economy, particularly with Asia's. Two billion US dollars has been attracted within a six-year period.
Economic reforms have contributed to the country's growth and recovery, but are not complete. More are needed if the present momentum of strong growth is to be sustained. Further inward investment will certainly then be forthcoming. There are some encouraging signs. After three decades of self-imposed exile, Myanmar is working itself out of isolation, and so to the opportunity of meaningful dialogue or "constructive engagement", which our ASEAN friends condone.

1189
Let there be no doubt as to key objectives as matters of the highest priority. First, halt all offensive military operations and allow humanitarian assistance to the victims of military operations. Secondly, release all those detained for the peaceful expression of their political views. Thirdly, remove all restrictions on freedom of movement. Fourthly, begin a process of substantive political dialogue. Fifthly, bring into Burmese law full conformity with international human rights standards. Myanmar could then look forward to an economy equal to that of her neighbours, and possible inclusion as an ASEAN member.
I end on a matter which gives me cause for concern and, indeed, distress. It has been brought to my attention that Sung Chee's husband, who resides in Oxford, has been refused a visa to visit her by the authorities in Rangoon. A visa has been granted in the past and the refusal seems both vindictive and retrogade. I ask the Minister to do what he can in the matter.
1.54 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I have reason personally to be grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for tabling her Unstarred Question this afternoon. She and I speak for people who have been my friends in the past. I regard them now with anxiety, affection and admiration. Therefore, I wish to speak about them as they were in the past and as I know them to be rather than about the situation which has been described by those who have already spoken. As I confess that I am biased in their favour, perhaps I may speak about them in the words of someone else. I recommend the book called Grandfather Longlegs to anyone who has not read it. It is about the great hero, Major Seagrim of the Burma Rifles who fought with and for, and eventually laid down his life for the Karens in the Second World War.
I wish to read a short passage about the Karens as people from the book by Ian Morrison:
"They are an extraordinarily good people. The word may be thought an odd and old-fashioned one to use, but it is the only one that describes the essential quality of the Karens, their honesty and truthfulness and, in its best sense, simplicity. The hill Karens, who have not been contaminated by contact with other races, are incapable of guile or deceit. They are peaceful and law-abiding folk, asking only to be treated fairly. Before the war there was practically no crime among them. After the harvest was gathered rice was stacked on the hill-sides with no guard over it. In the spring of 1946, when dacoity and lawlessness was rife all over Burmese Burma, the hills were absolutely quiet and safe".
My second quotation is from the same book, but is a quotation from a broadcast made after the war by a British officer who had served in Burma. He concluded his talk by saying:
"It takes two to make a quarrel, and it takes two to make a loyalty. And this loyalty of the Karens to the British cannot be surpassed, even between Englishmen born and bred in England. On the one side, it is due to men like Seagrim; on the other, to the character of the Karen people who have never been seduced, by promises, by money or by threats, from what they hold to be right".
That is a considerable tribute to the Karen people. They are one of several racial groups living in Burma which is not an ethnically united country. They live more or less in the hills, but also partly in the plains,
1190
round the southernmost part of Burma, level with Rangoon and the valleys of the Irrawaddy and the Salween rivers.
When the Japanese attacked in 1942, we retreated from the south of Burma right through Moulmein, up to Mandalay. It was really a later version of "The Road to Mandalay"—and a disagreeable one. We went through the Karen country. The Army then had cause to be grateful to the Karens because although it was in retreat and the Japanese were pressing on our heels, the people succoured, helped, protected and not infrequently fought for the army that was passing through their country. That help was complete and was given regardless of the Karens' personal safety. I am talking now about the civilian population, not the soldiers, but of course, the soldiers were there, including a number of Karens.
I was then serving as company commander in a battalion of the Burma Rifles which, like other battalions, contained three classes of people. For some reason, they were known as "classes" and they were the Chins, the Kachins and the Karens. We had a company of Chins and one of Kachins, and two companies of Karens. They were the warlike soldiers in the Burma Rifles. When the retreat was completed, many of them were disbanded from the Army and allowed to return home. In some cases they were given arms, ammunition and money. But most of them stayed with the Army and went into India, even though their own country was now in the hands of the enemy. They served again later (when we went back into Burma) with the so-called Special Force, the Chindits, commanded and led by General Wingate. The general himself said that they were the finest body of soldiers he had led. That is a remarkable tribute from such a man.
Those of the Burma Rifles who still remained had been reorganised for the second Chindit operation into reconnaissance platoons—partly British, partly Burma Rifles and largely Karen. One of those platoons was attached to every column that formed a part of that force. At the time I was first a column, and then a brigade, intelligence officer. I add my tribute to those invaluable soldiers, not only for their particular form of fighting, to which I shall return in a moment, but for their extreme usefulness in conveying information. They ought to have been used in that way before. They began by being organised —in so far as you can say seriously that anything was organised militarily in Burma before the war—as a standard infantry regiment. Their particular genius in wartime stemmed from the expertise that is natural to people who live in the jungle. They were spies, information carriers and scouts. They were enormously brave and absolutely invaluable.
In the second operation, they went into Burma about 800 strong, and came out stronger than when they went in. That is unusual, to say the least. That was because they had collected people of their own race inside the country and persuaded them to return to the Army or to join it for the first time. They had a great recruiting effect, which is again unusual in the middle of a war. Of course, they no longer exist as soldiers. Independence came, and that was the end of that.
As I remarked before, I do not wish to say anything in any detail about the present situation. But those people have served us in the past, and would no doubt do so again

1191
if they had the chance. When independence came, the Karen people stated officially and as a body that they wished not to achieve independence with the rest of Burma, but to become an autonomous state under British command. That is a measure of loyalty from simple people. This is a point that has not yet been made. They are extremely simple people. They are not very clever, but they are extremely loyal and extremely sensible; and, as I say, they are devoted to us. Can we not do something for them now?
I have heard it said that nothing can be done. Yet we have heard two noble Lords and one noble Baroness say that things can and must be done. I am convinced that they must be done —no matter what the cost might be. I know that one cannot quite say that, but it is not reasonable to say that nothing can be done. That is not a fit statement for anybody in the British Parliament to make.
I am personally grateful to my noble friend for initiating this debate. I am grateful on behalf of the Karens. I feel slightly entitled to say that. I hope that, somehow or other, a report of this debate and the remarks particularly of my noble friend Lady Cox will find their way through the pages of Hansard, or by some form of pigeon post, to the Karen country, so that those gallant and formerly devoted people may derive some comfort and benefit from what has been said.
2.5 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, like others, I not only welcome the remarks made today by the noble Baroness in initiating this debate, but pay tribute to her care in terms of international concern for violations of human rights. It is well-known in this House. She has done a service to the people of Burma in raising these issues in the way that she did today. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, paid the noble Baroness an appropriate tribute in his opening remarks. It is one that I wholly endorse.
The debate has been interesting. I should like to touch on the last observations made by the noble Earl. It is absurd for anybody to suggest that this country has no voice in affairs affecting human rights in countries that are far away. These matters are indivisible; they are questions of human rights and freedom. It is always appropriate for this country to allow its voice to be heard in championing the causes of those who are downtrodden, victimised and often seemingly helpless.
This debate has concentrated on a powerful indictment of the disregard for and violation of human rights that is happening in Burma today. It is a long and disheartening catalogue of suppression of those rights. It is an indictment that has been forcefully drawn and documented by Amnesty International and other international organisations and has been reiterated and supplemented in today's debate. Unfortunately, those calls for international action have elicited no proper response, in my belief, from the Burmese Government. I do not want to go in detail into a large number of the issues that have been raised today, because it does not add to the pertinence of the observations which have been made by others. But the arrest and imprisonment, often without any
1192
or any fair trial, of hundreds of political activists who are opposed to the military regime is something about which the international community must be concerned.
It is worth remembering the circumstances in which all this has arisen in more recent times. The present government—the State Law and Order Restoration Council—took over from an even more savage military regime in 1988. It went on to hold free elections— reasonably free elections at all events. There was a landslide victory for the Opposition in 1990 and the State Law and Order Restoration Council refused to hand over power. It went on violently to suppress a nationwide pro-democracy movement, having, when they took office in 1988, done something to promote that unworthy cause even then.
Other persistent human rights' violations have continued over many parts of the country. We heard today about the arbitrary seizure of civilians to serve as military porters, or labourers—forced labour. That was very well rehearsed in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, earlier. We heard too, notably from the noble Baroness who opened the debate, about the attacks on the ethnic minorities. Forced labour is terrible in itself, but when it is accompanied by savage beatings and other forms of appalling treatment and torture, it becomes infinitely worse. Tens of thousands of civilians have been forced by the Burmese army to carry supplies during counter-insurgency operations against Opposition armed groups.
I want to say here and now that there is evidence—again from Amnesty International—that some of the Opposition armed groups have behaved in a fairly uncivilised way too. It is fair to represent both sides of the issue. But we are dealing with the operation of a government which ought to set a rather better example, although it is often difficult to display all those elements of democratic rights that we would expect. It is certainly not an easy situation. But there is no way in which we can condone the torture and killing which is rife on the part of the armed military in Burma.
In fact, every part of Burmese society has been subjected to that barbaric treatment: Buddhist clerics, community leaders, university and high school teachers, students, doctors, writers, civil servants, lawyers, workers' leaders and so on. There is widespread expression of barbaric treatment.
Moreover, one must not forget, as has been said in this House, that one of the most outstanding Nobel Peace Prize winners of all time, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been under house arrest since 1989. Many other leaders remain imprisoned, or, if they are not imprisoned and have been released in more recent times, have been subjected to great surveillance by the government's intelligence agents.
Further arrests are taking place, although there was an abatement for some time. Certainly the scale of the violence seems in some way to have been reduced. I cannot help thinking that that is because people raised their voices in the international community and have taken action, which is more important even than raising voices, to ensure that pressure is maintained against the Burmese Government.

1193
I turn now to the attitude of our own Government, which has been substantially criticised by one of their own supporters; namely the noble Baroness. She is a supporter of the Government and cares to maintain them. That does not seem to me to be a very worthy aim in this day and age, but that is what she wants to do. Therefore, her criticisms must not be taken lightly by the Minister when he comes to reply.
The question with which I want to deal now is: what should be our attitude in relation to trade with Burma? The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said in effect that he wanted trade with Burma to persist or be encouraged but that it should be combined with demands for reform, particularly on the part of Japan, China and other ASEAN countries. I am not convinced that those countries are listening very carefully to any such preconditions for trade. But that is an important point. It is in marked contrast to a speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, on 10th March when she spoke at the United Nations social summit, at least as reported in The Times of 11th March. At that time she said, "cutting off markets is not an effective way to improve human rights records",
implicitly suggesting that trade with Burma—and others, but we are talking today about Burma—should be accommodated and encouraged, but with none of the preconditions about which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, spoke.
It would be an untenable situation if that argument were to represent the endorsement of a fairly new attitude by Britain in this connection. What is more, it was shown to be a barren argument in relation to South Africa. I cannot believe for one moment that any Minister today would stand up in this House or in another place and say, as was said during the Thatcher Government, that trade with South Africa should be encouraged because it was helping to release new forces in that country. That is the very reverse of an accurate reflection of what was happening, as displayed notably by the Americans. It is unlikely in the extreme, unless one had preconditions such as those described by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that to trade with Burma at this time could do more than be seen by the Burma authorities as condoning what is happening. Perhaps "condone" is the wrong word. It would display an indifference about the savage destruction of human rights that continues.
The demands that have been made by Amnesty International, which I shall briefly rehearse, are those which this Government ought to be demanding in the councils of the world and for which they should be seeking support. They are: first, the immediate and unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience; secondly, that all prisoners should receive proper medical attention and that international standards of decent treatment should prevail; thirdly, that there should be made public a list of all political prisoners released since April 1992 when Declaration 11/92 came into effect.
The fourth demand by Amnesty International is that all death sentences should be commuted to terms of imprisonment; the fifth is that all civilians subjected to forced portering and unpaid labour should be released; the sixth is that the forced relocation of villagers in circumstances where people are compelled to remain in
1194
another area because of their ethnic origins, should be ended; and, finally—to reiterate something said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his comments—that international human rights organisations (for example, UNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross and representatives of the Interparliamentary Union) should be allowed into Burma and permitted free access to prisons and other places of detention and to ethnic minority areas.
Those demands are perfectly reasonable. They should be the policy of the Government and I hope that we shall hear from the Minister along those lines and not along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness—rather uncharacteristically, if I may say so.
2.19 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for initiating this debate and to noble Lords for the many useful points which they made. The situation in Burma remains one of concern to the Government. We and our European Union partners have always made our views plain, most recently in the European Union statement on 13th March about the latest offensive against the Karen, which states inter alia that:
"The European Union wishes to express its grave anxiety at the continuation of military operations against the last pockets of resistance of the KNU on the Burmese/Thai border, in total opposition to the policy of national reconciliation preached by the Burmese Government. Its wishes to reiterate in this connection its hope that a peaceful solution will be found quickly to the problem of the ethnic minorities".
We suspended non-humanitarian aid in 1988, imposed an arms embargo in 1991 and severed all remaining defence links in 1992. We have consistently applied pressure on the ruling military regime—the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC)—both bilaterally and in international fora, to make progress towards national reconciliation and democratic reform.
Our policy, and that of our European partners, is one of "critical dialogue" with the SLORC. We do not believe that total isolation of the regime will assist the Burmese people. It is important that the regime understands that Burma cannot hope to regain its place in the international community unless it implements fundamental democratic and economic reforms and improves its human rights record.
"Critical dialogue" aims to influence the SLORC to implement liberalisation and political change. It is important that SLORC is made aware that normal relations with the European Union depend on progress in key areas. That is an essential pre-condition.
The ultimate goal of the policy we share with our European partners is to influence the SLORC to implement liberalisation and political change to achieve a peaceful, stable and democratic Burma led by a government freely elected by Burmese peoples which respects human rights. The current process is far from democratic and we continue to stress the need for real democratic reform. We fear that the national convention preparing the guidelines for a new constitution is not progressing towards this ideal. The convention does not reflect the outcome of the 1990 free elections; there is a pre-scripted agenda; and pro-democracy groups are given

1195
little opportunity to express their views. We have urged, and will continue to urge, the SLORC to hold open and productive discussions with all representatives of the pro-democracy groups, including the ethnic groups, on the formulation of a new constitution.
We believe that true national reconciliation will only result from the ethnic groups, among whom are the Karen but it is not the only one, and political parties being allowed to participate fully in the political process. We continue to urge the SLORC to enter into dialogue with these groups and we co-sponsored a recent resolution at the United Nations General Assembly which made specific reference to the need for SLORC to enter into a dialogue with ethnic groups. United Kingdom officials maintain informal contact with representatives of pro-democracy groups in exile. The establishment of a peaceful and prosperous Burma depends on the input of all ethnic groups.
We remain concerned at the human rights situation in Burma. In particular, we condemn the use of forced labour and military portering of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We have consistently pressed on all appropriate occasions for international condemnation of the use of forced labour and portering. We also deplore the high level of internal displacement within Burma itself and the lack of provision for the most basic human needs. Our most recent action has been to co-sponsor toughly worded UN resolutions both at the United Nations General Assembly in December and at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
We have always maintained the importance of keeping UN involvement in Burma. Not only do we press for strong resolutions in the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights but we fully support the work of the special rapporteur, Professor Yokota, and the Secretary-General's "good offices" missions. We welcome further visits by the Secretary-General's envoys and hope for a greater degree of co-operation from SLORC.
We see United Nations action as one of the most effective ways to draw Burma to the attention of the international community. We therefore welcome the report of the special rapporteur on human rights for Burma. We fully support his conclusions about continued human rights violations in the country and regret the limited co-operation he received from the SLORC and the denial of access to Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders. We are concerned about the intimidation of others who wish to contact him. We continue to urge the SLORC to permit the special rapporteur further visits to produce an accurate assessment of the situation in Burma and urge them further to co-operate with the UN Secretary General's visiting envoys.
We shall consider carefully the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the involvement of the ILO in Burma. But it is important to remember that our policy on Burma is part of a European Union policy.
I understand the anxiety of all noble Lords about that remarkable lady and Nobel laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi. Her continued detention without charge is indefensible and in flagrant contradiction of all principles of justice. We have repeatedly called for her early and unconditional
1196
release and have issued statements to that effect. We are particularly disappointed that SLORC has extended Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's detention until 11th July, and that it continues to hold many other political prisoners. We are particularly concerned that the regime has not yet acceded to International Red Cross requests for rights of access to Burmese prisons. We do, however, welcome the recent release of senior pro-democracy figures and encourage SLORC to resume meetings with Aung San Suu Kyi and to develop a serious and lasting dialogue.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, asked about the refusal of a visa from the Burmese Government for Dr. Michael Arts. I understand that the United Nations Secretary-General has urged the Burmese authorities to issue a visa for Dr. Aris to visit his wife in Burma. We support the Secretary-General's action and hope that the problem will be resolved soon.
I share the concern of your Lordships as regards the safety of the Karen people who were so movingly described by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery. We remember with gratitude the support that they gave us during the Second World War, resisting the Japanese invader, and we have the deepest sympathy for their present plight. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House hope that this debate may, to some extent at least, help to improve the circumstances in which they find themselves.
With our European partners, we made a démarche to the SLORC in Rangoon on 5th February to protest against its attacks on the Karen. We reinforced that action by calling in the Burmese ambassador here in London two days later to underline our message. The European Union also issued a public statement on 13th March expressing our concern at the recent offensive and reiterating the hope that a peaceful solution would be found to the problem of Burma's ethnic groups. We deplore the actions taken by the SLORC and will continue to monitor events closely.
As was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the area of most immediate concern is the safety of the Karen refugees who have fled to Thailand. Obviously we are concerned for their safety and have encouraged the Thai Government to ensure that the refugees are treated humanely and will not be returned to Burma until it is safe to do so. Recent reports of raids on camps several miles across the Thai border have caused us disquiet which fuelled our concern. We are monitoring the situation carefully with the help of NGOs.
We encourage the Thai Government to ensure that the Karen refugees are treated humanely and the Thai Government have recently expressed their concern about the recent incursions by the Burmese Army and the Democratic Karen Bhuddist Army into Thailand. We shall monitor the situation closely and will await a further response from the Thai Government.
We are aware that there are Thai forces along the Burmese border but we are not aware of the level of protection which they can offer. But the Thai Government have expressed their commitment to offering protection to the refugees and we shall continue to encourage them to offer such humanitarian assistance.

1197
I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that chemical and biological weapons have been used against the Karen. The United Kingdom deplores any use of bacteriological and chemical weapons. Burma is an original Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention signatory, but has never ratified the convention. We would naturally condemn activities in any breach of the spirit or letter of the convention.
The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down has analysed samples of equipment allegedly used to transport bacteria against the Karen, but found no conclusive evidence. The UK Government are willing to consider and analyse carefully any new evidence of their use in Burma or elsewhere. If evidence is presented to the UN, a United Nations inspection team may be asked to investigate.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis raised the matter of trade. In the past year Britain's trade with Burma amounted to only £13 million. This gives a necessary perspective on our activities. We cannot and should not prevent British companies from exploring opportunities. There is no European Union trade embargo and other nations are in no way restricting their trade. It would be inappropriate to offer official financial assistance to companies or to list Burma as a priority market under the DTI's export initiative. We must not forget that trade access and the consequent maintenance of a western presence may provide leverage over the SLORC.
The noble Baroness raised the question of the British Week. This was a small-scale affair funded mostly by the private sector. It aimed to give British firms a chance to assess for themselves any opportunities that there might be in Burma. We took the opportunity afforded by that occasion to reiterate our concerns. This was an opportunity to promote Britain in its entirety, with important cultural and information elements. The commercial participants received no official support, and HMG contributed only a small amount to cover administration. We have no plans for further events. Such a cautious policy on commercial activity complements the strong political message that we continue to send to the military regime. When advising United Kingdom business visitors and potential tourists to Burma we ensure that they understand our view of the regime, our concerns about human rights and the lack of democratic freedoms.
Some noble Lords have raised the possibility of further action. I appreciate the concern for the Burmese people that lies behind such a call. We share that concern and have considered how best to help them, but we do not believe that sanctions will be effective without international support, which we do not judge to be forthcoming. Furthermore, while we do not wish to offer any succour to the regime, we do not believe that to isolate it entirely will necessarily benefit the Burmese people.
We remain worried by the military activities of the SLORC. Although we have no reliable information on arms purchases, we are concerned by recent reports of continued expansion of the armed forces and rising military expenditure. We have raised our concerns about Burma's arms purchases with Burma's neighbours on a number of occasions, but have no reliable information
1198
about the major suppliers of arms. The United Kingdom has given full support to the European Union's arms embargo of 1991. We severed all remaining defence links in 1992 and have encouraged like-minded countries to do the same.
The noble Baroness raised the question of aid to Burma. We maintain a distinction between developmental aid—which I am sure your Lordships agree is inappropriate in the case of Burma—and humanitarian aid which helps the people rather than the regime. Together with our European partners, we suspended all EU and bilateral non-humanitarian official aid in 1988, and we will not consider resuming such aid programmes until we are satisfied that real changes have been made, including a significant improvement in respect for human rights.
I can assure your Lordships that not only do we support existing UN endeavours in Burma, but actively initiate projects and resolutions. We support the work of the UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR and UNDCP. We have taken a major role in securing UNDP agreement to redirect programmes towards grass roots activities, which give no assistance to the military regime but provide real help to the people of Burma. The withdrawal of UN projects will only hurt the ordinary Burmese people who most need our help.
Thus far, I have focused my remarks on the position of Burma and our own country and the European Union, but we must not overlook Burma's neighbours and the part they may play. The ASEAN countries share the same objective: to see a democratic and prosperous Burma that is able to play a full part in international affairs. Although there is a difference in emphasis between us, we believe that dialogue with Burma's neighbours is one of the most effective ways to influence the SLORC. We take every opportunity to urge ASEAN members to use their influence with the SLORC to achieve the reforms that we all wish to see, because Burma wants to have closer links with them.
The interest shown by the House in the plight of Burma, and in particular the Karen people, reflects our genuine wish to see democracy, freedom and full respect for human rights restored in that country. I have described in some detail a number of areas that are of concern to the Government and are very properly causing anxiety to your Lordships. I believe that not merely are the Government's actions a sign of our concern but that they represent the most realistic way in which pressure can be exerted for the re-establishment of these rights in that tortured country. For their part, the Government will continue to work closely with European Union colleagues and other like-minded states to help bring about the reforms that we all wish to see.

Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before three o'clock.

  VE Day Commemorations
  VE Day Commemorations
  Lloyd's: Contribution to UK Balance of Payments
  Lloyd's: Contribution to UK Balance of Payments
  Palace of Westminster: Restoration
  Palace of Westminster: Restoration
  Appleby Castle
  Appleby Castle
  Northern Ireland: Mr. Santer's Statement
  Northern Ireland: Mr. Santer's Statement