Sitting of 28 February 1995

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

    8th Battalion the Light Infantry
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of 8th Battalion the Light Infantry.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The 8th Battalion the Light Infantry will begin to re-role as a national defence reconnaissance regiment in the Royal Armoured Corps from 1 April 1995. The battalion looks forward to its new role with enthusiasm.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister accept that the 8th Battalion the Light Infantry is a direct descendant of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, which has a 200-year history in Yorkshire and which is one of the fundamental regiments ever formed in Yorkshire? Does he accept that the proposed change is not in the best interests of that Yorkshire regiment? Will he assure me that the cap badge will not change, and that the role of an infantry division will be maintained?
    Twenty-four thousand men were recruited to, and fought in, the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry in the first world war, in which 10,000 lost their lives, and eight Victoria Crosses were awarded to its men. Will the Minister assure me that that battalion will not be lost to Yorkshire?
    Mr. Soames: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the heirs and inheritors of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, one of the proudest regiments in the British Army. Indeed, many streets in Yorkshire are named after its Victoria Cross winners.
    I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he wants. The regiment is re-roling and it is looking forward to its new role with enthusiasm. I have a letter from its colonel, informing me how much members of the regiment look forward to their new role.
    There is, naturally, anxiety about the new cap badge. Discussions are taking place between the regiment, the director of infantry and the director of the Royal Armoured Corps. It is likely that the new cap badge will incorporate elements of the old 8th Light Infantry badge, reflecting the regiment's heritage, and a Royal Armoured Corps symbol.
    824
    All the proposals will be put to the executive committee of the Army board and will ultimately require the final approval of the sovereign.
    Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have had one or two discussions on this matter in recent months. The regiment accepts the re-roling, but many of us would like its great tradition, together with the cap badge, to continue.
    Mr. Soames: I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend for her vigorous lobbying of Ministers on behalf of the regiment. I assure her that the regiment will have every opportunity to ensure that it retains its battle honours and its important regimental distinctions, which, rightly, are the source of great pride and pleasure to all the people of Yorkshire.

    Attack Helicopters
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the position on the future attack helicopter needs of the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): My Department is evaluating tenders to meet the Army's requirement for an attack helicopter. We hope to make a decision on the purchase of that equipment before the summer recess.
    Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. He is well aware that many thousands of my constituents work at British Aerospace Warton, which is one of the bases that is heavily involved in the British Aerospace bid for the attack helicopter. I hope that he will be able to reassure my constituents that British Aerospace's bid will be seriously considered when future provision of RAF attack helicopters is considered, as it is obviously an excellent product.
    Mr. Freeman: I can give that assurance. Our four criteria in taking a decision about the attack helicopter are, first, whether the bid meets the operational requirements of the Army Air Corps; secondly, the cost—whether it represents good value for money; thirdly, the impact on the United Kingdom defence industrial base, including employment, for example, at British Aerospace; and, finally, the risks involved in further development.
    Mr. Martlew: As the question refers to helicopters for the RAF, will the Minister say whether progress has been made in ordering the utility helicopter for the RAF because it is now nearly a decade since the Government promised to buy it? Is the Minister aware that the job security of employees at Westland in Yeovil depends on his placing an order for the EH101?
    Mr. Freeman: That is well understood. We have made substantial progress in negotiations with Westland and Boeing and expect to make an announcement shortly. The importance of an indigenous UK helicopter manufacturing company is of direct relevance, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made it plain that our preference is for a mixed fleet order, but not at any cost. We expect to reach a decision soon.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Most hon. Members will be reassured by my right hon. Friend's statement that the order will be

    825
    decided not on price alone but on the quality of the product. May I make a plea that, if he is looking for a quality product and to ensure employment, he must look to Westland's involvement in an attack helicopter order, which would meet the requirements of the Army extremely well?
    Mr. Freeman: Westland's contribution to an order for one of the attack helicopter contenders—the Apache—would be relatively modest compared with the contribution that it would make, for example, to a support helicopter order. The programme for the Merlin version, which is for anti-submarine warfare, is going extremely well and Westland is to be congratulated on its achievements.

    Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will put in the Library copies of the advice that Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson received from those responsible for the maintenance of official residences in Her Majesty's Government in relation to his official residence.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have already placed in the Library a full report on the outcome of investigations into expenditure on official service residences, including the last two residences occupied by Air Chief Marshal Wilson. I do not propose to publish any further documents.
    Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps Sir Sandy Wilson has been a victim of the system.
    Mr. Rifkind: There is no question of anyone being a victim of the system. All members of the services carry responsibility for their actions, including their judgment. These matters have been investigated fully and I can add nothing to what I have already said.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In reaching his decision, did my right hon. and learned Friend take into account the precedent that he would set in forcing that very senior officer to retire prematurely? Was he conscious of the fact that there were no official guidelines against which such expenditure could be judged, and that the Air Chief Marshal had not broken the Queen's regulations or, according to my right hon. and learned Friend, acted improperly? How did my right hon. and learned Friend compare the expenditure on Air house, Rheindahlen and Haymes Garth against the £700,000 spent on the Bois de Mai residence of the chairman of the military committee of NATO or the £400,000 spent on the residence of the Commander Allied Forces North West Europe in High Wycombe?
    Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend knows, the properties to which he referred were all the subject of an internal audit, which concluded that there was no cause for substantial concern, except with regard to certain Royal Air Force residences. In that light, further examination was made of those matters. Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson decided that he should seek early retirement and I do not disagree with his conclusion. The service that he has given the Royal Air Force, including the continuing service that he will give until he retires this July, will have been of a high order with regard to his operational responsibilities.
    Dr. David Clark: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that the manner in which he scooted out of London on the morning of Sir Sandy Wilson's sacking, thus refusing to make a statement to the House, did neither his great office nor himself any credit? Having spent £100,000 of public money on a consultant's report, will he make the full report available to hon. Members in the House of Commons Library and confirm that Sir Sandy Wilson was not the chief budget holder for Haymes Garth?
    Mr. Rifkind: Sir Sandy Wilson was not the chief budget holder for Haymes Garth. However, he was the chief budget holder, with full budgetary responsibility, for Air house—the house that he occupied previously, which also formed part of the investigations.
    The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will be interested to know that the relevant papers to which he referred have been made available to the National Audit Office in the normal manner and, in that sense, we are pursuing procedures that the House understands fully.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unworthy nature of that reply, I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    NATO
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what future role he envisages for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Rifkind: NATO will remain essential to the defence and security needs of nations on both sides of the Atlantic.
    Mr. Cohen: Should there not be a de-emphasising of NATO and its military mentality and a concentration on improving political and economic co-operation with America and with the whole of Europe? Is it not the secret truth that NATO Ministers and generals still think in cold war terms and regard Russia as the enemy? Are we not missing the opportunity, presented by the ending of the cold war, to scrap nuclear weapons? This Sunday marks the 25th anniversary of the signing of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Should we not use that occasion to announce huge cuts in nuclear weapon stockpiles worldwide, including those in Britain?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman, in his usual engaging manner, shows that he totally misunderstands the relevance of NATO when he talks about reducing its military identity. NATO is a military defence alliance. That is its strength and that explains why it is the most successful defence alliance in the history of the world.
    We believe that NATO continues to have a crucial role to play in a very unstable Europe. Many countries are seeking to join NATO, which suggests that they believe that it has continuing relevance for the well-being of Europe and the entire western world.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would help the defence of Europe immensely if France joined NATO's integrated military structure?
    Mr. Rifkind: We are pleased that France has recently edged its way back towards fuller involvement in NATO. For example, the French Defence Minister attended last

    827
    year's meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Seville. That represented a small step for mankind, but a great step for France. The French Government and the French people must now determine how much further along that road they wish to go. We will welcome any further integration of France into NATO that they deem appropriate.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I ask the Secretary of State about NATO's current role, in particular in the former Yugoslavia? The United Nations has confirmed persistent reports of large transport aircraft operating in Bosnia. Are any of those aircraft from NATO countries and are any of them breaking the arms embargo?
    Mr. Rifkind: We are aware of various reports that suggest that there might have been some breaches of the no-fly zone in Bosnia, but there is little hard evidence available of the kind to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. However, NATO continues to pay close attention to the matter and it will use the surveillance aircraft available to it to identify any breaches of the no-fly zone.

    National Monument (Northern Ireland)
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to establish a national monument in Northern Ireland to commemorate those service men and women who have lost their lives serving there.
    Mr. Rifkind: The nation owes a great debt of gratitude to the security forces in Northern Ireland; this is already marked in different ways and there are no current plans to establish a national monument.
    Mrs. Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while peace would be a fitting memorial to the 500 service personnel who have lost their lives in Northern Ireland—and to that end the terrorists should surrender their arms immediately—would not the erection of a national monument in the Province serve as a lasting tribute to them? Furthermore, does he accept that any appeasement of the Irish Republican Army in pursuing a nationalist agenda would betray that sacrifice and would perhaps lead to the break up of the Union and the break out of further sectarian strife?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree very much with the feeling behind my hon. Friend's question. The main purpose of the armed forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the battle against terrorism over 25 years has been to ensure that Northern Ireland's constitutional status can never be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that they have been totally successful in that endeavour.
    In respect of the earlier part of my hon. Friend's question, we take into account the fact that in the past 25 years, in addition to the 648 service men who lost their lives, the Royal Ulster Constabulary suffered 196 fatalities and some 1,846 innocent civilians were killed. Therefore, it would be felt within Northern Ireland that any commemoration of those events should pay equal attention to all who have lost their lives in the struggle against terrorism.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's tribute to those who have lost their lives in Northern Ireland, but
    828
    as there is a move to remember the civilian bomb victims of the blitz in London and a national monument to the police who have died in keeping the peace, surely such a memorial could be erected in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Government could even pledge to maintain not simply the concept of consent, but the Union for which those men gave their lives.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am very sensitive to the important points that the hon. Gentleman makes. There are a number of memorials across the Province: for example, the books of remembrance at St. Anne's cathedral in Belfast and the Garrison church in Lisburn. Any further memorials require sensitive consideration and we are open to any constructive proposals that would be welcome to all those concerned.

    Gulf War Syndrome
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on Gulf war syndrome.
    Mr. Soames: We continue to investigate the allegations of Gulf war syndrome with scientific rigour, principally through a medical assessment programme that will be subject to independent clinical audit by the Royal College of Physicians. There remains no evidence that those who served in the Gulf conflict are suffering from a mystery illness.
    Ms Eagle: Why has the Ministry been so half-hearted and slow in its response to the plight of Gulf war victims who report the appalling symptoms that we now call Gulf war syndrome? When they were called to serve their country, those service men and women were not slow and half-hearted but willing to lay down their lives. Why cannot the Minister and his Department give them the same consideration in their present plight?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady is rather overdoing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] She is rather overdoing it. As she knows, we approach the matter with a sympathetic and open mind. The soundest method of assessment of all such cases is individual medical examination. We have taken steps to invite all those who think that they are suffering from any illness to come forward for the most rigorous medical examination. Their expenses will be paid, and, if they need to travel, overnight accommodation will be provided for them. So far, only 240 potential claimants have registered their intention to come forward and 105 have been examined. To secure the confidence that the House should rightly have, an independent clinical audit of the work that has been undertaken will be passed to us by the Royal College of Physicians and we shall make it available to the House.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his considered and well-balanced approach to a difficult issue. Does he agree that the only way forward is a proper medical and scientific assessment of the reported symptoms? Does he further agree that the Ministry of Defence is very well-motivated to get behind the understandable emotion and fulfil its long and well-deserved tradition of being a caring and excellent employer?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose remarks have added weight, as he himself was in the place of honour. He is quite right to mark down the Ministry of

    829
    Defence as an extremely caring and sympathetic employer. The health and welfare of our service men and women is, and always will be, of prime importance to us. I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that the matter will be approached with great care, great sympathy and an open mind.
    Dr. David Clark: Do the Government still believe that the pattern and prevalence of illnesses suffered by Gulf war veterans is no different from that experienced among the 18 to 40 age group of the general population?
    Mr. Soames: As the hon. Gentleman knows, some 45,000 troops were deployed in the Gulf and, sadly, it would not be surprising if a number of years thereafter a number of them were suffering from illness of one sort or another. A number of the people who have approached us are ill. They have been examined and, as I have said, to date we have found absolutely no medical or scientific evidence to support the allegation of a specific disease linked to service in the Gulf. Similar research is being conducted in the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Canada and Norway but no link has been found. As I said, we shall continue to approach the matter in an open and sympathetic manner, and we should be grateful if all those who feel that they have been made ill by service in the Gulf would come forward for a medical examination, which we would then subject to clinical audit.
    Mr. Robathan: This is a very serious matter. I welcome my hon. Friend's reassurance that all cases are subject to a comprehensive medical examination. He may know that I had to endure these rather—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
    Mr. Robathan: It is just coming.
    Madam Speaker: It should have come earlier.
    Mr. Robathan: It cometh like the wind.
    Is my hon. Friend aware that I endured unpleasant vaccinations for anthrax and, I think, the plague and ate NAPS—nerve agent pre-treatment sets—because I believed conditions meant that they were necessary? Will he confirm that Saddam Hussein in fact had the capability to launch chemical and bacteriological weapons against us? Does he agree that it is a great pity that some hon. Members seem determined for their own purposes to make political or publicity capital out of the issue?
    Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend who is another of the hon. Members who served in the Gulf conflict. He is correct to say that the assessment at the time was that there was such a threat and it would have been criminally negligent if our soldiers and service men and women had not been provided with proper protection against it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to the House's attention.

    Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
    Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Chemical and Biological Defence
    830
    Establishment at Porton Down has to conduct a study on the long-term health effects of its experiments on the people involved.
    Mr. Freeman: There has been no evidence over the past 40 years to suggest that service volunteers who have participated in studies at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have suffered any harm to their health. Therefore, we have no plans to conduct a study on the long-term health effects on such volunteers.
    Ms Squire: Is the Minister aware that a number of ex-service men, including my constituent, Mr. Harry Hogg, were subject to horrific experiments with biological and chemical substances at Porton Down during the second world war and subsequently? Will he agree personally to investigate Mr. Hogg's case as Porton Down is trying to deny that he was ever there? Will he further agree to demonstrate the caring nature of the Ministry of Defence, as alleged by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), by establishing an independent study into the long-term health effects and by considering means of compensating those affected?
    Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly look at the particular case. I am not familiar with it but, if the hon. Lady will write to me, I shall examine it specifically. About 200 service men a year volunteer at Porton Down to take part in experiments to test not only equipment to be used in war but, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Armed Forces said, chemicals and medicines for use in the event of chemical and biological warfare.
    Mr. Key: As the alternative motto of the CBDE is "safety first" and every procedure is subjected to ethical assessment, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the hundreds of my constituents who work there, saving thousands of lives through their work?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and certainly join him in thanking and congratulating his constituents. I also thank the service men and women who volunteer to take part in experiments at Porton Down. They have helped to ensure the safety of our armed forces.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister realise that his response to this question is as disappointing and mean as that of his fellow Minister in relation to Gulf war syndrome? When there are reports that volunteers at Porton Down have suffered from skin and eye cancer, paralysis, disorders of the ears, nose, kidneys and bladder, is the Minister really saying that it is all chance and spontaneous? Do not the Government owe it to those volunteers to ensure that there is a proper independent medical inquiry into what has happened to them? Those people volunteered not for money but to help their country and their fellow service people. Would not the best answer from the Minister be to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) and set up that inquiry now?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is falling below his normal charitable standards. I specifically agreed to look at the case that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) raised. There is no evidence [Interruption.] Perhaps it does not commend itself to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government do pay attention to

    831
    the facts presented. There is no evidence that any of those volunteers has suffered long-term damage to their health in the past four decades.

    Medical District Hospital Units
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce his decision on the locations of the new medical district hospital units.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to rationalise military hospitals.
    Mr. Soames: There are no proposals to rationalise military hospitals further to the decision that I announced on 8 December last year to establish a single, tri-service core hospital with at least 375 beds in the United Kingdom at the current Royal Naval hospital at Haslar in Gosport. I expect to make an announcement shortly on the locations of the new Ministry of Defence hospital units.
    Mr. Coombs: I recognise the need to reduce the medical capacity of the services as a result of other changes that my hon. Friend and his colleagues have made in recent months, but I hope that he will take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to the staff of Princess Alexandra hospital at Wroughton for their excellent work over many years not only in caring for RAF personnel but many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who is in his place. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will bear in mind, when making his decision about the location of future MDHUs, that the presence of an MDHU in the Swindon area will make it that much easier for the Swindon and Marlborough health trust, which serves north-east Wiltshire, to continue to provide the same excellent service in the future?
    Mr. Soames: I am happy to have the opportunity to confirm everything that my hon. Friend has said and to pay tribute to the robust and vigorous lobbying that was undertaken by him and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on behalf of the Princess Alexandra hospital at Wroughton. It is an outstanding hospital and has served our military personnel and the wider community very well indeed. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the changes are inevitable and are the result of slimming of the forces, and the requirement to deal with our medical requirements in an assessed operational way for the 1990s. I endorse his views about the Princess Margaret hospital in Swindon. I am not, I am afraid, yet in a position to give him a guarantee on that, but will let him know as soon as we come to a decision.
    Mr. Cunningham: Is the Minister satisfied that, in a worst-case scenario—for example, a rapid withdrawal from Bosnia—medical resources would be available, bearing in mind the rapid cuts that have been made in medical services over the past three or four years?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and I am pleased to be able to give him an absolute assurance that resources would be available. Indeed, none of the alterations and cuts to the services has been made to do anything other than support the front line in all assessed operational scenarios for the 1990s. I am
    832
    therefore happy to give him whatever undertaking he wishes in respect of a withdrawal from Bosnia should that be necessary.
    Sir Michael Grylls: When my hon. Friend considers the siting of MDHUs, will he bear in mind the possibility of siting one at Frimley Park hospital, which is a real centre of medical excellence in Surrey and is ideally suited because it is surrounded by a large number of service establishments?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who has been a doughty champion of Frimley hospital. I am afraid that we have not yet reached a conclusion. As soon as we do so—I note and am fully aware of the excellent facilities at Frimley Park hospital—we will report to the House.

    RAF St. Athan
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the role of RAF St. Athan and the maintenance of Tornado and other aircraft since 1983.
    Mr. Freeman: RAF St. Athan provides overhaul, repair and manufacturing facilities for fixed-wing aircraft of all three services, and many of their mechanical, structural and engine components. Currently, Tornado accounts for around 48 per cent. of RAF St. Athan's work.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister confirm that work done at RAF St. Athan by the company Airwork has cost a minimum of £300 million so far in botched and damaged Tornados? Will the Ministry receive compensation from the Bricom group? Was anyone in the RAF or the Ministry directly responsible for seeing that the work was properly done, and will anyone lose his job or be admonished?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman's estimate of the amount involved is wildly inaccurate. We have not yet costed the amount, and I would not be able to give the hon. Gentleman the figure if we had, because we intend to take legal proceedings against Bricom in connection with the work done by Airwork.
    I am glad to say that the damage to the Tornado aircraft that has been identified is being rectified by British Aerospace, the cost being a mere fraction of the sum mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to say also that RAF St. Athan won the competition for the fatigue index at No. 25—a quarter of the way through the fatigue life—to repair about 100 of the remaining Tornados. I congratulate the service men and women involved, some of whom are the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
    Mr. Mans: In the context of the maintenance and updating of Tornado aircraft, when will the midlife update programme be complete? Will the Minister also tell me, either today or in writing, what plans the RAF has to give the Tornado aircraft a stand-off capability?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked me about the F3 fighter aircraft, which are being repaired and maintained. My hon. Friend asks about the ground attack—the bomber version of the Tornado. I am happy to say that the midlife update programme is proceeding, is properly resourced and will extend the life of the aircraft for perhaps 15 or 20 years—

    833
    at the end of which time we shall have to consider a future offensive aircraft. I hope very much that we shall be able to collaborate in part with, perhaps, the United States in the design and development of the aircraft.
    The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) laughs, but the procurement of new and very expensive aircraft will require us to collaborate not only with the French and Germans—and as we are doing on Eurofighter—but with the Americans.

    Property Improvements
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how property improvements are authorised in his Department; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: Within prescribed limits, authority to approve expenditure on maintenance and new construction is delegated to budget holders to exercise in accordance with the letter of delegation issued to top level budget holders by the accounting officer.
    Mr. Enright: Is not the Secretary of State slightly ashamed about the fact that he threw away £100,000 that could have cured the deficiencies in two housing estates in my constituency, paying KPMG Peat Marwick to produce a report that he subsequently repressed? Is that not a typical Ministry of Defence cover-up?
    Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary; the work done by KPMG Peat Marwick was of very high quality, and enabled us to bring a difficult matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the estates at Imphal barracks in York and Strensall barracks in my constituency need no improvement other than a reprieve for Strensall, which faces possible closure, and more use of the accommodation at Imphal? Will he bear in mind the concern of many people throughout Yorkshire, who want us to maintain those facilities and continue the great relationship that York has had with the Army for many years?
    Mr. Rifkind: We greatly value York's relationship with the armed forces, and expect it to continue for many generations.

    Recruitment Costs
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the continuing cost of recruitment to the armed forces while people are being made redundant.
    Mr. Soames: Recruitment to the armed forces has continued throughout the force restructuring exercise, "Options for Change", in order to maintain a balanced age and rank structure and to meet shortages in certain branches and trades.
    Mr. Spellar: I am not surprised that the Minister did not give the exact figure for the costs. In the last financial year, they amounted to £100 million for recruitment and £500 million for redundancy. Is it not ludicrous to have that imbalance? When will the Government stop this absurd waste of public money?
    Mr. Soames: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but, as usual, he is wrong on everything. It is not £100
    834
    million; it is £92 million. [interruption] I fully realise that £8 million here or there is nothing to the Labour party. Plainly, recruiting remains extremely important to retain the right mix of skills and expertise and a balanced age structure, without which the services would be unable to carry out their job.
    As to resettlement and redundancy, the hon. Gentleman should know that 80 per cent. of the people who leave the services are in employment or in other chosen activities within three months of leaving and that 93 per cent. of them are in that position after 15 months. That money is extremely well spent and just goes to show that the armed services provide the best-trained, best-skilled and best-led work force in the land.
    Mr. Viggers: In addition to the points that my hon. Friend has made, does he agree that, if recruitment were to stop, it would mean that the training establishments would be unable to maintain their proper efficiency, which demonstrates the ignorance behind the original question?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is right. The question of the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) was fatuous and betrayed a lack of knowledge of the position. As I have said, plainly we must retain a constant and steady inflow to ensure that we have a balanced aid structure and a balanced range of skills across the services. I endorse what my hon. Friend says about the service training centres.
    Dr. Reid: Is it not amazing that, in other circumstances, when we discuss recruitment, for instance, of managers of privatised utilities, the Government tell us that the only way to recruit the right people is to pay huge wage increases? Why are the armed forces so different? Why, when we need ordinary soldiers and ratings, have the Government cut their remuneration by 15 per cent. in real terms but, when we are awash with generals and brigadiers, increased their salaries by 18 per cent. in real terms? Is it not the same old Tory story: more brass for the top brass and peanuts for the poor bloody infantry?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman has more front than Brighton beach. That is a disgraceful assertion. The Conservative Government have always accepted the recommendations of the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay. They are proud of their record on service pay.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend accept that the armed forces are essentially a young organisation, and that even those of us who have expressed reservations about defence cuts fully support the view that, although people leaving the forces must be generously treated, it is essential that we maintain an on-going recruiting programme, bringing young people into the forces? The Government are absolutely right on that.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his endorsement. He is exactly right. This is all part of maintaining the skills and the broad range of age and experience that is so necessary to a professional army. My hon. Friend is probably aware that well over 30,000 personnel leave the services every year on completion of their engagements or because they have decided to take up civilian employment. Many of those people are under 30.

    Royal Naval College, Greenwich
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what options he is currently considering for the future use of the Royal Naval college, Greenwich.
    Mr. Soames: We are considering a number of options for the future occupancy of the Royal Naval college at Greenwich, if, following consultation, we should decide to form a joint service command and staff college at Camberley. The defence options being examined are for the home for a restructured defence school of languages or for a tri-service chaplains school.
    Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend will know that the Royal Air Force chaplains school at Amport house already provides an ideal setting for the Royal Navy as well as for the Royal Air Force. Could not the Royal Naval college at Greenwich be used as a tri-service cadet college, where cadets of all three services could learn military science, discipline and the traditions of each service, before going to their respective establishments?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has asked a popular question and I am happy to assure him that we would not allow any proposal to go forward for Greenwich that was not entirely fitting for the future use of the Royal Naval college. I am delighted to confirm that Amport house remains very much in the frame. I hope that we will be able to reach a conclusion that I know will please him. In any event, he has until 10 March to ensure that his views are put on paper.
    Mr. Raynsford: Rather than prejudging the outcome of the consultation supposedly taking place on the location for the new joint service command and staff college, will the Minister recognise that the figures published in the consultation paper are dubious and suspect and that there is a serious case for revising those figures and considering Greenwich as the best and most effective location for the college?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is fighting his corner in a robust and vigorous fashion, as he should be. Today
    I signed a long letter to him which I hope sets out the answers to some of the questions that he has raised. The hon. Gentleman has asked to come to see me to discuss these matters and I shall be pleased to meet him and to hear what he has to say. I would like to straighten out one misapprehension: we have certainly not yet made up our mind and we shall not do so until we have considered all the representations and the consultation is complete.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Rail Privatisation
    Ql. Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess the impact of rail privatisation on the economy of the Scottish highlands and islands.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): The franchising director will consult on his draft passenger service requirement for ScotRail. I am confident that the outcome will improve the quality of service enjoyed by the passenger.
    Mr. Kennedy: Given the Prime Minister's recent visit to Scotland, he will be aware of the widespread concern about the future of rail services, not least the impact that
    836
    the withdrawal of sleeper services, motorail, the steam engine on the West Highland line, and so on will have on the tourist-oriented economy of the western highlands in particular. Given that degree of concern, will the Prime Minister agree to a meeting at the appropriate time to discuss this matter further?
    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, I believe strongly that rail privatisation will improve the service, not least because a privatised service will have access to new sources of funds to increase investment in the rail service.
    On the hon. Gentleman's direct question, of course I would be prepared to meet him at an appropriate time, but it might be more helpful in the first instance if he were to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who will, naturally, try to assist him.

    Engagements
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Dr. Jones: Does the Prime Minister recall that nearly three years ago he told the nation, "Vote Conservative on Thursday, and the recovery starts Friday"? [Interruption.] When will the recovery start for all those who have seen their real standard of living decline since then? When will it start for the people I saw in the Selly Oak jobcentre yesterday where skilled factory workers are being offered £150 a week, security guards are being offered £2.40 an hour and care assistants £2.25 an hour? When will they get the feel-good factor?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady cares to look at the published figures, she will see that we moved back into growth almost immediately after the last general election, precisely as I had forecast. If she is concerned about what is happening to the economy, she might bear in mind that it is now growing at about 4 per cent. a year, unemployment has fallen by 400,000 in the last year alone, exports have hit record levels in nine out of the last 13 months, investment is rising, manufacturing productivity is rising and, for the first time since records began, the number of people in work in manufacturing industry is rising. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell her constituents that.
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend recall the speech that he made in Glasgow on Friday night to a cross-section of the Scottish business community? Does he recall that his comments were widely welcomed? Is he aware that the Scottish business community feels that a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers will cost productive jobs in Scotland and threaten the Union?
    The Prime Minister: I do, indeed, recall speaking to 1,000 Scottish business men in Glasgow on Friday. I am in no doubt that they believe that a tax-raising assembly

    837
    in Scotland would not be in the interests of Scottish business, not be in the interests of Scottish prosperity and not be in the interests of future investment in Scotland. That is strongly my view. I believe that it was also theirs.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister share the anger at the latest multi-million pound pay package awarded to heads—[Interruption.] Does he share the anger—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not barrack from sedentary positions.
    Mr. Blair: Does the right hon. Gentleman share the anger at the latest multi-million pound pay package awarded to heads of privatised utilities—this time, the National Grid Company—and will he at last act to stop such abuses?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do find these payments as distasteful as the right hon. Gentleman—as do, I dare say, many other people as well. Where they cannot be justified, I believe that they bring the system into disrepute. I believe that directors have a duty to consider that, and I hope that they will. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Greenbury committee is examining those matters. Its recommendations will be addressed, of course, to companies and to shareholders. When its recommendations are available, I shall be ready to consider any proposals that may require legislative back-up. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is all very time consuming.
    Mr. Blair: But, Madam Speaker, he has the golden share in this company. Why will not he then use it?
    The Prime Minister: There are a wide number of issues to be addressed, not just this, and the right hon. Gentleman may find it interesting to examine what they are. First, we must address how best to promote complete and open disclosure of the remuneration of directors—that is necessary so that shareholders can have the full facts—and, secondly, how to ensure that bonuses and share options are firmly based on the performance of the company, and not provided as windfall gains. I believe that that is rightly where the greatest public concern is now concentrated. I believe that that may require stricter criteria for the price at which the shares are issued and the circumstances in which they are exercised. All those matters will need to be examined.
    I share the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that it is not the job of Government to substitute their commercial judgment for that of individuals. When we have the judgment that is now being provided, we will examine it with great care.
    Mr. Blair: For these privatised utilities, why will not the right hon. Gentleman use the golden share or give the regulator the power? Does he not realise that, until he acts to stop these abuses, he will be seen as a willing partner in a public scandal, where monopoly millionaires are paying themselves monopoly money?
    The Prime Minister: People who have listened to these exchanges may suspect that the right hon. Gentleman had prepared that question before he had
    838
    listened to the earlier answers. If he had listened to the earlier answers, he would have known that there was no point in asking that question.
    Mr. Lamont: Is the Prime Minister aware that the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland over the weekend about decommissioning and the surrender of arms were as welcome as they were necessary? May I encourage the Government to stick to their word on that matter, otherwise the so-called choice that the people of Northern Ireland face will not be a real choice? It will be a choice subject to blackmail, intimidation and abandonment of a community that deserves our support and protection.
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend will know, the community has had our support and protection, with a large number of troops there, for the past quarter of a century. I can tell my right hon. Friend and all right hon. and hon. Members in the House that those British troops will stay there to protect people in Northern Ireland for so long as it is necessary. My right hon. Friend need have no concern but that we will keep to the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Soley: Has the Prime Minister made up his mind yet whether he agrees with his Chancellor that monetary union is not a threat to the nation state?
    The Prime Minister: I shall be addressing in detail all the matters that relate to our European position, and the right policies for this country, tomorrow. I shall do that tomorrow, and the hon. Gentleman will then be in no doubt.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gorman: Unless my right hon. Friend has even half a mind to pull Britain out of Europe, could he explain to the House, and more particularly to the fishermen of Britain, how else they are to recover their Dover soles?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend will know, since she refers to the common fisheries policy, that there would be many parts of the seas from which British fishermen would be excluded were it not for the provisions of the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend and the fishing industry may not like every aspect of that policy—I am aware that they do not—but if we were to cut ourselves adrift from Europe in the way that she suggests, not just the fishing industry but a very large part of the commerce and other interests of this country would be put at risk.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: As the Prime Minister has already announced one U-turn in his policy, can he confirm or deny reports in today's papers that the Government have abandoned their policy with regard to rail safety with the abandonment of automatic train protection? There has been a firm commitment to ATP by

    839
    the Government and previous Secretaries of State since 1985. Can the Prime Minister confirm or deny that it is still part of his Government's policy?
    The Prime Minister: On these matters, of course, we act on the advice that we receive from the Health and Safety Commission, as we have frequently been advised to do by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have received some advice from the commission and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering it.
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the Belgians have recently exercised border controls in a most effective manner in relation to alleged football hooligans? Will he ensure that he lobbies Belgium hard for support in the European Union so that we can maintain adequate border controls at Dover?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome the action taken by the Belgian police to ensure that tonight's game passes off without incident. I hope that the only action will be on the pitch—not off it.
    With regard to my hon. Friend's second point, I have said in the past that I am determined to maintain the fair, but necessary, immigration controls at the border that we have at present, and we intend to do so.
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Prime Minister recall that, about a year ago, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury announced an investigation into the impact of dividend
    840
    payments on investment, but that was dropped after the intervention of Lord Hanson? Since then, investment as a proportion of gross domestic product in Britain has declined to 14.6 per cent., which is the lowest figure since the first quarter of 1955. Given that the increase in dividends since the Tories came to power is £22 billion, which is money that has been dragged away from investment, is it not time to resuscitate that investigation?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would do better to see what is actually happening both to manufacturing industry and to wider investment. If he does that, he will see the growth in manufacturing industry and see that industries that were dead or dying are now strong again, and exporting. He will see that British Steel has just increased production at its Llanwern plant by 30 per cent. He will also see a motor industry which was on its knees which will be a net exporter of motor cars before too long, and he will find that this country exports fibre optics, cameras and a whole range of products that were not available some years ago, all as a result of fresh investment in this country.
    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the city of Chester unemployment has fallen yet again? It is down by 2 per cent. on last month, by 14 per cent. on last year and by 42 per cent on eight years ago. Does he recognise the fact that, as well as inflation being at its lowest level for a generation, in Chester inward investment is at record levels and year-on-year growth is up by 4 per cent., productivity is up by 6 per cent. and exports are up by 14 per cent? To what or to whom does he attribute that encouraging state of affairs?
    The Prime Minister: I am indeed encouraged by those statistics, both for Chester and for the rest of the country. It is not simply the growth, or the drop in unemployment, that is welcome. Also welcome is the fact that there is a physical growth in the number of people in employment, as well as a significant drop in the number of people who have been unemployed for a long time. I believe that that development is set to continue, and I imagine that everyone will welcome that fact.

Donaldson Report
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney)rose—[interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so rather quickly now?
Dr. Mawhinney: With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Government's response to the report of Lord Donaldson's inquiry into the prevention of pollution from merchant shipping. The response is published today. Copies have been placed in the Library and are available in the Vote Office. I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House for the fact that the statement will be slightly longer than is normal, but I am responding to a detailed and significant report.
When Lord Donaldson's report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", was published in May 1994, it was welcomed both within the United Kingdom and internationally. I am pleased to have this opportunity to echo my predecessor in thanking Lord Donaldson and his team for the depth and quality of their report. The Government have already accepted its broad thrust. I now go further. The Government accept 86 of the 103 recommendations. Most of the others are still being considered. There were only four recommendations that we could not accept because we decided that the action proposed was inappropriate. Our response clearly demonstrates that the Government are serious about ship safety and pollution prevention, and are serious about implementing the Donaldson report.
It is essential that those operating sub-standard ships in United Kingdom waters should be clearly identifiable. I am pleased to say that our initiative in publishing monthly lists of such ships detained in United Kingdom ports has been well received by responsible shipowners. The message is clear: sub-standard ships will be detained and information about detentions will be published.
The Government support the report's emphasis on port state control and have acted to ensure that the recommendations on improved targeting of sub-standard ships are considered by the EC and the Paris memorandum of understanding.
We undertook to consider recommendations on providing emergency towing capability. I expect a final report in June from the Coastguard Agency on the feasibility, costs and benefits of the inquiry's proposals. I also announced last December that we had accepted the Donaldson recommendation that two tugs should be stationed in the Dover strait and in the Minches to provide emergency cover this winter. Those tugs are now in place. The trial will also provide operational experience for the agency's final report.
With all-party support, the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994 is now law. That has allowed us to ratify two international conventions, one on salvage and the other on increased compensation for oil pollution. We are encouraging other states to do likewise.
At a national level, the Act extends the principle of strict liability for oil pollution in United Kingdom waters to cover spills of persistent oil from ships other than oil tankers. The problem now is to ensure that the owners of ships whose bunkers cause damage are able to pay. We
842
are pressing internationally for the extension of compulsory liability insurance and are considering the scope for unilateral action.
We do not want ships to be able to continue to operate anonymously off our coasts. We have been vigorous, therefore, in seeking international agreement on the mandatory fitting of transponders and we shall maintain that pressure at the International Maritime Organisation. Pending agreement on transponders, we also intend to act on Lord Donaldson's recommendation that ships should have recognition marks that are clearly visible, by presenting proposals to the next meeting of the IMO's Maritime Safety Committee.
Since last July, the Marine Safety Agency has been carrying out a programme of inspections of foreign fish factory ships—klondykers—working off the UK. Sub-standard klondykers found in port have been detained and vessels at anchor have been told that deficiencies must be put right. However, the problems and the risks remain.
The Scottish Office has brought forward proposals to improve fisheries management by limiting the number of fish transhipment licences issued to klondykers and by introducing an advance notice period for licence applications from May this year. We are considering a number of options for further action under merchant shipping powers, such as preventing loading or unloading and requiring vessels to leave our waters. They should help to ensure that klondykers meet agreed safety standards and carry adequate insurance. We shall issue a consultation paper shortly, with proposals for possible legislative action, including the extension of our powers of inspection and detention to ships in UK waters not on innocent or transit passage.
The report recommended that a statutory obligation should be placed on ports to provide adequate and convenient waste reception facilities, which should be free at the point of use. Before deciding on the form of legislation, we need to establish the scale of the problem. Those with responsibility for ports should be consulted on specific proposals. Research is already being conducted to address those issues. Results will be available soon and we expect to consult interested parties shortly thereafter.
As part of our initiative against pollution from ships, we shall also bring forward regulations defining our exclusive economic zone, which will extend our jurisdiction over pollution from ships up to 200 miles from our shores. We are considering how best to enhance surveillance and enforcement of that extended area.
The inquiry also made recommendations on responsibility for clean-up operations in harbour areas and on the coast. We shall consult interested parties on those recommendations and on possible courses of action.
We are determined to continue working towards the elimination of poor operational practices on ships. In line with Lord Donaldson's recommendations, we are strongly supporting the IMO revision of the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Convention, which should be completed in June. We also fully endorse the IMO's international safety management code and are encouraging its widespread use on UK ships in advance of its mandatory introduction in 1998.
The shipping industry has expressed concern about Lord Donaldson's recommendation that shipowners should pay into two funds for port state control

843
inspections and the UK's standing counter-pollution capacity. We have long supported the "user pays" and "polluter pays" principles, and are keen to explore new options for funding. They need to be consistent with a competitive, as well as a safe fleet. We are clear that there may be problems in seeking to establish UK funds without first seeking regional agreement. We shall work to develop funding proposals and to secure agreement on them with our regional partners, but it would not be right to close the door for ever on a unilateral approach if regional agreement cannot be secured. We intend to consult on possible regional and unilateral approaches.
I have highlighted the key elements of our response to the major issues raised by the Donaldson report. We have accepted and acted upon many more recommendations, as outlined in our detailed response, and we shall continue to take forward initiatives to implement the remaining recommendations. Lord Donaldson's report has set the agenda; we intend to follow it. My Department's Marine Safety and Coastguard Agencies will play a key role in that process. Like all sensible people, we want a safe and pollution-free marine environment.
Mr. Michael Meacher: I pay tribute to the Donaldson committee for the thorough and detailed manner in which it provides a comprehensive agenda for future action. Since only the essence of the 103 recommendations can be dealt with today, does the Secretary of State accept that today's exchanges are no substitute for a full debate?
I should like to say immediately that we welcome the Government's proposals to press for international extension of compulsory liability insurance; to require the fitting of transponders to ensure identification; to bring forward our exclusive economic zone, to extend our jurisdiction over pollution from ships; and to be ready to consider unilateral action, when regional agreement cannot he reached. What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking, however, to include the Donaldson recommendations in the draft European Union directive on port state control; to get them incorporated in the Paris memorandum of understanding; and to highlight the issues at the North sea conference in June?
On the central issue of enforcement, what action is the Secretary of State taking, via the International Maritime Organisation, to reinforce and extend port state control and, in particular, to increase detentions of unseaworthy ships and ill-trained crews in many more ports, to bring it firmly home to shipowners that it no longer pays to run unsafe ships? Since Donaldson recommends more investigations in port, will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the 15 per cent. cut in his Department's Marine Safety Agency budget this year, as well as the 7 per cent. cut in the marine accident investigation branch and the 6 per cent. cut in the Coastguard Agency? Are not those cuts wholly incompatible with the right hon. Gentleman's emphasis on safety? In line with Donaldson, should not he be extending the role of the Marine Safety Agency to take over the work of some highly dubious classification societies, whose poor standards the Minister of State severely criticised only two months ago?
Since the certificates of competence issued by some flag states are widely regarded to be spurious, what action is the Secretary of State taking to remove the IMO requirement on port state inspectors to accept without question certificates issued by such flag states? In view of the poor record of flag state control in many cases, will
844
he support the idea of a marine safety corps, whereby developed shipping nations would make surveyors available to developing countries that lacked the necessary expertise?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to emergency towing capability, which we support in principle, but is he aware of Donaldson's key recommendation that masters, officers and crews must be able to communicate properly with each other? How is that compatible with his Department's contracting out the provision of the two emergency tugs under the control of the Coastguard Agency to a company that employs non-English-speaking Croatian crews?
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to klondykers. What action is he taking to link the issue of licences to safety and insurance criteria relating to klondykers? Is not that urgent, since Donaldson spoke of the need for a revised system of licensing to be in place this winter and the Government are manifestly behind time?
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the marine environment in high-risk areas, which Donaldson highlights. Since there is a proliferation of such special areas, how does he propose to identify them, and what will be the means of implementation?
The overriding issue of the Donaldson report is safety. Opposition Members continue to worry that the Government's philosophy of deregulation and privatisation, in cutting their own Marine Safety Agency and in delegating major responsibilities to classification societies, which are not truly independent, fails to give the overriding priority to safety that is required.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gave at the beginning of his comments to my announcement about proposals on insurance on transponders and on the exclusive economic zone. He asked about the involvement of the European Union and the IMO in terms of our discussions about port state control, and I can confirm what I said in my statement—that we have already raised those issues in those forums and that we shall pursue them vigorously with our partners in those organisations, because the hon. Gentleman and I recognise that the type of changes that he and I wish to be made need to be implemented internationally, not purely domestically.
On port state control, we shall continue to carry forward the process that we initiated on the detention of ships and the publication of the names of ships that fail to meet our standards, and we shall continue to encourage other countries to follow our lead, so that gradually an understanding will develop that certain ships, and perhaps even certain flags, may give those who operate on the seas, those who wish to transport their goods by sea and those who are asked to insure those goods, pause for thought.
On efficiency savings, we always seek a proper balance between the effective discharge of the paramountcy of safety, to which both the hon. Gentleman and I adhere, and the proper use of taxpayers' money. I should have thought that that was a general principle, a general balance, that he would wish to support. I can assure him that, as we proceed with the implementation of the Donaldson proposals, the Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard Agency will play a central role.

845
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would consider seeking broader agreement among some flag states to make available to other flag states professionally trained surveyors if they found that helpful. I am willing to consider that suggestion.
I am not sure that I have answered every question that the hon. Gentleman asked. He mentioned klondykers. They cause concern, as I said in my statement, and we shall pursue, not least by a public consultation process, the necessary steps to tackle them as effectively as all Members of the House believe that we should tackle such a threat.
Mr. David Harris: As president of the Sea Safety Group, United Kingdom, as someone who gave evidence to the Donaldson commission and also as the promoter of the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994, mentioned by the Secretary of State, I warmly welcome the Government's response to the comprehensive report by Lord Donaldson.
I refer to a local issue in part of my constituency: the Isles of Scilly were the scene of a major disaster—the Torrey Canyon. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that there will be no delay in working on Lord Donaldson's proposal that the Isles of Scilly should be given extra protection, by an exclusion zone or some other means, so that there is no repetition of that dreadful accident or the risk of it happening again?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I am sure that the whole House would pay tribute to the role that he played in introducing that important piece of legislation, which, as I said in my statement, enabled us to sign two international conventions. I understand the argument that he makes, legitimately, on behalf of his constituents, and I am happy to give him the assurance that he seeks.
Mr. James Wallace: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and positive response to Lord Donaldson's recommendations, specifically with regard to transponders insurance, and the recognition that, while international action is best, there must be a willingness to take unilateral action if the international community is too slow to react.
With regard to the publication of a monthly list of defaulting vessels, does the right hon. Gentleman concur that many of those vessels have been classified by highly reputable classification societies? How does he respond to Lord Donaldson's recommendation for tighter control of standards of classification societies?
The Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), said that measures would be in place before this season to resolve the klondykers issue. Will he guarantee that, although there will be consultation, measures will be in place before next season?
Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that 85 per cent. of marine accidents are caused by human error, which puts an even greater onus on the need to promote and enforce standards of crewing: in training, language and communication? Given our country's high reputation for that, what measures is his Department taking to stem the decline in the British merchant marine? Specifically,
846
will he withdraw the proposal to remove the present nationality restrictions that apply to masters, chief officers and chief engineers serving on UK vessels?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, not least because he has particular cause to be distressed on behalf of his constituents as a result of the Braer tragedy, which was part of the prelude to setting up the Donaldson report.
In terms of port state controls, I had noticed, as had others, that some of the ships detained were associated with classification societies. Once a pattern is established, that may be an issue to which we shall have to return, at least for discussion. I understand the hon. Gentleman's gently presented frustration about klondykers. We all share that frustration. When we have an opportunity to take action, we do so. Speaking from memory—I hope that it does not fail me—on one occasion, no fewer than five klondykers were detained in port for various reasons. So I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that there has been an element of paralysis in dealing with that issue. However, we are constrained in the legal sense and, for that reason, I said that we would consult to see what other powers we might legitimately take, to add to the powers readily available to us.
The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the need for training. I would always wish to ensure that those involved in the dispensing of safety at sea were capable of doing the job, which relates to their ability to be trained to do the job.
Sir Malcolm Thornton: May I add my congratulations to the Government on their response to the report, and to Lord Donaldson and his commission on the thorough way in which they looked at the problem of safety at sea? As a former river pilot, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to one of the most serious deficiencies of the safety at sea issue? Although it is some 16 years since I last piloted in anger, as it were, I can tell my right hon. Friend that standards of training and the competence of many of the ships that came under my control were a matter of the gravest concern then. I regard it as vital that that aspect is at the forefront of maintaining safety, not just around our coast, but internationally. Will my right hon. Friend pursue those matters with the Marine Safety Agency? Will he ensure that neither coastguard nor piloted services—two important elements in ensuring safety—are further eroded?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, to which I listened carefully, given the experience on which he draws. I offer him my assurance that we treat the matter of training seriously. He may be encouraged to know that my Department has introduced two schemes: Government assistance for training at a cost of £3.5 million this year; and the development of a certified seafarers scheme at a cost of £1.5 million this year. Since the introduction of the former scheme in 1988, some 2,650 cadets have been recruited for training and no eligible candidate has ever been refused assistance. That is a small measure of our commitment to the matter to which my hon. Friend referred.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Given my belief that tankers should be kept well away from fragile fisheries and from fishing vessels that are going about their traditional activities, I am pleased that the Minister has accepted recommendation

847
61, which appears on pages 34 and 35 of the report, concerning the use of the deep water route west of Barra, Uist, Harris and Lewis and the intervening islands of the Western Isles.
However, I point out to the Minister that Lord Donaldson recommended originally that the captains of such vessels should be allowed to use the Minch in exceptional weather conditions. I believe that that is wholly wrong. In heavy weather, such ships should stand well clear of such a channel: they are much safer in the deep water. Will the Minister take on board—if he will forgive the pun—my view that those ships should stick to the deep water route and not enter the Minch, even in heavy weather?
Dr. Mawhinney: I recognise the experience and expertise that the hon. Gentleman brings to these matters. I pay tribute to that and to his long-standing interest in the subject. For that reason, if for no other, I shall take careful note of the point that he made.
Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend will realise that the 200-mile extension that he announced today, which requires legislative backing, will be widely welcomed by the tourist resorts that front beaches in the south and south-west and that are up-wind of the prevailing south-westerlies, which bring polluting muck ashore.
Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that more than 60 per cent. of the world's shipping traffic plies its trade up and down the channel, yet, if I understand his statement correctly, it will not be covered by the regulations because it will be "in transit"?
I commend to my right hon. Friend's Department the work that Esso has done at its Fawley refinery. For safety reasons, it now makes fast a tug to every oil tanker that enters and leaves the Solent.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and I certainly note his final point. He is right to point out that the Dover straits are one of the busiest marine thoroughfares in the world. About 600 ships transverse or cross the straits each day and we must ensure that the standards that we have put in place are adhered to rigidly. I give my hon. Friend an undertaking that we will enforce those standards.
Mr. Roy Beggs: As I represent a coastal constituency and the second busiest ferry port in the United Kingdom, I offer my thanks to Lord Donaldson and I welcome the Secretary of State's response to the report.
Will the international agreement that is being sought on the mandatory fitting of transponders apply to fishing vessels as well as merchant vessels? Could not that be a means of ultimately controlling the likely invasions by our European neighbours into our fishing waters?
Dr. Mawhinney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not stray into the latter part of his question. He is right to point out the importance of trying to reach international agreement about the fitting of transponders. As I have said, if it proves necessary, we shall look to unilateral action on visual identification. However, it clearly makes more sense to put in place a widespread system that is widely recognised and therefore
848
widely policed in countries other than Britain. We shall continue to do all that we can to persuade our partners to adopt that point of view as quickly as possible.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in conjunction with today's welcome news, his Department will ensure that the English channel remains one of the safest bodies of water in the world and that it will continue to be monitored carefully by the very good and effective coastguard service that is based in Dover? Will he also comment on the fact that the two tugs that he mentioned, which operate out of Dover port, were part of a contractual specification that was unnecessarily tightly drawn, and in consequence, foreign crews are employed and Dover port and harbour board has not had the opportunity to bid for and get that contract? Will he examine whether that contract could be respecified in future so that Dover harbour board could have every opportunity of bidding for the contract and employing British workers from Dover?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he sought at the beginning of his question and to thank him for his appreciation of the work of the tugs. He will know that the contract to which he refers applies to this winter season. I am expecting a report—probably in June—from the Coastguard Agency on whether the positioning of those tugs should be made a more permanent feature. Presumably, were that process to take place, the Coastguard Agency would have to generate a new contract. I shall ensure that, prior to the drawing up of the contract, my hon. Friend's comments are drawn to the attention of the chief executive of the agency.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the Secretary of State accept that, while I welcome the moves that he has taken in recommendation 62 in relation to my constituency, there still remains the serious problem of non-accidental discharges of oil in the English channel, the Irish sea and the North sea? The Secretary of State has not accepted recommendation 22, that those areas should be designated special areas where oily wastes are not legally allowed to be discharged from vessels, which would radically improve the beaches and coastlines around the United Kingdom. Will he reconsider his decision not to accept the recommendation now, but only to consider it at this stage?
Dr. Mawhinney: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman made. I said at the beginning of my statement that we had accepted 86 of the 103 recommendations, vie had rejected only four and we were considering the other 13. In that spirit, I shall reflect on what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. David Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed by tourist resorts on the south coast, not least Bournemouth, which relies on attracting a great many people to our beaches, producing thousands of jobs? Further to the concerns expressed in the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), can he be more precise as to how tankers that discharge ail off our shores will be better detected in the light of his

849
announcement today, and can he tell us whether Donaldson gave any consideration to the development of satellite surveillance technology in that respect?
Dr. Mawhinney: I thank my hon. Friend for the point that he made. I hope that he will be encouraged to know that the current regulations have had a tightening effect on the discharge of oil over the years, so that it now constitutes only 5 per cent. of the waste that ships actually discharge at sea. He is right to point out that we need adequate surveillance arrangements. While I do not recall whether Lord Donaldson strayed into space technology, I know that we are going to stray into increasing the aerial surveillance of shipping by 25 per cent., precisely to meet the point that my hon. Friend raises.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister confirm that he expects the industry to pay for these proposals under the "user pays" "polluter pays" principle? Will he state how consultation will take place and over what time scale?
Dr. Mawhinney: There were a variety of proposals in the Donaldson recommendations. Some of them will fall to Government, some to ship operators and some to port operators. We shall set out consultation documents in the normal way and provide adequate time for people to respond. However, I have not pre-determined the exact timetable. It will in part be determined by the speed and efficacy of our preliminary discussions with the industry, to shape the consultation document in the first place.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that mariners of all nations have welcomed the experimental stationing of tugs around our shores during the winter? Is he in a position to form even a preliminary view of the success of that experiment and of the longer-term possibilities of franchising and other contractual arrangements, as laid out in some of Donaldson's recommendations?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to draw the House's attention to the fact that Lord Donaldson has set not only the national agenda but, in a very real sense, the worldwide agenda. We shall seek to work in that spirit with our partners and to persuade them of the importance of his statements and recommendations.
The tugs have been welcomed and have already been useful. Speaking from memory, I think that they have been involved in monitoring something like 22 incidents since they were put in place. All that experience will help the Coastguard Agency to draw up its proposals to be submitted to me in June, as to whether we should continue that particular exercise.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I am concerned that recommendation 54 still allows the masters of vessels to decide when pilotage will be necessary. Representing the port of Grangemouth, where many of the Forth ports pilots are based, and having been in their company on Friday, I know that they are also concerned about what might happen as a result. They believe that they, as the pilots, know the waters better than the masters, but the masters are not often willing to take them on board. As we know, there is one serious accident every year involving a pilot in European waters and several fatalities. They do a stalwart job. Their complaint concerns the problem of
850
speaking to the masters. I see that recommendation 20 is accepted only in principle, on the basis that the masters should be able to communicate with their officers and some of the officers may be expected to communicate with the crew—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must have a question.
Mr. Connarty: It is a question. The question is: cannot the Government do more in that respect because it seems to me that, by accepting the recommendation in principle, they leave open the possibility of a Tower of Babel situation on board a ship when it gets into trouble, which seems to concern the pilots greatly? If we do not come down hard and say that there must be a communication system that enables the proper running of a ship, there will never be safety in waters when crisis strikes.
Dr. Mawhinney: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and am not surprised that the pilots would take that view. I hope that he will accept that, when I pay tribute to the work that they do, I do so sincerely, because they provide a professional and substantial contribution to safety around our shores. Equally, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the master of the vessel is in a unique and legally important position. We need to be careful, especially in the House, in seeking to adjudicate between two sets of responsibilities. On the whole, practice suggests to me that the situation is not quite as dire as one might have deduced from the hon. Gentleman's question. However, it is an important issue and it is not one from which we shall turn away.
Mr. Edward Leigh: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his positive response to this full report? Will he place particular emphasis on recommendation 9 to encourage environmentally sensitive tankers, especially double-hull ones, in the calculation of port dues and on recommendation 27 to encourage reception facilities to reduce operational pollution at sea? Will he ensure that the Government continue to uphold international law and the rights of innocent passage?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. He stresses important issues, and I share his concern and his instinct on all of them.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 17 May last year, at column 682 of the Official Report, I asked whether the proposals of George Livanos, the Greek shipowner, for a worldwide register of every accident were being considered. The Secretary of State's predecessor gave us to understand that they were. What progress has been made on such a register? Will the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), ask whether the Scottish Office is funding for a 10-year period—no less—the ocean floor benthic study of the consequences of what happened to the Braer?
Dr. Mawhinney: On the first question, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have heard the second question and will no doubt respond, as he has the responsibility.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that the Donaldson report is a reflection on a maritime disaster some time ago, and that Ministers must look forward if they can, to try to prevent other possible

851
disasters? In that context, does he agree that there is a problem in the English channel, particularly at present with Meridian Ferries, which employs Polish seafarers, undercutting British seamen? In the event of that situation becoming more explosive, as we already witnessed a fortnight ago, will he intervene to ensure that those Polish seafarers are not paid at about half the rate of British seafarers and, if necessary, replace them with people who would like a job in this country, to avert another crisis in which somebody such as Lord Donaldson would have to intervene later?
Dr. Mawhinney: Companies that are entitled under the law to trade should be permitted to do so. When others use illegal and bully-boy tactics to try to stop them, it is part of the responsibility of the Government, with their partners in the EU, to try to put in place regimes, regulations and conditions under which British companies can trade within the law. That, I would have thought, is a proposal that should have commended itself to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Denham: The Minister will be aware that a serious oil spill in the Solent would have disastrous ecological effects. Will he follow through the spirit of the Donaldson report and look at the dangers of oil pollution in the Solent, particularly from tankers visiting Fawley oil refinery, and give an assurance that he will ensure that the Marine Safety Agency does not allow standards in the tugs operating at that refinery to fall? The recent reletting of the contract led to a cut in manning levels on those tugs and gave rise to widespread local concern. Will he give me an absolute assurance that, in the spirit of the report, safety in the port will not be jeopardised by the commercial pressures coming from the refinery, and that safety levels will be maintained?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Marine Safety Agency knows that I place the highest possible emphasis on safety and on taking all foreseeable and appropriate steps to prevent pollution occurring.
Mr. Andrew Miller: May I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on the Marine Safety Agency, and the comments of the Secretary of State on the detaining of ships? In that context, I ask him specifically whether he has had any consultations with his hon. Friends in the Home Office about the implications, particularly in the context of incidents such as that on the River Andoni, which is detained in my constituency, in which 50 Nigerian seamen are pawns in a game between the creditors and the owners of the vessel. What steps has the Minister taken to protect the interests of those innocent people?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He will understand that my responsibility as Secretary of State for Transport relates to the safety of the vessel. It does not relate to industrial disputes that may take place between those who are employed on the vessel and the employers. I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department remains in close touch with the Home Office on such matters.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3159) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Question agreed to.

  House of Commons (Distribution of Seats)
  4.13 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make new provision for the distribution of seats at parliamentary elections.
  Such matters are always of keen interest to hon. Members, and the Bill is timely for several reasons, the first of which is a practical matter. Quite simply, with 651 UK constituencies and seven more planned by the Boundary Commission, there are too many Members of Parliament at the Palace of Westminster for the facilities available. Although it is true that new buildings can be provided, they are ever further away. Although many hon. Members are known to be quick on their feet in debate, only accomplished runners such as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Cambome (Mr. Coe) are quick enough to get here to the Division Lobbies consistently within eight minutes from offices in the nether regions of Millbank. The time has come to halt and reverse the inexorable growth in the number of Members of Parliament. If the United States Senate can manage with 100 members and the House of Representatives with 435, surely we could manage with fewer than 651.
  My Bill is designed to reduce the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom by the application of fair and consistent principles. The opportunity to achieve that now arises, because the Pandora's box of constitutional reform has been opened by the Labour party, with its fear of the Scottish National party. A recent briefing note from the Labour party states, in plain federalist terms, that
  "Labour is committed to a Parliament in Scotland within a decentralised and democratic European Union."
  I strongly believe that Britain's future in the European Union should be as a unitary nation state, but I think it only fair to those who believe in the Balkanisation of Britain to spell out clearly, in advance, the consequences of Labour's policies in terms of representation at Westminster.
  My Bill sets out a formula to do that. It comes in two parts. The first part recognises that the inherent unfairness to England and Northern Ireland of the present arrangements cannot be sustained, irrespective of other constitutional developments. The average constituency in England consists of 69,534 electors; in Northern Ireland the figure is 67,145, but in Wales it is 58,383 and in Scotland it is only 54,741.
  That is an arbitrary and outdated judgment, arising from the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1958 rather than from any reasonable reflection of our times. Before the Act, there was a common electoral quota for the whole United Kingdom; so why do we not return to that eminently sensible arrangement? Are the Scots today so much more difficult to represent that they need a 27 per cent. advantage in the size of their constituencies? I suspect that the Member of Parliament's postbag from Dover is every bit as daunting as that from Dundee, that Falmouth's is as full as Falkirk's and Harrogate's as heavy as Hamilton's.
  Can it be, then, that Scottish Members of Parliament are inherently less active than their English counterparts? Perish the thought. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—who in an earlier manifestation bequeathed us
  854
  the West Lothian question—is one of the most active Members in the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) one of the most vocal.
  Is it that Scottish constituencies are more geographically challenged than English ones? I feel some sympathy in regard to the travel arrangements of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and the problems of others who represent diverse island communities should also be recognised. That aside, however, the physical size of Skipton and Ripon, and of Richmond in Yorkshire, is the same as that of most rural seats in Scotland—and how can that argument be stretched to the cities, where the bulk of the population lives?
  At the last election Glasgow had a total electorate of 518,716, for which it had 11 constituencies. That is an average per constituency of 47,156. Leeds had a larger electorate, at 529,127, but only eight constituencies, with an average of 66,141 electors. Where is the justice in that? Can it be justified on historic grounds? Should former independent kingdoms be given special consideration? Here I must admit an interest: my constituency, Elmet, is an ancient kingdom. Admittedly it existed for only 60 years in the seventh century, but, as we are constantly hearing, sovereignty is an elusive and enduring concept. On a Scottish model, perhaps we should have two Members of Parliament for Elmet; attractive as the thought may be, however, I do not think that it will commend itself to the House.
  My Bill therefore restores the standard electoral quota for all parts of the UK, such as we enjoyed before 1958, without any guaranteed minimum number of seats. In doing that, we should not lose the opportunity to reduce the size of Parliament. I would therefore fix the standard electoral quota for the UK at the largest present individual quota: the English figure of just over 69,000. That would have the effect of reducing the overall number of Members of Parliament from 651 to 629. Henceforth, that should be the maximum number of Members. Future increases in population should increase the standard electoral quota rather than the number of Members.
  Under those proposals, the representation of England and Northern Ireland would remain unchanged. Welsh Members would be reduced from 38 to 32, and Scottish Members from 72 to 56. That removes the unfairness in our present arrangements, while providing for equal representation for equal votes.
  It is not, however, the end of the matter. The second part of my proposals is an attempt to answer the West Lothian question. An hon. Member, whose strong and logical opposition to a Scottish Parliament I share, asked how, if areas of policy were devolved, he as a Scottish Member at Westminster could
  "be party to collective decision making on education in Accrington but be precluded from such matters in Armadale in Scotland, housing in Blackburn, Lancashire, but not Blackburn, West Lothian."
  As recently as February 1992, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) took it further. He said:
  "Once we have a Scottish Parliament handling Scottish home affairs in Scotland, it is not possible for me to act as Minister of Health, administering health in England and Wales."
  Quite so. The subterfuge of foisting unwanted regional assemblies on England will not make the problem go away.

  855
  There is, however, a practical solution for any part of the UK that seeks and is given an elected assembly with legislative and tax-raising powers. It is to raise that region's electoral quota by an appropriate percentage over the standard electoral quota for the UK as a whole. By way of guidance, my Bill proposes that, if the powers of such a devolved Parliament were to cover the whole range of domestic affairs, its electoral quota would be doubled, and pro rata for any lesser devolution of powers. Its duly elected Westminster Members of Parliament would then be fewer in number, but they would be free to vote on all issues and to hold all offices. We should also reduce still further the overall number of Members at Westminster, which would be a step for the better. Of course, we should have to brace ourselves for the loss of some respected colleagues who would wish, no doubt, to make their futures in Scotland.
  Some people, however, would argue that the Bill would be unattractive to those who seek devolution. I respond by saying simply that the downside is not of my making. It is inherent in the concept of devolution. There is not a sustainable halfway house between a unitary UK and full independence. People who do not like the destination should not start down the slippery slope.
  4.22 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I wish to oppose the Bill. There is no doubt that it is inherently anti-Scottish. As a Scots Member of this Parliament, I represent a Scottish constituency in the Parliament of a multi-national state. With the creation of a legislature in Northern Ireland, that multi-national state will be restructured—I would have thought that that was the inevitable result of the creation of a legislature in one part of the United Kingdom. In that sense alone, the Bill of the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is precipitous. Change will have to take place in a careful way, based on a rigorous analysis of what is likely to happen as a result of the restructuring that follows that brave document—the framework document.
  What the hon. Gentleman says about Scottish constituencies does not stand up to examination. In a multi-national state's Parliament, there must be, as it were, a conglomeration of unevenness, and constituencies where there are more electors than in others.
  For a whole raft of reasons, which I do not have time to mention now—I am sure that I would earn your displeasure, Madam Speaker, if I attempted to mention them—I object to this ill-advised and unpleasant measure.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
  The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 162.

  Division No. 88]

  [4.24 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Carrington, Matthew

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Congdon, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Duncan, Alan

  Butcher, John

  Elletson, Harold

  Butterfill, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  856

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Pawsey, James

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tattan)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Riddick, Graham

  Harris, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Stewart, Allan

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Hunter, Andrew

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Tracey, Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Twinn, Dr Ian

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

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Whitney, Ray

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Lord, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Mr. P. Nicholls and

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Mr. J. Brazier.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Flynn, Paul

  Ainger, Nick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Afton, David

  Gallie, Phil

  Armstrong, Hilary

  George, Bruce

  Austin-Walker, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Graham, Thomas

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Beggs, Roy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Grocott, Bruce

  Berry, Roger

  Gunnell, John

  Betts, Clive

  Hall, Mike

  Blunkett, David

  Hanson, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Hardy, Peter

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

  Harvey, Nick

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Burden, Richard

  Hodge, Margaret

  Byers, Stephen

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hutton, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Illsley, Eric

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Ingram, Adam

  Chidgey, David

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clapham, Michael

  Janner, Greville

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Comarty, Michael

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Colston, Jean

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cummings, John

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lewis, Terry

  Davidson, Ian

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Denham, John

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dewar, Donald

  McAllion, John

  Dixon, Don

  McCartney, Ian

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McFall, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McKelvey, William

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Eastern, Ken

  McMaster, Gordon

  Etherington, Bill

  MacShane, Denis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Maddock, Diana

  857

  Mahon, Alice

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martiew, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maxtor, John

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Alun

  Spellar, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Stevenson, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Straw, Jack

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mullin, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Hara, Edward

  Touhig, Don

  Olner, Bill

  Trimble, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Tyler, Paul

  Patchett, Terry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pearson, Ian

  Welsh, Andrew

  Powei, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Purchase, Ken

  Wise, Audrey

  Reid, Dr John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rendel, David

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Tellers for the Noes

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

  Rooney, Terry

  Mr. Andrew Miller.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Points of Order
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to raise through you the situation facing immigration detainees at Campsfield detention centre and, in particular, the case of a young woman from the Ivory Coast who attempted to commit suicide this morning in order to stop herself being removed from this country. Is there any way in which we can insist on a Home Office Minister coming to the House to make a statement about the treatment of nearly 700 people who are in detention having committed no crime and having been charged with no offence?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman. That is certainly not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is it a different point of order?
  Mr. Austin-Walker: It relates to the previous point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With the greatest respect, I have already ruled on that point of order. I pointed out that the Treasury Bench had heard the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and that it was not a matter for the Chair.

  Social Security
  4.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move,
  That the draft Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
  That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  That the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1807), dated 7th July 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on Ilth July, in the last session of Parliament, be revoked.
  Mr. Lilley: This is an annual opportunity to examine the detailed orders before the House and to discuss, after some weeks of consideration, the social security statement that I made after the Budget. Some may consider this a rather routine occasion, but I believe that it is a profoundly important debate because it raises issues of immense significance socially, economically and politically.
  Socially, the debate is about meeting our commitments to those in greatest need. The Government are fulfilling that obligation by uprating in full, maintaining the value of benefits, focusing help where it can do most good and improving incentives for people to help themselves out of dependency.
  The debate is of profound economic importance because social security is central to the control of public spending, borrowing and taxation. Through its effect on incentives, social security influences the dynamism of our labour force.
  Finally, the debate is of immense significance politically. The Government have spelt out clearly their long-term strategy for social security. Now is the opportunity for the Opposition to spell out an alternative strategy. Today will provide the crucial test of whether the Labour party is seriously interested in becoming an alternative Government or whether, as I suspect, it is still in its heart wedded to permanent opposition. Parties of government propose; parties of opposition merely oppose. The fact that the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), has ducked the debate suggests to me that Labour has nothing to propose.
  The Government's strategy is crystal clear—to maintain benefits, to focus help on the neediest, to improve incentives and to encourage self-provision. We are advancing on all those fronts in today's orders. Again, we shall meet our pledges on the level of benefits. All the main social security benefits will be uprated fully in line with prices in four weeks' time. The retirement pension for a couple will increase by £2 a week, and even less
  860
  well-off pensioner couples with no other means will receive more than £100 a week plus their housing costs. The total cost of the uprating will be about £1.5 billion; that is a measure of our commitment to protecting those most in need.
  Last week the Labour party endorsed the Rowntree report, which advocates uprating benefits in line with earnings. That would cost £3.3 billion, so will today's Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), come clean today? Is the Labour party committed to that extra spending, or was it simply trying to gull vulnerable people? I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman now if he wishes to set the record straight. I gather that he needs time to think about it.
  When I published "The Growth of Social Security" in 1993 social security spending was expected to grow by 3.3 per cent. a year in real terms until the end of the century. Now we expect growth of only 1.3 per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years, and that is expected to be followed by underlying growth of 2.1 per cent. a year until the end of the century. As a result, social security spending at the end of the century is now expected to be about £8 billion lower than we forecast when my long-term review began.
  A quarter of that fall is due to the reduction in unemployment that has already occurred. Nearly a quarter is due to other improvements in the outlook. More than half the reduction—about £4 billion a year—is due to savings from policy changes as our reforms take effect. The Labour party has opposed almost every reform that we have introduced, so it is incumbent on the Labour spokesmen today to tell the House where they would find £4 billion to replace the savings, or how they would finance the shortfall.
  Those extra costs would be incurred before Labour even started to finance the £7 billion required for the main proposals of the Commission on Social Justice, let alone the untold billions of pounds that it would cost to implement all the proposals in the Rowntree report, which Labour praised last week.
  At the start of our long-term review of social security we analysed systematically the main areas of prospective growth. First we identified sickness, invalidity and related benefits—hence the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act and the Statutory Sick Pay Act, both passed in 1994. From April this year, by means of a more objective test of incapacity, the new incapacity benefit will focus help on those genuinely incapable of work.
  One of the orders will introduce an improvement flowing from the Statutory Sick Pay Act. From April a new scheme will give all employers help if a large proportion of their work force is off sick at any one time. That will be straightforward to operate, will protect cash flow and will continue to give small businesses the lion's share of the statutory sick pay reimbursement. The new scheme has been welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry, the Forum of Private Business, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Trades Union Congress.
  The second major area of growth in spending that we identified was help with housing costs. The amount of support for housing costs through housing benefit has more than doubled in real terms since the benefit was introduced, and is now more than £10 billion a year. That is due not only to increases in rents but to the fact that

  861
  there was a basic weakness in the system, which we have had to tackle—the open-ended commitment to pay 100 per cent. even of above-average rents.
  Last November, therefore, I announced a major reform that will come into effect in October. It is a sensible reform designed to give tenants more interest in the level of rents, thus bringing pressure to bear on unreasonably high rents. We have already begun a process of informal consultation with interested parties.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: If the Secretary of State believes that rents will be reduced by the exercise of pressure, why do the Government not exercise that pressure on landlords? Why does he leave it to tenants, who in many instances are vulnerable, frail and elderly, to attempt to reduce their rents?
  Mr. Lilley: It is sensible that there should be a countervailing force so that people have an incentive to make a reasonable choice when faced with two properties, and to choose the less expensive of the two if one of them has a rent above the average for properties of that type in the area. We prefer to leave choice in the hands of individuals—unlike the Labour party, which prefers all choices to be made by bureaucrats and set down by law.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: Of course, I always give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Graham: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that only this week a report was published about Glasgow, showing that over all the years of Conservative Government there has been an increase of 144 per cent. in the number of people who are ill and claiming benefit? Is he also aware that there are more than 30,000 homeless folk in Scotland who would desperately like to rent a home at a reasonable cost yet who, under the Conservative Government, have no chance of getting a home?
  Mr. Lilley: On the contrary, we have taken great steps to increase opportunities for the homeless. The best way to make good use of taxpayers' money is to ensure that it is not spent unnecessarily on the most expensive properties, and on rents above those that the market should require to make sufficient properties available. That is what our reforms are designed to achieve.
  We want to ensure that the details are properly discussed before being put into regulations, and my officials have already met representatives from the local authority associations, the Institute of Rent Officers and several other interested groups. Tomorrow we shall formally consult the Social Security Advisory Committee, which we envisage will then go out to wider public consultation.
  It is important that the public's views are fed into the detail of the policy, including working up a system to give prospective tenants an idea of how much housing benefit will be payable before they sign up to a particular tenancy.
  The costs of support for mortgage interest through income support have already increased rapidly from £31 million in 1978–79 to £1.1 billion last year. The system is manifestly unsatisfactory. It fails to provide comprehensive cover and protection for people who lose
  862
  their jobs; two thirds of home owners would not qualify for income support to help with their mortgage interest if they became unemployed. Our proposals are self-evidently aimed to improve that position. They will give home owners more comprehensive protection when they have difficulty paying their mortgages.
  The Social Security Advisory Committee's consultation document on mortgage interest and income support, issued on 10 February, invites comments from all interested parties. Clearly we shall be interested in the results of that consultation process. We are continuing our discussions with lenders and insurers to ensure that the interface between state and private provision works well.
  I am determined wherever possible to make savings without any reduction in the levels of benefits for those most in need. The area of greatest scope for saving with no direct effects on benefit levels is obviously cutting the incidence of fraud. That is why I have made attacking fraud a priority.
  Our efforts to detect and stop fraud are already increasingly successful. The Benefits Agency identified and stopped fraud worth £654 million in 1993–94—17 per cent. above its target—and I have no doubt that we shall exceed the target again this year. In April the agency will begin a five-year programme of investment to switch the emphasis away from detecting fraud towards deterring fraud and preventing it from happening in the first place.
  Most fraud occurs through false declarations of earnings or circumstances. So the Benefits Agency will make more checks and more home visits, and will make better use of the information already held on our computer systems to help to spot fraud. Over the next three years that should deliver substantial savings of more than £2.5 billion over and above the existing level of fraud savings. We also expect a dramatic reduction in order book and girocheque frauds by automating benefit payments at post offices. But even more important than curbing spending is checking the growth in dependency on welfare. Before my reforms began, the debate was about how to help people who are on benefit. We still aim to do that. But now we have changed the whole focus of the debate towards how to help people come off benefit and into work.
  The most effective way of raising the living standards and prospects of unemployed people is by helping them to return to work. The process continues with the package that I announced last November. New measures being introduced this year meet four major objectives.
  First, we are continuing to improve benefits so that people have an even greater incentive to return to work. From July 1995, the £10 longer hours premium in family credit will make full-time work more attractive for those working 30 hours or more a week. Those on housing benefit or council tax benefit will receive in full that extra £10, which will not be offset against their housing benefit or council tax liability. We expect that more than 200,000 people will benefit in 1995–96, at a cost of £345 million. In April I shall make significant enhancements to disability working allowance to help more disabled people participate in work.
  Secondly, to smooth the transition from benefit to work we shall speed up the payment of family credit from April, so that people in work will get that extra help more quickly. By April 1996 we expect almost all new claims for family credit to be arranged within five working days.

  863
  Thirdly, we want to encourage employers to provide more jobs, particularly for people with few skills or who have been unemployed for a long time. Another of the orders encourages employers to take on less skilled people by reducing employers' national insurance contributions for the second year running. This April, employers' contributions will be cut by 0.6 per cent. for all employees earning less than £205 a week. That will help the employers of 6.5 million people at a cost of £235 million.
  Fourthly, I am examining ways to help low-paid people in work who do not qualify for family credit because they do not have children. I shall be publishing a consultation document in the spring for a substantial pilot study of an in-work benefit for people without children.
  Overall, the measures will help almost 7 million people in the coming financial year at a cost of more than £440 million. That is a significant stage in a package that will build up to a total cost of some £600 million to the taxpayer in outgoings or revenue forgone.
  I also take this opportunity to discuss the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition that the Income-related Benefit Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994 be revoked. The House will recall that the regulations introduced a habitual residence test into income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit schemes from 1 August last year.
  When I announced the habitual residence test, the Opposition's knee-jerk reaction was to oppose it, as they do almost all measures which we introduce to focus benefits on those who are genuinely needy and fully entitled to them. The Opposition said that benefit tourism was a non-problem, and that there were at most 5,000 continental claimants a year. They said that the residence test was anti-European. Today, they appear to be reaffirming their opposition to the regulations.
  Experience since the test was introduced has demonstrated that its opponents were wrong on all counts. First, immediately after I announced the test, Time Out magazine—not exactly a friend of the Government—set out to debunk the idea of benefit tourism, but instead found vivid evidence of its existence. It described someone called Diego, 26, who came from Barcelona to learn drama, but quickly learnt how to use the system as well. He said:
  "I shared a flat with four other Spaniards … all of them were on Income Support. I just followed their advice and did the same."
  Within a month, he, too, was on income support.
  Then there was Frédéric, a 28-year-old Frenchman, described by Time Out as
  "the stuff of which Peter Lilley's nightmares are made."
  I can assure Time Out that I do not have nightmares. He said:
  "I came to Britain in July 1993 to learn English … I am on Income Support—£44 per week—and get my rent—£47.50 per week—paid by Housing Benefit. I also work on the side to earn enough to make a decent living. I know it is absolutely illegal. Not only that but I also get French unemployment and housing benefits. It takes a lot of concentration to dodge both systems at the same time. I am now a specialist and it is almost a full-time activity. I am well placed to compare both systems: the British system is far easier."
  It was, but it is not now.
  Foreign magazines also began to publish accounts because they could scarcely believe that we had ever allowed this situation to exist. They demonstrated how
  864
  easy it was for other EC nationals to abuse our system. A Spanish magazine called Tribuna describes a holiday in Britain on benefit as
  "a brilliant way to travel. You arrive in London one fine day, sign up at an employment office and, suddenly, money and rebates fall at your feet on a regular basis. Young Spaniards did not invent the scam but they are well known as being the most adept at taking advantage of the benefits posing as European emigrants in London."
  Most EC countries were ahead of us in preventing such things from coming about. I would condemn any British citizen travelling abroad who tried to abuse any foreign benefits system just as much as I would as anyone who does it to our system. We were at fault in allowing the loophole to exist, and it was right that we closed it when we found that a minority were exploiting it.
  The Opposition also stated that there very few people exploiting the system—at most, 5,000. As it has turned out, the number of continental claimants has turned out to be far larger than the Opposition's forecast. One might have expected the numbers to decline following the high-profile announcement that the door was being closed. Yet in the first six months that the test has been in operation, some 6,000 continental claimants of income support have been found to be not habitually resident here. There may be others who are claiming housing benefits.
  As a result, total savings from the test are running at £30 million a year, ignoring any deterrent effect which the announcement may have had. We stopped the abuse in time. The Labour party seems to justify its opposition by synthetic concern for British citizens. They display a pseudo-nationalism that fits ill with their original complaints of discrimination. It says that it is all right to hit foreigners, but we must not in any way hit people who can claim British citizenship.
  In fact, 88 per cent. of people from abroad who claim British citizenship pass the test, whereas 60 per cent. of continental claimants fail. Of those British citizens who failed, most had virtually no connection with this country. Most people would think it reasonable that they should not be entitled to benefit in this country until they have earned and paid taxes here.
  I shall give examples from different parts of the country. An 18-year-old whose family emigrated to New Zealand when he was six came to this country on a return ticket paid by his father to visit his grandparents. He sought benefits, and I think it is right that he should have been refused them.
  A 43-year-old who has lived her whole life with her mother in Italy has come to this country for two or three months every year for the past 10 years, and has claimed benefits in the UK. She has never worked in either country, and will no longer be entitled to benefit in this country. Do the Opposition wish to enable people like that to claim benefit?
  A 20-year-old woman from the sub-continent who had never been to the United Kingdom until she arrived this year tried to claim benefit. She has never worked, knows no English and her husband lives in Saudi Arabia. Again, it is not obvious to me that we should give benefit to such people. In any case, under European Union rules we would not be entitled to discriminate on the basis of citizenship rather than residence and residence is, therefore, the basis of our test. It is similar to the basis that applies in almost all continental countries, which sensibly operate similar tests.

  865
  I challenge the Opposition to say whether they think that we should return to a position in which people coming for short stays have open-ended access to claim our benefits, when they have no commitment to this country and pay no taxes here. I believe that the British public back us to the hilt.
  To return to my opening arguments, we have our priorities right. We put the interests of those in greatest need first by focusing help on them, maintaining the value of their benefits and enhancing their incentives. We put British taxpayers' interests next, by curbing excessive growth in the cost of social security, and we put their interests above those of foreign claimants, as I explained. Finally, we are putting the interests of honest claimants, who constitute the vast majority, above those of fraudsters who nonetheless cost the British taxpayer large sums of money.
  Labour Members seem to oppose all those priorities. We are waiting to see whether they will come up with a coherent alternative strategy today for tackling the problems of social security. I doubt very much whether they will. That is the test that they have to pass. If they fail, the House should pass our measures with acclaim.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Opposition social security team to the motions and to respond to the extraordinary performance of the Secretary of State, who seemed determined to talk about many issues that were not before the House, rather than those presented for debate. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I will stick to the issues before us and will not digress far from matters that are of such note today.
  I was going to say in my opening remarks that the Secretary of State had clearly described the purpose of the orders and regulations. Unfortunately, he spent little time describing what we are here to debate. They deal with important matters, however. I shall spend some time on the uprating and re-rating orders, the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1995 and the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994. The Secretary of State belatedly concentrated on the latter, which we have prayed against—it is more commonly known as the habitual residence test.
  Clearly, the uprating of benefits is always welcome, but I must highlight several areas of concern. In particular, some benefits or benefit components will not be increased. As I am sure the Secretary of State is aware, those include: statutory sick pay; statutory maternity pay, which will again be frozen at £52.50; the maternity payment from the regulation-based social fund, which will again be frozen at £100; the capital limits, which will remain unchanged; and the earnings disregards, which will also remain unchanged. Perhaps the Minister could explain why those elements have not been considered for uprating.
  Mr. Lilley: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party would operate all those elements? If so, would he like to know the cost and would he commit the Labour party to financing that cost?
  Mr. Bradley: As we enter the next election, the Labour party will see how far the Government have shifted on
  866
  those elements and will find out what the real situation is. We will then develop our policies around the real situation. We will not do so two years before that point.
  In relation to the compensatory recovery unit in Glasgow, perhaps the Minister will explain why the limit of £2,500—the cut-off point for recovery of benefit from people who have received a payment, for example, for personal injury—has also not been uprated. There is much disquiet in the House about that, especially about the fact that there is reclamation of benefit at that level. I would be grateful for any views that the Minister may have on the way in which that recovery unit is operating.
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I honestly do not feel that the hon. Gentleman can have it both ways. He seems to deplore the fact that certain benefits are not being uprated and he is being critical, which is fair enough if that is what he believes, but he does not want to do anything about it. Either he wants the uprating or he does not. If he does, will he be specific about his view of the cost and where that money would be found? I do not think that he can have it both ways, as he is trying to do.
  Mr. Bradley: It is always interesting when the hon. Gentleman intervenes. We never get any clarity about the issues that he raises.
  I stress that we believe that the limit of £2,500 placed on the compensation recovery unit should be increased. My purpose was to question the Minister on his views on the matter, but I will press on.
  Another key concern, which the Secretary of State mentioned in his opening remarks, is the change in housing benefit. We are well aware of the more fundamental review that is taking place. I may have misheard what the Secretary of State said, but it is not the case that there is an open-ended commitment to housing benefit on rents. A mechanism is already in place by which a rent officer can intervene to ensure that a reasonable rent is charged.
  More particularly at this stage, we are concerned that the Government have increased the non-dependant deduction. The rate for non-dependants with gross earnings of between £74 and £110.99 is increased from £9 to £10, while the highest deduction for gross earnings of £145 or more is increased from £25 to £30—a 20 per cent. increase. That change will clearly have a significant effect on the housing costs of those groups of people. It could be especially damaging and could affect their ability to retain accommodation.
  While on the subject of housing costs, it is important to comment again on the fact that the Government intend to cut income support for mortgage interest payments for people who lose their jobs, as the Secretary of State said. We await that debate with some interest. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that there is already widespread opposition to such a measure, significantly among building societies and the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Perhaps even more significantly, many Conservative Back Benchers also oppose it. If the Social Security Advisory Committee also opposes the plans, will the Secretary of State drop them and instead take measures to protect people's homes, rather than to increase the likelihood of repossession?
  Two further issues of concern regarding future plans should also be highlighted. First, on the proposed imposition of a ceiling of £875 for funeral expenses from

  867
  the social fund, although we would support a proper assessment of the charges made for funerals, it is essential to ensure that the ceiling does not deny the poorest people a dignified funeral. We also want assurances that the ceiling will be uprated and will not be allowed to decline further and, in effect, to wither on the vine.
  Finally, on this section, I must highlight the reduced rates of benefit that will be paid under the new incapacity benefit—something on which the Secretary of State commented. The amount of money that claimants who manage to pass the new, stricter test of incapacity receive—I stress that they must pass the test—will be substantially reduced compared with invalidity benefit. On top of that, the new benefit will he taxed, as we know.
  I have raised that matter on many occasions on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I make no apology for that, and I shall continue to do so. When that benefit comes into effect, on 13 April 1995, I predict an outcry of similar proportions to that associated with the chaos surrounding the introduction of the Child Support Agency. Once again, I emphasise to Conservative Members that they have been warned about the implications of the new cuts in incapacity benefit as a result of the harsher medical test.
  I shall briefly discuss the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1995. Perhaps, for this part of the debate, we should call it the memorial debate on the guaranteed minimum pension, because I suspect that this is the last time that that order will he before us.
  Although, obviously, we welcome the fact that the minimum pension is to be increased, the current arrangements will be abolished under the Pension Bill currently in another place, and new arrangements substituted. However, I understand that there will not be a similar guarantee of the pension under the new arrangements. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that to the House, because many pensioners wish to ensure that there will be a guarantee in the future arrangements for pensions.
  On the new habitual residence test, I shall not fall into the trap of the populism in which the Secretary of State tried to indulge during his opening remarks but shall stick to the issues before us. The Secretary of State's speech was reminiscent of his speech to the Conservative party conference in 1993, when he first expressed his determination to root out benefit tourism.
  I emphasise that Labour Members have no quarrel with rooting out benefit tourism, but we are not certain that the measures before us achieve that purpose. The Government's proposals may take a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and the original objective of the habitual residence test may have been achieved at the expense of the welfare of many British and other nationals who have come to or returned to the United Kingdom to settle.
  'This is not the first attempt to introduce such a test. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) undertook a similar review of the benefits system in the mid-1980s, when he was Secretary of State for Social Security, and there was at that time a similar proposal to introduce a residence test for income support, but that was rejected by the then Minister of State for Social Security. That Minister said:
  "we decided that a blanket test would be too rigid, too cumbersome, and perhaps too unfair … It could have excluded people such as … British citizens returning from abroad. United Kingdom citizens on work contracts returning home".
  868
  He also foresaw:
  "it could become an administrative nightmare … A costly administrative system would also have to be set up to deal with people who failed to qualify for benefit, yet who were in need that we would not, in practice, ignore."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 February 1986; c. 537.]
  The Minister at that time was the present Prime Minister, and many people would accept the wisdom of his opinion at that time. Some would argue whether it is a Euro-sceptic or a Euro-phobic opinion, but the Secretary of State, whichever way he plays it, should reflect on that opinion in determining his current policies.
  More recently, the Social Security Advisory Committee rejected the current plans. It recommended that the Government should not proceed with the introduction of the habitual residence test, on the ground that, although it might provide a solution to the problem of benefit tourism, it would have adverse consequences for many other claimants.
  In practice, the test is proving arbitrary, subjective, complex and unfair. As there is no definition of habitual residence, several imprecise and, arguably, inappropriate criteria are used to establish residence. That lack of precision has made the writing of guidance for, and training of, staff extremely difficult.
  Many categories of people have been caught by the test. The Secretary of State has alluded to them, but not in the way in which we would present our evidence. Those categories of people include the children of British citizens who were taken abroad by their parents who now wish to return to this country to take up their rightful citizenship; British nationals whose marriages have broken down while living abroad who want to return to Britain; and British nationals who have returned to Britain as a result of economic or political change in the country in which they have been living. In our opinion, none of those categories could be described as "benefit tourism".
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I bring to my hon. Friend's attention, and that of the House, the case of a constituent of mine, Lisa Capon of Thornton Heath. She is a British subject who, at the age of 16, went to Portugal with her parents and her husband. Six years later—a few weeks ago—she returned to this country, to my constituency, and failed the habitual residence test.
  Lisa had a one-way ticket back from Portugal to this country. She is five months pregnant. She could not obtain any social security money; she failed the test. As she does not have a child, although she is pregnant, she could not obtain help from social services.
  On Friday evening, on behalf of my constituent, a British citizen, I had to telephone social services' emergency number. After some arm-twisting, I was promised that a food parcel would be given—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are normally short and succinct. This is a very short debate and the hon. Gentleman has raised a question. I imagine that the spokesman for the Opposition will choose whether to reply to it.
  Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend presented an example that illustrates the complex situation in which many people find themselves. I argue that the way in which the rules are interpreted and the way in which the criteria are being established mean that many people fall into similar traps.

  869
  Also affected are those families spread across different continents who make long visits abroad. That is an especially common occurrence in the ethnic minority communities, many individual members of whom may have originally come to the UK as immigrants or whose parents settled here. In Bradford, for example, many welfare rights organisations report many problems arising as a result of the test. Similarly, the Commission for Racial Equality has mentioned many aspects of the administration of the test that cause unease.
  Further, the Prime Minister, who was then Minister of State for Social Security, was right to predict the immense administrative problems. Advice agencies report that a great deal of extra work has been caused as a result of the test. The Benefits Agency needs to interview many claimants in circumstances where the habitual residence test is an issue affecting entitlement.
  Thousands of cases are under appeal. The Secretary of State mentioned 6,000 cases that fail the habitual residence test. I should be grateful if he would say how many of those cases are currently under appeal.
  Mr. David Lidington: In view of the critique that the hon. Gentleman advanced, does he wish the habitual residence test to be abolished?
  Mr. Bradley: If the hon. Gentleman will remain calm for a moment, I am sure that, by the end of my contribution, he will know what our position is.
  The extra burden on offices is illustrated by the figures for interviews in one district office alone in the month of September; 934 people were interviewed, of whom 638 were refused benefit. The delays for appeal hearings are also in part a reflection of the numbers affected. It is commonplace for claimants to be forced to wait as long as six months before their cases are heard. For example, in the north Surrey area, appeals tribunals are now hearing cases that were appealed in August and September 1994.
  I pay tribute to the invaluable work of the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. Those organisations inform me that they understand that approximately two thirds of decisions to refuse benefit that are taken at local offices are overturned on appeal. That suggests that staff have not been properly trained, the guidance is faulty or it is simply bad law. Will the Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary in winding up, comment on the position regarding refusals and appeals?
  At the same time, claimants must wait a long time before a hearing without financial support, as in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), and may not be entitled even to urgent case payments because of their discretionary nature.
  When rejecting a presence test in 1986, the then Minister of State for Social Security, the current Prime Minister, questioned whether such a scheme would produce net savings for the Treasury. It would be useful to know today precisely what the savings are, if any, taking account of the cost of the additional staff time spent on habitual resident test work. From my visits to local Benefits Agency offices, I know that an enormous amount of staff time is involved in that work at the expense of other essential work that Benefits Agency staff undertake.
  870
  There is not time this afternoon to go into all the legal complexities of the test. Suffice it to say that I understand that the validity of the legislation is being challenged under domestic and European law. We await the outcome of those considerations with interest. Nor is there time to go into the many case studies which have been presented to us, representing a range of problems that have been presented at hon. Members' advice bureaux.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is there time to tell us whether the hon. Gentleman would repeal the rule?
  Mr. Bradley: I have been in the House long enough to have learnt not to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he always makes rather limited interventions.
  A range of complex cases that have been brought before us need careful consideration. However, it is clear from parliamentary answers that there is great uncertainty about who is being refused and for what reason, what the current situation on appeals is and precisely how much money is saved by that measure. We also know that great hardship is caused. In a reply dated 23 January 1995 to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Secretary of State said:
  "The Department is monitoring the effect of the habitual residents test on British Citizens. However, because habitual residence is assessed on the basis of a variety of factors, it is not possible to be categorical about the reasons for being turned down".
  We share that view. The test should be thoroughly reviewed in the light of—
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bradley: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
  Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Heald: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Motion No. 6 on the Order Paper says:
  "That the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994 … be revoked."
  Is it therefore in order for the hon. Gentleman, far from asking for the regulations to be revoked, simply to say that they should be reviewed?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely in order for hon. Members to take any viewpoint that they choose. It depends on their view at the time. It is certainly not a matter for the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman knows that full well.
  Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the case of Pepper v. Hart in the House of Lords—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not terribly interested in what took place in the House of Lords this afternoon. We have a debate before us and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would resume his seat.
  Mr. Bradley: The whole system should be thoroughly reviewed. The Government should take it away from the House and come back with a sensible system that does not involve all the contradictions and complexities that I have highlighted. That is why we shall vote against the orders.
  5.23 pm
  Sir Nicholas Scott: I stand before the House as an unreformed addict, having spent seven years hooked entirely on social security. I have had a bare seven months off the habit and feel constrained to come back today to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the orders and regulations which he has placed before the House and which we are discussing. They enshrine a proper disciplined and constructive approach and a caring package for the future of social security for the coming years.
  Social security is never an easy issue. Anyone who must come to grips with the conflicting measures within the social security system knows how difficult it is to reconcile those differing positions and pressures. It may be an easy matter for those who sit on the Opposition Benches, and I hope that Labour Members will continue to sit on them for a long time to come. I genuinely congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on their work. I see that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) is quitting the scene. I do not wish to detain him unnecessarily. I understand the dilemma that his team must face. I am sure that he and his hon. Friends have all sorts of genuine concerns that they would like to express and grievances that they want to redress, but the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor will not allow them to say anything positive, or enter into a commitment, in terms of future social security expenditure.
  Opposition Members can meet the devoted and hardworking group of people from the lobby outside the House, who have all sorts of genuine concerns in which they believe and who can come and discuss their concerns with Opposition Members. But Opposition Members can give them no commitments because the shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition will not allow them to do so. They come before the House and laud and praise the work of the Commission for Social Justice, but cannot commit themselves to any of the ideas that it has put forward because the shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition will not let them.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: It is a pleasure to have the right hon. Gentleman in the Chamber agreeing with the Government, when he so manifestly did not agree with them for so long when he was in office. He properly points to the dilemmas that face any Opposition, and no doubt any Government over whom the Treasury looms so large. He mentioned unhappiness; is he entirely happy about the changes represented by the new incapacity benefit?
  Sir Nicholas Scott: I shall deal with many of those matters, including incapacity benefit, in a moment or two.
  I should have thought that, having been so long on that side of the House, the Opposition would by now have found some device whereby they could commit themselves to something when they discuss those matters, even though they are under the constraints that I mentioned. At present, however, the House and the country as a whole have no idea of the social security policies that Labour Members would pursue, were they by any mischance to find themselves in government. Nor have we any idea of the costs of pursuing the policies that they have in mind. In essence, they are hiding behind some sort of political yashmak, denying that the public,
  872
  despite their entreaties and desires, would like to see what goods are hidden behind it. It is about time that they begin to reveal what is on offer to people before they spend much more time criticising the constructive way in which my right hon. Friend and his team have been tackling social security problems.
  Let us imagine for a moment that the hon. Member for Garscadden were given his dream and were holding the reins of power over social security. Let us enjoy the fantasy for a moment and imagine what would happen if he took over responsibility for the largest policy centre in Government. Could he cast aside his party's opposition to our sustained and responsible policy of cost containment and affordability, thus dashing the hopes and expectations of many of those in the lobby outside whom, with a nod and a whisper, a wink here and a gesture there, he has been able to persuade how different life would be under a Labour Government? If the hon. Member for Garscadden were to bow to the articulate, intelligent, persuasive, highly motivated and genuine lobby outside—who would expect him to find extra money to spend on social security—we would end up with runaway expenditure and high rates of inflation. We would be broke and subject once more to the whims and the mercies of the International Monetary Fund.
  The hon. Gentleman has a real problem. He is a Scotsman and perhaps his problem is set out more clearly in what I suppose we might refer to, even in this theatre, as the Scottish play. Macbeth is challenged by his wife who says:

  "Art Thou afeared

  To be the same in thine own act and valour

  As thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have that

  Which thou esteem'st the ornament of life,"—

  the hon. Gentleman can tell us what that might be—

  "And live a coward in thine own esteem,

  Letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would'.

  Like the poor cat i' the adage?"

  No one would accuse the hon. Gentleman or his team of cowardice, but I think that they should show the House and the country a little more nerve and candour in order to enable the electorate better to judge their intentions.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues on their notable achievement this year in sustaining the Government's commitment to uprate all the main benefits in line with inflation; yet the growth in expenditure on social security has been reduced substantially this year, and that trend will continue for the next three years.
  I think that we all understand the two main reasons for that reduction. The first concerns the Government's achievements in producing low inflation and lower unemployment. Inflation is now at an historically low level that we have not seen since the early 1960s. I believe that the Government deserve immense credit for that achievement. Unemployment has been reduced by 555,000 since its peak in 1992 and it is still decreasing. Those two factors, in themselves, are good for people and for the health of society, but they also provide a background against which we can examine our social security needs.
  Secondly, I believe that my right hon. Friend would acknowledge that he has built on the foundation which was laid by his predecessor, who adopted a sensible, sustained and rigorous approach to social security expenditure. I remember that when I arrived back from

  873
  Northern Ireland I was told by a senior officer of the then Department of Health and Social Security that I had a privilege unique in Government except for Treasury Ministers: I could introduce a Bill every single year. I must admit that that blessing was somewhat mixed in its application.
  Over the years, billions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been saved while the Government have retained a defensible, compassionate and caring social security system. Nothing stands still in social security: if social security changes, society adapts and changes also, and the social security system must then adapt to meet those changed habits and needs. We can never say that we have the answer to meet the plethora of needs that exist in any advanced industrialised society.
  As a Minister with responsibilities in the social security area, I witnessed the growth in certain aspects of social security, such as housing benefit and invalidity benefit, for quite inexplicable reasons which could not be justified by any real change in people's circumstances. It simply became fashionable to apply for certain benefits and, inevitably, it became necessary for Government to draw back and tighten the criteria of eligibility for entitlement to those benefits. That is a never-ending challenge for those who are responsible for social security in this country. We must keep provision up to date: we must meet new needs while ensuring that we continue to meet the needs of those who are in genuine distress.
  I am disappointed at the low take-up of the disability working allowance. It was introduced at the same time as the disability living allowance, which has been a conspicuous success. I believe that DWA has failed to be successful in part because many disabled people who would like to work and who wish to give work a chance believe that, if they try it and fail, they will not be able to go back on to their pre-existing benefits.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), know that that is not so. However, if we could present a cast-iron, copper-bottomed guarantee that people will be able to return to their pre-existing benefits, we might be able to encourage them to take up the opportunities that are proffered by the disability working allowance.
  My right hon. Friend addressed the issue of pensions very carefully in his Mais lecture. He pointed out that half the benefit expenditure is spent on the elderly in our community and that in the next century the imbalance will become even greater. As the population balance alters, there will be problems not only with the public provision of state pensions but with private provision of pensions.
  We must look at other ways of encouraging the growth of personal pensions. Their growth to date has been welcome and has proved useful. We should not make a rush judgment, but it would be sensible to consider the possibility of compulsory private pension provision in the future. That may sound like a strange concept, but I believe that many people who have made proper provision for their own retirement are resentful that they must pay, through their taxation, for those who have made no such provision. That resentment will grow among the elderly and those of working age as the pressures on the cost of
  874
  retirement income increase as we move into the next century. We must consider that dilemma and begin to address it.
  The price of success and responsibility in social security in any advanced country is eternal vigilance. Without it, demand can become unsustainable. A number of advanced countries have been faced with unsustainable demand and, panic stricken, have had to resile from the commitments into which they entered. It is correct for my right hon. Friend and his team to look ahead and plan for the future of social security in the next century. As I have said, society is not static; it is dynamic and volatile.
  It is very easy for particular areas of expenditure to escalate out of control, and we must ensure that that does not occur. The old special payments scheme was replaced by the social fund, which proved to be a much better controlled system of meeting exceptional need. The housing benefit and invalidity benefit have had many problems. Although the new incapacity benefit will have the teething problems that are associated with any change to the system, I believe that it is a much more sensible and responsible way of tackling the needs of incapacity in our society. Mortgage interest must be examined also.
  Those of us who are in charge of events should continue to proceed one step at a time. We must continue to seek a more affordable, sustainable and a better social security system than we have even now. Today's orders and regulations represent a very important step in that direction.
  5.39 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: There is a strong theatrical tradition that it is desperately unlucky to quote from the Scottish play in any theatre where that play is not actually being performed. However, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) is in a better position than I am to know what is really going on in the Cabinet, so perhaps, in his case, lightening will not strike twice.
  Let me return the Secretary of State briefly to housing benefit. He was most courteous in allowing my intervention and I took on board his point about providing citizens with choice, but many of my more elderly constituents are being denied the only choice—indeed, right—that they value, and that is the certainty that they will be allowed to live out their days in what has been their home for a considerable number of years. They are consistently concerned about year-on-year rent increases and they are in no position to look for an alternative place to live. They have no possibility of arguing the rent down with their landlords and it causes them real distress.
  Mr. Lilley: Let me make it clear to the hon. Lady—I hope that it will be reassurance for her obvious concerns for her constituents—that there is no intention of applying the measure retrospectively to people already established and claiming housing benefit. It applies to new claims for housing benefit. It is obviously much easier for someone newly claiming housing benefit and having to choose where to live to decide between different premises. Those who are already retired and on housing benefit will not suddenly be deprived of a portion of their housing benefit and be required to move elsewhere.
  Ms Jackson: Will the Secretary of State clarify that a little further? Does he mean that if the landlord of those

  875
  who are, and have been, in receipt of housing benefit for a number of years chooses to raise their rent year-on-year, their housing benefit will still be met in full?
  Mr. Lilley: Subject to the rent not being in excess of a reasonable market rent, yes, it will.
  Ms Jackson: With respect to the Secretary of State, that is absolutely the nub of the problem and precisely the reason why so many of my constituents are justifiably afraid.
  There has been an increase in the number of people who buy up properties and wish their sitting tenants to leave. They want to turn them out. They wish perhaps to modernise the properties that they have bought arid they believe that there will be a higher return on their investment if they can reduce the number of flats in a house of comparatively multiple occupation. Therefore, an increasing number of my constituents who are elderly and who have lived in the same properties for a considerable number of years are undoubtedly being pressured by their landlords. In many instances, a landlord can evict tenants who have lived in a property for many years only when they can no longer pay the rent.
  Will the Secretary of State discuss with the Secretary of State for the Environment the possibility of reintroducing some fair rents scheme? I understand that there has been no positive response to the idea, but the problem is causing real hardship and I believe that it will affect an even larger number of people.
  At the moment, people are having to choose between taking a job or losing their homes and I cannot believe that the Government actually wish that to happen. In the light of the year-on-year increases in rent over the past few years, the issue really should be examined again and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could do that.
  I am grateful to have been called in the debate and I am even more grateful that the habitual residence test is part of our deliberations tonight, not least on the level of obtaining some information, as I hope that we shall. Whenever I have tabled a written question to the Department of Social Security—for example, on the number of British citizens who are awaiting the results of their appeals under the test, the number of citizens of former Commonwealth countries who have applied for the test, the number of British families who are affected by the habitual residence test, the ages of children within those families and the ages of individuals who have been asked to undertake the test—the reply that I have consistently received is that no such figures are kept centrally and the cost of providing them would be prohibitive.
  I find that an absolutely extraordinary response, given that, when the Secretary of State introduced what I believe to be genuinely nasty legislation in what I would also argue was an singularly nasty little speech, we were told that the habitual residence test was being introduced to close a loophole against benefits tourists attempting to perpetrate fraud against British taxpayers. However, a detailed letter that the Secretary of State sent in response to an inquiry from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), contained the following sentence:
  "Although immigration status has always been relevant to Income Support entitlement, the nationality of claimants from European Economic Area (EEA) states is not recorded, hence the absence of hard data."
  876
  In the speech that introduced the habitual residence test, which the Secretary of State delivered at the Conservative party conference in 1993, he depicted a crooks' tour, and the nationals whom he proceeded to insult were the citizens of Germany, France and Italy, yet it would seem that there is actually no hard evidence to support what I regard as an extremely damaging piece of legislation.
  Setting aside the issues of European Union nationals who are being caught by the habitual residence tests and looking instead at benefit tourism, which was my understanding of why the test was introduced in the first place, I would be grateful to know, as I am sure would every right hon. and hon. Member, how a young British citizen, who, regrettably, at the age of 19 moved from education to the dole queue was denied any claim upon the benefits system because she was deemed to have to undergo the habitual residence test. To regard a move from education to unemployment as a tour or a journey seems absurd in the extreme.
  Another example is one of my constituents, a woman in her late 40s who is a freelance journalist. She found it impossible to obtain employment in Britain, the country of her birth, so at the age of 30 she moved to Greece, where for 13 years she was successful in obtaining employment as a freelance journalist. Due to her own ill health and that of an elderly relative, she found it necessary to return to Britain. In the interim, her elderly relative died. She had already sold such property as she had in Greece—it was very small in quantity—and she arrived in Britain with no living relatives, admittedly not having lived here for 13 years, and had to undergo the habitual residence test. She was left with absolutely no means of support, given that it is taking the Benefits Agency offices in my part of north London anything up to three months to process an application and an appeal. In one absolutely shocking case involving a young pregnant woman, it took five months before any answer came.
  We are denying British citizens any rights whatsoever. It is not simply the right to obtain sustenance from the benefits system; it is a denial of the most basic civil rights and liberties that people can be born British citizens, attempt—as the Government are always urging our citizens to do—to maintain themselves by employment, find that employment abroad and yet, when they return to Britain, be denied their rightful places as British citizens.
  I shall deal briefly with another case in my constituency involving a citizen of the European Union who has lived and worked in this country for at least five years. Because of a downturn in his employment, he applied to the Benefits Agency. Not only did the agency insist that he undergo the habitual residence test but it asked him to produce his passport. That seems to be a gross abuse of the agency's responsibilities, and I urge the Secretary of State to re-examine what the test is supposedly doing for the citizens of this country.
  I should be grateful to see the hard evidence that proves that the taxpayer is being saved money and equally grateful to see that which proves that the particular group of people that the test is seemingly targeting are exercising gross fraud on the citizens of this country.
  I realise that time is short so I shall conclude by giving details of two further cases in my constituency, both involving young women. Indeed, the test impacts especially harshly on women, and that is certainly so in the two instances that I shall outline now. Both cases involve women who, for a variety of reasons, which are

  877
  no business of the House and into which we have no right to inquire, ended up abroad but in failing marriages. In one case, the woman, who is a British citizen and has a small child, had to return to this country because of the severe domestic violence that she was suffering at the hands of her now estranged husband. The other woman had to return because of a breakdown of relations between her in-laws.
  In both instances, the women returned to their own country: one returned with a very small child and one was five months pregnant. They both had to undergo the habitual residence test and were denied any support for a considerable time. It was only the generosity and kindliness of friends that sustained them until the appeals found for them.
  I do not know whether it was at the same Conservative party conference that the Secretary of State delivered the speech to which I referred, but I distinctly remember the Prime Minister speaking of his desire for people to be able to hand on what was their own to their own. I believe that he was referring to property rather than to citizens' rights but I think that British parents would find it deeply shocking—I know I do—if, via this nasty little test, the great gift of British citizenship and all that it entails were to be denied to their children and grandchildren.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for the fact that I shall not be able to stay long after I have made my speech as I have a long-standing engagement elsewhere. I pay tribute to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) which he made with the elegance and compassion that are characteristic of his whole political career.
  Let me put my remarks in context. The House is aware that it is estimated that the social security system will cost some £84 billion for the current year which, I am told, works out at about £15 per working person per day. That is a huge sum of money. Even after the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put in place, it is planned that in real terms the social security budget should grow by some 2.1 per cent. a year in future. That is a huge rate of growth on a huge sum of money, and it is important that we bear that in mind as we consider all the many difficult choices that Ministers have to make.
  The central question is whether it is right that the bulk of social security benefits should be uplifted only by price inflation, not linked to earnings, as the recent report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation sought to suggest. It might help the House if I quoted the JRF summary. It states:
  "More people became dependent on benefits like Income Support as a result of both higher unemployment and demographic factors."
  I think that we can accept that. It continued:
  "The income gap widened between those dependent on benefits and those with earnings."
  We can also accept that as a factual statement. It then went on to state:
  "Since the early 1980s, benefit levels have generally been linked to prices, so that the incomes of those dependent on benefits have fallen behind the working population."
  878
  It now becomes more tendentious by stating:
  "Those remaining dependent on price-linked benefits have little or no stake in the prosperity of the country, since rising real incomes in general have no effect on their own standard of living."
  Here, I believe, the foundation is straying into dangerous territory. It concludes:
  "While the priority has to be to ensure that, where possible, people do not remain dependent on benefits, there will remain groups who do so. In such cases, indefinite price indexation is not adequate, and their benefits should increase by more than inflation at times when living standards in general are rising."
  Superficially, that seems a plausible analysis, but the foundation's inquiry has missed one crucial point, which is that the incomes of the poorest members of our society depend not only on cash benefits from the state but on a range of benefits in kind that they receive from the state. In this respect, the poorest members of society do disproportionately well.
  What are these benefits in kind, these social transfers funded by the taxpayer? I am thinking of things such as the national health service, education, housing and public transport subsidies, welfare milk and free school meals. All these must be taken into account when working out the real net incomes of every member of society. There have been huge increases in benefits in kind during the lifetime of this Government. When judging whether price indexation is the appropriate measure for setting social security benefits, we must take them all into account.
  I am glad that the Social Market Foundation has studied the matter in detail. A recent report by Andrew Cooper and Roderick Nye sheds a great deal of light on the subject. They conclude that
  "in 1993 the poorest fifth of UK households gained an estimated £3,610 from state benefits in kind, £1,530 more than the wealthiest fifth … By ignoring benefits in kind the Inquiry"—
  the JRF study—
  "paints an incomplete picture about the way Britain's poorest are faring. By confining itself to cash benefits and income the Report's conclusion is little more than a function of the linkage of benefits to prices instead of earnings, a change offset by the increase in real spending of public services represented by benefits in kind."
  They state that the inquiry's failure to include this in its calculations
  "can only be sustained by ignoring what is currently 48.3 per cent. of the final income of Britain's poorest households."
  Nearly half their income is from benefits in kind. They continue:
  "the Inquiry is borne out of a consensus which regards maintaining and increasing expenditure on public services like education and the NHS as vital to preserving living standards, yet when the most comprehensive study of its kind into Income and Wealth is conducted these figures are excluded."
  By excluding such important considerations, the central finding of the JRF inquiry—that benefits should be linked to earnings rather than prices—has been invalidated.
  Health expenditure has risen from 4.7 per cent. of gross domestic product when the Conservatives came to power to 6 per cent. of GDP now. That is a huge increase which disproportionately benefits the poorest members of society. Education expenditure, which is at present the subject of much controversy, has risen by 50 per cent. per pupil in real terms since the Government took office. These factors must be weighed in the balance when we consider the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1995.

  879
  I accept that there are problems with poverty, as the JRF report said. They are often heavily localised and, I believe, best addressed by local regeneration measures. The work of English Partnerships, for example, is crucial in this respect. I accept that inequality in our society has increased, but, unlike the JRF inquiry, I do not accept that that is automatically a bad thing. Some measure of inequality is essential as an engine of economic growth and enterprise.
  I believe that, theoretically, indexation to prices alone might have an adverse impact on the incomes of the poorest, but, looking at the broader picture, that is clearly not the case. The problem of growing inequality in our society and the problems of the poorest 10 per cent. about which the pessimistic talk a great deal are in reality nothing like as great as has been suggested, which is why I believe that it is absolutely right for the Government to stick to the principle of price indexation for the vast range of social security benefits.
  I should like to reinforce the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea about the impact of targeting, particularly on the thrifty elderly. It sounds very good and reassuring, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, that we must focus help on the most needy, and I agree that we do, but we must recognise that the practical effect of focusing that help can all too often be to remove from benefit entitlement those who are only marginally better off than people in receipt of benefit. That leads to very real resentment, particularly among elderly people in my constituency who are not in receipt of benefits, who have made some modest provision for their old age, but who find that the couple next door, who have made no such provision, are the beneficiaries of all these state benefits. We cannot duck that issue for much longer and it is one to which I hope that my right hon. Friend will give greater attention.
  On housing benefit, I believe that it is wrong to subsidise both bricks and mortar and people. If we subsidise people alone and allow rents for all forms of housing tenure to rise to something nearer market levels, it lets the market work. It will bring about the revival of the private rented sector, and that is happening thanks to the assured tenancy scheme, which all Conservative Members wish to see continue.
  Housing benefit has trebled since 1979 to some £10 billion today, so it is fully understandable why the Treasury should be so concerned. I welcome the reforms that are part of the packages recently announced by my right hon. Friend. That we should have some limit on what rents in a particular area should be eligible for housing benefit seems entirely reasonable to me, as does the idea that in a household in which people are working the person in receipt of housing benefit should have a corresponding reduction in that benefit. If we cut the subsidy to the Housing Corporations and, more generally, housing benefit—which we are not currently doing—the result could be a loss of confidence in the financial institutions that go into partnership with the housing associations to fund housing, that money will be there in future to fund social housing for rent. I urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at pressure from the Treasury for a more broad-based reduction in housing benefit if at the same time there are reductions in the subsidy to housing
  880
  corporations, because that could have an unfortunate impact on the housing association movement in this country.
  The broad issues being discussed by the House today are right and proper. The Government are right to insist on linkage only to prices, not earnings, and I commend the orders to the House.
  6.1 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: There is a great deal for us to debate this evening. I feel that this is an awkward way to debate the orders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said at the same time last year, it is an inconvenient mix and match of orders. It is difficult to give proper consideration to them all, but it is even worse today, because there are six orders before us. The Government might be quite happy to stifle debate, particularly on the sensitive issue of the habitual residence test, and avoid debate when the order was laid before the House and became law, but we are here today to debate whether we should revoke that order. I believe that we should, as I shall explain later.
  The order dealing with habitual residence tests has been tacked on to the end of five other orders, and we must get through all of them by 7 o'clock tonight. I shall deal with one order in particular—the reduction of class 2 national insurance contributions for share fishermen. That is welcome, of course, but it will not compensate for all the problems that British fishermen currently have, not least with the Spanish fishermen being allowed to fish in the Irish box.
  It is right that we should debate the rise in benefits in line with inflation, but I believe that the debate should be widened. We should be talking about a fundamental review of the whole benefits system. We should be talking about trying to protect people from poverty and getting people back into work. The Government, under the reforms banner—I believe that it is a banner—are hacking away at benefit expenditure, which is storing up problems for us in the long term. All these measures should be looked at in the light of that fact.
  In the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order, for instance, the amount paid into that fund in 1995–96 must not exceed 10 per cent. of the benefits expenditure. That is a reduction of £2 billion on what the Treasury was able to spend last year to top up national insurance contributions. That is partly due to the rise in national insurance contributions and the fact that benefit payments have decreased. I would welcome that if it was for the real reason of getting more people back into employment, but that is not the main issue here. The Government are trying to save money by cutting benefits. I believe that they excel in short-term planning—looking towards the next election and no further. What they are trying to do, as in all other departments, is cut benefit expenditure so that they can buy votes with tax cuts at the next election. I do not believe that the British electorate will be bought at the expense of the most vulnerable in society.
  We must look at the report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation about the gap between the rich and poor. Poverty damages people's health. It will increase the bill to the taxpayer; the more ill people are, the more the taxpayer must pay. The creation of an underclass costs money, through an increase in crime. I believe that the

  881
  Secretary of State for Social Security acknowledged that fact when he spoke in Northern Ireland a few months ago. He talked about the gap between the rich and poor and about the unemployed. He linked it to a rise in crime. It will have a knock-on effect for the taxpayer—through higher prices not only for the police and the prison service but for insurance premiums, as crime rates go up.
  The most recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that the tax and benefits system does not bolster the married state. The Government talk about the family all the time. I firmly believe, as I am sure do hon. Members on both sides of the House, that a stable family—and I mean a stable family—is the best way to bring up children, but the Government are letting the family down. One has only to look at that report to know that that is true. There will be a tremendous knock-on effect for the stability of the country in the future.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Lady tell us in which way the decision of the Liberal party conference to provide for the prescription of contraceptives to under-age children bolsters the family?
  Ms Lynne: I really wish that I had not given way to such a stupid remark. We are talking about social security uprating. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman is called, he can make his points in his own way.
  The Secretary of State should be addressing all aspects of benefits and should not just talk about benefit tourists, scroungers and fraud, although I want to get rid of fraud as much as he probably does. He must examine the more difficult arguments as well. It is all very fine for him to get a standing ovation at the Conservative party conference when he talks about wiping out fraud. I would like to see him get a standing ovation at that conference by talking about investment in people. I doubt very much whether he would get one, or indeed whether he would even talk about it.
  I welcome the chance that the orders have given us to debate benefits. We must use the benefits system to lift people out of poverty. They are usually there through no fault of their own. We must ensure that they can make a worthwhile contribution to society in future. But that requires bold planning. We need to bring in some bold measures. I would like to see a proper, full benefit transfer scheme to get people back into work. I would like to see a low-income benefit. I make no apology for mentioning it again, but I would like to merge income support and family credit so that people are always better off in work and do not lose benefits pound for pound. I would like to see a top-up element to the basic state pension—it has gone down in real terms since the Government came into power—in line with income support, and for that top-up element to be linked to earnings.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Lady—like the Rowntree report—seems to advocate raising the level of benefits above that of price inflation. Will she cost that? What is the Liberal policy, and by what amount should the benefits be uprated?
  Ms Lynne: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that I was proposing the restructuring of the benefits system and the introduction of a benefit transfer scheme. I was proposing the merging of benefits. I cannot talk about the possibility of uprating income
  882
  support and family credit, for instance, given that we want to merge the two schemes into a single low-income benefit. That is the way in which we can return people to work.
  The debate gives us a great opportunity to examine the Government's strategy. In fact, I do not believe that they have a strategy to improve the benefits system. Although I welcome the introduction of a measure on statutory sick pay to remove the burden from small businesses, its effect is very small in comparison with the impact of the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1994 on small businesses throughout the country. I doubt whether many small businesses are currently congratulating the Government.
  The Government are trying to pretend that they are giving more than they are. Similarly, they stated that under the Act small employers would be given a rebate if an employee was off sick for more than four weeks; they failed to add that the majority of employees return to work before the four weeks are up. Nevertheless, the order that we are discussing will help small businesses if, for instance, a large number of employees are off work with flu. I welcome that, but it should have been in the Act.
  Employees have suffered discrimination under the current statutory sick pay arrangements. Now that firms must pay 100 per cent. of the bill, employers are looking for people with better sickness records. That is understandable, but it is not acceptable. Employers have dismissed staff who have worked for them for under two years because of their sickness records; citizens' advice bureaux have a list of problems connected with the Statutory Sick Pay Act, but the order contains no proposals to help the people concerned.
  As I have said, I welcome the small amount of help that has been given, but I feel that we should consider wider issues. I was sad to note that maternity benefit and the funeral grant have been left out of the uprating of the social fund; I was particularly sad about the funeral grant.
  In 1986, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—who has already been quoted—said that the habitual residence test would be an administrative nightmare. I entirely agree: indeed, it is already beginning to be an administrative nightmare. The Secretary of State mentioned benefits to tourists in his speech at the Conservative party conference, and that is why the order was laid. The right hon. Gentleman even acted against the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee.
  The problem with the test is that it does not define habitual residence for the purpose of the order, and there will therefore be appeals in many cases. Many such cases are being won, but in the mean time the people involved are denied benefit because the Government say that they will appeal again. I very much doubt that they will pay interest if the next appeal is won.
  I have encountered several such cases in my constituency. One of my constituents has worked in this country for some time, but when his father became very ill in Pakistan he went off to look after him. It took just over a year for the father to die. The son returned to this country, began to work again and paid his national insurance and tax contributions. Then his mother was taken ill. As there were no other relatives to look after her, he had to return to Pakistan to nurse her and take care of all her affairs. She subsequently died.
  The man has just returned to this country. He came to my surgery last week in a terrible state, because he was receiving no money. He has nothing to live on. This is a

  883
  man who was working in this country, and paying tax and national insurance. Now he is living off friends: he is desperate. I am sure that, if the Secretary of State or the Minister had seen him in my surgery, they would have realised that he was a genuine case. He is a British citizen, and has worked in this country.
  In the speech to which I referred earlier, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon said that people should be able to obtain money from the social fund if they were turned down for income support, housing benefit or a rebate for poll tax—which has now become council tax—or if they failed the habitual residence test. My constituent could not obtain money from the social fund; he has no money at all.
  The right hon. Member for Huntingdon—who, of course, is now the Prime Minister—went on to say:
  "What is clear from all our habits and history is that when people are in desperate need it has never been the fashion in this country—nor would it be the wish of my hon. Friends—not to provide assistance that is sorely needed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 February 1986; c. 537.]
  Things may have changed; things may have moved on. But that is still an excellent argument against the test.
  The main problems have been experienced by British nationals, although the order was designed to catch foreigners. I do not want people to come here and claim benefit to which they are not entitled, but the legislation is affecting British citizens who, having gone abroad to work on contract for perhaps a couple of years, return to find that they cannot claim anything.
  Another example is the person who lives abroad with a spouse who subsequently dies. It is usually the wife who returns to be near the family; that wife is not allowed to claim benefit. She is refused under the habitual residence test. A constituent of mine is in that position. Her husband is dead, she has two children and she cannot claim any support.
  In the first three months of the operation of the test, 2,086 British nationals were denied benefit. We are not talking about foreigners; we are talking about British nationals. The money is means tested, so the revocation of the order would not benefit those with considerable resources. It is those with nothing—those experiencing real hardship—who would benefit.
  The Child Poverty Action Group has drawn attention to the case of a British woman who went to Spain. It was the usual story: she married, and then went to Spain to live with her husband. He left her, and she came back to this country with two children aged seven and 10. Her husband had left her with no money, and she had nowhere to live in Spain, so she returned to this country. She could not obtain income support, because she could not prove that she was habitually resident here. She, too, has no money. How on earth is she supposed to support her two children?
  I do not see how the Government can fail to accept that a number of people have suffered acute hardship. That number does not run into many thousands now, but if we do not revoke the order it could increase dramatically. I only wish that the nice words of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon meant something today. Surely, now that he is Prime Minister, he should have more influence; he should read again what he said in his speech about the habitual residence test. The Secretary of State and the Minister should also take note of what the Prime Minister said then.
  884
  What savings will the Government make? I do not think that the savings could compare with the misery that the Government are creating for some British families. I hope that they will revoke the order, because it is targeting the wrong people. It must be scrapped because, otherwise, people will live in abject poverty. We must also consider restructuring the whole benefit system, otherwise we will have not only a two-tier health service, but a two-tier wealth service, which will tear the country apart.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: This—and any—debate on public spending must start from the basic proposition: what can the country afford? After all, every penny that is paid in benefit ultimately comes out of the taxpayer's pocket. We have been able to uprate these benefits fully against inflation because the economy is being run properly. A large amount of money—£.1.5 billion—is involved. In no shape or form is that a small or trifling sum; yet as the economy is being run properly, by the end of this century about £8.5 billion less than had been anticipated will be spent. That is the effect of the recovery which has resulted from the Government's policy.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) said, the sums involved are so huge that one can hardly get a grip on them until one bears in mind that they represent £15 for every working person for every working day. The fact that the country can afford largesse on that scale, paid for by the taxpayer, is a remarkable achievement and it is due in no small measure to the Government's actions. Some people look across the channel—although I do not—harking to the European model and thinking that things might be better over there. It is significant that in the past two years Germany has had to restrict the uprating of benefits to 2 per cent. No pretension exists there that it would be possible to link benefits to the inflation level.
  The Government's record speaks for itself. These uprating orders speak for themselves and they are a remarkable achievement. In a sense, the debate need go no further than that. One might honestly have wondered why the orders could not simply have gone through on the nod, perhaps with just a short speech or two to compliment the Government on their achievement. That would have been a waste of an opportunity. After about 14 years in the House, I still retain a complete lack of cynicism. I thought that we knew where the Government stood on this, but that it would be a useful and fair opportunity to hear what the Labour party would do to improve the position. The debate would even give it the opportunity to say, "Thank you and sorry". I thought that we could come along and hear what Labour's alternatives are.
  It may be the passing of the years and defects in hearing, which can affect us all, but I did not hear anything from the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, to give me the merest hint of what we might expect from a Labour Government. One must go back into history to the last Labour Government to get any clue about what might be in store. Let us consider what might be in store in terms of public expenditure and on the basis of the model of the last Labour Government. It was not a question of coming to the House in a calm and moderate way and saying, "These are the things that we can afford.

  885
  We can afford uprating in accordance with the level of inflation". Oh no, there was a telephone call from the International Monetary Fund calling the Chancellor of the Exchequer back from an airport. That is the way things were done in the old days.
  Anyone who doubts that can refresh their memory by reading the Rowntree report which, as we heard again from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, is not particularly perfect but which reminds us that the wages of the lowest-paid men fell between 1975 and 1978 and that it was only under a Conservative Government that in due course their wages increased. That fall did not occur because of a defect of compassion among Labour members or because they were insouciant. They were simply incompetent: they could not run an economy capable of generating the tax revenue which turns compassion into something realistic and tangible.
  The Labour party's policy on benefit is a bit like its policy on interest rates. That is the nearest that one can get to a definition of it. Whatever interest rates are at any given time, the Labour party says that they should be 2 per cent. lower. On benefits it says, "We are not quite sure what our policy is, but whatever it is it will be better than that of the Conservative party."
  When the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was given the opportunity to talk about this, he said in the New Statesman and Society of 15 July 1994:
  "I do not think it is sensible for Labour to write tax and spending policies now."
  Really? It might not be sensible to give them in detail, but perhaps just a little hint, a taster or an indication of what might be on offer should be given. The only indication that I have been able to find is an apparent commitment that the upper rate of tax might go up to 50 per cent. So far so good. Is that an aspect of compassion? Not really. The figures have been quoted time and again.
  The figures were revealed first by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who does know something about social security matters. In 1986, he was the first to table a parliamentary question which revealed that when tax rates are reduced the total amount of tax paid to the Exchequer by the richest people in the land increases. So if one is in the business of generating more tax income to spend on people who should benefit, one achieves that by lower and not higher tax rates. The one piece of policy that I have been able to glean from the Labour party—that the upper rate of tax might go up to 50 per cent.—will satisfy the neo-Stalinist tendency in the Labour party, but it will not produce any more money. An opportunity has been lost today to find out the Labour party's attitude to that.
  What are people looking for in the orders? First, they are looking for a sense of fairness. The point about the habitual residence qualification has been referred to on a number of occasions. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Withington and responded to him in the most charming way. I asked whether he would revoke the order. When I saw that he was running out of time, I thought that I had to help him and that he should not run of time without answering that question. In my usual kind-hearted way, I stood up and reminded the hon. Gentleman that time was running short and that he would have to answer that question—but he did not do so. In the
  886
  end, the closest he could get to an answer was to say that he was very unhappy about the definition of the order, but he was not quite sure whether he would revoke it or not.
  For a legislator to complain about a lack of definition to get out of answering a straight question is intellectually dishonest. We can always change the definitions in the House. We needed to hear from the Labour party today whether it had a contribution to make to changing the definition, which preserves the principle of a habitual residence qualification.
  I know the vice at which the order is being aimed, and so do my constituents. I find it bizarre to hear Opposition Members say that the present definition is so unfair. I will tell hon. Members some of the criteria that are brought into play in deciding whether a person has a habitual residence qualification. I will cite just three. The criteria include showing a genuine commitment to living and working in the United Kingdom, a previous record of work or contributions to the UK, and answering questions such as why they came to the UK, whether they have a home elsewhere, and what their intentions are as to residence.
  There does not seem to be anything too draconian in those criteria. There is ample opportunity to say, "I was born in this country and I was working here. Then I went abroad, but I had a family crisis over there and the job fell through, so here I am back in this country."
  Ms Lynne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will not give way because time is short.
  The possibility exists within those definitions to produce a sense of fairness. If something else is necessary in the light of experience of Conservative and perhaps Labour members, let the definition be considered again. But the concerns of my constituents about benefit tourism will not be answered by the Labour party turning around and saying either, "We simply do not agree with the concept" or, "We cannot quite bring ourselves to do that, so we shall carp endlessly about the definition without saying whether we intend to revoke the order or not."
  Any system of benefits and the acceptance of these orders rely on the support of and acceptance by the taxpayer that the Government are properly disbursing the money that the taxpayer contributes. It is directly relevant to consider cases such as the one mentioned in the House some two weeks ago involving the famous Watters family with five children and receiving the equivalent in benefits of £25,000 in pre-tax income. That has done incredible damage to acceptance of the social security system. It is difficult to exaggerate the effect that that has on traditional family views. People in the neighbourhood say to themselves, "I could not begin to earn half that amount, but if I was on benefit I could." That causes outrage among the public and must be dealt with.
  If any Members are in doubt about the way in which the benefits system is sometimes seen by ordinary members of the public, they could do no better than consider a letter that I have received today from a pensioner in Plympton, which is not in my constituency—[Interruption.] Interestingly, the person concerned wrote to me with this debate in mind. I shall not quote the whole letter, although it would certainly bear quotation. It says:
  "It is very disturbing that whilst extra charges and taxes can be imposed on us so easily, there is no … correction made to the reckless and unjustifiable distribution of taxpayers' money. The

  887
  various agencies are given more and more, flout the principles of the guidelines under which they are supposed to work, take more and more for their own benefit and look for bizarre ways of spending—such as six 'helpers' taking one offender on holiday, sending criminals on safari trips—again with an adequate number of minders. Every day one can read in the papers about the squandering of money on legal aid. Politicians agree it is wrong, taxpayers are appalled but nothing is done to stop it." [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There are too many seated interventions. If the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is hoping to catch my eye later, I hope that he will bear in mind my dislike of such interventions.
  Mr. Nicholls: We must address the fact that people in this country feel that those are considerations which sometimes influence our debate a great deal more than they should. In the end, whether we like it or not, the benefits of which the House disposes are paid for by people who overwhelmingly are basic rate taxpayers. The money has to come from their pockets. If the benefits system is to be credible, the middle classes must believe that it is running properly and that it is looking after those who cannot look after themselves.
  We can compare the contributions that we have heard today from Opposition Members with the measured way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to introduce these upratings. If the middle classes want to know that they have a Government capable of working out what the country can afford and focusing funds on those on whom they should be focused, there is no doubt that they should hope for the continuation of a Conservative regime and not what has been represented from the Opposition Benches.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: There is an air of unreality about the debate. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) was carrying on as though those living on benefits were living the life of Riley. He totally ignored the fact that he has been loyally. if not slavishly, supporting a Government who for the past 15 years have presided over an increase in the wealth of the richest 10 per cent. by about 62 per cent., a decrease in the living standards of the poorest 10 per cent. by at least 17 per cent., an increase in homelessness, an increase in the number living on below average earnings from 5 million to 14 million, an increase in the number of children living in poverty households from 1.4 million to more than 4 million while at the same time the Government have been selling off all our publicly owned utilities at knock-down prices—giving them away—encouraging shareholders to make a great deal of money out of them initially and allowing chief executives to have take-home pay of hundreds of thousands of pounds per year. The Government have created the misery, divisions and horrors that exist in our society today.
  These orders simply confirm the trend that has gone on for the past 15 years. The Government talk as if they are handing out gifts to the poorest people in our society. In fact, they have presided over a reduction in wage levels for the poorest and an increase in salaries for the very richest. They talk as though pensions were the greatest burden on our society. They should take a look around and meet those struggling to survive on the state pension and any other state benefits to which they are entitled, particularly older women pensioners who have no access
  888
  to an occupational pension scheme, no access to any savings and who rely on the pension, income support and housing benefit to get by.
  The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) has, gladly, left us. He said that we should take into account all the other benefits to which people are entitled, such as the public transport subsidy. The very poorest cannot even afford the subsidised bus fares that are on offer. Before Conservative Members start to talk, as they do, about the use of the national health service and other things, they should study the reports and see who gains the most from the NHS and who gains the most from the state education system. It tends to be the most articulate middle classes in our community rather than the very poorest who do best out of those services. Those issues need to be addressed.
  Conservative Members talk about the need to curtail and control housing benefit expenditure. I can provide a simple answer as to why housing benefit expenditure has increased. There are two reasons: first, unemployment has increased, so eligibility for housing benefit has gone up; secondly, rents have gone sky high, encouraged by a Government hell bent on deregulation. The housing benefit helps not the individual but the landlord, whether it be a private landlord, a housing association or a local authority.
  The Government say that there is the option of private rented accommodation. Last week I was talking to an unemployed man of no fixed abode. He moves from friend to friend and relative to relative, getting a night's kip here and a night's kip there. He cannot get a council house because he is a single person with no dependants. He asked me for advice. I asked him what he had tried and he told me that he had tried everywhere. I said, "What about private rented accommodation? You will get housing benefit to pay for a bedsit or a small flat." He said, "That may be so, but find me a landlord who will let me move in without putting down a deposit of at least a month's rent, if not three month's rent, and who will give me the money for that?" That is the reality of the housing benefit rules.
  Conservative Members decry anyone who looks seriously into the issues of poverty in our society. They decry the Rowntree report and anyone who talks about poverty.
  Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Corbyn: No, there is not enough time.
  The Government decry anyone who tries seriously to examine poverty in Britain. The Government have presided over a massive growth in poverty. They are encouraging and creating poverty in our society. Then they claim that unemployment is falling and that everyone is better off. It is true that the unemployment figures indicate that it is falling, but it is also true that the number of people denied benefit is increasing and the number of people living with no real support is increasing very rapidly.
  The debate should be much longer because this is an important and serious subject. The central thrust of the Government's intentions is to reduce the overall cost of social security. They are trying to do it by privatisation and by decreasing the level of the state pension so that people in middle age are forced to take out a portable private pension scheme, however insecure that might be,

  889
  so as to provide something for themselves when they reach retirement age. To create that false market for the private pension scheme—the Secretary of State admitted it to the Select Committee—they are subsidising the national insurance fund. The Government are prepared to back up private investment and to create this false market while doing nothing about the serious problems of the waste of human resources, human life and human expectations as a result of the increase in poverty in Britain.
  We need an attack on poverty in Britain. We need a real welfare state. Our welfare state is not safe in the hands of the ideological monsters on the Government Benches who are hell bent on destroying it.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I take up a point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Nobody would wish to quarrel with the objective of seeking policies that are designed to tackle problems of poverty. The important difference between us is that Conservatives believe that such policies need to be based on a thorough analysis of where those problems derive from, how they can be tackled effectively and at what cost and from whom such costs should be met.
  I want to raise a point of detail as well as some more general points of principle. That point is the cash limit placed on funeral expenses, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). I understand and support the reasons behind the change in the Government's policy, but I bring to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends the concern of some funeral directors that increased church fees for ecclesiastical funerals may, in some circumstances, make it difficult for them to meet the cap imposed by the Department of Social Security. There are always difficulties in deciding whether a system should be discretionary or based on a formula, but I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will bear that point in mind.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) talked in some detail about the demographic and social changes that will shape the debate about social security over the next couple of decades. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester alluded to the continuing cost of social security. We are talking about a system where expenditure has increased sevenfold since the initiation of the welfare state in the late 1940s and early 1950s. If one tracks through recent Treasury Red Books the underlying pattern of non-cyclical social security expenditure, one sees a continuing upward pattern—£49 billion in 1989–90, just over £70 billion in the current financial year and an estimate of £79.5 billion in 1997–98.
  I welcome the news from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the projected growth in non-cyclical underlying spending is to be reduced, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester pointed out, underlying growth of 2.1 per cent. year on year rests on the ability of our economy to generate the wealth which is needed to pay for that increase. It is in that context that we have to take account of the demographic changes—the growing number of elderly people relative to a shrinking
  890
  population at working age and the changes in family structure—which affect levels of income support, family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit.
  Obviously, the most important way in which to cut social security spending is to encourage employment. I am less cynical than the hon. Member for Islington, North about progress in that direction. I particularly welcome the elements in my right hon. Friend's package of measures which are designed to encourage people to go back to work, such as the back-to-work bonus, cuts in employers' national insurance contributions and changes to the regulations which make it easier for an unemployed person to try a new form of employment without necessarily putting at risk his future entitlement to benefit if that trial employment does not work out. I welcome those measures and would like such efforts to continue.
  The relationship between family policy and the social security system is worth several days' debate in its own right. All I would say is that it is not a problem that we alone confront. The Germans, for example, require adult children to contribute towards the upkeep of very elderly relatives who require residential care. The Government cannot be indifferent to the costs which broken relationships and broken families force on the benefit system. In their differing ways, the most recent report of the Rowntree trust, the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Archbishop of York have all said that we must look carefully at the impact of tax and the benefit system on family life. As a country, we must get the balance right between family responsibility and state responsibility. That objective admirably suits the political approach of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I am once again appalled that further poverty is being inflicted on our folk, although I welcome the meagre increases that the Minister has announced. Those increases do not, however, go far enough and do not deal with the tragic poverty and suffering in Britain. I was amazed that the Minister capped the funeral benefit at £875, when the professionals are clearly telling him that £1,200 is needed for a poverty funeral. Let us be honest. We will be talking about bin-bag burials in Britain if the Government continue their policy. They are not listening to the people who perform the burials. What a tragic situation we have in Britain when people in poverty cannot bury their folk with dignity. A wee bit of support from the Government should be encouraged. Yes, Minister, I believe that you are creating a bin-bag burial policy—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has again forgotten that he needs to address me rather than the Minister directly.
  Mr. Graham: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to make a fast speech.
  The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) mentioned housing benefit. Yes, it has trebled—but why? It has trebled because rents have increased in Britain and in Scotland, especially under the quango Scottish Homes run by this Government, which has constantly increased its rent every year by 10 per cent. or four times the rate of inflation. Indeed, it has increased its rent by three times the rate of inflation this year. Housing benefit has gone through the roof because the Government do not have a

  891
  decent housing policy that gives folk with low incomes the right to a reasonable living standard, a home and a roof. Housing benefit has tripled because of the Government's bad housing policy.
  If the Minister goes about Britain, he will see car boot sales and thank God for them because they provide many goods at low cost which the Government's policies do not allow folk to purchase in the shops. Car boot sales provide one of the best social benefits that this country has seen for many years. Who would have believed that? That is the economy that the Government are forcing on the people of Great Britain.
  An article in the Evening Times describes Britain as
  "A land fit for Dinkies".
  When I was a kid, dinkies were motor cars but, in this case, they are people who survive only if they have a double income and no kids. The article also says that even Spain is no longer taking people from Britain who have a basic pension because they are too poor.
  The article points out the social benefit protection per head in Luxembourg, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, France, Belgium, Italy, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece. Does the Minister know where we come on that list? We come seventh. It is unbelievable that the great, wealthy nation of Great Britain has lowered its people to a basic income that is seven times lower than that in many other countries. Let us take the highest figure. Benefits in Luxembourg are £5,000 per head. What does Britain provide? Its figure is £3,163.
  The Government are pathetic. In no way are they looking after the needs of the people whom they have made poor. They have done nothing to help the low-paid climb to the upper echelons of living standards—a rightly deserved move. They have allowed themselves to be driven by a low-wage economy. It is time that the Government supported the social chapter in Europe. That is the way forward to ensure that our folk have a decent, basic, minimum wage, with which they can hold their heads up high and pay for their purchases, as we are all entitled to do. Once again, the Minister has got it wrong. He is well-known as the Minister of misery.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Bradley: It has been a thoughtful and, at times, fiery debate, if all too short. I shall be brief because I spoke for a considerable time when I opened the debate and I want to give as much time as possible to the Minister so that he may respond to the many questions raised.
  I commend one or two speeches, especially the thoughtful—as always—speech made by the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). I was disappointed with his conclusion on the introduction of incapacity benefit. In Committee, I thought that he was moving the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill through the House with a heavy heart. Clearly, I misinterpreted that—the right hon. Gentleman is now fully signed up to its implications. I shall watch with interest when those implications come to fruition.
  I hope that the Minister will consider in some detail the many cases of genuine concern that hon. Members have brought to the attention of the House, which cannot be
  892
  described as benefit tourism, to ensure that, as there is no definition of the habitual residence test, the interpretation of the criteria does not in any way undermine claimants.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made his usual interesting speech. I thought that it was a bit rich for him to commend the Government on efficiency when, in one day, they spent more than £7 billion on the debacle of the exchange rate mechanism. The Labour party will clearly be voting to revoke the habitual residence test
  Will the Minister specifically consider the issues that I raised on uprating, especially the compensation recovery unit, and the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members from all parties about the social fund and funeral costs? Most importantly, I hope that the Minister will give us all the details that we are seeking about how the habitual residence test is operating in practice. How many people have been refused? How many of those who have been refused have appealed? How many appeals have been successful? What has been the administration cost of the habitual residence test? What has been the net saving through the denial of income support as compared with the cost of administration of the habitual residence test?
  Until we have those assurances, that information and the information that we seek consistently through parliamentary questions, so as to discover what is happening in the real world, from which in many ways the Secretary of State's contribution today seemed remote, we shall continue to vote against the orders on the habitual residence test.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I am afraid that several questions will remain unanswered this evening because I do not have much time to respond to the debate. I shall try to write to hon. Members in respect of any questions that remain outstanding.
  It is the custom to say that a debate has been interesting. In this case, that is perfectly true. We have been sitting on the edges of our seats waiting to hear what the Labour party would propose instead of the uprating orders. Sadly, we were deafened by silence.
  In that regard, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made a telling point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), in a deeply considered and compassionate analysis of the problems that we face, also made the point in a way that left the Labour party more silent than it normally is. Would Labour reverse our mortgage interest provisions? The answer was silence. Would Labour reverse our changes to housing benefit? The answer was more silence.
  For such a talkative Opposition, they have very little to say when it really matters. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) asked me about uprating, and referred to statutory maternity pay. He was right to say that it is not being uprated in April; that is because it was uprated last October by 7.5 per cent. However, he was silent about what he would do about it. He was asked whether, if he were in power, he would have uprated those payments. We shall never know the answer.
  The hon. Member for Withington made several other points, one of which was about non-dependant deductions. He suggested that they were too high. It is reasonable to

  893
  expect the highest earning adult non-dependants to make a significant contribution towards their housing costs. Even so, the highest non-dependant deduction of £30 is a lot less than the average market rent and the council tax that he or she could expect to pay if living as a tenant elsewhere.
  There were other interesting contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) made several points. She said that pensions had not kept pace with inflation. They have. She said that there should not be a reduction in the Treasury top-up to the national insurance fund. However, the point is that national insurance contributions are not going up this year, contrary to what the hon. Lady said. Employers' contributions are going down and the economy is improving. That is why more people are in work and earning more. That means more income to the fund from national insurance contributions.
  We are here today to ratify the orders which will give effect to another full benefits uprating. Our approach is to use the taxpayers' money in the most effective way. That means targeting on the people who need most help; for example, the extra £1.2 billion a year since 1988 to poorer pensioners. That gave rise to the very important point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff)—that targeting can be resented by those who have just missed being in the target group. That problem is inherent in any benefit system unless we pay benefits to everyone. The key point is to improve pensioners' income overall, and that is happening dramatically under this Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made a very good point about the size of social security spending which takes up one eighth of gross domestic product. As a result of our reforms, we expect that to reduce over the longer term and that is being achieved in large part by the reduction that we have already seen through tighter control of abuse in the benefits system, by bearing down on fraud in respect of incapacity and sickness benefits.
  I want now to deal with the Opposition motion to revoke the habitual residence test. Britain's reputation among young Europeans is one of a good place to spend a summer holiday. How right they are. We welcome each and every one of them, but we ask that they pay their way. The Department's postbag from the British public was sending a very strong message indeed. The public are simply not prepared to support people who have no connection with, or commitment to, this country.
  In that regard, I am thinking of the 36-year-old German woman who, in her first visit to this country, arrived in the United Kingdom on 16 January to look for work. She says that she was told in Germany that she should be able to claim benefits. Opposition Members have made great play of the plight of British citizens denied benefit because they could not fulfil the conditions of the test. The reality is rather different. In reality, they are strangers to the United Kingdom and certainly strangers to pay-as-you-earn.
  Take, for example, the 28-year-old woman, who has lived in Nigeria for the past 20 years and had a job there until leaving for the United Kingdom. She has an eight-month-old child. She has left her husband who remains in Nigeria. Or one can take the 22-year-old
  894
  Canadian-born woman, of British parentage, visiting Edinburgh with the intention of then backpacking around Europe—
  Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: No, I do not have time.
  They are very welcome, but not at our expense. The hon. Members for Withington and for Rochdale made play of the fact that a different test was rejected by the Prime Minister in 1986. That test applied after only 12 months and it was a test which would have been in breach of European Community law.
  Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister give way now?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: No, the hon. Gentleman has had two goes. I am trying to fit everything into the 10 minutes left to me.
  The test rejected by the Prime Minister in 1986 was rightly rejected for those reasons. Our test limits benefits to those people with a definite commitment to living and working in this country. In that respect, we have come into line with other European countries.
  Mr. Bradley: Give way.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I have made it plain that I am not going to give way.
  We have removed a burden from the British taxpayer. Taxpayers will not have to subsidise people who have no close ties with the United Kingdom and who have not made a recent financial contribution to the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Withington is trying to ask me questions from a sedentary position. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge pointed out, his position on that measure was nothing short of extraordinary. In one and the same breath he seemed to support it, to want to review it and to want to revoke it.
  In the face of our well thought out and positive measures, let us consider what is on offer from the Labour party. Those who voted for Labour at the last election will be sadly disappointed by what they have heard today. The Labour party manifesto promised that Labour would uprate the pension in line with prices, but we heard not a squeak about that today. How timid the Labour party has become.
  In a television interview a few days ago, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) tried to be brave. He said:
  "I think that the present level of income support is inadequate."
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked whether, if Labour were in power, the hon. Member for Garscadden would raise it, the hon. Gentleman did a three-point turn. He said, "No, no, no." That was quicker than Labour's U-turn on education policies because at least Labour's education policies lasted a full day; this one hardly lasted full minute. We know why the Labour party refuses to produce any policies; it is because Labour policies always cost vast amounts of other people's money. Labour spokesmen are aware that if they say anything at all their words will be costed, so they have spent the entire debate saying nothing, at great length.
  The Labour party set up a Commission on Social Justice, but it is scared to accept the £7 billion price tag. Now Labour Members will have to make a decision. It will be hard for them but they must have a go. They will

  895
  have to decide whether to vote in favour of more money for pensioners. Many people might think that that. would be an easy decision, but history tells us otherwise. This time last year, Labour Members of Parliament made the historic decision to vote against the pension increase. Will they do that again this year? I would not put anything past them; but I must be fair—not all Labour Members voted against.
  Mr. Bradley indicated assent.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman confirms that. The Labour Front-Bench spokesmen did not vote against the pension increase—because they did not vote at all.
  It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [24 February].
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Willetts]
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1807), dated 7th July 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, in the last session of Parliament, be revoked.—[Mr. Bradley.]
  The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 287.

  Division No. 89]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Caborn, Richard

  Ainger, Nick

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Ashton, Joe

  Cann, Jamie

  Austin-Walker, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Battle, John

  Chidgey, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Beckett, Rt: Hon Margaret

  Church, Judith

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Clapham, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Betts, Clive

  Clelland, David

  Blunkett, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Boateng, Paul

  Coffey, Ann

  Boyes, Roland

  Cohen, Harry

  Bradley, Keith

  Connarty, Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

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

  Corbett, Robin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Burden, Richard

  Corston, Jean

  Byers, Stephen

  Cousins, Jim

  896

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jowell, Tessa

  Darling, Alistair

  Keen, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

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

  Wrkwood, Archy

  Denham, John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lewis, Terry

  Dixon, Don

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Frank

  Litheriand, Robert

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dowd, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eastham, Ken

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Etherington, Bill

  Maclennan, Robert

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  MacShane, Denis

  Fatchett, Derek

  Maddock, Diana

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mahon, Alice

  Flynn, Paul

  Mandelson, Peter

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marek,DrJohn

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foulkes, George

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Fraser, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maxton, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  McAllion, John

  Galloway, George

  McCartney, Ian

  Gapes, Mike

  McFall, John

  George, Bruce

  McKelvey, William

  Gerrard, Neil

  McMaster, Gordon

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McWilliam, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Meacher, Michael

  Gordon, Mildred

  Meale, Alan

  Graham, Thomas

  Michael, Alun

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Milburn, Alan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Miller, Andrew

  Gunnel, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hain, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Mike

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hanson, David

  Mortey, Elliot

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Heppell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Home Robertson, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pope, Greg

  Hutton,John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jamieson, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Janner, Greville

  Raynsford, Nick

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Reid, DrJohn

  897

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeok)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rogers, Allan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Turner, Dennis

  Rooney, Terry

  Tyler, Paul

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wallace, James

  Short, Clare

  Wardel, Gareth (Gower)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watson, Mike

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Welsh, Andrew

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

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Soley, Ciive

  Wilson, Brian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wise, Audrey

  Spellar.John

  Worthington, Tony

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mrs. Barbara Roche.

  NOES

  Ainsworlh, Peter (East Surrey)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Colvin, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Congdon, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Conway, Derek

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Ancram, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arbutnnot, James

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkins, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

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

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Day, Stephen

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bates, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bellingharn, Henry

  Dover, Den

  Bendall, Vivian

  Duncan, Alan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dunn, Bob

  Booth, Hartley

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Boswell, Tim

  Elletson, Harold

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evennett, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Faber, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Burns, Simon

  Forman, Nigel

  Burt, Alistair

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Butcher, John

  Forth, Eric

  Butler, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Freeman, Fit Hon Roger

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  French, Douglas

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Cash, William

  Gallie, Phil

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Churchill, Mr

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Clappison, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochfoid)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  898

  Gorst, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Merchant Piers

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Norris, Steve

  Hayes, Jerry

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heald, Oliver

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Page, Richard

  Hggins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Paice, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jessel, Toby

  Robathan, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robertson,Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sackville, Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shersby, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Skeet Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, Sir David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stern, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stewart, Allan

  Mans, Keith

  Streeter, Gary

  Marland, Paul

  Sumberg, David

  Martow, Tony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  899

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Thomason, Roy

  Watts, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Whittingdale, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Trend, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wood, Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walden, George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Ward, John

  Mr. Bowen Wells.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Before we move on to motion Nos. 7 and 8, I must tell the House that Madam Speaker has decided that there should be a limit of 10 minutes on Back-Bench Members' speeches. Although that limit does not apply to the speeches of Front-Bench Members, I hope that they will be distinguished more for their quality than for their quantity.

  Local Government
  7.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I beg to move,
  That the draft North Yorkshire (District of York) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
  That the draft Humberside (Structural Chance) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.
  Mr. Jones: With modifications, the orders implement the recommendations of the Local Government Commission for the future structure of local government in North Yorkshire and Humberside. I hope that it will be helpful to the House if I take the principal issues relating to the orders in the following order: first, details of the proposed new structure in both areas; then boundaries, powers and functions; electoral arrangements; and staffing, planning and ceremonial arrangements.
  From 1 April 1996, the City of York will be a unitary authority on extended boundaries, which will incorporate parts of the districts of Ryedale, Selby and Harrogate. I shall return to the details of the boundary changes in due course. The remainder of the county of North Yorkshire will remain two tier, retaining both district and county councils. On 1 April 1996, the county of Humberside and Humberside county council will be abolished and will be succeeded by four unitary authorities.
  The existing authority of Kingston upon Hull, on its existing boundaries, will be given unitary powers. The existing authorities of Holderness, Beverley, East Yorkshire and the northern part of Boothferry will be abolished and will comprise a single new authority, to be called the East Riding of Yorkshire. The existing authorities of Cleethorpes and Grimsby will be abolished and will comprise a single new unitary authority, to be called North East Lincolnshire. The existing authorities of Glanford and Scunthorpe and that part of Boothferry district south of the northern boundaries of the parishes of Crowle, Eastoft, Luddington, Haldenby and Amcotts will be abolished and will comprise a new unitary authority, to be called North Lincolnshire. That is the area known as the Isle of Axholme.
  As a rule, decisions about where boundaries should be drawn are difficult and provoke strong feelings. Our decisions about the boundaries of York and Hull have not proved to be an exception to that rule. In the case of the City of York, we have accepted the commission's recommendation—with only very minor modifications to exclude five small parishes—that the city's boundaries should be extended to include the York greater planning area. That will substantially increase the area covered by the city, and will increase its population from its existing 101,000 to approximately 167,000.
  In making its recommendations to us, the commission took into account a number of factors, including the ability of a unitary authority to deliver services effectively and efficiently and the need to recognise community identity and the expression of local opinion. It acknowledged that opposition to the extension of the city's boundaries to include the greater planning area was

  901
  strongest in the outlying areas beyond the ring road. The strength of the opposition has also been made clear to us in the many representations that we have received from local residents and their parish councils. Nevertheless, the commission concluded, and we agreed, that the balance of advantage lay with providing an enlarged boundary to enable the new authority to deliver services efficiently and effectively and to adopt a strategic approach to economic development, transportation planning and environmental issues, among other things.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: What reasons did the commission and the Department adduce to show that, if the boundary were merely extended to the ring road, the requirements would not be met?
  Mr. Jones: The trouble with merely extending the boundary to the ring road, as the hon. Gentleman must know, is that that road breaks through about 11 parishes and runs inside the existing city of York. At one point, it would reduce the area of the city and, at other points, it would lead to the fragmentation of communities.
  Mr. Dobson: The Minister's officials have been making the fatuous point that the ring road breaks through certain parishes, but everyone regards it as an approximation of where the boundary ought to be. There is considerably more support—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, there is. There is considerably more support within the ring road for joining York than there is anywhere outside it.
  Mr. Jones: The fragmentation of communities and rural parishes may be a trivial matter to the hon. Gentleman, who represents an entirely urban constituency, but I can assure him that the parishes concerned would not want to be split up. Some of the parishes outside the ring road are the most urban in the Greater York area.
  During the debate on the Avon order, the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson) accused us of proposing boundaries that would
  "leave Bristol 'cabinn'd, cribb'd, confin'd'."—[official Report, 22 February 1995; Vol. 255, c. 410.]
  The city of Bristol covers an area of 10,954 hectares. The existing city of York covers an area of only 2,946 hectares.
  Of course, we have said that we shall ask the commission to reconsider the Bristol boundary. I do not believe that it is necessary for it to look again at the York boundary because our proposals should ensure that the city is not "cabinn'd, cribb'd or confin'd".
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was quoted in the Yorkshire Evening Press recently. An editorial on 24 February 1995 said:
  "It is a rich irony when Labour's shadow Environment Secretary attacks plans for a Greater York authority as a 'political racket'. What else does he think he and his party are engaged in when they oppose it? Labour is not making a principled stand on grounds of whether a Greater York will best serve the people, but on grounds of whether it will best serve Labour and the signs are that it will not."
  I hope, however, that most people will agree with Councillor Gerald Dean, the leader of the York Conservative group, in his letter to the same paper on 14 November 1994, when he said that it was
  902
  "vitally important for all people within the Greater York Planning Area now to become partners in a common endeavour to create the new 'City and County of York' unitary authority to serve efficiently and effectively all the communities throughout the area, and to meet the needs and aspirations of all residents and their families and of future generations to come."
  Following representations made to us by local people and by their Members of Parliament, we agreed to exclude five small parishes on the outer edges of the greater planning area. We were persuaded that the characteristics of those parishes and their relationship to the districts that they are in were such that their exclusion was justified. Cases were made for other parishes to be excluded, but in our view those were not as strong.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Minister specify what those characteristics were in relation to the five parishes that were excluded?
  Mr. Jones: Certainly. Those were predominantly agricultural parishes, which had much less of a link with the city of York in terms of economic dependence and interdependence. Perhaps I may quote the Yorkshire Evening Press again, on the subject of the hon. Gentleman. In its editorial on 17 February it said:
  "Opposition from York Labour MP Hugh Bayley too might well seem to be motivated more by the local party's fears about losing its grip on the City council if the boundaries are pushed out to the strongly Liberal Democrat and Conservative suburbs than by a disinterested appreciation of what York needs … The politicians should pay more attention to the real issue here, which is the need to deliver efficient and cost-effective services to a base of people who are defined as living and working in York."
  I entirely endorse that editorial.
  Mr. John Greenway: On the five parishes, which are all in my constituency, bearing in mind all the allegations about gerrymandering that are flowing back and forth, is not it the case that the removal of those five parishes will make not a scrap of difference to the warding arrangements for the new York authority, and that it will reduce Conservative party chances in the two wards affected?
  Mr. Jones: The change certainly does not make much difference to the warding arrangements. I would not know whether it made any political difference, because I certainly did not consider that.
  We also took the view that if further parishes were removed, with each additional parish that was removed, the case for allowing the city to adopt a strategic approach to planning and service provision would be weakened.
  In the case of Kingston upon Hull, we accepted the commission's recommendation that the unitary authority should be established on the city's existing boundaries. We have, however, decided that—in the light of representations that we received from the city—in due course its boundary with the new East Riding authority should be reviewed. That will not involve major revisions or extensions to the boundary, but will, we hope, sort out a number of small anomalies that exist at the moment.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: In view of the fact that it was considered wise to extend the boundaries of the City of York to include the outlying villages, why was it not also considered wise to extend

  903
  the boundaries of Hull to include the outlying villages, as the majority of the people who live there work in and gain all their benefits from Hull?
  Mr. Jones: Not only did the commission not recommend that, but it noted the opposition of the areas to which the hon. Gentleman is referring to any such proposal.
  There remains one outstanding boundary issue in relation to both the Humberside and the North Yorkshire reviews—the future location of the parishes that form Goole and rural Goole. The commission had recommended that Goole and its hinterland should, with the districts of Craven, Harrogate and Selby, form a unitary authority to be called the West Riding (Dales and Vale) of Yorkshire. We rejected that recommendation because we believed that it failed to take account of community identity.
  As a modification, our preferred option was to combine Goole with Selby as a new district in North Yorkshire, but in the light of the representations that we received and to enable the full range of options for the future of Goole to be considered, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will next week direct the commission to undertake a boundary review between the districts of Boothferry, Selby, Glanford and Doncaster, in relation to the parishes that form Goole and rural Goole. The commission will be asked—taking into account the structural arrangements that the orders will produce if they are approved—to recommend whether those parishes should remain with Boothferry, transfer to one of the other authorities, be divided between them, or be established as a district council in its own right in a two-tier North Yorkshire.
  The commission will be asked to give priority to that review and to submit its recommendations to us as swiftly as possible.
  Mr. John Townend: My hon. Friend appreciates the great pleasure that the end of Humberside and the return of our beloved East Riding gives those of us who come from that part of the country, but there is considerable opposition to the last-minute change of view—the decision to put Goole, in the first instance, in with the East Riding of Yorkshire. There is no historical connection or commonality of interest. We welcome the proposal that that decision should be reconsidered and, on behalf of the people of east Yorkshire, I ask that that be done as quickly as possible, so that all the administrative changes caused by reorganisation do not go too far along the line before a decision is made.
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned for the abolition of Humberside for a very long time. I am delighted that we are honouring that in the order. On the Goole issue, we shall of course ask the commission to deal with the matter as speedily as possible because of the uncertainty, not merely for planning but for staff. It is very much our view that it should be dealt with speedily and I hope that my hon. Friend and others who feel the same way will make their views known to the commission.
  Mr. John Sykes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) made an interesting argument. Many of us are delighted today at
  904
  the prospect of walking through the Lobby in support of abolishing Humberside. Goole does not belong to Yorkshire, and never did for 1,000 years.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Mind your own business.
  Mr. Sykes: Goole never belonged to Humberside. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is a carpetbagger. He is not from Grimsby; he is not from Goole. He ought to know better.
  Goole was never part of Yorkshire, and today many people will rejoice in the fact that Yorkshire will once again stretch from the Humber to the Tees, as it did for 1,000 years.
  Mr. Jones: I do not know what Goole has done to upset my hon. Friend, but I can tell him that Goole was in the old West Riding of Yorkshire.
  Once the orders are made, all the authorities in Humberside and the authorities affected by the changes in North Yorkshire will have extra duties and powers to prepare for the reorganisation. They will each be under a duty to co-operate in implementing change. Unitary authorities will have access to the information that they need.
  Once the councils for the unitary authorities have been elected, they will have further powers to make the necessary preparations, including setting budgets and recruiting staff for the functions for which they will assume responsibility on 1 April 1996. They will be required to consider whether any of their new functions would best be discharged through joint arrangements with other authorities. Taken together, we believe that those provisions will ensure a smooth transition to the new structure, while providing proper safeguards for essential services.
  In the absence of clear agreement between the authorities in Humberside, we have decided that the superannuation fund maintained by the county council should be vested in the council of the East Riding of Yorkshire. We believe that that will cause the least disruption to the management of the fund and the least inconvenience to its pensioners. The East Riding authority is expected to locate its headquarters in Beverley, where the county's mainframe computer and other systems and communication links and databases are located.
  We believe that authorities that are to be given unitary status should be given a fresh democratic mandate. There will therefore be whole council elections to the four unitary authorities in Humberside and to the new City of York authority, in May this year.
  In future, with the exception of Hull, all the unitary authorities will hold whole council elections every four years. If they wish to apply to the Secretary of State to change to a system of elections by thirds, they may do so following the passing of a resolution by the whole council, passed by not less than two thirds of the members.
  Hull will return to its current arrangement of elections by thirds from 1997. That follows the city's representations that it wished to retain elections by thirds and that it did not wish to have elections in the year immediately after reorganisation. We agree that that is a sensible arrangement and have made similar provision in Bristol.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: It would be sensible to increase the number of councillors to four councillors per ward, at

  905
  least in the North East Lincolnshire authority. It would also be sensible to hold elections annually—or at least more regularly than the Local Government Commission proposed. The commission said that that matter would be reviewed after five years. When will the Minister entertain an application to review the number of councillors and the frequency of elections?
  Mr. Jones: We have always adopted the opinion that we do not wish to lay down a specific rule and that it is for the local authorities concerned to decide whether they hold elections by thirds or all-out elections. The commission will carry out a review of ward boundaries, but naturally its priority must be areas where there are the most inequities between the present elector-councillor ratios. I shall discuss that in relation to Glanford and Scunthorpe specifically in a moment.
  With the exception of minor changes that we have made to accommodate leaving Goole in Boothferry while it is being re-reviewed, warding arrangements for the new authorities are as recommended by the commission.
  I have received representations from a number of the Humberside authorities that those warding arrangements are unsatisfactory and that the councillor-elector ratio recommended by the commission is inadequate. Specifically, I know that Glanford and Scunthorpe districts feel strongly about the issue. However, we have made it clear that, other than where the arrangements are technically incorrect, or where, as in the case of Boothferry, they need to be changed to reflect modifications that we have made to the commission's structural recommendations, we shall not modify the commission's recommendations for electoral arrangements without first referring them back to the commission to consider any new evidence that we have received.
  On the basis of the representations that we had received, we did not consider that it was necessary to refer the recommendations back to the commission, because that would have put at risk the timetable for holding the elections to the new authorities and would have prolonged the uncertainty. We have said, however, that we shall consider asking the commission to undertake an early electoral review of authorities where there is pressure for that and it appears to be necessary, for example, for the districts affected by the York extension.
  We acknowledge that staff at all levels will have a crucial role to play in implementing change and ensuring that the new structures work successfully. Most staff—we estimate at least 90 per cent.—will simply end up working for the successor authorities. The majority—the front-line service providers such as teachers and care workers—will transfer by statutory transfer order, ensuring continued provision of essential services from day one of reorganisation. Others will secure posts through open competition if the post is new, or prior consideration in which competition is limited to those in the outgoing and continuing authorities concerned.
  We recognise that there may be redundancies. Local government reorganisation is intended, among other things, to achieve greater efficiency and long-term savings in the cost of providing services, and inevitably there will be some effect on staffing structures. The changing role of local government is bound to have implications for the
  906
  skills and numbers of the local authority work force, whether there is structural change or not. Ultimately, it will be for the authorities to decide on their new staffing structures and how to fill them, taking account of the available resources and the need to ensure continued provision of services.
  We have recently announced new measures for those who are redundant as a result of local government reorganisation. We are also consulting on a possible scheme for detriment compensation for those who take a drop in salary as a result.
  As unitary authorities, the new York district council and the four Humberside district councils will be responsible for both strategic and local land use planning in their areas. We are determined that there should be adequate arrangements for strategic planning in areas affected by reorganisation.
  Reflecting its recommendations for structural changes, the commission recommended that the authorities for the area north of the Humber should work jointly on a structure plan for their combined areas. It made a similar recommendation for the authorities in the area between the Humber and the Wash. However, as a result of the modifications that we have made to the commission's structural recommendations, we have also needed to modify its recommendations for planning arrangements.
  Therefore, having considered representations from the local authorities and other organisations, we have concluded that the most satisfactory grouping of authorities for joint structure plan purposes would be the new York unitary authority working with North Yorkshire county council; the new East Riding of Yorkshire unitary authority working with Kingston upon Hull city council; and the new North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire unitary authorities working with Lincolnshire county council.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: The Minister must be aware that there is grave concern that that decision is a departure from the Local Government Commission's original recommendation that structural planning in Humberside should be estuary-wide. As someone who once chaired the Environment Select Committee and considered coastal zone policy, I am sure that the Minister would recommend from his own Committee reports that there is a great deal more logic in having structural planning embracing an estuary in terms of industry, conservation and management than in breaking it in two, as in his recommendations. Where is the logic in those recommendations?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I said to my officials, "If the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) is there, he will mention estuarial planning," because he and I have a long history of interest in that subject.
  Apart from the regional guidance element, there is a duty for neighbouring structure plan authorities to consult, and we intend to ensure that that works to deliver the cross-estuarial co-operation that is necessary for those issues, while retaining the relationship between the North Lincolnshire authorities and Lincolnshire county council for issues that go wider than that. I am sure that the hon.

  907
  Gentleman recognises that the area south of Cleethorpes, for example, has links with the rest of Lincolnshire to the south.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Presumably, those estuarial matters can be arranged through the Humberside Forum. When the Minister refers to working with Lincolnshire, what does "working with" mean?
  Mr. Jones: As I explained to the hon. Gentleman, the authorities will have a duty to prepare their structure plans together, so obviously it is something that reflects the cross-boundary planning issues. We believe that voluntary arrangements for joint working in those groupings will achieve the desired results.
  The draft orders transfer the counties' strategic planning responsibilities for the areas concerned to the new unitary authorities. Each authority will also be responsible for maintaining a local plan for its area. We look to the relevant authorities in North Yorkshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire to make the necessary voluntary arrangements for joint working on the structure plan for their respective groupings. Voluntary joint working arrangements are more accountable locally than the statutory joint authorities, which it would become necessary for us to impose if such voluntary arrangements were to fail.
  The orders do not provide for ceremonial arrangements. Separate provision will be made for that in regulations. However, it may be helpful to the House if I briefly explain the arrangements that we propose to put in place. In the case of North Yorkshire, the City of York will be deemed to be part of the county of North Yorkshire for ceremonial and related purposes. It will therefore have the same lord lieutenant and high sheriff as the county.
  I take this opportunity to reassure people who have expressed concern about York losing its city status. That will not happen. It would be foolish and contrary to everything that we seek to achieve by our reorganisation of local government. Before the existing authority is abolished, we shall make specific provision for the continuation of the city's status and privileges. We are discussing with the Home Office and Privy Council the most expedient way of doing that. Whatever we decide, the city will continue to be a city and it will continue to have a lord mayor.
  Mr. Bayley: The Minister specifically mentioned the lord mayor of York. Will York retain its sheriff?
  Mr. Jones: Yes. I shall get back to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong.
  As Humberside is to be abolished, its lord lieutenant and high sheriff will also be abolished. Instead, north of the Humber we intend to provide for both a lord lieutenant and a high sheriff of the county of the East Riding of Yorkshire. For ceremonial and related purposes, Hull will be deemed to be part of that county and will therefore have the same lord lieutenant and sheriff. South of the Humber, we propose that the North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire unitary authorities should be deemed, for ceremonial purposes, to be part of the county of Lincolnshire and to have the same lord lieutenant and high sheriff.
  908
  The Yorkshire museum has mounted a very professional campaign not to be transferred from the county council to the City of York. However, as with other property within the new York district area, the museum will pass to the city under the regulations for the transfer of assets and liabilities. The museum is a charitable trust and the terms of the trust state that the beneficial area of that trust is the city of York. As a consequence, the museum and its gardens must transfer to the City of York on reorganisation. I hope that the House agrees that, if we are to entrust the City of York with responsibility for education and social services, it would be faintly ludicrous to say that it could not be trusted to run a museum. We are, however, aware of local concern that the museum should continue to play a role as an institution serving the areas of both North Yorkshire county council and the new City of York council, and we expect the authorities to co-operate in safeguarding that role.
  I believe that the changes for which the orders provide will create more comprehensible, and consequently more accountable, local government in the areas that they affect. The abolition of Humberside and the restoration of individual and independent cities of York and Kingston upon Hull will be welcomed, as will the restoration of the East Riding to Yorkshire. I commend the orders to the House.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Tonight we are discussing two orders. Both put asunder what the Heath Government joined together. The first breaks Humberside county into unitary authorities, as recommended by the Local Government Commission for England. The second, contrary to the commission's recommendations, does not break up the North Yorkshire county council into unitary authorities but confers unitary status on York—but York with different boundaries. Nothing could better demonstrate the inconsistency and political prejudice that have characterised the reorganisation of local government. It shows yet again that the Government are motivated largely by malice against Labour councils.
  Mr. David Rendel: The Government are motivated by malice not just against Labour councils but against local authorities in general.
  Mr. Dobson: I think that there are degrees of malice.
  Humberside has usually been controlled by Labour, at least when it was not led by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) who, as soon as he stopped being leader, decided that he wanted to abolish it. It will be broken up, whereas North Yorkshire county council, which, in normal circumstances has been Tory controlled, will not be broken up. York will be separated out, with boundaries which do not make sense and which practically no one supports.
  Mr. John Townend: The hon. Gentleman talks about the political bias of the proposals. Is he aware that Hull district council, which has been Labour controlled ever

  909
  since I can remember, except for two years, strongly favours doing away with Humberside and getting back unitary powers for the city and county of Hull?
  Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but we cannot have one intervention upon another.
  Mr. Dobson: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have never been beset in that way before. In a moment, I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bridlington.
  Mr. McNamara: Further to what my hon. Friend said about the record of the hon. Member for Bridlington, is he aware that, for a brief moment, the hon. Gentleman also led Hull city council? Thereafter, we went from strength to strength and now only one member of his party is there.
  Mr. Dobson: Gloating is contrary to my nature.
  Mr. John Townend: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I point out that that statement is incorrect? I was chairman of the finance committee of Hull council, but never leader.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Dobson: I am glad that I did not gloat.
  All that is a product of the deliberations of the Local Government Commission and the Secretary of State, who was supposed to be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. I must say that it was much more quasi that judicial. The break-up of Humberside gives independence back to the city of Kingston upon Hull—not before time. It should never have been taken away from Hull in the first place by a previous Tory Government. Hull city council would rather have wider boundaries. There is considerable support, not just within the Labour party in Hull, for Hull to have wider boundaries. Even the commission recognised that wider boundaries would have made more sense. They said that they recognised the merits of the argument but decided that the proposition was not popular, so did not recommend it.
  If Tory Members think that this matter has been and gone and Hull could never be extended, I remind them that, on 25 October 1994, the Secretary of State did not rule out the extension of Hull's boundaries but said that, in due course, he proposed to direct the Commission to review the boundaries between East Yorkshire and Hull. Those who think that they have won that argument may find that they have not. We are asked tonight to decide boundaries which the Secretary of State proposes setting aside as soon as we have set them in place.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: There are clearly examples in Hull and the neighbouring authorities where houses or streets are divided by boundaries, and it is perfectly sensible to review those boundaries. Given the time scale, it is simply not possible for the commission to review them before the order is, I hope, passed by the House this evening. But that is what the Secretary of State will ask the commission to review and it is a matter of common sense.
  Mr. Dobson: We do not know the time scale or whether the adjustments will be as large or small as the
  910
  Minister suggests. The Secretary of State asks us to agree an order on one set of boundaries while talking about changing them immediately afterwards. He threatens further changes, thereby sentencing certain areas to a further period of uncertainty, particularly as those within the city council's boundary will be unitary authorities and those outside—as in the case of East Yorkshire—will not.
  That is not the only uncertainty because, as the Minister admitted, under the commission's proposals, part of Goole was to be the amazing Dales and Vales unitary authority. Despite its rhyming, it has, thankfully, disappeared as nobody supported the proposition for more than half a minute. When the Government first drafted the order, they changed that proposition in favour of transferring Goole to the Selby part of North Yorkshire which will be a two-tier authority. The Government produced a second draft order, but apparently they forgot about Goole, because it is not mentioned at all. The Secretary of State then announced that the Local Government Commission had been instructed to undertake a further review of Goole's fate. It implied that, for the next few months, Goole will be located—probably temporarily—in East Yorkshire and then it will "enter the new East Riding unitary authority".
  In the context of this complex reorganisation of local government, Goole will be moved temporarily—we do not know for how long—into a unitary authority. However, as a result of further boundary changes while the reorganisation is taking place, it could be shifted into the area of a two-tier authority, thus becoming a lower tier authority again. I do not think that the Government are serious about trying to ensure that the reorganisation goes through with minimum impact on the services that the authorities concerned are supposed to provide.
  It is insulting for the people of Goole to be treated as the fag-end of a local government reorganisation. They are being pushed about and shoved to one side until it is convenient for the Secretary of State to do something about their situation.
  By any standards, Humberside county council had a good performance record and I think that anyone with any sense sympathises with the councillors and staff who worked hard in the area of service provision. The new authorities must be encouraged to perform. Hull is clearly capable of running itself, which it did for several hundred years. However, all of the new authorities will need to co-operate to provide the necessary Humber-wide planning and environmental policies. Everyone wishes them well, but they will be operating in difficult circumstances because of the boundaries and the uncertainties that the orders create.
  That brings me to the second order, and I must declare an interest at this point. I was born and brought up in one of the villages on the outskirts of York. I went to school in York and I have a lot of family connections with that great city and also with East Riding, where I used to live. York, quite rightly, wants its independence, which a Tory Government should never have taken away.
  However, the council does not want independence at any price and it believes that the massive extension of the city boundaries is too high a price to pay for York's independence. Proposals before the commission were to retain the present boundary, which would leave York with a population of about 100,000—three times as big as Rutland which is gaining independence—or to extend York's boundaries roughly to the ring road, which would

  911
  leave York with a population of about 125,000. Another alternative was to extend the boundary much further to the edge of the York planning area, which is known as Greater York, which would give York a population of 170,000.
  Extending the boundary to form Greater York is an enormously unpopular proposal. York city council opposes it, as does Ryedale district council, Selby district council, Harrogate district council and North Yorkshire county council. Every parish council outside the ring road is opposed to the proposition. The Labour Member of Parliament for that area—my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley)—the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) also oppose the idea. Opposition to the preposterous idea that York should be extended in that way is not exactly a Labour racket.
  The Local Government Commission—I shall make no further comments on its general stumbling incompetence—recommended the Greater York proposal in its document, but it did not offer a single word to justify extending York's boundary to form Greater York. It proposed a 900 per cent. increase in the city's area which would take the boundary beyond York's natural urban or suburban boundary.
  York does not have three or four centres with rural patches in between. There has been gradual concentric expansion of York's urban areas and, if the boundary is to be extended, it should he extended to somewhere around the natural edge of those areas. The Greater York proposition takes in very rural areas. It leaves in some areas which are more rural than the five which were taken out at the behest of the hon. Member for Ryedale. I defy anyone to find a parish in England that is more rural than Kexby.
  The people who live outside the boundaries of York do not see themselves as part of York and the people in York do not see themselves as part of York. I believe that the Local Government Commission may even—
  Mr. Michael Brown: That is nonsense.
  Mr. Dobson: I am sorry. The people of York do not consider the people outside the city to be part of York. I am sorry for that slip of the tongue.
  There is some suspicion that the Local Government Commission did not know what it was recommending—or at least it did not know the basis of its recommendations. According to its own figures, it seems to have misunderstood the unpopularity of its proposals. It got the figures wrong in the first report. It said that only one in three of those affected were opposed to the boundary change. That was true of people living between the existing boundary and the ring road at that time, but the local government's figures, which were collected by MORI, showed that two out of three of those people living between the ring road and the proposed new boundary opposed that proposition.
  Those figures were collected during the early stages of consultation when the picture was not as clear as it was after the final recommendation was made. Since then, public opinion has become clearer. Hon. Members who are familiar with the area will know that, if anything, it has hardened against any extension of the boundary, not just beyond the ring road but beyond York's present
  912
  boundaries. Strong support for York as an all-purpose authority remains, but support for the extension of its boundaries is small and it is diminishing. People living outside the ring road do not consider themselves to be part of York and, according to the commission's polling, fewer than one in three support the boundary extension.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, who has just left the Chamber, told the Craven Herald and Pioneer in November 1993 that
  "York is virtually certain to get its own all-purpose council".
  He said that before there was any suggestion that the city's boundary would be extended. Perhaps the Minister, like the majority of people in York, believes that the city should retain its original boundary.
  Mr. Dobson: I find it difficult to understand the mindset of Government Members.
  In November 1994, the city council commissioned a MORI poll of a much larger sample than the survey conducted by the Local Government Commission. It also carried out a leaflet consultation exercise, whereby it sent questionnaires to the people concerned who were asked to complete and return them. Only 24 per cent. of those consulted in that way supported the idea of a Greater York. Within York, 41 per cent. of those surveyed wanted to retain the current boundaries and 36 per cent. supported the idea of a Greater York.
  When the people who were affected by the Greater York extension were consulted, their rejection of the proposal was overwhelming. The MORI poll showed that 61 per cent. of those surveyed in the outer ring opposed the extension and 23 per cent. favoured it. The leaflet exercise—which had a remarkable 42 per cent. Return—showed that 80 per cent. of those surveyed opposed the extension and 30 per cent. supported it. In the districts which would be taken over from Ryedale district council, the MORI figures were 68 per cent. against and 17 per cent. in favour, with the leaflet method of consultation showing 86 per cent. against and 14 per cent. in favour.
  In the Selby district, which contains two of the parishes which are closest to York—anybody who did not know would think that they were already part of York— Heslington and Fulford, the figures were only 47 per cent. against and 36 per cent. in favour.
  The figures for some of the individual villages are quite remarkable. None of the villages in Ryedale outside the ring road had more than 12 per cent. in favour of being taken into York, and using the leaflet method, the lowest figure against the extension in any parish outside the ring road was 87 per cent. In Selby district, as I have mentioned, Fulford and Heslington—which would be incorporated into almost any sensible extension of York—were the only villages where as few as 50 per cent. were against the extension. Askham Bryan had 97 per cent. against and 3 per cent. in favour and Dunnington, where I was born, had 86 per cent. against and 14 per cent. in favour.
  We should consider the Local Government Commission's views on how the popularity of proposals should be borne in mind. It stated:
  "The commission must balance the advantages of the proposed extension against the sense of community and expressed wishes of local residents".

  913
  It said that about York, where there is no doubt about the expressed wishes of local residents. In respect of Hull, it said:
  "In its consultation report, the commission recognises the merits of the argument for the extension, but on balance felt the weight of public opinion against expansion was too strong to disregard."
  So it was too strong to disregard in respect of Hull, but apparently nothing can be so strong that it cannot be disregarded in respect of the expansion of York.
  If we then take the weight that the commission itself claims it gives to public opinion, the chief executive of the commission wrote an article saying that, had there not been a Local Government Commission,
  "a new structure of local government would have been imposed on a largely apathetic public … I, for one, am glad that the Local Government Commission has undertaken its task in a very different way, which has produced recommendations enjoying solid local support and which has avoided the potentially expensive mistake of imposing an unwelcome new structure of local government on shire England."
  The Minister of State, who is not here, said:
  "Where the commission comes up with a scheme which is endorsed by local community leaders and responds to a local sense of identity it is likely to be endorsed. However, where a recommendation appeals to defy natural gravity"—
  whatever that may mean—
  "and be inconsistent with other recommendations it will earn a loud popular raspberry."
  We have waited in vain to hear the raspberry on the proposition for the expansion of York.
  If the Government do not like the polling data or the leaflet returns that have judged opinion in those areas, they have to admit that, since the proposition was put forward, 1,066 people have argued against the extension of York and 30 in favour; seven local authorities have made representations, none of them in favour; 26 parishes have made recommendations, none of them in favour and of 15 other representations, just one was in favour. People are saying quite loudly that they do not think that the shotgun marriage of York with the outlying villages should go through. The Minister should have further second thoughts.
  The Government left out Shipton and Overton from Hambleton district; they left out Upper Helmsley, Gate Helmsley and Warthill from Ryedale district—and quite right, too. They now propose forcing into York—against the wishes of the people of York and their elected representatives and the elected representatives of every one of the districts and clearly against the wishes of the vast majority of people—Skelton, Wigginton, Haxby, Strenshall, Towthorpe, Earswick, Stockton-on-the-Forest, Holtby, Murton, Kexby, Dunnington, Elvington, Wheldrake, Deighton, Naburn, Bishopthorpe, Acaster Malbis, Copmanthorpe, Askham Bryan, Askham Richard, Rufforth, Hessay and Upper Poppleton. None of them wants to join; they all want to stay out.
  I should emphasise that this is a Tory idea. It was not empire building by Labour-controlled York city council; it was simply put forward by the Tory machine carrying out these local government reorganisations.
  To add insult to injury, the Government propose to change the voting system for York which, not from time immemorial, but for a damned long time, has had annual elections. As the outlying districts cannot be re-warded in
  914
  a way which would permit annual elections and still have sensible wards, the people of York, who are accustomed to being able to vote in or out their council or many of the councillors every year will be deprived of that.
  The city council said that annual elections should continue. Last week, when I said that I thought that annual elections should continue as a principle, I was told that councils should be given a choice. York has expressed its choice, it wants annual elections, but that would not suit the Government, so it will not have them.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: The commission recommended that there should be all-out elections, but if the new city and county of the York authority chooses a system of one third and passes the appropriate resolution, the Government will not stand in its way. We believe that the authority should decide. The hon. Gentleman is saying that part of the authority should decide. He is saying that only the old York city council should be responsible. We think that all the councillors on the new authority should have a say on whether it will be all-out elections or elections by thirds.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I believe that the law should be quite clear and there should be annual elections in every local authority in the country. That is right in principle.
  What the Government are doing now is forcing people who have never lived in York to become part of York and they are insulting them by doing that. They are insulting the people of York by saying that the right to annual elections that they have had for all those years will be taken away. Just like the rest of the process, it is a total shambles. It is the product of a incompetent and badly conducted Local Government Commission and an even worse set of Ministers.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind the House of Madam Speaker's decision to limit Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes for the remainder of the debate.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), in a disarmingly tentative declaration of interest, reminded us that some members of his family are familiar with the part of Yorkshire that I represent. I hope that I am not disclosing a confidence in alleging that he may even have a brother who lives in the locality of Wheldrake—or at least some members of his family live in that part of the world. I cannot reciprocate by declaring an interest in that connection as I am not sure that any of them vote for me, but to that extent alone I differ from the hon. Gentleman's approach to the problem.
  What lies behind the order in reality is not, as my hon. Friend the Minister keeps reiterating, advice or pressure from the Local Government Commission. It is certainly not the aspirations or expression of views of local people. The only reason behind what has been proposed is that old, dreadful and inhuman syndrome—the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. That is the only rational conclusion one can draw from the way in which the Government are proceeding in these orders.
  On what the Local Government Commission has contributed to this sorry scenario, let me remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State why he cannot shelter

  915
  his proposals behind the skirts of the Local Government Commission, whatever one may think of the commission itself. In its preliminary report of June 1993, addressed incidentally "to local people", and in its final report to the Secretary of State in June 1994, the commission was essentially and unmistakably tentative about the way in which York's boundaries should be drawn. It stated:
  "York's boundaries should be enlarged if local people support the changes."
  Local residents do not support the changes, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made perfectly clear. I, too, shall emphasise that point presently.
  If local people do not support the changes, and if the Boundary Commission says that the proposals depend on the extent to which such support exists, why have the Government ignored this fundamental condition prerequisite and gone swanning off on their own? Admittedly, the commission preferred, again tentatively, a new boundary for York extended as proposed in the order, but I repeat that it was tentative. The essential need was to reflect what local people felt and wanted. In other words, the people, not the planners, were given priority by the commission. Why, then, have the Government not reflected that approach?
  In relation to its tentative proposals, the commission stated:
  "However a proper balance must be struck between feelings of community, and the search for the most efficient form of local government that will meet the needs of the community."
  Listening to my hon. Friend the Minister introduce the order relating to York, I was shocked to hear him put into the mouth of the Boundary Commission words which exactly reversed the priorities outlined in the above quotation. The Boundary Commission said that a
  "proper balance must be struck between feelings of community, and the search for the most efficient form of local government".
  My hon. Friend claimed that the commission said that what was sought was the most efficient form of local government which, as far as it could be, would be compatible with what local people want. The Boundary Commission made its first priority the identities and interests of local communities and the need to secure effective and convenient local government came second.
  The Government have done a disservice to local government by putting the planners first and the people second. That essential imbalance is perverse and undesirable. The people in and around York have expressed their feelings about the way in which they want local government to be organised in their locality. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras vividly brought out the facts.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will know of the local referendum to which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred. In it, more than 32,000 valid votes were cast, the overwhelming majority—more than 80 per cent.—in favour of restricting the York city boundary and repudiating the recommendations of the Boundary Commission.
  It is interesting and significant that the Boundary Commission itself, in paragraph 66 of its final report to the Secretary of State, said:
  "Bearing in mind that city extensions are usually strongly contested (as can be seen in the case of both Kingston upon Hull and Bristol) the Commission considers that the opposition to the proposed extension is relatively weak. Only 800 direct representations were received from the area that would be affected by the two boundary extensions."
  916
  I hesitate to cite a letter sent to me on 17 January by my hon. Friend the Minister because I do not think that he can have read it before he added his signature to it. The letter states:
  "However, whilst we recognise that there are pockets of strong local feeling—and this perhaps is not accurately reflected in the relatively low level of those who responded to the canvass you refer to in your letter—against extending the City's boundaries to include the major part of the Greater Planning Area, we remain convinced that the Commission's recommendation was correct."
  My hon. Friend refers to a "relatively low level" of participation, but the Boundary Commission managed to get 800 people to respond to its canvas in its final report and then embarked on the path that we are now disputing. The poll to which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred involved 32,000 people, but my hon. Friend the Minister talks about
  "pockets of strong local feeling … perhaps … not accurately reflected in the relatively low level of those who responded to the canvass".
  What does my hon. Friend really believe is the basis for his seeking to shelter behind the skirts of the Boundary Commission in going ahead with these proposals? Does he honestly believe that, had the Boundary Commission received not 800 responses to its inquiry but 32,000—something approaching 42 per cent. of the electorate, way above the average level of participation in local government polls and getting on for the level of participation in parliamentary polls—the Local Government Commission would have recommended ignoring the feelings of local people and proceeding as proposed? No, it would not. My hon. Friend cannot shelter behind the local government boundary commission.
  I shall not vote against the order only because my hon. Friend the Minister has been helpful and constructive about Humberside. I give him credit for that and appreciate his help in making certain that Goole did not come into the Selby district.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I must first apologise to the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) in his absence for wrongly having promoted him above his station and accused him of being leader of the Conservative majority on Hull city council. However, I must admit that I owe him a debt of gratitude as Townend's rent rise meant that my then marginal seat became safe, and Townend is a name that young mothers still use to urge their children to hurry home early and safely. He had the same distinction when leader of Humberside county council in that he cut services so much that, apart from one brief period of a hung council, Humberside, after Townend—like after Hull had had Townend—has remained Labour ever since. That brings me to the purpose of the debate.
  Humberside was created out of malice and is being destroyed out of malice. It was created out of malice to try to defeat the strong Labour control in Hull, Grimsby and Scunthorpe. It was felt that going into the new county, using the excuse of an estuarial authority, would enable it to become Conservative controlled. That did not happen except for the one occasion when the hon. Member for Bridlington was leader of the Tory group.
  The decision to abolish Humberside is being taken for exactly the same reason. It has been a very strong Labour council. Under its first leader, Harry Lewis, until its

  917
  present one, Maggie Smith, it has provided good, efficient and cost-effective education services, social services, transport, leisure and environmental services and good economic development. People can be proud of the county council, and that applies also to the people who have served it. But despite the attempts of the Labour group on that county council over a long period, and the great quality of the services that it produced, it never succeeded in capturing the public's imagination to gain the loyalty and support that I believe it was entitled to expect, although I have always supported the case for Hull being a unitary authority. I do not know whether it was the new name that rankled with the Yorkshire people from the old East Riding, and Lincolnshire people from north Lincolnshire, or whether it was the old northbank-southbank rivalries between the "Hully Gullies" and the "Lincolnshire Yellow Bellies", but, whatever it was, despite the best efforts of many of my county council colleagues, it never won that support.
  Equally, however, as far as the Labour party is concerned, since my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was Minister for the Environment in 1978 and the proposal of organic change was brought forward, the main large county boroughs, which had lost their status as a result of the Local Government Act 1972, had campaigned long and furiously to return to their old status and powers. Indeed, it was the policy of my party then—and still is—to have decentralised Westminster Government represented in strong regional authorities and to have strong unitary authorities for local government purposes.
  It is an irony of fate that the order, with the exception of North Riding, or north Yorkshire, creates just the form of organisation that a future Labour Secretary of State may immediately implement to give Yorkshire its own regional authority and its strong local unitary authority, because the pattern of the old West Riding and East Riding is now of unitary authorities.
  The attitude of the Government to Humberside has been particularly vindictive, but, having said that, the city of Hull has always wanted to return to its former glories. It is ready, willing and eager to seize that chance and opportunity. That has been shown overwhelmingly by the citizens of Hull and by the members of Hull city council. But it will not be an easy task for many of them, and those who were members of the old city council and who are standing as candidates for the new city council will find that many of the old powers that they once enjoyed have disappeared. They will no longer have responsibility for tertiary education, for example, and in many ways they will be only a cipher for the Government in the administration of rather than the creation of services. The new responsibilities that social services and education services have gained will be a burden that they will not have experienced over the past 20 years. It is something with which they will have to wrestle. Fortunately 12 existing members of the county council will be local government candidates in Hull. I am sure that their experience of administration of those services which they will bring to the posts will be welcomed by the new city council.
  I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I merely reiterate the point that Humberside county council has been badly treated. It has been destroyed out of malice
  918
  by the Government, but I believe that Hull is entitled to and should have always maintained its role as an independent, strong unitary authority. Therefore, I welcome the creation of those powers for the city of Hull. I would have liked to see its boundaries extended. Over the years, I have often thought it wrong for people to earn their living in Hull, to use many of Hull's services, whether cultural or otherwise, its libraries, theatres and subsidised orchestras, and yet live outside the city boundary. It would have been right for them to have been brought in. One of the new city constituencies—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall)—will be Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle. It will be divided by a county boundary, contrary to the usual recommendations given to the parliamentary commissioners when drawing up constituency boundaries. I hope that it will be part of East Riding, which will come into the city of Hull. It is true, as the Minister who opened the debate said, that there will be little bits on the margins—little bits of housing estates, old school sites and so on. But more than that should come into the city.
  I welcome the order in so far as it gives unitary status to Hull, but, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), which will no doubt be repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will vote against the order for York.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I must tell the House that I shall be voting against the order tonight, and for two reasons: first to reflect the anger and betrayal that is felt by tens of thousands of my constituents at the proposed Greater York authority, as the opinion surveys referred to have made clear. Secondly, from the very start of the local government review, my opinion was that there should be no change in the structure of local government in North Yorkshire. The debate today has shown that no one has made any case in favour of a change. That includes York remaining part of the two-tier structure of North Yorkshire. The Ryedale district population is effectively chopped in half. I think that the figure is that 49.8 per cent. goes in and 50.2 per cent. stays out.
  Although there is rejoicing that we have managed to save the county council from the worst excesses of the Local Government Commission's recommendations, there is grave concern that the residual part of Ryedale, which will remain within that two-tier structure, will have a small population and only 23 councillors to deal with an area of some 600 square miles. It will be a truly rural authority, and there may be some advantages in that; nevertheless, the people who have escaped going into Greater York are no happier about the overall position than those who are going into York.
  When we reflect on the last two or three years of the local government review, few people—if any—will emerge with much credit. The Government's preferences were muddled. There was far too much of the nod and a wink, "We think that unitary is what you are going to end up with," kind of attitude. I cannot for the life of me see why we had to review North Yorkshire at all. By all means deal with Humberside, Avon, Cleveland, which seems to have been very popular with our colleagues affected by the changes, and the support for the Humberside order tonight contrasts with the lack of support from those affected by the North Yorkshire order,

  919
  but I just cannot see why we had to interfere with the two-tier structure of local government in North Yorkshire, which has worked extremely well. It is England's largest county.
  The Association of District Councils encouraged all its members to opt for unitary status, even though it must have been patently obvious that most were unlikely to succeed on their existing boundaries. Of course, it is subject to caveats, which I am sure that Labour Members would want to tell me about. Both Labour and Liberal Democrat policy is to have unitary local government. That was a further encouragement.
  On the Local Government Commission's recommendations, the proposal for a North Riding authority was seen and will for ever be seen as a sick joke. It was not the North Riding of old—nothing like it. What was proposed was a unitary authority, measuring 100 miles from its western boundary to its eastern boundary on the edge of the North sea, in the south-eastern corner of my constituency. The commission had the audacity to say that that would bring local government closer to the people. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in Yorkshire people can see through that kind of nonsense, and in this instance they did.
  It was in regard to public opinion surveys that local authorities in North Yorkshire made their greatest mistake. When it was patently obvious that we would end up with a mess, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and I had warned from the start, what did the authorities do? They embarked on opinion surveys in an attempt to prove that what people wanted was a York unitary area extending to the ring road rather than to the six-mile greater York boundary. That has been the cause of all the trouble. We battled to save the county council, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State deserves credit for having listened to our arguments and pleas. I feel that he has received much unjustified criticism.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby said that it was not possible to hide behind the skirts of the Local Government Commission. It seems to me, however, that debates such as this are really about boundaries rather than the principle of whether Yorkshire should be a unitary area. We heard last week—and again today—that Bristol and Hull should have wider boundaries. It is extraordinary to oppose the commission's proposal for Hull because the boundaries are too tight and then oppose the York order because they are too wide, as the Labour party is doing. That is sheer humbug and hypocrisy.
  All that the Minister can say with his hand on his; heart is that the commission recommended the boundaries for Hull and York—subject to the five parishes that he took out at my request—and he accepted its recommendation. In that regard, I differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby. Why did the commission recommend a bigger boundary for York? It was because it was not a viable unitary authority with its existing boundary. That is undoubtedly true: everyone knows that the boundary is too tight.
  I believe that we could have taken more of the villages out, but there has been no cohesive agreement among all the local authorities on what the boundary ought to be. All that people say now is, "Leave the boundary where it is." York city council, however, argued for the ring road boundary month in and month out throughout the review. Anyone who considers what it would mean for local
  920
  government in York will realise that the ring road boundary would represent the worst of all possible worlds, not least because the three very successful comprehensive schools in southern Ryedale are just inside the ring road but most of the children who attend them live outside it. That is no basis for a sustainable education policy.
  I have a heavy heart tonight. We have ended up with the mess and unpopularity that some of us predicted. Perhaps we have not argued against it strongly enough since the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but it was clear to many of us that the die had been cast, and that—given the controversy about the review in other parts of the country—it would be extremely difficult to change my right hon. Friend's mind about York being a unitary authority at all. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows full well, however, I asked him about six times if he would change his mind.
  This is a massive leap in the dark. Will it work? Well, assuming that the order is approved, tomorrow morning we must start the process of making it work. There are a good many unanswered questions about education, social services, libraries and other financial matters that have not even been considered; there is much work to be done, and people of calibre must be elected to the new body to ensure that it does not prove to be the disaster that many of its opponents fear that it will be.
  Tonight, however, is the time for me to reflect the views of my constituents. There is great anger in my constituency, and because of that—although I shall go into the Lobby with the Labour party with a heavy heart, given that Labour opposes the measure simply because it did not secure the boundary that it wanted—I shall oppose the order.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to be able to speak in the debate because it is, in a sense, unique.
  When I arrived this evening, I expected the debate to be unique for two reasons. First, we were considering two orders jointly for the first time. I feel that that was an unfortunate decision, partly because it means that on average each order has been given rather less time than any previous orders. I am not sure why the Government have it in for Humberside and North Yorkshire, which seem to me to be just as important as other areas and should be given an equal amount of debating time—and that means considering them separately.
  Secondly, for the first time we are discussing an area part of which will be left as a two-tier authority but from which will be taken—if the order is approved—a main town or city that will become a unitary authority. Although this is the first occasion on which we have discussed such a case, no doubt instances involving other areas will be debated in the near future. However, this instance presents particular difficulties and we could have done with a full-length debate on it.
  I have subsequently realised, however, that those are not the only two unique aspects of the debate. Another important aspect is that for the first time Conservative Members are speaking out against the Government's position, plainly and effectively. That must make your job rather difficult, Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that you like to call hon. Members alternately to put opposing sides

  921
  of the argument, but at present it seems that all the speakers oppose the North Yorkshire order, and that may well continue until the Minister winds up.
  I will begin with the Humberside order, partly because I think that in many ways it is the easier one to deal with. One or two objections can be made to it, in particular the usual complaint about the first tranche authorities—that there was never enough consultation to establish what people really wanted, and it is therefore difficult for the House to decide how much support there is one way or the other. There is also the issue of staffing and the inadequacy of the compensation regulations. Although that issue has been raised before, it will count against the passing of the Humberside order tonight.
  There are, however, many points in favour of the order. One which has not been raised sufficiently so far is the possibility of long-term savings. It is clear from the commission's report that considerable savings could be made from the move to a unitary system, and that there will be a good and short pay-back term to compensate for the transitional costs which will inevitably be incurred. There is also strong evidence of popular support for the abolition of Humberside. Like Avon and Cleveland, it was an artificial creation to begin with; it has never been loved and there will be no shortage of supporters for its abolition. A MORI poll showed that some 64 per cent. of people in the area were in favour of unitary authorities in principle, and of the 19,741 direct responses to the commission some 71 per cent. favoured a unitary solution. That is a very good proportion.
  North Yorkshire is a more significant case. Most of the area will remain a two-tier authority. The Liberal Democrats, however, are not necessarily against taking out a major town or city and making it into a unitary authority, if that is the right thing to do in a particular case, as long as we consider each case on its merits. The main argument tonight, therefore, is not about the principle of taking out one town or city and making it into a unitary authority, but about whether the boundaries suggested for the new York authority are correct or have been expanded too far. As has already been mentioned in relation to Hull, the arguments in favour of the new York authority are that the people who depend on facilities in York should be part of the authority which governs that city and should have to pay for those facilities. If we were to apply that principle all over the country, however, the boundaries of London, for example, would be extended well beyond Newbury. People all over the country use facilities in major towns and cities but are not part of the authority which directly governs those towns or cities. That is therefore a weak argument in favour of expanding the boundaries of York.
  There are nevertheless a number of arguments against the order. First, a difficulty exists in relation to strategic services, particularly where a two-tier authority—this is a new point which has not been debated in the House before—surrounds or nearly surrounds a unitary town or city. The Government have not adequately argued their case to persuade us that such strategic services could be properly and effectively managed.
  Secondly, fears have been raised, as mentioned by the Minister, that York city might not provide the necessary funding for the Yorkshire museum. The Government have not adequately answered those fears so far tonight.
  922
  Thirdly, the fear exists—here I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway)—that what remains of Ryedale district in particular and, to some extent, of the other districts from which portions are being chopped away, will be too small to be effective and will be greatly disadvantaged. I understand that Ryedale district will more or less be cut in half in population terms to some 46,000, which will make it one of the smallest districts in England, and the smallest districts face difficulties which may also harm Ryedale.
  Fourthly—this has been mentioned several times and is the heart of the debate—there is the question of the gross lack of public support for the recommendations. Even the commission admitted that it could find only about 33 per cent. of people in favour of the expanded boundaries of York. The lord mayor has made it clear that he is against the order. The MORI poll made it clear that support for an expanded unitary York in a two-tier Yorkshire stood at only about 8 per cent.—a minimal level for the Government to put the order through. In addition, 64 per cent. of the population outside the ring road preferred to remain outside the new boundaries for an expanded York.
  A significant level of feeling exists against the order. It is no surprise, therefore, that a number of Conservative Members representing seats in the area have felt it necessary to tell the Minister that they cannot support him tonight.
  Overall, Liberal Democrat Members will support the people of Humberside in their wish to see Humberside abolished. I am sure that that is right. We shall be watching with interest to see which Labour Members support the people of Humberside, who want the order to go through tonight. We shall also be supporting the people of North Yorkshire, who do not want the order relating to their region to go through tonight. We shall be voting against that order and we shall be interested to see which Conservative Members join the hon. Member for Ryedale, who has clearly made his intentions known, in voting against it, too.
  The hon. Member for Ryedale, however, blamed local councils for having failed to persuade the Government to change their mind on the order. With a Government who have a technical minority in the House, he should have been able to ensure that enough hon. Members voted against the order to make sure that it fell. The people of North Yorkshire will not lightly forgive a Government who have turned their back on the wishes of local people, especially if—as I hope will happen—hon. Members who were elected to represent their views refuse to support the Government in the Division Lobby tonight. The people of North Yorkshire will doubtless be watching carefully to see how those representatives vote.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: I assure the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that I shall be speaking with enthusiasm in favour of the abolition of Humberside. I came to the House 16 years ago. I was adopted as a prospective parliamentary candidate in south Humberside 19 years ago. There has not been a day of my waking life in that incarnation when I have not railed against the existence of the county of Humberside. I accept that honourable people of all the political parties serve and have served for the benefit of the people who live in that region, but the institutions, which I readily accept were wrongly set up by my party some 24 years

  923
  ago, were fundamentally flawed. The local people of Lincolnshire are divided culturally, socially, politically and economically by that great River Humber that separates us forever from Yorkshire.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are a Yorkshireman. You and the rest of your colleagues who come from Yorkshire recognise the pride that goes with being from Yorkshire, just as we from Lincolnshire recognise the pride that goes with being a yellow belly from Lincolnshire. One may throw hundreds of millions of pounds into fusing the East Riding of Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire together by means of the Humber bridge, but the River Humber ensures that that simply has not worked and never will work.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for coming to the decision that Humberside must finally go. When Minister of State in 1989, he rightly identified the fact that the people of Humberside did not like that county, and he instructed the old Local Government Boundary Commission to investigate the case for returning district councils back to their old county councils. In 1990–91, that commission recommended that the borough councils of Great Grimsby, Cleethorpes, Scunthorpe and Glanford should be transferred as district councils in the county of Lincolnshire.
  Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall not give way. I have no disrespect for the hon. Gentleman, who represents very well the constituency of Glanford and Scunthorpe, but we are under pressure of time and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) took up nearly 40 minutes of time earlier, which has effectively cut the number of speeches in the debate.
  In my constituency, great support existed for those recommendations in 1990–91, which I put to the Local Government Boundary Commission. But Glanford, Scunthorpe and Great Grimsby borough councils thought that there should be unitary authorities. I accept the likelihood that Great Grimsby borough council and Cleethorpes borough council will work together well as an entity. Although friendly rivalry exists between Grimsby and Cleethorpes, we must acknowledge and accept that the region has local cultural institutions and that it can work, whichever political party is elected by voters. It will be possible for local people to have confidence in the institutions that will be created in Grimsby and Cleethorpes.
  The people of Glanford and the borough council there want to have a unitary authority with the borough of Scunthorpe and the Isle of Axholme. I opposed that originally. We should have had district councils in the county of Lincolnshire, but I accepted their wish. There is some feeling, which my hon. Friend the Minister touched on in his speech, that electoral arrangements have not yet been correctly sorted out. However, I accept, although Glanford borough council does not, that if we refer the matter back to the Local Government Commission, we shall not pass the orders in time for elections to take place this year, and so we shall not get rid of the wretched, dreaded and hated Humberside county council next year.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was right to identify the case for the unitary authority structure. I accept that county councillors on all
  924
  sides of Humberside county council have played their part as best they can, in the finest tradition of public service. My point is that the institution of the county council was fundamentally flawed. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was good enough to recognise that the city of Hull wanted, deserved and will now get a unitary authority. I am not sufficiently well versed in the local argument about boundaries and it is for the hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Members representing neighbouring areas, to make representations about that. The fundamental structure seems to make sense in Hull, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes. In Glanford and Scunthorpe there should also be the opportunity for a good working relationship that will operate effectively.
  I want to see the word "Humberside" expunged from the English language. I never again want to hear anybody refer to the airport in my constituency in Lincolnshire as Humberside airport. I never want to switch on my radio and listen to a thing called Radio Humberside. Once we have expunged that word from the English language, we shall have to ensure that the airport is renamed to reflect the desires and wishes of the local people. We want to have a radio station that will cover north Lincolnshire and north-east Lincolnshire but that is not referred to as Radio Humberside. I hope that the broadcasting authorities at that station will listen to my words or at least broadcast them to the people.
  In 1992, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, "Whoever heard of Len Hutton turning out to play for Humberside?" My hon. Friend the Minister—he has been my good friend over many years and was a good and forthright Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment—understands local government and the problems of local government in my area. At long last, it falls to him to make this announcement, which will lead to him being the toast of north Lincolnshire and north-east Lincolnshire when we pass the order at 16 minutes past 10 o'clock.
  Humberside has never been popular in my constituency. There is no support for that county. There is the prospect of an excellent working relationship between Cleethorpes and Grimbsy. One must recognise that it is impossible to get from one part of my constituency to the other without going through Great Grimsby, a town for which I have the highest regard. Great Grimsby's football club ground is in Cleethorpes. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I are great supporters of that football team and we recognise that there is a closeness of community between the two councils. I was delighted when I heard that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, even if he cannot bring himself to vote in our Lobby, will not vote with his hon. Friends. I pay tribute to the sincere way in which he has stood up for the interests of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes in this debate.
  The sentence of death has been hanging over Humberside for far too long. It is time to carry out the final execution.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will be delighted to know that BBC Radio Humberside is broadcasting his remarks live this evening.
  York city council as it currently exists is an outstanding local authority. Since Labour gained control of the council 10 years ago, it has been a leader and has been

  925
  acknowledged as such by the Government. It invented the citizens charter—it was the first public body to introduce it—which became the Prime Minister's flagship policy during the election. That policy has since faded from the Government's policy objectives, but not from the city council's.
  It would be nice to believe that the debate and vote tonight would focus not on whether the Conservative party or the Labour party would gain from this local government boundary change but on whether it would make for more effective local government. The question of effectiveness was addressed by the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) in an Adjournment debate in July last year. He said:
  "One of the best ways of ensuring that local government is effective is having local authorities that people identify with and feel committed to."—[Official Report, 7 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 559–60.]
  In a written question that the Under-Secretary answered last week, I asked how many people had made representations to the Minister's Department in favour of the Government's proposal for York and how many were against. Thirty individual members of the public have written to the Department of the Environment expressing support, compared with 1,066 who have written in against the proposal. Among local authorities, none have supported the Government's proposal and seven have come out against. Among parish councils, none has come out in favour of the Government's proposal and 26 have come out against. Among all the other organisations that have made representations, only one has supported the Government's proposal. In total, 31 individuals or bodies support the Government and 1,114 have made representations telling the Government that they have got it wrong.
  The Secretary of State said that he is in favour of creating authorities with which people can identify and to which they feel committed. That is not what he is doing in north Yorkshire with this order. Last week, the Department of the Environment replied to the Yorkshire Local Councils Association, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is vice-president. The letter said:
  "Ministers recognise that there are pockets of strong local feeling against extending York's boundary".
  Because an official wrote that letter, I can say what the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) could not say when he attributed those words to the Minister. That statement is a lie. There are not pockets of opposition, there is massive opposition from every single one of the wards beyond the York city ring road which are being forced against their residents' expressed will to join the city of York.
  The ward beyond the ring road that came closest to voting in favour of joining the city of York was Haxby. In the referendum run by the Electoral Reform Society, 43 people in that ward voted against moving into York and three voted for. More typical was the ward of Wiggington in which 102 people voted against being absorbed into the city of York and none voted in favour. Another was New Earswick and Huntington in which 199 voted against and none voted in favour. Those figures were endorsed throughout the greater York area by a referendum carried out independently by the Electoral
  926
  Reform Society, in which more than 80 per cent. of the local population said that they did not want to be included in York. One ward only, which my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned and which is on the border of York, voted in favour of amalgamation with York.
  The Government's decision shows contempt for public opinion in north Yorkshire and it ignores the requirements of the Local Government Act 1992, which, in a written answer in November the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), described as follows:
  "The Local Government Act 1992 requires the Local Government Commission to have regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities… Public opinion is one important test of this."—[Official Report, 2 November 1994; Vol. 248, c. 1151.]
  In another place, in a debate on the Cleveland order last month, Lord Ullswater, said:
  "In all the tests of public opinion the four unitary option has been more popular than the existing system".
  He used that to argue for the four-unitary option and, quoting a press release, said:
  "It really is time they accepted the decision of local people".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 1995; Vol. 560, c. 960.]
  The expression of view from local people in north Yorkshire is far clearer than ever it was in Cleveland. It is high time that Ministers applied their own dictum to their own actions and reflected public opinion.
  The Government's proposal is inconsistent with decisions that they have taken in other parts of country. York is the only authority in the country to be given unitary status on extended boundaries. In every other case where a unitary proposal has been endorsed by the Government, it has been on the existing boundaries of one or more than one local authority.
  Nor is it the case, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, that York, in its existing boundaries, would not be viable as a local authority. The following authorities, which all have broadly the same or smaller populations as the present city of York, have been given unitary status: Bedford, Reading, Slough, Hartlepool, Torbay, Poole, Darlington and the Isle of Wight. Rutland has unitary status with a population of 33,400 people.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the Commission's proposals with the proposals that the Government have decided on and have proposed. I should like to make that perfectly clear.
  Mr. Bayley: With respect to the Minister, I am not confusing them at all. I said that, of the Government's proposals, not one has been similar to York, where the Government have combined an existing local authority with bites of two or three other local authorities. That has not happened in any other case. The York decision is inconsistent with all the other decisions that the Government have brought to the House.
  The Under-Secretary said that the five parishes, which the Local Government Commission said should be included in Greater York, but which he decided should be excluded, were significantly different from all the other parishes and wards to be included because of their rural characteristics. Shipton parish, which has been excluded by the Minister despite what the Local Government Commission said, has a population density of 0.87 people per hectare. Kexby parish, which the Minister said should

  927
  be included because—presumably—it does not share the same rural characteristics, has a density of 0.12 people per hectare. It is seven times more rural than the parish that the Minister has excluded. The comparison between rural wards and urban York is quite staggering. The rural wards as a whole have about the same population density as the five parishes which have been excluded: 1.02 persons per hectare. In urban York, the present city area, the population density is 35.29 people per hectare.
  The Government are simply picking and choosing parishes and wards for their own purposes. The Government's proposals for north Yorkshire as a whole and for the city of York ignore—indeed, fly in the face of—the Local Government Commission's proposals, they are inconsistent with the Government's decisions elsewhere and they are incompatible with public opinion—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. James Cran: I am very pleased to rise to support the Humberside (Structural Change) Order, although not without—I must make it clear—a little hesitation, because I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary realises the opposition north of the Humber to the last-minute decision to include Goole in the proposed East Yorkshire county council. None the less, I support the order simply because I have to recognise what most of my constituents have been saying for some considerable time, indeed, ever since I was elected—that they are simply opposed to the entity called Humberside county council.
  I cannot quite match the colour and malice brought to the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), but he was absolutely correct. There has been absolutely no loyalty to Humberside county council. I have discovered that all my constituents relate not to Humberside county council but to the borough of Beverley. If asked, most of them seem to think that the borough of Beverley has heretofore delivered all the services that Humberside county council is said to deliver. That simply shows that my constituents would really have liked single-tier, all-purpose local government based on the district and the borough of Beverley.
  Be that as it may, I entirely agree with the Opposition Members who said that the creation of Humberside was artificial. They pointed out that a Conservative Government were responsible for that artificial creation. That is absolutely correct. There is no doubt about the fact that the wrong decision was made then. It seems only fitting, therefore, that it is a Conservative Government who are undoing the wrong that was committed then.
  Although Opposition Members may not like to hear this, I must say—
  Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cran: I do not intend to give way, as I have only 10 minutes in which to make my speech.
  My constituents do not like the high-spending propensity of Humberside county council. My constituents consider themselves to be the paymasters of that council and they do not like it. Moreover, the political leadership of Humberside county council has been extraordinarily poor in the time that I have observed it.
  928
  However, I met the chief executive of Humberside county council in Central Lobby before the debate and I must pay tribute to the officers and staff of Humberside county council who have been of an extremely high order. I look to see the easy translation of most of them from the council we do not want to the one that we do want—East Yorkshire county council.
  The Local Government Commission was absolutely right, therefore, to recommend abolition. I would have preferred single-tier, all-purpose local government based on the district with an expanded borough of Beverley, because that is what my constituents wanted and relate to. However, we will gladly accept an East Yorkshire county council and my colleagues in Beverley constituency will work very hard to make it a success, whereas Humberside county council could never be made a success.
  I agree with the Local Government Commission, which said that there will be substantial service improvements. In particular, I am looking for improvements for my constituency in education. When I examine the county council's decisions, I discover that most capital spending on education goes not to my constituency but to most of the constituencies south of the river. With an East Yorkshire county council, I would expect more capital spending on education in my constituency.
  The reform is worth while and extremely popular in East Yorkshire and I particularly want to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), because he has been perfectly willing to listen to all opinions. His door has been open to me and to my colleagues from Beverley. I particularly thank him for the fact that he rejected the expansionary tendencies of the city of Hull.
  I noted that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) tried to sow a little discord by saying that there was to be a rather larger view of the boundaries of Hull. I believe what the Minister said. He said that the review of the boundaries is to be a minor one and not major. We look forward to that occurring fairly quickly.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cran: No, I do not have time.
  The great city of Hull wanted the suburb of Haltemprice so that Haltemprice could act as the paymaster for that great city. I am delighted that the Government have rejected that idea.
  All this said, my hon. Friend the Minister will be expecting me to say that there is just one cloud in an otherwise cloudless sky. He knows that I do not understand the Secretary of State's decision to include Goole within the boundaries of East Yorkshire county council; nor do my constituents. That was not recommended by the Local Government Commission—for good reasons, which other hon. Members explained.
  As hon. Gentlemen said, before 1974 Goole was in the West Riding; it has never been in East Yorkshire. It is separated from that area by the River Ouse, and has little, if any, community of interest with East Yorkshire. It is, of course, an industrial port, and a successful and good one, but East Yorkshire consists of market towns and rural areas, so there is little community of interest.

  929
  I remind the House that in the first two drafts of the order Goole was not included within the boundaries of East Yorkshire county council. On 8 February, the Secretary of State changed his mind "in the light of representations received."
  Mr. John GreenwayYes.
  Mr. Cran: I note what my hon. Friend says. But all I ask the Minister is: from where did those representations come? That is all that we want to know in my constituency. What was said? I hope that the decision did not stem from a threat of judicial review by Selby.
  The position has been at least partially retrieved by the Secretary of State's decision that there will be a review of the boundaries between Goole and its neighbours. That must be done in as short a time as possible, for reasons that have already been explained by others—the uncertainty and instability not only for East Yorkshire county council but for the good people of Goole. Where are they to go? Clearly that has to be decided quickly. Will the Minister say a little more about the timing, and the how and when? Once the Boundary Commission has made recommendations, whatever those recommendations are, how will they be implemented and when?
  In summary, for I must be close to my time limit, I shall support the order because I want to see an end to Humberside county council. I say that with no malice; I simply think that it has not worked. None of my constituents looks to it for services, and I want the riding of East Yorkshire to be reinstated. I would, however, repeat that we should like a speedy decision on where Goole will go, and when.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Most of what we are debating is another example of Tory folly, in which the Minister comes to us, without an apology or admission of error in any respect, to reverse a Conservative Government policy of 25 years ago—the Peter Walker memorial system of government. Peter Walker came to us as a penniless barefoot refugee from the City, where he had been Jim Slater's dog walker, to reform the whole system of local government. He imposed a new structure on us in Grimsby, not only against our will but against the wishes of the people on the south bank, and brought the two banks together as if they were leftover bits of a jigsaw puzzle, into a Humberside county that we never wanted in the first place.
  Grimsby Labour party, and Grimsby's present Member of Parliament, have provided the only consistent voices in the whole debate. We have consistently said that power should be returned to unitary authorities on the south bank and that Humberside should be dismantled, and we are the only people who have said that throughout.
  Now, after 25 years, when the county has woven the two banks together and it is working well, when careers have been built on it and lives have been devoted to it, and when a whole series of people have worked well to build up a good authority, along come the Government saying, "We have changed our mind; we are going to scrap it. We have changed our mind on that issue, as on most other issues, and now we are setting out to destroy what we created in the first place."
  930
  I wonder how much the whole exercise has cost—the setting up, the running and the dismantling of Humberside after 25 years of Tory folly. The Government consistently say that they have no money for any useful social purpose, but they seem to have endless money to pour out to clear up the consequences of their own folly and misguided decisions.
  The reform of local government has been a mess. It has taken place under Sir John Banham, who is a misguided missile—an Iraqi Scud missile—when it comes to decision making, and is reforming local government on a Yugoslavian model. Once again, Labour will have to clear up the mess by setting up unitary authorities and regional governments above them to give us an effective system of local government.
  The reform has been a piece of wilful vandalism. It has not come from the desire of the Government to listen to the people, the desire to create efficient units or the desire to give the units optimum size. It is not a carefully thought-out reform, based on a full analysis. It is a piece of pure political prejudice, as all Conservative Members have been saying. They hate Humberside because it has been an efficient, Labour-controlled authority which has provided good services for the people of Humberside. Their real accusation against the council is that it has been Labour controlled and has done a good deal for the people of the area.
  Look at Humberside's record on education. School budgets have been kept at 6 per cent. ahead of the standard spending assessment, which is why very few schools in Humberside have opted out. Social services, trading standards, development, transport, leisure, the police and the fire service have all done well in Humberside.
  I come to praise Humberside, but also to bury it, because the expertise to which I have referred will now be dispersed. The reform is being carried out with the same Gradgrind, mean-minded and petty-minded brutality that typifies the Government. Some 36,000 staff have been treated abominably by the Government. They are getting not 82 weeks' redundancy, as staff involved in other local government reforms have done, but 66 weeks. The provision is only £50 million for all the areas, but Humberside alone calculates that its costs will be £25 million.
  Too many costs will fall on the successor authorities, which will be crippled with a burden of debt. The successor authorities—rightly, in my view—have promised a 100 per cent. take-up of staff. Will the Government make a proper financial provision to allow them to carry through an effective transition? The SSAs will need to be revised appropriately to allow us to develop the same efficient and effective services which Humberside has provided. Only the Government can make proper provision for that. We do not want council services strangled by the council tax, which penalises any small increase in expenditure by a much bigger increase in council tax. On top of that, the council tax has a capping system which cripples local authority spending.
  We cannot maintain the same quality of services unless the Government work with us and help us. It will be impossible to carry through an effective reform of local government while trying to cripple local government spending in the way in which the Government will do with their stringent controls. If we have unitary authorities—and I want them—they must be allowed to

  931
  live up to the high standard set by Humberside by working with the Government. The Government must help them, and not try to strangle them. The relationship between central Government and local government should be one of co-operation, and not a war. We should not have the litany of blame which central Government impose on local Government.
  I have been consistent, as have Grimsby Labour party and Grimsby council, in wanting a unitary authority. In my evidence to the commission, I asked for exactly what we have got, and it was very good of the commission to reproduce my evidence as its report. That was a sensible move on its part and it was the only sensible part of the report, I might add. Grimsby council, Cleethorpes council, all political parties and the people want this unitary status for our area.
  I could even vote for the order, despite the fact that the Opposition are on a 2.75 line Whip, which is known on this side of the House as the Hartlepool Whip. I could vote for it, were it not for the fact that it has been done in such a mean, nasty and Gradgrind way by the Government. As it is, I shall abstain, but I shall abstain enthusiastically because we are getting what we wanted in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. We are getting a Lincolnshire identification, we will have control of our own destinies and we will have an intimate and accountable unit Of local government which is close to the people and is well-served by good councillors. We have the benefit of starting out with huge good will, which Humberside never started out with. As a unitary authority, we are moving up in the world, Mr. Deputy Speaker—up to the big league. This is professional stuff.
  In Grimsby and Cleethorpes, we are certainly moving up to face the challenge of providing the same quality of services that Humberside provided to our people and trying to do better than Humberside. It is a challenge—an exciting opportunity. After 20 years of being run from somewhere else, we are able to take control and to be masters of our own destiny, which is a very exciting prospect.
  If the Government let us carry this through effectively, we will take control and we will serve the people. We want to co-operate. That is why it is important for the Government to co-operate and allow us to carry through the logic of what they are imposing in the order.
  Together, Grimsby and Cleethorpes, will rise like a phoenix from the ashes of Peter Walker's funeral pyre, which we are igniting tonight. We will rise, and it is more than time that we did, so let us go forward together, building on Humberside's achievement, but doing better.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Robert Banks: I find it confusing to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) because, on the one hand, he says that he has got what he wants but, on the other, he is not prepared to vote for it. That seems rather two-faced.
  When the review began in September 1992, views from local authorities and other interests in Yorkshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire were canvassed. By December of that year, the draft recommendations in the consultation reports were produced for further consultation. Those were published in June 1993 and at that stage we went through an "unprecedented consultation programme", to quote the concluding report of the local government commissioners.
  932
  That consultation exercise ran through until September of that year and residents, public bodies, local authorities, Members of Parliament and the Audit Commission were consulted. In total, the Local Government Commission heard from about 36,500 residents and received 4,500 letters. Also, 8,000 questionnaire forms were returned and 150,000 leaflets delivered to various people. In a sense, that canvas was disappointing, because the figures are not especially large for the areas and the number of people concerned.
  As the debate on what sort of future local government would have grew, especially in North Yorkshire, I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that it was felt that there was pressure for unitary authorities to be established. That was not initially the case, but it became the order of the day at a later stage in the second consultation process.
  In short, local councils, such as my own Harrogate borough council, not unnaturally voiced themselves vociferously for becoming unitary authorities. Similarly, North Yorkshire county council—threatened by the unitary authority process—lobbied for the status quo. I got the impression that councillors and council officials were lobbying for their own benefit and survival. I do not doubt that that was the case.
  At that stage, my position was that we had to listen to what people had to say and that we should move to a different form of local government only when it was proved that the local people demanded a change and knew what they wanted.
  Significantly, the striking signal that the report of the Local Government Commission reiterated was people's reference—again and again—back to the ridings. The report states:
  "In north Yorkshire there is a very strong affiliation with the Ridings (and an even stronger one with Yorkshire as a whole to which 55 per cent. of respondents feel they belong very strongly)."
  Without any question of a doubt, I sense that to be the case.
  The report continues with a reference to community identity and interests and says:
  "However, the strength of feeling towards both Yorkshire and the Ridings informs the Commission's approach to reviewing local government structures north of the Humber."
  Having listened to all that opinion, the Local Government Commission got it hopelessly wrong at that point. Its proposals for Harrogate were for a merger, as has been said earlier, into unitary status of the districts of Craven, Harrogate, Selby and Goole, taken from Boothferry district, to be named the "West Riding (Dales and Vale) of Yorkshire". There was universal condemnation and ridicule, and I shared in that. No one in his right mind
  could conceivably have come up with that suggestion. Similarly, the North Riding unitary authority never got off the ground and was never acceptable.
  Today's order results from strong representations for the status quo, retaining as it does North Yorkshire county council. One receives little thanks from North Yorkshire county council for battling on its behalf at the time that the proposals were made.
  We have spent a great deal of time discussing the expansion of the city of York, but there is a good case for the new York authority to be a unitary authority. The question arises of where its boundaries should be. The proposal is that the areas of Nether Poppleton and Upper

  933
  Poppleton, which includes Rufforth, Hessay and Knapton villages, in my constituency, should be taken into Greater York and the new authority.
  My opinion about that has always been that we needed to listen to what people had to say. It was interesting to read the results of the MORI poll, because it revealed that, in the village of Nether Poppleton, 46 per cent. of people questioned were in favour of merging into Greater York, whereas 35 per cent. preferred the status quo. The next-door village of Upper Poppleton differed, a margin of 6 per cent. wishing to be outside the new York authority—46 per cent. for the status quo and 40 per cent. for joining Greater York. Leaflet responses in both those areas were in favour of the status quo.
  We must ask ourselves why people did not want to merge into York. I do not think that anyone has considered what rankled with those people that made them want to stay where they were. Some wanted to go in and some did not want to go in. It has not been determined whether that was because they wanted to get away from Harrogate borough council or whether it was because they felt an affiliation with the schools, the shopping and the employment and a natural affinity towards York as a result of being so close to the boundary of York.
  I have a sense that there is a fear that, by being part of Greater York, those people will be engulfed and the character of their villages will be snuffed out by future development, which will involve them in a great urban sprawl. Of course there are green-belt areas and there is protection, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give further evidence that urbanisation of those areas will not take place. They must be protected from that awful sprawling factor.
  The Secretary of State adopted the opinion, at a later date, that the name of North Yorkshire county council should be changed to the "County of the North Riding of Yorkshire". In a sense, he was reflecting the county of the East Riding of Yorkshire, and I thought that it was a reasonable idea. In fact, the chorus of disapprobation that resulted was as loud as it might have been if we had overnight decided that North Yorkshire county council should be done away with. Instead of that, one was suggesting that an extra name be added to the title.
  Let us bear in mind the fact that a riding is defined as the third part of a shire—after all, it would be the second part of it—and the ridings were established by the Danes in the latter half of the ninth century. The word derives from the old Norse word for the third part, "thrithing", which became "riding", and the term remained with us until the reorganisation of 1974. It therefore appeared quite a reasonable thing, did it not, to want to use that terminology to put back the historic character that had distinguished North Yorkshire?
  North Yorkshire county council reacted in an incredible way. The chief executive issued a personal press release, headed
  "Riding roughshod over a million pounds".
  The chief executive reckoned that the change of name would cost £1 million. Anyone in his right mind would have asked, "Has the council gone out of its mind, even to contemplate paying such a large sum?" That included signs and the livery of approximately 1,000 vehicles, which could have had a sticker for £30 or a total respray
  934
  for £2,000. Clearly, the figure was raised for political reasons to embarrass the Government and get rid of the name "riding". Many people will, when they come to think about it, regret that. If a change is to be made, it is done sensibly by natural wastage, replenishing stocks where necessary, and as cheaply as possible. Nobody expected North Yorkshire county council to change its name to North Yorkshire Riding council overnight. That orchestration has lost us the character and attractiveness that distinguishes North Yorkshire from other local authorities in the rest of England.
  Last year, the York museum had 110,000 visitors and the previous year it had 256,000 visitors, only 3 per cent. of whom came from York. However, it receives £600,000—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Mr. Gunnell.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: I do not represent an area directly affected by the proposed change and therefore speak from a different perspective. I spent 12 years as chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association and played a part in the economic development of Humberside as part of the Yorkshire and Humberside region. My role was to work together with members and officers of Humberside county council on the acquisition of inward investment.
  When the Minister listed where the powers would go and the arrangements that would be made, he omitted to mention economic development. I did not learn whether he had discussed with his hon. Friends at the Department of Trade and Industry their reaction to the proposals and I therefore do not know what arrangements will be made for the maintenance of a service that has proved valuable, for the working of the region as a whole and to Humberside county council.
  That matter is important and the debate gives me an opportunity to say that I agree entirely with my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about how this process is being carried forward. The orders are clearly political and intended to give political dividends. In the distant future, an attempt will be made to change the boundaries of York and make life more difficult for the Labour party. In the same way, my hon. Friends were right to say that Humberside is now to be abolished for the same reason as it was created—to give electoral advantage to the Conservative party. We must look at the practical consequences of that.
  I was interested to see the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) bounce up and down in his condemnation of Humberside and anxiety to see the word eradicated from the English language. He is in the habit of bouncing up and down like that. I saw him do so when the Kimberly-Clark investment was announced. He and the Prime Minister claimed credit for that investment and he has raised the issue a couple of times at Prime Minister's Questions. As I was chairman of the YHDA at the time and worked with officers of both Humberside and the development association on that inward investment, I know that the hon. Gentleman had nothing to do with it, but Humberside county council had everything to do with it. It must be recognised that Humberside was a successful authority, particularly in the area of economic

  935
  development. Recently I met a group of business men in Hull who showed no great enthusiasm for the abolition of the county council. As members of the chamber of commerce, they made it clear to me that they believed that Humberside county council had done some valuable work in the area of economic development.
  The work of the YHDA in co-operation with Humberside county council has resulted in some notable inward investment successes in north Yorkshire and Humberside. Kimberly-Clark was originally interested in sites elsewhere in the region. Soon after we met its representatives, they said that they were interested in sites in Yorkshire but not elsewhere in the UK. The company located in Humberside in part because of the success of the county council in preparing and marketing a suitable site. Those successes should be recognised widely.
  Citizen is another well-known company name in Humberside. That company located in Scunthorpe from Japan largely because of the work of the development association in partnership with Humberside county council. There have been a number of successes of that sort, and I pay tribute to the single-mindedness of the officers and county council members involved in that work.
  I experienced the abolition of the metropolitan authorities, and I think it is disgraceful that the Department of the Environment is now offering those staff who are leaving county councils much worse terms and conditions than were offered to staff when the metropolitan authorities were abolished. That is an insult to the staff who have served local government very well.
  What arrangements will the Minister make to accommodate future inward investment? Inward investment is co-ordinated by the Department of Trade and Industry. As a development association which was funded by the DTI, we were encouraged to ensure that we forged effective partnerships with each of the authorities in our region. When the metropolitan authorities were replaced with separate district councils, it made our job more difficult because we had to enter into new partnerships.
  Although one may have worked with the district councils in Humberside and north Yorkshire, it is difficult to weld together a partnership which involves a number of authorities. The development association moved from four to 11 authorities, and it will now be asked to encompass an even larger number of authorities. That will certainly make life more difficult.
  The Minister failed to take into account the effect of the estuary. It makes a great deal of sense to plan strategically for the Humber as a whole. Whatever the historical or political case—that is the real determinant—may be, there is no good strategic planning case for splitting the estuary geographically. Economic development follows strategic planning, and there is some logic to a Yorkshire and Humberside position. Many of the exporters from west and south Yorkshire use the Humber ports. The county council played its part in developing that port complex which is enormously important to the successful promotion of our area overseas. I ask the Minister: what strategic bodies will consider the Humber estuary as a whole? The south Humber is particularly attractive to industry. There is plenty of space, a relatively clear environment, good road facilities and no great density of traffic. All those factors bring companies to the area and have been part of the marketing strategy of the association.
  936
  Are the present responsibilities of the regional development organisations likely to remain the same? I believe that they are most effective as they are at present and disrupting them will certainly hinder the process of inward investment. Those questions have not been answered.
  I shall vote against both orders as they are primarily political. The order for Humberside will destroy a council that is working effectively in many ways, particularly in economic development.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: It is fair to say that when Humberside county council was set up in 1974, it was based on a flawed idea by a Government who could not resist meddling in local issues and local government without thinking them through properly.
  In 1972, I was a student at Hull college of education. I recall being called in by the principal, Dr. Cyril Bibby, who told us all as student leaders that we should oppose that ill-thought-out reorganisation and what it would do to local services. Yet it went through in 1974, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made clear.
  Many people have invested a great deal of time, money, energy and commitment to making that authority work. Humberside county council has a great deal of which to be proud in terms of the quality of its services and what it has achieved in inward investment, and that should not be underestimated when discussing an order which brings it to an end.
  It should also be recognised that Humberside county council has a great deal of support from various parts of the community. It has not been mentioned tonight that young people who were born in Humberside and have an affinity with Humberside identify with it. The business community did not want change; it felt that it worked very well for business. The voluntary sector did not want change either; the county council had tremendous support from the voluntary sector and local clubs and societies.
  Humberside has delivered good, cost-effective, high-quality services, particularly in education, which many people, even its critics, recognise. When the last boundary commission undertook a review of Humberside, it did not recommend that Humberside be broken up. Although it acknowledged that there had been a job to do in trying to develop loyalty to the county, it paid tribute to the work of Humberside county council.
  The decision of the Boundary Commission was overturned by the late Nicholas Ridley at the Conservative party local conference in Bridlington. His actions were based on sheer spite and malevolence. He thought that by announcing that he would refer back the recommendation of the Boundary Commission, he would win votes for the Conservative party. His objective was winning control of Humberside county council in the forthcoming local government elections. That started off the entire reorganisation. It was picked up by the then Conservative-controlled Lincolnshire county council, which made a pre-emptive bid to absorb the whole of the south bank into Lincolnshire and from that we were locked into a local government review which culminated in the Local Government Commission led by John Banham and all the problems that came with it.

  937
  We shall now have four unitary authorities in the area. I am not saying that there is no case for unitary authorities. There is an argument for unitary authorities; there is an argument for change in local government and my own local district council of Scunthorpe has a proud record of achievements. It has pioneered comprehensive education and sixth-form colleges. It has certainly been a model for industrial regeneration and attracting inward investment. Certainly, my local district council has a great deal of which to be proud and I am sure that it has the expertise and experience to make the new authority work.
  Nevertheless, there are a number of serious problems with this order which have not been properly dealt with tonight. The first to which I draw attention concerns representation. The new North Lincolnshire authority is supposed to have 42 councillors to represent the amalgamated Scunthorpe borough council, Glanford borough council and the Isle of Axholme. Those 42 councillors are to replace the 100 or more sitting district and county councillors, but I do not believe that 42 councillors are sufficient adequately to represent the area.
  It is also reasonable to suggest that there should be a full review of the re-warding of the new authority. I accept that it cannot be done before the shadow elections in May, but it has been a very long time since there was a re-warding in the area and the problem of re-warding in rural areas in particular needs to be considered.
  Incidentally, I am disappointed that the recommendation for the new authority did not involve elections of one third of councillors every year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) suggested. There has been long-standing support for that notion, especially in Scunthorpe, which has always operated such a system. I personally believe that such elections for local government should be the norm rather than the exception.
  I intervened on the Minister in respect of planning. I listened carefully to what he had to say, but he must be aware that the original recommendation of the Local Government Commission, in its report of June 1993 entitled "The Future of Local Government from the Humber to the Wash", was as follows:
  "There is a high level of inter-dependence between the districts straddling the Humber Estuary and this needs to be reflected in an appropriate planning structure …the Commission accepts that there is a need for structure planning to be maintained at the level of the existing Humberside County area."
  What has happened to that recommendation? What sudden change has occurred which means that the planning structure has to be based on a north bank-south bank basis? There is a strong argument for an estuary-wide structure plan, preferably based on the old county council area. It is not clear exactly what guidance the Minister intends to give the new authority to deal with it.
  Although it is all right to say that there can be consultation between local authorities, issues of structural planning often lead to major differences of opinion between localities and consultation is not enough. There has to be strong and effective structural planning. The irony is that the argument has been partly accepted in the sense that the police authority area is to be retained on a Humberside basis. The same is true for the fire authority area, so I do not understand why the structural planning
  938
  area is not to be retained, as recommended in the original report. The Minister should pay extra attention to that point.
  Let us consider the difficulties involved in the transfer of services, especially specialist services that are delivered on a county-wide basis. The years of smooth and effective co-operation between schools and institutions are to be swept away. That is a matter of great concern to the National Union of Teachers and other teaching unions and to local government unions such as the GMB.
  As has already been said, the transfer arrangements for the staff are also entirely unsatisfactory. It is unfair that, in previous local government reorganisations in the metropolitan areas, staff were given far more generous redundancy packages and transfer arrangements than are being proposed for Humberside. It is also unreasonable to treat local government staff far worse than civil servants.
  I deal now with Goole, which certainly seems to get around in terms of being transferred from area to area—it is clearly a cosmopolitan kind of place. I would welcome Goole into the proposed new North Lincolnshire area. Clearly, it is a matter for the people of Goole to decide, but the Minister should take into account the parliamentary boundary of the new Brigg and Goole seat which will encompass Goole. The health authority is currently called the Goole and Scunthorpe health authority, so they are linked in that respect, too; the education division is based on Scunthorpe and Goole; Goole was in the Humberside police authority; and the Isle of Axholme is in the Goole travel-to-work area. So I think that there is a strong case to be made for transferring Goole to North Lincolnshire, if that is what the people of Goole want. I am sure that they will make their views known on that.
  If the order goes through tonight, I want to see all that has been good and successful in Humberside transferred to the new authorities, particularly the North Lincolnshire authority. I must emphasise that there has been much support for Humberside. There is not unanimous opposition to Humberside. Ironically, the strongest pockets of support, as measured by letters and opinion polls, are on the south bank. The reason why there is strong support for Humberside, both at its creation and at the present time, is that people on the south bank remember what a bad deal they got from the old parochial and mean-minded Conservative-controlled Lindsey county council.
  That is why I believe that if people want to maintain high-quality services—all that is good about Humberside—they cannot do it through any kind of agreement. The only guarantee for that is a Labour victory in the forthcoming shadow elections.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Dobson: With the leave of the House. There has been a good debate about the past of Humberside and the future of unitary authorities, which is to be welcomed. It reflected a great deal of local knowledge, and clearly there were divisions of opinion, but I remind the Minister that, unless I misunderstood the speech of the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), there was not a single speech in the House in favour of the extension of the boundaries of York—to what is preposterously referred to as Greater York. That reflects the views of all the local authorities and Members of Parliament in the area, of whatever

  939
  political complexion, and clearly represents the views of the bulk of the people living outside York in the outer ring beyond the ring road and, in some cases, well within the ring road.
  On the standard that the Government have laid down for themselves in the past—that, for any proposition to go through, it must he popular with local people so that the council will command their support—the proposition fails in relation to Greater York. It is equally obvious that all those who seek election, and the officers of the local authorities who will be the products of that, will do their best, but in the circumstances we should be giving them better boundaries within which to do their best, and we should wish them well in their task.
  9.51 pm
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: With the leave of the House. I confirm what I said to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), who asked me earlier about the sheriff. He was expressing some doubt as to whether my first answer was correct. I can confirm that that is the case.
  When the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that we should maintain what is best and pass it on to the new authorities, he spoke for the whole House. Indeed, that was enhanced by his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who said that he wanted the new authorities to do better than the outgoing authorities. Whether we think that it is one or the other, I am sure that the consensus is that we want to see local government providing good, cost-effective services and being responsive to the people of the area.
  That apart, the debate has revealed that local government reform divides all parties. That is clearly true on the Conservative Benches, from the speeches of my hon. Friends about the extension of the city of York; but it is just as true of Labour Members, and we heard the views of the Jacobins, from the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Great Grimsby, who wanted to sweep away the authority which they thought should never have been created in the first place and which was a mistake; of the Dantonites, who wanted unitary authorities, but did not quite want them on the present boundaries; of the remnants of the ancien regime, represented by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell); and of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, who saw merit in what Humberside county council had done.
  It is almost impossible to understand how the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) can come to the House and say that he is in favour of extending the boundaries of Bristol, even though the commission did not recommend it, and that he wanted to extend them at the behest of the people of Bristol, but not with any regard to the people living outside the city. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North came along with exactly the same proposition about the boundaries of the city of Kingston upon Hull, saying that people who take advantage of the services in that area, who use the libraries, the schools, the leisure facilities and so on, should be within the city of Kingston upon Hull, but that somehow that argument could not apply to the city of York.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman applies that argument to York, but not to the other places involved. It is he who is being inconsistent.
  Mr. Jones: I am applying the test of what the commission recommended. Opposition Members would kick up a pretty row if the Government extended or contracted boundaries against the commission's recommendation: they would soon say that we were up to some political shenanigans.
  The city of York has dominated the debate. The solution recommended by a number of Opposition Members is what my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) described as the worst of all possible worlds: the ring road. The ring road not only breaches the boundaries of parishes, but leaves outside it some of the parishes that are most urban and most dependent on the city of York. Anyone who looked at a map of the city, or visited it, would see a continuous built-up area that extends beyond the ring road in a number of directions. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras illustrated that with respect to Fulford, saying that someone in Fulford would not realise that he was anywhere other than York. I think that that is true.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jones: No. I am trying to reply to a large number of hon. Members, but time will prove the truth of what I have said.
  Other hon. Members have rightly said that Goole is a difficult issue. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, for example, presented some of the arguments for it to be linked with the new Glanford and Scunthorpe authority. He probably advanced those arguments to the commission; he certainly presented some of them in a letter a copy of which he kindly sent to the Department. There are links, in that the Isle of Axholme and Goole work together in the Boothferry authority, but there have been links between Goole and the rest of Boothferry under the present Boothferry authority, and it was Boothferry borough council that argued that the two should go together into East Yorkshire.
  There are arguments for Goole to he linked with Selby and the other river towns in part of what was the West Riding. It is also argued that it has links with the metropolitan borough of Doncaster to the south. I think that the only way of achieving a solution is for the commission to examine the matter specifically, consulting the people of Goole and presenting the Government with a recommendation. We want that to be done speedily. I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), who raised the point, that we shall ask the commission to consider the issue as quickly as possible: that is essential to the local authority's planning procedures, and for staff to know where they are.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale raised the problems of the rump Ryedale, as it might be called. Even as a rump, Ryedale is not the smallest of non-metropolitan districts. I have every confidence that the leadership of the authority will do a very good job in running the remainder of Ryedale, but my hon. Friend raised a valid point when he pointed out that only 23 councillors were left. As I said in my opening speech, we think that that problem also should be resolved.

  941
  On Friday 17 February, the Yorkshire Evening Press summarised the issue of York. I think that it hit the nail on the head. It said:
  "The danger is that the self evident commonsense of having one authority running the affairs of York is lost in the melee of councillors and MPs who are too busy jumping on a bandwagon of their own making to take a clear-sighted view of the situation. Anybody would think that the absurdity of the existing set up is worth preserving, and absurd it is that people who live within two miles of the Minster should find themselves in Harrogate borough or Ryedale district or ruled over from Selby, and that all of them should have their overlords in a North Allerton based county council."
  That newspaper hit the nail on the head. That is why I commend both orders to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 243.

  Division No. 90]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Conway, Derek

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Amess, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ancram, Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Arbuthnot James

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cran, James

  Atkins, Robert

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

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Day, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Devlin, Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bates, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Batiste, Spencer

  Duncan, Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dunn, Bob

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Booth, Hartley

  Elletson, Harold

  Boswel, Tim

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evennett, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Faber, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bright Sir Graham

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Forman, Nigel

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Eric

  Butcher, John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butler, Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Butterfill, John

  French, Douglas

  Carlisle. John (Luton North)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gale, Roger

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gallie, Phil

  Cash, William

  Gardiner, Sr George

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  GarelJones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Garnier, Edward

  Churchill, Mr

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clappison, James

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Coe, Sebastian

  Gorst Sir John

  Colvin, Michael

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Congdon, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  942

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mills, Iain

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hague, William

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Harris, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Haselhurst Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkstey, Warren

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Heald, Oliver

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hendry, Charles

  Ottaway, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Page, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Horam, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Sr John (Ravensboume)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Richards, Rod

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Riddick, Graham

  Jessel, Toby

  Robathan, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Key, Robert

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sackville, Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Skeet Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  MacKay, Andrew

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maclean, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, Sir David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stern, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stewart, Allan

  Mans, Keith

  Streeter, Gary

  Marland, Paul

  Sumberg, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mates, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thomason, Roy

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  943

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Watts, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Whitney, Ray

  Tracey, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trend, Michael

  Wiggjn, Sir Jerry

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Willetts, David

  Vaughan Sir Gerard

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wolfson.Mark

  Walden, George

  Yeo, Tim

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Waller, Gary

  Ward, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mr. Simon Burns.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ainger, Nick

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Allen, Graham

  Darling, Alistair

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Austin-Walker, John

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

  Barnes, Harry

  Denham, John

  Battle, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dixon, Don

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dobson, Frank

  Beggs, Roy

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dowd, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eastham, Ken

  Berry, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Betts, Clive

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Blunkett, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bradley, Keith

  Flynn, Paul

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

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

  Foulkes, George

  Burden, Richard

  Fraser, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Callaghan, Jim

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  George, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Garrard, Neil

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Cann, Jamie

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chidgey, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gordon, Mildred

  Church, Judith

  Graham, Thomas

  Clapham, Michael

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clelland, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gunnell, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Hain, Peter

  Cohen, Harry

  Hall, Mike

  Connarty, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hardy, Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Harvey, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Henderson, Doug

  Corston.Jean

  Heppell.John

  Cousins, Jim

  Hill, Keith

  Cox, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cummings, John

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hoey. Kate

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  944

  Home, Robertson, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mudie, George

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoyle, Doug

  Murphy, Paul

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hutton,John

  Olner, Bill

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ingram, Adam

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Patchett, Terry

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jamieson, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Reid, Dr John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rendel, David

  Khabra, Piara S

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rogers, Allan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lewis, Terry

  Rooney, Terry

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Litherland, Robert

  Ruddock, Joan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Short, Clare

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Llwyd, Elfyn

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

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAllion, John

  Soley, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Spearing, Nigel

  McCartney, Ian

  Spellar, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McFall, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKelvey, William

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Timms, Stephen

  MacShane, Denis

  Tipping, Paddy

  McWilliam, John

  Touhig, Don

  Maddock, Diana

  Turner, Dennis

  Mahon, Alice

  Tyler, Paul

  Marek,Dr John

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wallace, James

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Marttlew, Eric

  Watson, Mike

  Maxton, John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Meacher, Michael

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Meale, Alan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Wilson, Brian

  Milburn, Alan

  Wise, Audrey

  Miller, Andrew

  Worthington, Tony

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morley, Elliot

  Ms Estelle Morris and

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Mr. Stephen Byers.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft North Yorkshire (District of York) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.
  It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the draft Humberside (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 212.

  Division No. 91]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Day, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Devlin, Tim

  Amess, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ancram, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Arbuthnot, James

  Duncan, Alan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Atkins, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Elletson, Harold

  Baldry.Tony

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Evennett, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Faber, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bowis, John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Brandreth, Gyles

  French, Douglas

  Brazier, Julian

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bright Sir Graham

  Gale, Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Burt, Alistair

  Garnier, Edward

  Butcher, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Butler, Peter

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Butlerfill, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Cash, William

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Chidgey, David

  Hague, William

  Churchill, Mr

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Clappison, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hannam, Sir John

  Colvin, Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Congdon, David

  Harris, David

  Conway, Derek

  Harvey, Nick

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Couchman, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

  Hendry, Charles

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  946

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Horam, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

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

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Page, Richard

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Paice, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pawsey, James

  Jack, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Pickles, Eric

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jones, Gwitym (Cardiff N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rendel, David

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Richards, Rod

  Key, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robathan, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

  Sackville, Tom

  Knox, Sir David

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shersby, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Luff, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maclean, David

  Spring, Richard

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sproat, Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maddock, Diana

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, Sir David

  Steen, Anthony

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stephen, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stern, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Allan

  Marland, Paul

  Streeter, Gary

  Marlow, Tony

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sykes, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Thomason, Roy

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thurnharn, Peter

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tracey, Richard

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trend, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tyler, Paul

  947

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Whittingdale, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Walden, George

  Willetts, David

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Wilshire, David

  Wallace, James

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waller, Gary

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Ward, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Yeo, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Whitney, Ray

  Mr. Simon Burns.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dixon, Don

  Ainger, Nick

  Dobson, Frank

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Allen, Graham

  Dowd, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Ashton, Joe

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Austin-Walker, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Barnes, Harry

  Etherington, Bill

  Battle, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beggs, Roy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Benton, Joe

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fraser, John

  Berry, Roger

  Fyfe, Maria

  Betts, Clive

  Galbraith, Sam

  Blunkett, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Boyes, Roland

  George, Bruce

  Bradley, Keith

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

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

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burden, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caborn, Richard

  Gordon, Mildred

  Callaghan, Jim

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cann, Jamie

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gunnel, John

  Church, Judith

  Hain, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hardy, Peter

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monkfands W)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate

  Connarty, Michael

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ingram, Adam

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Dafyeil, Tam

  Jamieson, David

  Daring, Alistair

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  948

  Keen, Alan

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lewis, Terry

  Purchase, Ken

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Litherland, Robert

  Reid, Dr John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretfbrd)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  McAllion, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rogers, Allan

  McCartney, Ian

  Rooker, Jeff

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rooney, Terry

  McFal, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McKelvey, William

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  McMaster, Gordon

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacShane, Denis

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

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Marek, DrJohn

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spellar, John

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Martlew, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maxton, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Meacher, Michael

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Miller, Andrew

  Timms, Stephen

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mconie, Dr Lewis

  Touhig, Don

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Turner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Watson, Mike

  Mudie, George

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wise, Audrey

  Olner, Bill

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wray, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Patchett Terry

  Pendry, Tom

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ms Estelle Morris and

  Pike, Peter L

  Mr. Stephen Byers.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Points of Order
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recall that earlier today I asked a question about a woman called Sita Kamara whom the Home Office is trying to remove from Britain. I have since learnt that, despite my raising the matter here this afternoon and receiving a letter from the Home Office this evening, the Home Secretary intends to remove her from Britain at 7 o'clock tomorrow morning, thus denying Members of Parliament an opportunity to make representations and apparently denying her access to a special medical examination by the Medical Campaign for the Victims of Torture.
  I am deeply concerned about that matter, and I look to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to advise me as to how best the House could have an opportunity to question the Home Office on what I believe to be a totally unfair and irrational act against a deeply disturbed young woman who has been on hunger strike and in prison since she arrived in this country to seek asylum from the Ivory Coast. I believe the matter to be urgent and, while I apologise for raising it now, clearly there are no other opportunities for me to do so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a matter on which the Chair can rule at all. Treasury Bench Members are here, however, and they will have heard the hon. Gentleman's plea.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this a different issue?
  Mr. Cohen: It is related—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Either it is or it is not.
  Mr. Cohen: It is on the same issue.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I have ruled on it. [Interruption.] I am most grateful.
  Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not accept it.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Fair Employment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7854/94, relating to procedures for the possible budgetisation of the European Development Fund, and supports the Government's view that, in order to maintain maximum control over the United Kingdom's level of contribution to the EDF, Her Majesty's Government should continue to oppose its budgetisation.—[Mr. Wells.]
  The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
  Question agreed to.

  Wiltshire Police Force
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
  10.30 pm
  Mr. David Faber: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the issue of the Wiltshire police force and the funding that has been made available to that force this year.
  The motto of the Wiltshire police force is "Primus et Optimus". It is the oldest police force in the country and, we believe, very much the best. It is one of the smallest police forces and has one of the highest clear-up rates in the United Kingdom.
  The financial settlement that we received this year must be seen against the background of substantial increases in police numbers in recent years and the very welcome reduction in the recorded rate of crime, which we have witnessed in Wiltshire during the past year.
  In a recent parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), whom I am delighted to see in his place, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, acknowledged that between 1979 and 1993 the total strength of the Wiltshire police force increased by about 40.1 per cent.—well above the average population growth in the county at the time. The number of officers increased by about 26.5 per cent. and the number of civilians by a staggering 96.3 per cent. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the chief constable and to all his staff—police officers and civilians—in the Wiltshire force.
  This year, the settlement has come against a background of scare stories and scaremongering from the local Opposition parties, who at one stage threatened a 9 per cent. cash cut in Wiltshire's cash funding for this year. Statements such as "outrageous" and "breathtaking" appeared in the local press. In fact, if the new Wiltshire police authority spends up to its capping limit this year, as it always did under the county council police authority, we shall see a real-terms increase in funding for the Wiltshire police force this year of about 2.5 per cent. While I acknowledge that that is a disappointing increase compared with that for many other counties, it is one within which the local force should be well able to work.
  I must draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to one or two issues relating to the funding formula. The figures given by the old police authority, under Wiltshire county council control, at the beginning of the year—figures that were given to the Department of the Environment—amounted to a base budget for this year of about £57.8 million. The figure that the chief constable gave to the other Members of Parliament representing the county represented a base budget of about £58.76 million—a discrepancy of almost £1 million.
  I spent several weeks trying to reconcile the difference between the two figures and I am most grateful to officials at the Home Office and the Department of the Environment for the considerable time and effort that they put into attempting to reconcile the figures. They were eventually explained to me, by the treasurer of the new police authority, as representing savings that have been rolled over from the previous year into the 1994–95 budget.
  952
  That begs three questions. First, why is it, when such crucial figures are being put to central Government and when local Members of Parliament are being lobbied, that the old police authority and the police force, as represented by the chief constable, are unable to agree on the correct level of funding and on the correct base budget for the year? Secondly, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State would confirm that such rolled-over savings should not be included in the base budget as I have been unable to confirm that so far. Thirdly, if such rolled-over savings are not to be included in the base budget, why is that not so in this case? Is it not fair that a base budget should be based on spending arising out of financial prudence from the previous year? We have had considerable confusion in Wiltshire in the past few months about our capping limit, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could make a few comments to try to clear some of the confusion.
  I shall dwell for a moment on the main problems of the new funding formula as they affect Wiltshire and, indeed, as I believe that they affect several other counties which have suffered under that formula. In Wiltshire we have undoubtedly been penalised as regards pension payments for this year, and we envisage difficulties this year in funding those pension payments.
  Allowance has been made in the 1994–95 budget to fund pension payments for officers eligible to retire during this financial year. However, it is likely that the pension expenditure allowed under the new formula will not be enough, given the reality of expected retirements for the year 1995–96. Police forces as a whole usually consider it prudent to allow full provision for those who may be eligible to retire, but in 1995–96 we may well be confronted with additional problems in Wiltshire.
  For a variety of reasons, many of the officers who were due to retire before 31 March are likely to stay on until September 1995. As a result, about £1.6 million which would have been spent on payments for the 1994–95 year will not be spent. In previous years, under the old formula, 49 per cent. of those payments could have been rolled over into the following year, but unfortunately that is not permitted under the new formula.
  I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State would consider the issue of pensions, and specifically if he would inquire whether a case can be made for a capping disregard to allow for such funds to be rolled over to allow some easing on pension payments in the current year.
  The second problem that the formula has thrown up for us is that of the rural nature of the county which is spread out over a great area, with the exception of Swindon which is the large town in the county. It appears that those of us who live in rural areas—and police forces which operate in such areas—experience a certain amount of discrimination under the funding formula.
  I believe that the standard spending assessment for education, which the Department of the Environment controls, includes some factor to take account of rural sparsity. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has been inquiring into that and I wonder whether he has made any progress in considering the issues for the funding formula in the coming year.
  Mr. Robert Key: I too have brought pressure to bear on our hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, on the question of sparsity. It is a significant

  953
  issue, not only in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), but in the Devizes constituency next door—and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is in his place. Has the Minister received any response at the Home Office about that sparsity factor? I know that the Department of the Environment revises the statistical basis of its standard spending assessment calculation every year. That issue should surely be tackled for the Wiltshire police.
  Mr. Faber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that that is the case. My hon. Friend the Minister, in a letter to colleagues just before the funding debate a few weeks ago, highlighted the pensions issue and the rural sparsity factor and said that he would take that into consideration. I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury and I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give us a few words of wisdom about the extent to which that review is progressing and whether he is able to give us any further advice this evening.
  We now have a funding shortfall to fill. According to the chief constable, who has now published a list of possible cuts within the Wiltshire police force, it may be as much as £3 million.
  As my hon. Friends in the county have pointed out on previous occasions, we hope that there will be no need for a reduction in police strength. The new police authority and the chief constable may be able to make savings, and I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister about one or two of those. I understand that this year Wiltshire will receive £500,000, which it must spend in the current financial year on common police services such as the national police computer but that under the funding formula for next year that will not be the case. I am interested to know whether that money will revert to Wiltshire's funding and be additional money that the chief constable will be able to spend.
  My hon. Friend the Minister and the chief constable will not want to talk at great length about security matters, but Wiltshire has way above the normal number of VIPs to protect and the county has a large and active special protection force. If the peace process in Northern Ireland continues to be successful and to reap the peace dividend, we hope that officers withdrawn from special protection duties will be able to boost the normal manpower available to the Wiltshire police force. Whether the budget is spent in hard cash or on numbers of police officers, I hope that it will revert to the Wiltshire police force and will not be subsumed into the national budget.
  In the few minutes left to me, I shall strike a slightly discordant note. Like one or two of my hon. Friends, I have received many representations recently, both by post and at my surgeries, about the major concern caused by local press reports suggesting that the new police authority set up under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 may plan to spend as much as £200,000 on acquiring new premises for the police authority to meet in, possibly in Devizes close to the Wiltshire police headquarters. When I first heard that, I was surprised. Having done some research, I think that I have managed to understand where the various grants are available from and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his written replies to me in recent weeks on that matter.
  954
  I understand that two grants are available to new police authorities and police forces under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act to help set up the new police authorities. One is for £97,500, which is specifically for the use of the police authorities. In a letter sent to the chief constable of Wiltshire police on 8 July 1994, the payment of that initial grant is decreed as being to cover
  "costs such as selection panel expenses, members' allowances, the appointment of a clerk and treasurer, accommodation and anything else directly attributable to the parallel running of two police authorities."
  In addition, an initial grant will be made available to the police force. Again as a result of a parliamentary reply from my hon. Friend the Minister, I understand that in the case of Wiltshire that grant will be some £400,000. The chief constable of Wiltshire, in a letter of 26 August 1994, applied for a grant of £220,000 to finance a new police headquarters in Devizes under the £400,000 grant. The submission was subsequently changed and a detailed claim was submitted by the clerk of the new Wiltshire police authority on 15 December 1994 for £180,000 for the new police authority headquarters.
  Either way, I consider that those sums are unnecessary and a waste of public funds. They fall short for two reasons. First, why does a new police authority with a few members, which has already said that it plans to meet in town and village halls around the county, need to spend £200,000 on premises in which to meet when it already has facilities available to it in Trowbridge, where the old police authority has been meeting since time immemorial, for the sum of some £7,000 or £8,000 a year in rent? Even if the new police authority were to rent new buildings, I understand that that would cost £25,000 more than the rental on its existing accommodation at county hall. That is possibly the cost of one new police constable on the beat. At a time of cuts, that seems a very poor saving.
  Secondly, I believe that an application of that type falls outside the spirit of the grant. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that point. I understand that the Wiltshire police force applied for the grant originally. However, circumstances changed and the new Wiltshire police authority subsequently applied for the grant. In a letter of 31 January which was sent to the clerk of the Wiltshire shadow police authority, one of my hon. Friend's officials said:
  "However, I note that the accommodation bid of £180,000 is now intended for the new police authority. Wiltshire's original letter of 26 August 1994 suggested that this accommodation was for the use of the police force …While it is for the police authority to decide how to spend its money, claims for initial financing grant for police force use will not be verified where they relate to expenditure incurred only for police authority use".
  Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the grant will not be given to the new police authority for its new premises? I have received information in the past couple of days from a reliable source that it is possible that the grant application will revert to the Wiltshire police force. I understand that premises have already been found close to the police headquarters on the outskirts of town in a new business park in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. It is possible that the new police force will move into those premises and will be followed closely by the police authority.
  At the very best, I believe that such an application is outside the spirit of the grant, and at the very worst—I hesitate to say it—I believe that the police authority is using underhand tactics to gain expensive new accommodation. I

  955
  hope that my hon. Friend will consider carefully the points that I have raised. I hope that he will consider whether the grant should be paid and whether it is viable expenditure by the new Wiltshire police authority.
  10.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I have listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), which I take very seriously indeed. I am also grateful for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). My hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who is in his place, and for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) have made representations to me outside the Chamber about policing in Wiltshire. I am glad that they are in the Chamber tonight to hear my remarks.
  The key purpose of the programme of reforms that we are implementing is to ensure a positive future for policing. I am very encouraged by recent figures which show crime on the retreat, and we must maintain and improve the conditions to take that process further.
  Providing sufficient funding for the police service and distributing it fairly are rightly matters of prime concern. That is particulariy true at a time when we are introducing important changes to the system for the next financial year. Moving to the application of a new, objective formula for the allocation of resources between police authorities has been a complicated business. I expected to receive a large number of queries and I have not been disappointed. I will shortly he responding to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury in which he passed on representations from the chief constable of Wiltshire.
  The Wiltshire constabulary is an excellent example of the kind of strong local force that is the backbone of British policing. It is committed to quality and to the service of a wide range of local communities. While it is not a large force, it has a real sense of identity with the people of the county and that is the basis of the partnership which we see as an essential element in preventing and dealing with crime. A well-developed system of consultative groups allows for regular contact between officers and those whom they serve and there are also strong links with crime prevention panels. There are 4,116 neighbourhood watch schemes in Wiltshire covering more than 62,000 households.
  The Wiltshire force is also forward-looking, with a strong record in technical development and effective liaison with other agencies, such as the Crown Prosecution Service. Most important of all, the force is playing a vital part in getting crime rates down. In the 12 months to June 1994—the latest period for which we have figures—recorded crime fell by 5 per cent. in England and Wales, but Wiltshire beat that figure with a fall of 9 per cent. Burglaries and vehicle crimes in the county fell by 7 per cent. and 12 per cent. respectively. Wiltshire's clear-up rate is also very good at 35 per cent, compared with a national average of 25 per cent.
  Basic support in money terms for the Wiltshire force increases by 0.4 per cent. in 1995–96, and I understand that the budget for that financial year has now been set at £59.145 million. The uplift may seem modest, but we need to delve a little deeper to get a more accurate view of the position and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury for delving deeper.
  956
  First, Wiltshire certainly gets a fair share of resources under the formula as it currently stands. The relative demand for policing is assessed as higher in many other areas and that is not altogether surprising. Thankfully, Wiltshire is not a rabid hotbed of crime. While a number of English county forces historically spend less on policing, none recorded fewer offences than Wiltshire in the most recent year for which figures are available.
  To be blunt, we have to recognise that any redistributive formula will produce gains and losses in relative terms. I am confident that while the formula will inevitably need further development to take into account such factors as rural sparsity, pensions and so on, it is working as fairly as possible, but some people will inevitably be disappointed with its local effects.
  Wiltshire says that it is doing badly under the formula compared with 1994–95, but let us look at the background to the funding for 1994–95. It was based on an establishment which had increased by nearly 16 per cent. since 1979, almost double the national increase. As a Government, we are proud that Wiltshire had that dramatic increase in establishment. Over the same period, strength has grown by 255, or more than 25 per cent. compared with a national increase of 14 per cent., so between 1979 and 1995, total expenditure on policing in Wiltshire grew by nearly 154 per cent. in real terms, as against the national increase of 92 per cent. Therefore, any claim for further substantial additions to funding should be seen in the context of those generous increases over a period of 15 years.
  The chief constable recently referred to a budget now standing at £60.677 million for 1994–95. Of course, the basic allocation for 1995–96 looks low in comparison, but the chief constable's figure includes significant savings from the 1993–94 budget rolled over with the county council's agreement. I understand that many of those savings related to unspent pensions provisions and that there is likely to be another underspend in that category in 1994–95. If there is, the county council may be prepared to make arrangements for the new police authority to have access to some of that money for 1995–96. The budget may then look distinctly healthier.
  Pensions are a problem for police funding, but they can also distort proper comparisons between year-on-year budgets. Stated budget requirements may be inflated by making financial provision for all officers eligible to retire in a particular year. In practice, experience shows that much of that provision will often be left unspent.
  My hon. Friend commented on the effect of capping on the Wiltshire police in 1995–96. As hon. Members know, capping is designed to protect council tax payers from the burden of supporting excessive increases in local authority spending. Base budgets for capping purposes and spending caps are a measure of the burden which has been or will be placed on local taxpayers. The final figures, therefore, exclude any expenditure which has been or will be funded by drawing on reserves or by income generated from charging for services. In the case of Wiltshire police authority, the 1994–95 base budget was reduced to reflect the county council's income from fees for registering births, marriages and deaths.
  The Wiltshire police argued, understandably, that as they had no involvement with this work and saw none of the income it generated their base budget should be

  957
  reduced. The police base budget was correspondingly increased by some £26,000 from £57.82 million to £57.85 million.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the concern in Wiltshire that an underspend in 1994–95 could not be carried forward into 1995–96 and benefit the police in that year because it would be included in the capping limit rather than being added to it. That is not the case. The underspend would be carried forward this year by putting money into reserves and then drawing on those reserves next year. Spending from reserves is entirely separate from capping because it does not impact on council tax payers whose interests capping is designed to protect. The spending from reserves in 1995–96 could, therefore, be used to finance additional expenditure above the capping limit.
  My hon. Friend said that there was a suggestion that some money allocated for the police service might be used by the police authority for accommodation. I cannot comment on any strategy that a police authority might develop to circumvent the rules for the allocation of initial financing grant for police force use, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the expenditure against which initial financing grants will be paid will be subsequently scrutinised by district auditors who will be countersigning the grant claim form that will be required to be submitted by 31 December this year. Grant that has not been properly used will be reclaimed—it is as simple as that. At that stage, such money could not be re-allocated to another police authority.
  Mr. Faber: I have been listening carefully to what my hon. Friend has been saying. The fact remains that the new Wiltshire police authority is under the impression that the grant has been approved. Indeed, in a letter that it sent to me today, it is clear that it believes that the £400,000 has been approved and, within that, the £180,000 for a new police authority headquarters at Devizes. Can my hon. Friend say whether that grant has been approved, or whether his officials are still considering it?
  Mr. Maclean: I should like to respond in detail, but I was not aware of that letter. I should need to check it carefully before responding. I can say only that we believe that the law is quite clear. I am sure that no police authority would seek to act in a way that would get round the spirit of the law and risk the district auditor's not countersigning the grant claim form. Not only would the police authority not get access to the money, but the police service would not get access to the resources for which I am sure everyone is fighting. I should like to see the details of what the authority is claiming, and I should then be delighted to respond in writing to my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends.
  I am confident that we can do more in Wiltshire and elsewhere to increase the number of officers on the beat where they can reassure the law-abiding public and deter potential offenders. The whole question of funding and the arguments about formulae arise because people want the maximum police effectiveness for the large amounts of money that are, rightly, spent on the police service. The Government's record speaks for itself. There has been an increase of 16,000 police officers since 1979, and we shall improve the position further from April by removing the central controls on numbers in each force. Chief
  958
  constables on the ground—not the Government and Whitehall—will decide force priorities and they will be able to choose freely between additional police officers, civilians, equipment or any other form of expenditure.
  We shall keep up the pressure on police forces to put civilians into jobs that do not require police officers' powers, skills or expensive training. Since 1983, that process has helped us return more than 7,000 officers to front-line duties. We have been able to do that because, in addition to the 16,000 bobbies, we have recruited 16,000 civilians to take over the typewriters and release officers for front-line duties. Wiltshire has a very good record on civilianisation, but there are still a number of posts that civilians could do and should take over. That is the opinion of HM inspectorate of constabulary.
  Having mentioned cash limiting of the police grant, I shall say a little more about the key change to the funding system. When linked to the introduction of free-standing police authorities, it will ensure that each force gets a full and clearly defined share of the resources available. Under the new system county councils will not be able to divert resources to other services as some—in fact, the majority, I believe, last year—have done in the past. Nor will additional spending attract automatic grant that will have to be financed from national taxation. The new system of formula funding will depend vitally on the effectiveness of the arrangements for distributing resources, and that is where the formula comes in.
  The new formula fills the gap that existed under the old system and it corrects those anomalies. It provides a much more direct link between funding and policing needs. The key factor driving it is population, with particular social and demographic factors playing a small but significant part. Some allowance is made for roads and motorways and the number of officers on ports and protection duties. Around 9 per cent. of the formula is linked to predicted pensions expenditure. Although moving to an improved basis for distribution is all very well, I can assure my hon. Friends that we realise that there cannot be too much change all at once.
  Nor do we imagine that we have got everything right the first time. We will continue to review and develop the formula this year and will do so in consultation with the police and local authority representatives. One focus of that work will be the way in which we allow for the special problems of policing rural areas in counties such as Wiltshire. No one will be happier than me, as a Member representing another rural county, if the police service comes to us with very good reasons and arguments about building in a sparsity factor. So far, we have not had arguments that would justify my making that change. I cannot depend on gut instinct, although I believe that the policing of rural areas is bound to have a greater cost than the policing of some urban areas.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Maclean: Very quickly.
  Mr. Beggs: I thank the Minister for giving way.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

TREASURY

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Mr. Nelson
  None.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 195, how many "Dear Accounting officer" letters he has sent to non-departmental bodies giving guidance on the schedule E classification and tax status of non-executive board members; on what date they were sent; and what their principal elements were.

  Sir George Young
  None. Where necessary, guidance on these matters is provided on an individual case by case by the Inland Revenue.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the law on VAT group registration is to be changed, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have asked Customs and Excise to review the current provisions on VAT group registration and report to me by the early summer with a view to including any necessary changes in next year's Finance Bill. However, following a recent VAT tribunal decision, I have decided to propose some changes in the law immediately to prevent continuing tax losses by manipulation of the current provisions for tax avoidance purposes. The new clause will be tabled in the course of this year's Finance Bill. The clause, if approved, will have effect as from midnight tonight.

  Customs and Excise will be issuing a press notice, together with a draft of the clause, today. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure the enforcement provisions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 apply to all regulations for which his Department is responsible, past, present and future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: I refer to the reply given on 27 February by the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Ashford Great Park
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what losses were sustained by the Commissioners over the Ashford Great Park programme; and what charge exists, or legal action has been taken by them against the European Land group of companies, or family trusts or interests of Mr. James Cookson and his successors.

  Mr. Alison
  Companies within the European land group and controlled by the late Mr. James Cookson were one of the commissioners' partners in the Ashford Great Park project, but they went into receivership in 1992. Shortly afterwards the Commissioners exercised their legal charge over the land purchased for the project in order to offset the loans owed to the Commissioners by their partners. No further action is being taken against European Land or its subsidiaries or the family interests of Mr. Cookson following his death. All of the land purchased for the project now belongs to the Commissioners and, for the present, this land has been written down to its value at an agricultural estate but with the benefit of the local plan allocation for redevelopment at some stage in the future. The cost of the Commissioners' investment in the partnership amounted to £80 million.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, (Mr. McNamara) on 5 December 1994,Official Report, column 251.

  Parliamentary Pension Fund
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has at any time met the chairman and/or members of the senior salaries review body to discuss its current review of the parliamentary contributory pension fund.

  Mr. Newton
  I have had no such meetings.

TRANSPORT

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the continuing sum available for the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising over the next three financial years for the support of passenger services both franchise and those operated by British Rail.

  Mr. Watts
  An estimated £1,800 million of grant to support passenger services will be provided in 1995–96
  467
  of which £1,610 million will be paid by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising to British Rail and franchisees, and £190 million will be paid by the Department of Transport to passenger transport authorities.

  Estimates of the level of grant support for later years are not yet available.

  Furness Bridge (Rudder Assembly)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received in relation to the rudder assembly of the Furness Bridge; what recent assessment he has made of rudder assemblies in other ships in the Derbyshire class; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mrs. Joan Walley, dated 28 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the rudder assembly of the Furness Bridge and other ships in the Derbyshire class.
  Two representations have been received in relation to the rudder assembly of the Furness Bridge. I am not aware of any recent assessments of rudder assemblies of other ships in the Derbyshire class.

  Heavy Lorries (Track Costs)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if delays to motorists arising from structural maintenance of the road network are included in the assessment of the track costs of heavy lorries.

  Mr. Watts
  Track costs are restricted to the provision and maintenance of the track, and do not include delay costs.

  Buses (Pollution)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will issue guidelines to London bus operators to direct their drivers to switch off their engines when a bus is parked; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for London Transport Buses.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No items of correspondence were received by Ministers in the Department of Transport from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Suriname
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will include in the United Kingdom overseas aid programme provision for 468
  financial assistance to the Government of Suriname for the purpose of strengthening the Surinamese forest management service.

  Mr. Baldry
  We provide substantial assistance in promoting sustainable forest management to a number of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, including Brazil, Mexico, Ecuador, Honduras and Guyana, but we have no plans to introduce a bilateral aid programme to Suriname.

  Aid Distribution
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the Overseas Development Administration's aid to developing countries goes to the poorest countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1993–94, 69 per cent. of ODA's aid to developing countries which can be attributed to individual country programmes went to the poorest countries.

  The change-over the figure of 80 per cent. previously given for the proportion of aid going to the poorest countries in 1992–93 is explained by the following factors:
  (i) technical changes in the definition used for aid to the poorest including:

  a reclassification of some emergency aid provided through multilateral agencies from multilateral to bilateral aid, reflecting the fact that the aid is made available for countries that ODA specifies and is thus bilateral is character. Since many of the recipients for instance, in the former Yugoslavia—are not among the poorest countries, this has the effect of reducing bilateral aid to the poorest. This accounts for a change of over two percentage points;

  a change in the OECD definition of income groups, lowering the threshold for low income countries from an annual income per head of $765 to $675. This accounts for a change of two percentage points;

  (ii) some shift of aid expenditure from low income countries to lower middle income countries accounting for the remaining change of over six percentage points. This includes emergency aid in Bosnia and Angola, neither of which are classified by the OECD as low income countries.

  Brazil
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that timber imports from Brazil to the United Kingdom do not come from indigenous and biological reserves.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is the Brazilian Government's responsibility to ensure that timber extraction in Brazil is undertaken legally. The Brazilian Government are aware of our concern that logging in the Amazon should be legal and sustainable.

  Our embassy in Brasilia has helped arrange discussions between representatives of United Kingdom timber importers and interested bodies in Brazil aimed at ensuring that all mahogany imported from Brazil comes from legal sources.

  Through our aid programme we aim to help strengthen forest policies and management in Brazil.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring he is carrying out in respect of the World Bank funded Carajas project in Brazil; and what are his conclusions in relation to evidence of illegal logging and mining activities in indigenous people's territories.
  469
  Mr. Baldry
  The World Bank loan for the Carajas iron ore project and associated railway was approved in 1982 and closed in 1987. We have no recent information about logging and mining activities in the region.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney General what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

ENVIRONMENT

  Climate Change
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which elements of the carbon dioxide emission reduction programme outlined in "Climate

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Number of vacants

  Ministry of Defence

  16,286

  13,991

  11,975

  11,180

  10,973

  11,313

  Department of Health1

  15,911

  n/a

  14,729

  n/a

  1,800

  n/a

  Home Office2

  3,241

  2,382

  1,641

  1,406

  1,672

  n/a

  Scottish Office

  502

  319

  310

  246

  239

  158

  Department of Transport

  n/a

  n/a

  584

  483

  788

  887

  Welsh Office3

  85

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  40

  43

  Percentage of housing stock vacant

  Ministry of Defence

  21

  18

  16

  15

  15

  16

  Department of Health1

  18

  n/a

  15

  n/a

  12

  n/a

  Home Office2

  16

  14

  10

  9

  12

  n/a

  Scottish Office

  23

  16

  16

  15

  14

  10

  Department of Transport

  n/a

  n/a

  22

  16

  22

  23

  Welsh Office3

  19

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  17

  18

  1 Includes NHS. The 1989 and 1991 figures include empty bed-spaces in hostels.

  2 Includes the Prison Service and Metropolitan and provincial police authorities.

  3 Excludes dwellings awaiting demolition or conversion to non-residential use.

  n/a = Not available.

  Housing, Westminster
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were built in each of the wards of the borough of Westminster in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Department.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was spent on the provision of disabled facilities in each of the wards within the borough of Westminster in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was spent in each of the wards within the borough of Westminster for council house refurbishment for(a) facade improvements, (b)
  470
  Change: the UK Programme" are (a) delivering and (b) now expected to deliver greater savings than were initially expected.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are currently reviewing the contributions expected from the measures in our climate change programme in the light of recent developments, taking account of the revised energy projections that the Department of Trade and Industry is working on. I shall make an announcement to the House shortly.

  Departmental Property
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings owned by each Government Department lay vacant in each year since 1979; and what proportion of each Department's total housing stock this represented in each case.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Comprehensive data on Government Department vacant dwellings are not available. The table sets out the readily available estimates of vacants, including those in need of refurbishment or awaiting sale or demolition, for the Departments with the largest numbers of dwellings. In response to the report of the task force on Government Departments' empty homes, the Government have undertaken to monitor empty residential properties owned by Departments and to set annual targets for reducing vacants; the targets for 1994–95 were announced on 30 November last year.

  stone cleaning, (c) tree planting and (d) improving pavements in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information requested is not held centrally in this detail.

  Westminster City Council
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the leader of Westminster city council to discuss the district auditor's interim report.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  No such meeting has taken place. This is not a matter for the Government, but for the local authority and its appointed auditor.

  Councillors and Officers (Penalties)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the
  471
  adequacy of the level of penalties that can be imposed on councillors and officers who do not comply with district auditors' demands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with any requirement of an auditor under sections 16(1) and 16(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 is liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £200 and to an additional fine of £20 for each day on which the offence continues after conviction. I am not aware of any evidence that this is an inadequate penalty.

  Tree Preservation Orders
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, how many prosecutions were carried out in respect of breaches of tree preservation orders in each of the last five years; and what assessment he had made as to the extent to which this mechanism is effective.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on the numbers of prosecutions in respect of breaches of tree preservation orders is not collected centrally. The effectiveness of this mechanism was considered as part of a wide-ranging review of tree preservation policies and legislation. The outcome, following public consultation, was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in July last year. A number of changes are proposed to ensure that local authorities have adequate powers to bring effective action against abusers of the system. A paper setting out the Government's conclusions in more detail was placed in the Library of the House.

  House Building Requirements
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the house building requirements imposed by his Department in each county authority for the period 1991 to 2006 and (b) the environmental constraints which have affected the requirement downwards; what considerations determine the house building requirement (i) nationally and (ii) regionally; and what assessments he makes of the infrastructure required to support such a building requirement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The proposed provision of additional housing for each county in England is set out in "Regional and Strategic Planning Guidance". The figures for each county are shown in the table.

  National population projections are provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in consultation with local authorities. The Department of the Environment produces household projections for counties, and the metropolitan boroughs, which are adjusted to be consistent with national totals. The proposed regional dwelling provision is based on the household projections, and take into account factors such as the need for house replacement, vacancy rates, second homes, and tied accommodation.

  Regional conferences of local authorities are consulted on the distribution of the regional figures. In considering the figures they are required to take national planning and environmental policies into account, as well as local circumstances and constraints.
  472
  The figures in regional planning guidance are then tested through the structure plan process, and subject to scrutiny through an examination in public. This enables the figures to be refined in the light of local circumstances.

  Infrastructure requirements should be considered at the regional, county, and local level according to the size and strategic nature of proposed developments.

  Proposed regional level dwelling provision for counties in England

  (Figures are annual averages for the period stated, and are taken from "Regional or Strategic Planning Guidance" unless otherwise stated.)

  Number

  East Midlands region—1991 to 2011

  Derbyshire

  3,250

  Leicestershire

  3,500

  Lincolnshire

  3,400

  Northamptonshire

  3,500

  Nottinghamshire

  3,250

  Eastern region—1986 to 2006

  Cambridgeshire

  3,700

  Norfolk

  3,450

  Suffolk

  3,100

  Northern region—1991 to 2006

  Cleveland

  933

  Durham

  1,400

  Northumberland

  1,033

  Tyne and Wear Metropolitan area SPG1

  2,315

  South East region—1991 to 2006

  Bedfordshire

  2,467

  Berkshire

  2,667

  Buckinghamshire

  3,267

  East Sussex

  2,333

  Essex

  5,333

  Hampshire

  6,133

  Hertfordshire

  3,333

  Isle of Wight

  533

  Kent

  5,800

  Oxfordshire

  2,467

  Surrey

  2,400

  West Sussex

  2,933

  London Metropolitan area

  1,155

  South West region—1991 to 2011

  Avon

  2,950

  Cornwall

  2,250

  Devon

  4,950

  Dorset

  3,150

  Gloucester

  2,650

  Somerset

  2,500

  Wiltshire

  3,450

  West Midlands region 1991–2011 (consultation draft figures)

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,500

  Shropshire

  2,150

  Staffordshire

  2,850

  Warwickshire

  1,750

  West Midlands (Metropolitan area)

  5,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside region 1991–2006 (consultation draft figures)

  Humberside

  3,500

  North Yorkshire

  3,000

  South Yorkshire (Metropolitan area)

  3,400

  West Yorkshire (Metropolitan area)

  6,700

  473

  Number

  North West region(draft RPG forthcoming—figures are for time scales as detailed)

  Cheshire structure plan (1986–2001)

  3,933

  Cumbria structure plan (1981–1996)

  1.573

  Further proposed modifications (1991–2006)

  1,833

  Lancashire structure plan (1986–1996)

  4,120

  Deposit replacement plan (1991–2006)

  4,403

  Merseyside SPG, 1986–2001 (Metropolitan area)

  3,303

  Greater Manchester SPG, 1986 to 2001 (Metropolitan area)

  4,000

  1 1988 to 2001

  (1) Includes NHS. The 1989 and 1991 figures include empty bed-spaces in hostels.

  (2) Includes the Prison Service and Metropolitan and provincial police authorities.

  (3) Excludes dwellings awaiting demolition or conversion to non-residential use.

  NCM Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations there have been with the trustees of the Marquis of Bute's estate regarding the permission granted for three years from 1 January 1992 to January 1995, for NCM Ltd. to remain co-located with his Department at Crown buildings, Cathays park; on what date and until what date an extension to the permission was granted; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 23 February 1995]: The permission given on behalf of the Bute estate for NCM Ltd. to occupy Crown buildings, Cathays park, contrary to a restrictive covenant within the deeds for the premises, has been excited.

  The liquidator of Mountjoy Ltd., successors in title to all the Cardiff property formerly owned by the Marques of Bute, consented by letter dated 31 January 1995 to waive the restrictive covenant for a period of six months from the date of that letter.

  Negotiations of a commercial nature are continuing between my Department and NCM Ltd. It is therefore not appropriate for any statement to be made.

  Objective 1 Funding
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps her Majesty's Government are taking to monitor access and take-up of objective 1 funds by small and medium enterprises and, in particular Department of Trade and Industry co-financed schemes.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: Monitoring of objective 1 funds on Merseyside will be undertaken by the Government office for Merseyside for European regional development fund including DTI co-financed schemes, the Employment Department for European Structural Fund and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. The Merseyside single programme document sets clear targets for the assistance of SMEs through the programme and progress towards these targets will form part of the monitoring process.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, how much is being spent in 1994–95 under the single regeneration budget in London in 474
  (a) Greater London (b) metropolitan districts and (c)
  elsewhere; what are the figures for each year since the establishment of the single regeneration budget; and how much is planned to be spent in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–62.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 21 February 1995]: The single regeneration budget came into
  operation in April 1994. Outturn expenditure in 1994–95 on the contributing programmes within the SRB is expected to be:

  £ million

  a) Greater London

  373.7

  b) Metropolitan districts

  639,5

  c) elsewhere

  254.5

  Total

  1,267.7

  These figures exclude expenditure by English Partnerships, whose budget has not been regionally allocated. Total expenditure may also be higher in areas where contributing programmes make use of receipts or contributions from local authorities or the private sector.

  Planned SRB expenditure, including English Partnerships, in future years is £1,329.0 million in 1995–96 and £1,324.2 million in 1996–97. As allocations to specific areas are not finalised and new SRB partnerships will, in some cases, operate across local authority areas, a breakdown of this planned expenditure by the areas sought is not available.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 21 February 1995,Official Report, column 149, regarding additional section 11 funding, if he will give the amounts of section 11 funding ring-fenced within the single regeneration budget, in November 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend has given today to a question by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn).

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Mr. Gummer
  None.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those directives from the European Union/Community since 1990 which have had an effect on local government, stating for each(a) the manner in which the directive has been absorbed into United Kingdom law, (b) the means of enforcing the directive and (c) the extra resources made available to local authorities to meet those consequences, differentiating between provision by way of standard spending assessments, annual capital guidelines and basic credit approvals.
  475
  Mr. Gummer
  I have today placed in the Library a table containing information about directives from the European Community which have affected local government, and the legislation which makes provision for their enforcement in national law. The European Union recognises that most of the activities of local councils are best regulated by local and national Government. However, many environmental issues can be addressed effectively only in the context of the European Union and the UK plays its proper part at the heart of the Union seeking to ensure that directives are good for Britain and good for Europe. The annual local government finance settlement takes full account of the cost to local authorities of all new burdens, including those arising from the European Community. Basic credit approvals issued to each authority are calculated by reference to annual capital guidelines; these are assessments of the authority's need to spend and are determined by the Government Department with the policy responsibility for each service.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Without Frontiers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the research projects undertaken in his Department to ascertain the impact of quotas for European work in the television without frontiers directive, and its effect on strengthening the European audio-visual industries ability to produce and distribute television programmes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department has not undertaken any research projects into the effect of the European programme requirements in articles 4 and 5 of the television without frontiers directive. The hon. Gentleman may, however, be interested in a study conducted by London Economics, "The Economic Impact of Television Quotas in the European Union", published in 1994, which concluded that quotas were an ineffective means of encouraging growth in the production sector and might actually have a negative effect.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what was the outcome of his meeting in Bordeaux regarding quotas; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to (a) receive an official text from the Commission and (b) the House to receive a document on television without frontiers from the European Union.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The informal meeting of European Union Culture and Audio-visual Ministers in Bordeaux on 13 to 14 February discussed a number of issues of audio-visual policy, among which was the European Commission's review of the implementation by member states of the television without frontiers directive. There was a spirited debate on the European programme requirements of the directive's articles 4 and 5, which revealed a large measure of agreement against tightening the existing quota regime.

  In the light of this discussion, the Commission has undertaken to try to bring forward proposals for a revised directive before the end of March.
  476
  Any proposals from the European Commission for revision of the directive will be deposited for parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with the usual procedures.

  West Cumbria
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to promote west Cumbria as a destination for leisure travel.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Grant in aid to the English tourist board supports a range of development and marketing programmes which benefit tourism in all parts of England. Many of these are delivered by the regional tourist boards, including the Cumbria tourist board, which receive substantial funding from the ETB. The CTB will receive a block grant of £342,000 in the current financial year, and can also bid for support for specific projects from the ETB's £2.25 million tourism development fund.

  Tourism in west Cumbria also benefits from the overseas activities of the British Tourist Authority. The CTB is now part of the BTA's marketing consortium "England's North Country" which provides a higher profile for the area in overseas markets.

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if applications for improvements to public libraries are eligible from the national lottery fund.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The National Heritage memorial fund's guidelines to applicants for lottery funds state that grants can be made to library buildings which are of recognised importance to the heritage. Copies of these guidelines are available in the Library of the House. The Arts Council of England has stated that it can make grants out of lottery funds for the enhancement of library facilities through the provision of space for activities such as readings, literary events, exhibitions, concerts and performances.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what directives he has issued to the Director General of the National Lottery in pursuit of the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to stimulate the demand for gambling.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under section 11 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, my predecessor as Secretary of State for National Heritage issued a number of directions to the Director General of the National Lottery. These include a direction which requires the director general to exercise his functions under sections 5 and 6 of the Act in such a way as to ensure that no licence is granted which authorises the promotion of any lottery which in his opinion encourages excessive participation or does not have sufficient controls to prevent the participation of young people under the age of 16. A complete set of the directions issued to the director general are available in the Library of the House.
  477
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to require the Camelot Group plc to publish regularly its profitability derived from the operation of the national lottery.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no plans to impose further reporting requirements on Camelot Group plc in addition to those to which it is already subject under the Companies Acts.

  Football Matches
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has held with football clubs and the Football Association in the aftermath of the recent Dublin riot, about the involvement of extremist political organisations in crowds at football matches.

  Mr. Sproat
  None. Such discussions would be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary or the police.

  Media II Programme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when Her Majesty's Government expect to receive notification of the EU's media II programme; and what parliamentary proceedings it will be subject to.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have yet to receive the European Commission's formal proposal, although we have seen an informal draft. According to the current timetable, we would expect to receive the final proposal by 22 March. Normal parliamentary scrutiny arrangements would apply.

  European Audio-visual Policy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the timetable for further public meeting proceedings on EC document 6398/94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The European Commission's Green Paper on European Audio-visual policy raised wide-ranging issues about the future of the European programme production industry and the measures which member states and the European Community should take to promote and strengthen it.

  In the light of the response to the document, and of the audio-visual conference held in Brussels on 30 June to 1 July, the Commission on 8 February adopted a proposal for a new programme, media II, to replace the existing EC media programme, and this has now been communicated to the Council. Discussions between member states on the proposal, which will be deposited for parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way, have now begun in an ad hoc Council working group. I cannot say when they will be completed. We expect the Commission to bring forward further proposals arising from the Green Paper in due course.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the EU's media II programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have yet to receive the Commission's formal proposal. Although we broadly support, the approach set out in an informal text, for a more focused programme, which concentrates resources on training, development and distribution, we have yet to agree details of how media II would be implemented.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Civil Servants (Fast Stream)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of those accepted for the fast stream entry for which his Department is responsible(a) in 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993 and (d) in 1994 were women.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the Civil Service Commissioners Report for 1991 and 1992 for the figures requested. The figures for 1993 and 1994 are not published in the form requested. For the years 1993 and 1994, the percentage of women recruited into the Department's fast stream in the administration, legal statistician and economist groups was 50 per cent. and 58 per cent. respectively. The European fast stream, for whom the Cabinet Office is responsible, is excluded.

  Standards for Livestock Vehicles
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the draft proposal for the EC directive on standards for livestock vehicles.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Commission draft proposal was circulated widely, on 8 February, to interested organisations and individuals for their comments. The Commission working group has had one meeting so far and further meetings are expected before it is discussed in the Council.

  Quality Beef Promotion Scheme
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he is making to the European Commission to obtain additional funds from the European quality beef promotion scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government are making representations to the European Commission to improve the suitability of the European quality beef promotion scheme to the UK market. However, we are not seeking an increase in the overall funds available for the scheme in the European Union. This is because it is not clear that in the UK at least, the scheme is currently achieving its aim of increasing beef consumption.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he had with British protesters objecting to the humane transport and export of animals in Brussels on the occasion of the Agriculture Council meeting in Brussels on 20 February, and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. Friend the Minister and I met with animal welfare organisations in advance of the Agriculture Council on 16 February to discuss the prospects for discussions on animal welfare issues. My right hon. Friend talked to protesters demonstrating outside the Council building in Brussels on 20 February, and welcomed their presence as a useful contribution to raising public awareness of animal welfare issues in other member states. He also received a petition organised by
  479
  the RSPCA, which had been signed by a large number of members of the public from several EU member states.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safeguards are in place to regulate the sale to the public of genetically modified food.

  Mrs. Browning
  The sale of food containing genetically modified organisms is controlled under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992, as amended. The safety of foods produced using genetic modification is assessed by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes whose approach to safety assessment is held in high esteem worldwide. The Food Advisory Committee considers the labelling of genetically modified food on a case-by-case basis.

  Ochratoxin A
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present view of the safe limit for consumption of ochratoxin A; and what plans he has to revise the limit.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: There are at present no legislative limits for ochratoxin A in foods. The European Commission has initiated negotiations to set regulatory limits for ochratoxin A in some foodstuffs. The Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has recommended that levels of ochratoxin A should be reduced to the lowest technologically achievable. The European Commission's Scientific Committee for Food has recently concluded
  "that an acceptable safe level of daily exposure of ochratoxin A would fall in the range of a few nanograms per kilogram body weight per day".

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research work he has undertaken on the alleged connection between ochratoxin A in coffee and cases of kidney cancer.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: It is accepted that ochratoxin A is a genotoxic carcinogen and causes kidney cancer. The mycotoxin that produces ochratoxin A occurs naturally in the environment and is an opportunistic contaminant of a variety of foodstuffs, not only coffee beans. The levels found in UK food are generally low. MAFF surveillance of ochratoxin A in coffee began in October 1994 and will be completed in late 1995. The results will be published in the "Food Safety Information Bulletin". MAFF-funded research to investigate the effects of decaffeination, roasting and brewing on levels of ochratoxin A in coffee is planned to start in April 1995. It is expected that the results from this study will be published in the scientific literature.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment Scheme
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what documentary evidence there is to show how successful has been the application of (1)480
  policy appraisal and (2) fair treatment to the Industrial Development Board.

  Mr. Ancram
  Revised Government guidelines on the policy appraisal and fair treatment initiative, which came into effect in January 1994, contain provisions for an annual report. The first report is currently being prepared and will include reports on individual Departments. The Department of Economic Development's report will cover the Industrial Development Board.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to evaluate the implementation of the policy appraisal and fair treatment scheme and the targeting social need scheme; and what documentation on the results of the schemes is available.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Annual reports will be published on the implementation of the policy appraisal and fair treatment initiative. The first is currently being prepared. During 1994, the Department of Economic Development commissioned management consultants to undertake a review of how the objectives of targeting social need related to those of the Department and its agencies. Their report made a number of recommendations, which are currently being implemented. A summary of these recommendations will shortly be published in a DED strategy review and I will ensure that the hon. Lady receives a copy.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the contribution of(a) policy appraisal of fair treatment and (b) targeting social need to the creation of employment opportunities for women.

  Mr. Ancram
  The aim of the policy appraisal and fair Treatment initiative is to ensure that issues of equality and equity condition policy making and action in all spheres and at all levels of Government activity in Northern Ireland. It is not directly concerned with the creation of employment opportunities.

  Targeting social need is a public expenditure priority established to ensure that resources are directed towards areas identified as socially and economically disadvantaged and that community differentials are thereby reduced. No assessment has been made of the effect of TSN specifically on employment opportunities for women.

  Fair Employment Tribunal
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average length and cost of a case dealt with by the fair employment tribunal.

  Mr. Ancram
  The average length of time taken to deal with a fair employment tribunal case is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The average direct cost to the fair employment tribunal of dealing with a complaint is approximately £290. The cost estimate excludes rent/rates, capital works, furniture/equipment and costs of the parties involved.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of complaints taken up by the fair employment tribunal since the implementation of the Fair Employment Act 1989 concluded in a pre-trial settlement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Since its formation, to 31 December 1994, 4 per cent. of the complaints made to the fair employment tribunal were conciliated by the Labour
  481
  Relations Agency or agreed between the parties and a further 43 per cent. of complaints were withdrawn by the complainants. Reasons for withdrawal are not required to be notified.

  RUC
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Catholics applied to join the RUC in its recruitment in December 1994.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The last advertisement period for recruitment to the RUC was from 28 November 1994 to 13 January 1995. The number of applicants perceived to be from the Roman Catholic community was 512.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to modify the system of internal discipline within the RUC.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 17 February 1995,Official Report, column 833.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February 1995.

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

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will consult the people of Northern Ireland on the acceptability of the draft framework document as a basis for discussion and negotiation through a referendum in the event that Unionist parties in Northern Ireland do not agree to enter into discussion and negotiation.

  The Prime Minister
  The proposals contained in "Framework for the Future" provide a basis for discussion, consultation and negotiation with the political parties in Northern Ireland. If agreement is reached in the negotiations, the outcome will be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum.

  The Government will not put proposals to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum before there is a widespread agreement between the main political parties.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none.

  Ministerial Payroll
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the cost of the ministerial payroll; and how many ministers it has covered in each year since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  The number of salaried Members of the Government, including Whips, was 106 in May 1979 and is 108 now. The total salary bill for all Government Ministers and Whips is currently some £3.6 million per annum. Information about ministerial salary costs in earlier years is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister if the duties of accountability set out in paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure" for Ministers apply in all respects to departmental agencies.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many special or political advisers to Ministers are currently employed in the civil service; in which Departments they work; and on which grades they are paid;

  (2) what is the role of special advisers appointed to serve Ministers and Departments; what guidance is issued relating to the scope of such advisers to become involved in party political activity in the course of their duties; what is the salary range for such posts; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  There are currently 32 special advisers, 28 political and four expert advisers, serving Ministers in the following Departments:

  Numbers

  Department

  Political

  Expert

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1

  —

  Chief Whip's Office

  1

  —

  Defence

  1

  —

  Education

  1

  —

  Employment

  1

  —

  Environment

  2

  2

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  2

  —

  Health

  1

  —

  Home Office

  2

  —

  Lord Privy Seal

  1

  —

  Northern Ireland Office

  1

  —

  Office of Public Service and Science

  1

  —

  Prime Minister's Office

  4

  —

  Lord President

  1

  —

  Scottish Office

  2

  —

  Social Security

  1

  —

  Trade and Industry

  1

  2

  Transport

  1

  —

  HM Treasury

  2

  —

  Welsh Office

  1

  —

  483
  Political advisers assist Ministers with that part of their work which is partly governmental and partly political, and expert advisers complement advice given to Ministers by their Departments with that of their particular professional fields. In the course of their duties, advisers are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants. Special advisers are bound generally by the rules on political activity applicable to civil servants, but with specific exemptions. They may, with the approval of their Ministers, attend party functions and maintain contact with party members, and take part in policy reviews undertaken by the party. In addition, and also subject to approval by their Minister, special advisers are allowed to undertake all forms of local political activity, apart from local activities in support of national political activities.

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

  Public Sector Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the total number of people employed(a) directly and (b) indirectly by Government-funded sources in the United Kingdom on a (i) full-time and (ii) part-time basis in each year since the introduction of (1) privatisation or

  £ million

  Year

  Department

  Figures relate to year ending CY/FY1

  Department of Transport FY

  Employment Department FY

  Department of Trade and Industry CY

  Department of the Environment FY

  Department of National Heritage FY

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food FY

  1979

  —

  —

  9.909

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  14.035

  184.740

  1.629

  n/a

  1981

  n/a

  n/a

  19.902

  169.414

  1.821

  n/a

  1982

  n/a

  n/a

  17.597

  179.524

  2.248

  n/a

  1983

  n/a

  n/a

  13.177

  183.959

  2.481

  n/a

  1984

  n/a

  n/a

  13.542

  167.435

  2.612

  n/a

  1985

  30.637

  n/a

  15.182

  143.667

  2.813

  n/a

  1986

  33.845

  n/a

  16.243

  134.979

  3.483

  0.013

  1987

  37.954

  n/a

  26.302

  135.973

  5.184

  18.333

  1988

  51.313

  n/a

  41.912

  145.973

  5.830

  16.980

  1989

  59.695

  n/a

  51.064

  210.957

  7.421

  17.825

  1990

  89,581

  124.2

  23.694

  464.622

  8.783

  23.501

  1991

  95,075

  119.1

  31.649

  502.481

  16.593

  28.947

  1992

  91,849

  129.1

  33.488

  520.557

  16.928

  31.005

  1993

  110,704

  126.0

  29.735

  544.698

  18.328

  70.084

  1994

  103,094

  164.7

  22.781

  467.967

  10.697

  n/a

  1995

  n/a

  132.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1FY—Financial year ending 31 March; CY—Calendar year ending 31 December.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Chessington Computer Centre
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when a decision will be made and announced regarding the privatisation of the Chessington computer centre.484
  denationalisation, (2) next steps agencies and (3) NHS trusts; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Information showing the number of employees in the public sector is published in the January 1995 edition of Economic Trends. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Russia (Seal Killing)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, column 22, what action the Russian officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs agreed to take on the issue of seal pup slaughter.

  The Prime Minister
  Russian officials have taken note of British opposition to the practice of seal culling but have not agreed to take any action as a result of our representations. Embassy officials are in regular contact with the Russian ministry of foreign affairs on this subject.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by Government Department the principal aid given to the Northern region of England in each year since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  The principal aid given to the area covered by the Government office for the north east—which covers Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham and Cleveland—since 1979 is as follows:

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  A study is currently under way to advise me on the suitability of Chessington computer centre for privatisation and how best to achieve it. An announcement will be made at the appropriate time.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which parts of the Chessington computer centre are being considered for privatisation.
  485
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The suitability of all parts of Chessington computer centre for privatisation is being considered.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which private sector companies have expressed an interest in buying part of all of the Chessington computer centre.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  This information is commercially confidential.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what are the criteria on which a decision will be based regarding the privatisation of the Chessington computer centre.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The key criterion will be how best to ensure that the range and quality of services provided by Chessington computer centre continue to be available and are improved.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who contributed to his review of the case for privatisation of the Chessington computer centre.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced in the

  £ million

  England

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  Wales

  Total

  1991–92

  Cash

  689.3

  82.6

  3.7

  35.6

  811.2

  1994–95 prices

  753.3

  90.3

  3.9

  39.0

  886.5

  Percentage

  85.0

  10.2

  0.4

  4.4

  —

  1992–93

  Cash

  805.9

  95.3

  5.2

  34.5

  941.0

  1994–95 prices

  847.2

  100.2

  5.5

  36.3

  989.2

  Percentage

  85.6

  10.1

  0.6

  3.7

  —

  1993–94

  Cash

  887.5

  109.4

  6.3

  33.8

  1,037.0

  1994–95 prices

  905.2

  111.6

  6.4

  34.5

  1,057.7

  Percentage

  85.6

  10.5

  0.6

  3.3

  —

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Payment Policies
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he intends to require public companies to state their payment policies in their directors' reports as announced in the White Paper on Competitiveness (Cm. 2563).

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government wish to bring about a change in business culture to encourage shorter payment times. We announced in the Competitiveness White Paper a package of measures to achieve this.

  As part of this, my Department proposes that directors of public companies should state in their annual reports what their policies are towards paying their suppliers. This will provide suppliers with information about how they can expect to be treated by their major customers. At the same time, we intend to ensure that the compliance costs for public companies are not onerous.

  Under the proposals, companies which follow the CBI prompt payment code or an equivalent—such as a British standard for prompt payment currently under
  486
  House on 17 November 1994, contributions to the review were welcome from those with an interest in Chessington and its work. All contributions that were elicited are covered by an undertaking of confidentiality.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  None.

  Science and Research Budget
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the amount in cash, in real terms, and the percentage allocated for(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) Wales of (i) the science budget and (ii) the research councils' budget in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The science budget is allocated on the basis of the United Kingdom as a whole. Research councils' expenditure over the last three years, excluding overseas spend, is analysed as follows:

  consideration—would simply state this in their annual report and show where information about the code can be found. The DTI is also seeking views on two options for public companies that do not follow a code.

  Comments are sought by 11 May 1995.

  Cable Companies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those cable companies franchised and licensed by(a) Oftel and (b) the Independent Television Commission stating, in each case, whether the company has reached its most recent agreed milestone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Compliance with the obligations contained in Telecommunications Act licences issued by my Department is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications. I have therefore asked the director to write to the hon. Member with details of the 125 cable franchisees which have been licensed under both broadcasting and telecommunications legislation and whether they have complied with their most recent build obligations. In addition to these franchises, the ITC has
  487
  awarded three further franchises which have yet to be licensed under the Telecommunications Act 1984. The franchises for west Kent, Blackpool and Fylde, and southern-east Anglia have been awarded to Eurobell, SBC Cablecomms and Cambridge Cable respectively.

  Debt Recovery
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what regulations currently apply to large companies when dealing with small businesses in relation to debt recovery; and what penalties he is considering introducing for large companies if they default on payments to small businesses.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Recovery of debt is a matter on which a number of statutory provisions and rules of common law impinge, both generally and in relation to specific circumstances and sectors. Not all of these are the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  In the White Paper on Competitiveness, (Cm 2563), in May 1994 the Government announced that they would re-examine the case for legislation for a statutory right to interest in two years if there has been no significant improvement in payment performance.

  Palestine National Authority
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives his Department has undertaken to promote United Kingdom business in the Palestine National Authority.

  Mr. Needham
  We have sponsored a number of inward visits to the UK of senior Palestinians involved in areas such as water, housing and the medical sector. Sir Derek Hornby, chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board, took a group of business men with him when he visited the occupied territories last October and discussions were held with several groups of Palestinian business men as well as with the Palestinian authorities. We look forward to further enhancing these ties as a result of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's forthcoming visit, where he will be accompanied by me and by a group of leading business people.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much Export Credits Guarantee Department cover is available for projects in the Palestine National Authority.

  Mr. Needham
  No cover is currently available, although the situation is under review.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many projects financed by the Japanese funds have been won by United Kingdom companies in the Palestine National Authority.

  Mr. Needham
  We are not aware that any UK firms have secured such contracts.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Palestine National Authority to discuss trade matters of mutual interest.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no immediate plans to meet Chairman Arafat. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I, accompanied by a delegation of senior business men, will be meeting him in Gaza to discuss trade matters on 14 March. I last met Mr. Arafat in Tunis in March 1994.
  488
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much Export Credits Guarantee Department cover has been already allocated to projects in the Palestine National Authority.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with European Union Partners to promote European Union partner countries' business with the Palestine National Authority.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the value of existing United Kingdom trade activity with the Palestine National Authority.

  Mr. Needham
  No separate trade statistics exist for the occupied territories so it is not possible to make a realistic estimate of the level of trade activity.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from United Kingdom companies seeking assistance for business in or with the Palestine National Authority.

  Mr. Needham
  We have a continuing dialogue with a wide range of companies interested in this market.

  Employment of Children
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for making offences relating to employment of children grounds for disqualification as a company director.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 contains a provision, in section 2, for the disqualification of a person who has been convicted of an indictable offence in connection with the management of a company, which would include matters relating to employment. It also provides, in section 6, for the disqualification of a person who has been a director of an insolvent company and whose conduct makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.

  It would be for the appropriate court to determine whether the circumstances fell within either of the provisions outlined above, and whether a disqualification order should be made. In the case of section 6, the court would have regard to the totality of unfit conduct of which the offence could form part.

  There are no plans to extend section 2 of the CDDA to cover summary offences.

  Post Office
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Post Office complex buildings in Oldfield lane, Greenford, was sold; to whom and for what purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Page
  Matters relating to the day-to-day running of the Post Office business, such as the sale of Post Office buildings, are the responsibility of Post Office management. However, I understand that the buildings concerned have not yet been sold.

  British Steel
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the United Kingdom steel crude industry and the engineering steel industry is under the
  489
  control of British Steel following the British Steel purchase of GKN's interest in United Engineering Steels.

  Mr. Page
  Based on tonnage output, British Steel produced approximately 75 per cent. of all UK crude steel produced last year. British Steel and UES together, based on last year's figures, would increase the percentage to approximately 82.5 per cent. with a similar figure for UK engineering steel production. However, the situation is fluid as output this year is increasing at present around 3 to 4 per cent.

  UK imports of steel1

  000 tonnes

  1990 per cent, of total

  1991 per cent, of total

  1992 per cent, of total

  1993 per cent, of total

  Germany

  1,306

  24.1

  1,719

  30.8

  1,490

  27.3

  1,342

  27.3

  Italy

  264

  4.9

  275

  4.9

  303

  5.5

  306

  6.2

  France

  556

  10.3

  779

  14.0

  795

  14.5

  673

  13.7

  Spain

  396

  7.3

  391

  7.0

  406

  7.4

  340

  6.9

  Former USSR

  14

  0.3

  10

  0.2

  62

  1.1

  90

  1.8

  Poland

  75

  1.4

  67

  1.2

  67

  1.2

  52

  1.1

  Czech Republic and Slovakia

  38

  0.7

  25

  0.4

  62

  1.1

  50

  1.0

  USA

  31

  0.6

  53

  1.0

  58

  1.1

  43

  0.9

  Other

  2,731

  50.5

  2,257

  40.5

  2,222

  40.7

  2,022

  41.1

  World total

  5,411

  100

  5,576

  100

  5,465

  100

  4,917

  100

  Source:

  Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  Note:

  1 Products of the steel industry in the Standard Industrial Classification (1980), Groups 221, 222 and 223.

  Manufactures (Import Penetration)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is now able to publish firm figures for import penetration of the United Kingdom market for manufactures in 1993; and if he will publish(a) a table showing for 1988 and 1992 his best estimate of the sales value and volume of United Kingdom output of manufactures less food, drink and tobacco together with the value and volume of imports and exports of such manufactures and (b) a table showing the corresponding figures for manufactures including food, drink and tobacco.

  Mr. Needham
  Information for 1993 is expected to be published by the Central Statistical Office at the end of April 1995. The available information for 1988 is published in Central Statistical Office Business Monitor MQ12, available in the Library of the House. Figures for 1992 are not available.

  Deregulation Orders
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what deregulation orders the Government propose to bring forward in the next three months.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government intend to bring forward a number of proposals under the deregulation order-making power.

  Steel Imports
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the tonnage in tonnes of steel imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 1990 from(a) Germany, (b) Italy, (c) France, (d) Spain, (e) the former USSR, (f) Poland, (g) the Czech Republic/Slovakia and (h) the USA; and what was the percentage of total imports from each country.

  Mr. Page
  The information is in the table.

  The Government agreed to a recommendation of the Procedure Committee that the new Deregulation Committee should be allowed 28 days before any orders were proposed.

  The first orders are likely to include some of those measures identified as candidates for the order-making power in "Cutting Red Tape", published in January 1994. Copies of that publication have been placed in the Library of the House.

  British Coal
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how British Coal's commitments under the Moynihan agreement will be carried out after British Coal is wound up; and what finance has been made available to meet these commitments.

  Mr. Page
  It is too soon to say when British Coal will be dissolved or what arrangements might be appropriate for the discharge of any obligations then outstanding. The financing of British Coal's specific obligations is a matter for the corporation, within the overall funding made available.

  Hydrates
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment he makes of the quantities of hydrates contained in ocean sediments around the waters of the United Kingdom which could be commercially exploited to produce fuel; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what technological advice and financial support his Department is preparing to give to companies active in the North sea to assist them to explore for hydrates which can be turned into fuel; and if he will make a statement;

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The Department of Trade and Industry, and its predecessor the Department of Energy, has funded research into the systematic mapping of the UK continental shelf over the last three decades ending in the early 1990s. No evidence was found to indicate the presence of hydrates. Further research is under way but not funded by the DTI.

  Mr. Edmund Sykes
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when Ministers or officials of his Department last met Mr. Edmund Sykes.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: It is not possible to answer this question on the information provided.

HEALTH

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce into the patients charter a standard for the maximum delay for(a) the assessment and (b) the treatment of children with speech defects.

  Mr. Malone
  The patients charter already sets standards for maximum waiting times for in-patient treatment and out-patient treatment offered by hospital consultants. The national health service executive encourages the setting of challenging targets for other non-consultant out-patient clinics.

  Civil Servants (Fast Stream)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of those accepted for fast-stream entry for which her Department is responsible(a) in 1991, (b) 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994 were women.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested for 1991 and 1992 is published in the Civil Service Commissioner's report for the relevant year, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Seven out of 14 of those accepted for entry into the fast stream in 1993 were women, compared to one out of six in 1994.

  Hospital and Community Health Services
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations underlay the allocation of 75 per cent. rather than 100 per cent. of funds to health and community health service under the new York formula; and how the 25 per cent. of funds not allocated by the 492
  new York formula will be allocated to health and community health services;

  (2) if she will list for a typical health authority the effect of funding by head of population (i) under the present formula, (ii) under the 75 per cent. York formula and (iii) under a 100 per cent. York formula.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no "York formula". The consultants from York university were contracted to undertake an analysis of hospital utilisation but it was not part of their remit to produce an allocations formula.

  The modified weighted capitation formula—announced in October 1994—is applied to 100 per cent. of hospital and community health services expenditure.

  It is not therefore possible to calculate hypothetical targets on the basis sought.

  Patients
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are currently treated in the NHS; and what was the figure in 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available centrally in the precise form requested. The available information is shown in the table:

  General and acute specialties

  thousands

  Out-Patients first attendances

  Hospital admissions

  1979

  6,771

  14,993 discharges and deaths

  1993–94

  8,832

  8,205 finished consultant episodes

  Note:

  1Recording of in-patient activity changed in 1988–89 following a review of Health Services Information. As a result in-patient figures prior to 1988–89 are not directly comparable with later years.

  Sources:

  1979, SH3 returns; 1993–94, KHO9 and KP70 returns.

  Kawasaki's Disease
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice is issued to general practitioners about the diagnosis and treatment of Kawasaki's disease; and if she will ensure that all general practitioners in the country receive information at least as comprehensive as that being issued to Birmingham general practitioners by local consultants in communicable disease control;

  (2) what are the most recent figures on the incidence of Kawasaki's disease in (a) England and Wales and (b) the west midlands region.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the diagnosis and treatment of Kawasaki's disease is available to general practitioners in medical journals. The advice from the Birmingham consultants is helpful and we shall consider whether similar information on this uncommon disease should be issued centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 13 July 1994 at column 602 for the most recent figures available on the incidence of Kawasaki's disease.

  Residential Homes (Devon)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of whether sufficient weight is given to medical opinion as distinct from advice
  493
  from social services advisers, when placements are made in residential homes under the care in the community policy in Devon.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local social services departments are responsible for assessing and deciding with users and carers how the needs of local people should be met, but I have made it clear that there should be an input from doctors or nurses, when appropriate, in continuing care assessment procedures.

  Dental Services
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the current shortfall in funding for NHS dental treatment in Whitehaven, Cumbria; and what is her policy for remedying it.

  Mr. Malone
  Expenditure on the hospital and community dental services in any area is a matter for local purchasers to decide. Expenditure on the general dental services in an area depends upon the number of treatments provided under the national health service by local general dental practitioners, all of whom are independent contractors. Cumbria family health services authority is able to help patients find a national health service dentist.

  Birth Registration
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will bring forward regulations to allow a mother, when registering birth, the option of requiring her address to be confidential.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information to be entered in a register of births is prescribed by regulations. This includes the mother's address. A birth certificate is a certified true copy of the entry in the register and it is not therefore possible to omit from the certificate information contained in the register. We have no plans to change statutory requirements.

  Population Estimates
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the number of the

  Long term residents in residential care homes for elderly and physically and/or sensorily disabled people, England

  Long term residents aged

  Percentage of population aged

  As at 31 March

  65–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  65–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  1979

  33,900

  62,500

  57,300

  0.78

  3.01

  11.98

  1984

  24,100

  74,200

  75,000

  0.58

  3.12

  13.86

  1989

  24,600

  92,100

  107,700

  0.58

  3.56

  16.05

  1994

  22,300

  80,100

  122,000

  0.52

  3.15

  14.53

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in her Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Mr. Sackville
  Ministers receive numerous representations about a wide variety of matters.

  Juice Plus
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what correspondence has been exchanged 494
  population who will in the years 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2014, be in the age cohorts 60 to 64, 65 to 69, 70 to 74, 75 to 79, 80 to 84, 85 to 89, and 90 years and over.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information, using the most recent—1992-based—national population projections, is shown in the table:

  Projected resident population of England

  Thousands

  Year

  Age (years)

  1999

  2004

  2009

  2014

  60–64

  2,368

  2,509

  3,145

  2,938

  65–69

  2,140

  2,197

  2,343

  2,954

  70–74

  1,937

  1,898

  1,968

  2,117

  75–79

  1,724

  1,590

  1,582

  1,660

  80–84

  984

  1,252

  1,180

  1,194

  85–89

  661

  602

  783

  756

  90 and over

  354

  424

  428

  527

  Residential Care
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost per person to public funds of those receiving continual residential care, at full or part cost to the public purse in(a) 1979, (b) 1984, (c) 1989 and (d)

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the percentage of the elderly who will require residential care in the years 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2014 and who will, in that year be in the age cohorts 60 to 64, 65 to 69, 70 to 74, 75 to 79, 80 to 84, 85 to 89 and 90 years and over.

  Mr. Bowis
  Estimates for the total number of people who require residential care are not made.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing, for 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994 the number of elderly people requiring continual residential care in each of the age cohorts 60 to 64, 65 to 69, 70 to 74, 75 to 79, 80 to 84, 85 to 89, and 90 years and over; and what these figures represent of the total population in that age cohort.

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information is shown in the table.

  or received by or between Ministers in her Department in the last three years on the use, distribution or approval of Juice Plus;

  (2) what meetings have taken place between Ministers in her Department and others in the last three years on the use, distribution or approval of Juice Plus.

  Mr. Sackville
  Two letters promoting Juice Plus have been addressed to Ministers in the Department and there has been correspondence with officials in the Medicines Control Agency. There have been no meetings about these products.

  NHS Pensions
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what types of information are supplied by NHS Pensions-Paymaster to(a) commercial and (b) other outside organisations.

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the National Health Service Pensions Agency under its chief executive, A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter front A. F. Cowan to Ms Dawn Primarolo, dated 28 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Health has asked me to respond to your written Parliamentary Question of 23 February 1995.
  The NHS Pensions Agency is responsible for the administration of the NHS Pension Scheme. It contracts Paymaster for the administration of pensions payments to retired NHS employees. As a matter of policy the NHS Pensions Agency does not disclose any material about NHS Scheme members to third parties. This policy extends to those whom we contract.

  National Blood Service
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the crown forming part of the blood transfusion service logo has been removed permanently from the new design; what are the reasons for changing the design; what consultation was undertaken over the design of the logo; and whether formal authorisation has been obtained for the removal of the crown.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Service logo was introduced in April 1994 as one part of the National Blood Authority's identity and communications review. The review, which included consultation with blood donors and blood service staff, indicated that the design of the current logo best reflects the service provided by the NBA. There are no plans to change the design.

  Official advice was that it was not necessary to seek formal permission to remove the crown from the logo.

  NHS Sight Tests
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service eyesight tests were conducted in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Malone
  The number of national health service sight tests paid for by family health services authorities in England is shown in the table:

  Year

  Millions Sight tests

  1978–79

  7,894

  1979–80

  8,331

  1980–81

  8,332

  1981–82

  8,469

  1982–83

  8,678

  1983–84

  9,266

  1984–85

  9,882

  1985–86

  10,246

  1986–87

  10,615

  1987–88

  11,695

  1988–89

  12,493

  1989–901

  5,280

  1990–911

  4,154

  1991–92

  4,979

  1992–93

  5,528

  1993–94

  5,935

  496
  1 From 1 April 1989, NHS sight tests were restricted to certain groups in the population.

  The figures for 1989–90 include sight tests paid for in 1989–90 but conducted in 1988–89 under the previous scheme. The remaining tests were conducted and paid for in 1989–90 which does not constitute a full 12 months of the new scheme. The figures for 1990–91 which do represent 12 months under the new scheme, are not, therefore, directly comparable with those for 1989–90.

  Two surveys carried out jointly by the Department of Health and the optical profession estimated that 13.184 million sight tests were performed in Great Britain in the year to 31 March 1994; the estimate for the year to 31 March 1995 is 12,673 million.

  Good Hope Hospital, Sutton Coldfield
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were provided in the last 12 months at the Good Hope hospital, Sutton Coldfield; and what was the comparable figure for 1978.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally, although I understand from the Good Hope hospital that the total number of operations undertaken at the hospital in the current year is expected to show a 47 per cent. increase on 1989–90. I refer my right hon. Friend to Mr. Doug Ellis, chairman of the Good Hope hospital, for further details.

  World Health Organisation
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contributions the United Kingdom Government made to the World Health Organisation in(a) 1981, (b) 1991 and (c) 1994; if these funds were directed to (i) the World Health Organisation headquarters or (ii) the regional office in Copenhagen; who determined the level of contributions; at what time of the year the contributions were requested; if such funding is linked to inflation; and when the next review of financial allocations will take place.

  Mr. Malone
  The United Kingdom contribution to the World Health Organisation regular budget was as follows:

  1981: £4,286,214.93

  1991: £8,357,571.23

  1994: £13,432,053.21

  These funds were directed to the WHO's headquarters in Geneva. The level of the United Kingdom contribution is in accordance with the United Nations's scale of assessment adjusted to the specific requirements of the WHO. The WHO biennial budget is set at the world health assembly. Contributions are payable in two instalments to be submitted by 1 January. Inflation, in line with the standard assessment for all United Nations organisations, is one of the factors taken into account in determining the budget with the next biennial budget for 1996–97 is due to be set at the world health assembly in May.

WALES

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales will the Secretary of State provide details of what performance targets for 1995–96 he has proposed for the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for
  497
  Rural Wales, the Wales tourist board and the Cardiff Bay development corporation.

  Mr. Redwood
  The targets I am proposing to the chairman of the bodies concerned are:

  1995–96 target

  Welsh Development Agency

  Job creation

  Number safeguarded or created

  13,000

  Minimum percentage outside M4 and A55 catchment areas

  20

  Inward Investment

  New jobs

  10,000

  Investment (£ million)

  500

  Industrial and commercial floor space (direct build and joint ventures)

  Square metres

  100,000

  Property

  Disposal (£ million)

  90

  Vacant space (000 Sq metres)

  116

  Investment

  In conjunction with capital programme (£ million)

  650

  Derelict land

  Reclamation hectares

  850

  Efficiency

  Management funning costs (£ million)

  13.2

  Reduction in consultancy (costs £000)

  700

  DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR RURAL WALES

  Job creation

  Number safeguarded or created

  1,500

  Property

  Disposal (£ million)

  6.0

  Void rate (percentage)

  10.0

  Investment in conjunction with capital programme

  £ million

  30

  Management

  Running costs £ million

  3.689

  Reduction in consultancy costs (£000)

  170

  CARDIFF BAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CBDC'S PROGRAMME BARRAGE

  Expenditure in year (£ million)

  42.0

  Percentage completed

  54

  Land reclamation

  Hectares

  24

  Land disposal

  Hectares

  30

  Receipts (£ million)

  10.3

  Roads

  Constructed (kilometres)

  3.5

  Running costs (£ million)

  4.1

  PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT

  Private Sector Investment (£ million)

  120

  Industrial/Commercial floor space (sq metres)

  69,500

  Residential (units)

  560

  Jobs

  3,000

  498

  1995–96 target

  WALES TOURIST BOARD

  Capital development

  Private sector investment (£ million)

  18.0

  Leverage Private: Public

  6.1

  Direct marketing: cost per response

  75p

  Wales share of GB market, (percentage)

  9.5

  Average occupancy rates, (per cent.):

  Hotel and Guest Houses

  40

  Caravan Sector

  62

  Self Catering

  72

  Running costs (£ million)

  4.15

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 22 February,Official Report, column 195, what information he has on the numbers of non-executive members of the boards of non-departmental public bodies sponsored by him who are paid other than on a schedule E basis, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally. However, non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department were instructed in May 1994 that hoard members' remuneration should he subject to national insurance and tax in the usual way.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the loss of revenue to farmers in Wales so far this year resulting from their inability to get their products to market as a result of public disorder incidents; and what is his estimate of the full-year effect on current trends.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There has been little effect so far on prices on beef animals and sheep as a result of the present action on live exports. The main effect has been on dairy producers, who are receiving less for their surplus male calves. If these animals are fattened for beef in this country, this may impact on producer prices in the medium term, but this could be mitigated by increases in exports of carcases and boned meat.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take immediate steps to ensure that no Welsh farmers are prevented from transporting their animals to market within the framework of legislation that safeguards animal welfare and in accordance with the trading laws of the European Community; and how many representations he has received from(a) farmers and (b) farming unions on this matter.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Numerous representations have been received on this subject and I have met the farming unions on a number of occasions to discuss the matter. The export of live animals is a legal trade. The Government fully appreciate the strong feelings and concern expressed by those calling for higher animal welfare standards; but pursuing these aims by violent means is completely unacceptable. We do share their views about standards elsewhere and we have been doing our best to reach an acceptable agreement throughout the European Community on the transport of live animals which would allow the trade to operate on a basis acceptable to all.

  Minerals Planning Guidance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to issue a Welsh equivalent of the new version of minerals policy guidance note 6 on guidance for aggregates provision in England.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend is considering what guidance is needed in Wales to supersede that contained in minerals planning guidance note 6, 1989.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to issue Welsh equivalents of planning policy guidance notes(a) No. 15, on planning and the historic environment, (b) No. 23, on planning and pollution control, (c) No. 24 on planning and noise and (d) No. 2 on green-belts.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend is preparing draft planning policy guidance for Wales, covering those policy planning guidances recently issued in England.

  Minewater Pollution
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will draw up a list of watercourses and their surrounding areas which are vulnerable to minewater pollution and develop a programme of remedial and preventative work along with estimates of the funding required.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A survey report on ferruginous minewater impacts in the Welsh coalfields was published in March 1994 and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. A follow-up report studying remedial options for the most significant minewater discharges is due to be published shortly.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), received a request on 3 February 1995 from Ian Greer Associates Ltd. for a meeting with representatives of Boeing, which was declined.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research his Department has carried out upon the impact of recreation on biodiversity.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has not recently carried out an research on the impact of recreation on biodiversity.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what prime biodiversity areas within the meaning of the report, "Biodiversity—The UK Action Plan", he has identified in Wales; and if he will make a statement about his strategy to protect and enhance such sites.

  Mr. Redwood
  The biodiversity steering group is considering this issue. Its report is due to be published by the end of this year.
  500
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the suitability of existing financial incentives to encourage environmentally sensitive forms of agriculture to ensure that they are contributing to biodiversity objectives.

  Mr. Redwood
  The environmentally sensitive area scheme is an obvious example of the application of biodiversity objectives to agricultural policy. A detailed monitoring programme to examine the environmental and economic effects of the scheme has been established and will continue.

  Policy reviews are undertaken every five years to assess the suitability of the scheme and reports of the findings in the Cambrian mountains "Original", and Cambrian mountains "Extension" and Lleyn peninsula ESAs were published in 1991 and 1992 respectively. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. Payment reviews are undertaken biennially.

  The new agri-environmental schemes will be similarly monitored to ensure they also contribute to biodiversity objectives.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has issued to encourage the tourism industry in Wales to include information about the need for environmental conservation, and information about local biodiversity, in promotional literature.

  Mr. Redwood
  Planning policy guidance note 21: "Tourism", issued November 1992, outlines the economic significance of tourism, its environmental impact and how it should he dealt with in local authority development plans. Local authorities, working with the Wales tourist board are best placed to decide how to promote such policies.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial assistance from public services was provided to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and to Grosvenor Waterside with respect to the development of Crickhowell house as the authority's new headquarters.

  Mr. Redwood
  A contribution of £478,000 was paid by the Cardiff Bay development corporation to Grosvenor Waterside towards infrastructure costs associated with the construction of Crickhowell house.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning the number of inquiries made with regard to the market testing of the prescription-pricing service; how many inquiries have been made to date; and what is the proposed modus operandi for organising the market-testing bidding procedure.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. By 23 February, 38 organisations, including the prescription pricing services' in-house team, had asked for a copy of the authority's market testing information pack. The closing date of the submission of outline proposals is 24 March 1995. The bidding procedure will be organised according to the established public sector procurement rules.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning damage to the authority's premises arising from leaks;
  501
  what compensatory measures he has discussed to remedy the problem; and who will pay for it.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. The defects liability period for the external envelope of Crickhowell house has been extended to 31 March 1995. The rectification of any building defects is a contractual matter for Grosvenor Waterside and the parties responsible for the design and construction of the building.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the oral statement of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) of 21 February,Official Report, columns 223–24, if he will list those sections of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority which will be market tested under the conventional procedure and those sections where other procedures will be followed.

  Mr. Redwood
  Prescription pricing services is being market tested conventionally. As my hon. Friend indicated on 21 February,Official Report, column 223, options for other non-clinical services still have to be considered.

  Bryn Alyn Hall School
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to 23 February,Official Report, column 300, on what date the latest inspection of Bryn Alyn Hall school took place; what representations he has received and from whom under section 87 of the Children Act 1989 following the Department's inspection of welfare of children at the school, and what was his Department's response to their representation.

  Mr. Redwood
  At the request of my Department, the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools inspected the school in November 1994. Its advice was received in January 1995 and is currently being considered.

  The responsibility to inspect the welfare of children at the school under the Children Act 1989 rests with the Clwyd social services department. I understand that that Department visited the school in November/December 1994 and its final report is expected to issue shortly. My Department has received for information a copy of a previous report on the school by the SSD, but has received no formal notification of a concern about welfare under section 87(4) of the Children Act.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made in the preparation of summary management plans for biological sites of special scientific interest in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The designation and management of SSSIs is the responsibility of the Countryside Council for Wales. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member with the information requested. I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Coastal Defence
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research his Department has undertaken to assess the scope for habitat creation through managed retreat of the coast.
  502
  Mr. Redwood
  Strategic research in this area is funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. A full-scale managed set-back trial is being carried out at Tollesbury creek, Essex. Nevertheless, my Department ensures that, where appropriate, a managed set-back option is among those considered for coastal defence schemes approved for grant aid.

  Red Kites
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made to maintain the annual red kite population increase in Wales at more than 5 per cent. per annum since the publication of the report "Biodiversity—The UK Action Plan": and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Sixty-nine breeding pairs of red kite were observed in Wales in 1994, as opposed to 61 pairs in 1993—an increase of 13.1 per cent.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the aggregate outturn level of savings by general practitioner fundholders for the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest estimate is £6 million.

  Special Areas of Conservation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those areas he intends to designate special areas of conservation in Wales over the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  A list of candidate sites of community importance will be published as soon as possible.

  Special Protection Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what plans he has to designate any marine special protection areas in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  No such sites have yet been submitted to me for designation.

  Nature Conservation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what guidance he has issued to local authorities to encourage them to make reasonable provision for local nature reserves and natural green space in local plans.

  Mr. Redwood
  Advice and guidance to local authorities on the needs of nature conservation are set out in Welsh Office circular 52/87. In addition, the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 which implement the habitats directive encourages the management of features of the landscape which are of major importance of wild flora and fauna, which would include sites which are important to local communities.

DEFENCE

  Yorks and Lancaster Regimental Museum
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will guarantee the future of the Yorks and Lancaster regimental museum in Rotherham.
  503
  Mr. Soames
  With the exception of one member of staff, my Department does not fund this museum and I cannot therefore comment on its future.

  Official Service Residences
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's procedures for controlling expenditure on the official service residences of senior officers.

  Mr. Soames
  The control of expenditure on accommodation, including official service residences, is delegated to budget holders. Work is in hand to prepare comprehensive guidance on expenditure on such residences.

  Killing of Civilians
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on members of the armed services who are accused of killing civilians while on duty.

  Mr. Soames
  Members of the armed forces are subject to the criminal law. Where a member of the armed forces is alleged to have committed murder or manslaughter in the United Kingdom, jurisdiction lies with the civil authorities.

  Submarines and Fishing Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the measures taken to avoid hazardous encounters between submarines and fishing vessels in and around the Firth of Clyde and on traditional fishing grounds.

  Mr. Soames
  A comprehensive package of dynamic measures provides for the safe co-existence of submarines and fishing vessels in UK waters. These have been implemented only after extensive consultation with the fishing industry, with whom my officials and those of the Department of Transport regularly consider such matters.

  Armed Services Ranks
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed services were estimated to be in post on 1 January; how many of them held(a) one of the six highest commissioned ranks, (b) the three highest non-commissioned rank and (c) no rank at all; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  At 1 January 1995, the total strength of the regular armed forces was 236,667. On the same date, 1,752 personnel on the active list held one of the six highest commissioned ranks. 28,144 personnel held one of the three highest non-commissioned ranks. No service personnel had no rank at all.

  European Defence Co-operation
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to discuss European defence co-operation with the Council of Ministers of the Western European Union at their next meeting.

  Mr. Soames
  We look forward to participating fully in discussions on a range of issues affecting European defence and security at the next meeting of WEU Ministers in May. The development of the WEU as a504
  means of European co-operation in this area will undoubtedly be on the agenda.

  "Front Line First"
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to undertake a review along the lines of "Front Line First"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The defence costs study was highly successful and achieved all of its aims and we do not plan, nor do we need, to conduct another similar exercise. The Ministry of Defence will, however, continue to subject all of its activities to close and continuous scrutiny as part of its normal arrangements for maximising efficiency and effectiveness.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Llanishen
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in relation to the percentage allowance for overheads on bids for non-Trident warhead diversification work by the atomic weapons establishment, Llanishen, Cardiff.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has received no such representations.

  Defence Industry Scientists
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to help find gainful employment for defence industry scientists following reduced demand for defence equipment.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government described in "Realising our Potential", Cm 2250, the considerable efforts being made to exploit the wealth-creating potential of the defence research and development programme. Further details were given in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994, Cm 2550.

  European Defence Co-operation
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to develop increased European defence co-operation through existing NATO structures.

  Mr. Soames
  European allies co-operate closely within the alliance. As agreed at last year's NATO summit, the alliance is prepared to make its collective assets available for WEU operations undertaken by the European allies in pursuit of their common foreign and security policy. NATO's combined joint task force concept, which was also endorsed at the summit, will make NATO command and control facilities available for European-led operations. These developments have paved the way for the generation of separable but not separate European capabilities.

  Bosnia
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to visit Bosnia; and if he will make a statement on the level of humanitarian supplies so far delivered and the number of lives saved.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made two visits to Bosnia
  505
  last year, most recently in December 1994. It is too early to say how many he will make this year, or when.

  UNHCR records show that a total of 315,000 tonnes of food aid was delivered to over 2,700,000 people in Bosnia in 1994, including almost 71,000 tonnes to Sarajevo. As part of this, British UNPROFOR troops have assisted with the delivery of over 234,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid since operations began in Bosnia in Autumn 1992; the RAF airlift into Sarajevo has flown in a further 22,800 tonnes of aid since July 1992.

  Land Contamination (Woolwich Arsenal)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of land contamination on the Woolwich arsenal site; and if his Department will hear the costs of decontamination.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my written answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 15 February 1995,Official Report, column 723 about my Department's assessment of land contamination at the royal arsenal, Woolwich. The extent of decontamination required and the associated costs have yet to be defined and will be determined by the future use of the site.

  Chemical Weapons Agents (Russia)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has made to the Government of Russia about the safe storage and ultimate destruction of its stock of chemical weapons agents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Officials are in regular dialogue with their Russian counterparts on all aspects of the chemical weapons convention through the preparatory commission of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague. Her Majesty's Government remain keen to see the Government of Russia, as the declared holder of one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons, deposit early its article of ratification of the chemical weapons convention so that monitoring of the stockpiles's destruction can begin as soon as possible.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department has taken to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Soames
  The prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the main aims of the United Kingdom's security policy. My Department supports a wide range of measures to this end, including:Actively working to have the nuclear non-proliferation treaty extended idefinitely and unconditionally at the review and extension conference of states parties in April/May.
  Playing a positive and constructive part in negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty.
  Making a full contribution to the work of the Zangger Committee and Nuclear Suppliers Group.
  Scrutiny of export licence applications for nuclear-related goods to sensitive destinations.
  Trying to establish a mandate for an ad hoc committee at the conference on disarmament in Geneva to negotiate a Convention banning production of fissile material for military explosive purposes.

  Defence Contractors
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department is providing to defence contractors, as a result of redundancies, in the procurement budget.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department expects to remain the largest single customer of the United Kingdoms defence industry. To help defence contractors adjust to reductions in the defence budget, we provide them with as much information as possible on our future procurement plans.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to ensure that United States firms competing for United Kingdom defence contracts are treated in the same way as United Kingdom firms seeking to tender for United States defence contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is our policy to promote fair and open international competition for defence equipment contracts and we encourage other countries to do the same. To this end we reviewed the US-UK defence co-operation memorandum of understanding in December last year, which helps to maintain a two-way street in bilateral defence trade between the UK and the US.

  Defence Costs Study
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions he has taken on the proposals contained in the consultative document, "The Way Ahead for Test and Evaluation", issued on 14 July 1994 as part of the defence costs study.

  Mr. Freeman
  Proposals recommending the closure of four establishments in the Directorate General of Test and Evaluation—Pendine, Kirkcudbright, Lavington and Hum—were announced as apart of the defence costs study last year. During the period of consultation, which closed on 14 October, representations were made by trade unions, local authorities, several environmental bodies which we had consulted and by a number of hon. Members. All the points raised have been carefully considered, against the background of the need to match demand and capacity within the directorate. The decisions we have now reached are as follows:a. We received a number of very constructive responses to our proposal to close Pendine, notably from the Pendine steering group. In the light of these, and of our own further analysis of the costs of reproviding certain facilities, we have decided that Pendine should stay open and that the dynamic test tracks and associated static warhead trials together with the small arms and cannon work should remain there. Administrative, stores and engineering support will in future be provided from Aberporth and mortar trials will be transferred from Pendine to Shoeburyness in the course of 1995. The net result will be that about 110 jobs will remain at Pendine.
  b. Kirkcudbright, too, will stay open but numbers will fall slightly from their current level of about 120 to about 90. We expect numbers to remain broadly at this level for two to three years to support the current tank armament development and integration work. On completion of this work and subject to there being no significant change in the anticipated workload, the intention would be to reduce test and evaluation activities to a small permanent level of about six staff with trials conducted on a "campaign" basis and trails teams brought in as required from other T&E facilities. However, in this eventuality, the army has declared a significant interest in using Kirkcudbright for training purposes. This idea, which would bring with it the possibility of additional recruitment of civilian support staff and significant capital spend on the range, is currently under study.

  507
  c. Lavington will close four months from now and its work, but not its personnel, will be transferred in the main to Shoeburyness.
  d. Hurn will close as a manned site four months from now. Thereafter it too will be operated on a "campaign" basis but large plant will be transferred to Chertsey.

  Compared with the current costs of running the establishments, these measures are estimated to save about £83 million over the next 10 years and a little over £8 million per year thereafter.

  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) of 3 February 1995,Official Report, column 888, if he will list all the projects carried out in the United Kingdom in the 1985 US-UK strategic defence initiative memorandum.

  Mr. Soames
  US-funded work performed in the UK under the 1985 US-UK "SDI" memorandum of understanding is effected by the agreement of Government-to-Government arrangements called letters of offer and acceptance. Since the signing of the memorandum of understanding, 26 letters of offer and acceptance have been awarded amounting to a total value of $129.4 million. The majority of work and funding effort has been sub-contracted to UK industry.

  The purpose of two of these arrangements is classified; the remainder are as follows:

  UK SDI architecture study

  European BMC3 architecture

  Electromagnetic railgun

  Countermeasures to SDI components

  Laser impulse coupling, interaction

  European test bed requirements study

  Catalysts for CO2 laser system

  Advanced sensor hardening

  Higher operating temperature IR detectors

  Delay lines for use at 10 micrometers

  UK extended air defence test bed

  Artificial intelligence discrimination

  Data fusion demonstrator

  MESAR radar trials

  Tretraform

  UKAS follow-on study

  Lethality database

  Sensor hardening (follow-on studies)

  Phase conjugation programme

  Target oriented tracking system

  Evolution and test of IR window materials

  Lethality technology

  Threat generation study

  Interceptor avionics

  Armoured Vehicles, Bosnia
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 1995,Official Report, column 857, sniper protection armour has been fitted to any vehicles at a time when such vehicles have been detained by any local military or paramilitary forces operating in Bosnia.

  Mr. Soames
  No vehicles so fitted have been detained by the warring factions.

  Personal and Family Services
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on personal and family services for(a) the RAF, (b) the Army and (c) the Royal Navy in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Soames
  Work in these areas is carried out by a number of different people and organisations; these are funded from different budgets, and may work wholly or partly providing such services. The overall cost of personal and family services is not, however, separately identifiable.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the budget for naval personal and family services based at(a) HMS Nelson, Portsmouth, (b) HMS Drake, Plymouth and (c) HMS Cochrane, Rosyth, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  According to available records, which are held only for the last three years, the budget for the naval personal and family services organisation at these establishments is as follows:

  £milion

  Financial Year

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  HMS Nelson

  0.762

  0.866

  0.924

  HMS Drake

  0.838

  0.973

  1.034

  HMS Cochrane

  n/a

  0.514

  0.522

  Note:

  1994–95 figures show the end of year forecast.

  The overall cost of providing personal and family services is not separately identifiable, however, and could not therefore be provided.

  Uranium
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will set out his Department's procedures for disposal of uranium swarf; and if he will identify the burial sites around Britain.

  Mr. Freeman
  Depleted and natural uranium swarf is sent to British Nuclear Fuels plc for recycling or storage pending the identification of a disposal route. Enriched uranium swarf is always recycled for possible future use. There are at present no UK sites approved for the bulk burial of either natural or depleted uranium swarf.

  Service Housing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the amount of rent arrears currently outstanding on service housing;

  (2) how many ex-service families were evicted as result of non-payment of rent for service housing in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Soames
  All serving personnel who occupy service families accommodation have their accommodation charges deducted from their pay. Personnel who have left the services lose their entitlement to this accommodation. If they continue to occupy it they become irregular occupants and must pay damages for trespass, which are charged at a level considered to he a fair market rent. At present, there are DFT arrears of some £2.9 million for the Army and Navy. The RAF does not hold these figures centrally.
  509
  Although proceedings to evict irregular occupants for non-payment of rent have been initiated in a number of cases in the last two years, no evictions have been necessary.

  RAF Machrihanish
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current building work being carried out at RAF Machrihanish; if he will list the companies involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Apart from regular maintenance, no major building work is currently being carried out at RAF Machrihanish at present.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list the companies involved in the upgrading of RAF Machrihanish since 1990; what was the value of each contract awarded by(a) his Ministry and (b) NATO; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The following companies have been employed in building projects at RAF Machrihanish since 1990:

  Amey Construction Ltd.

  Amey/Res

  B and D Builders

  Colas

  C. R. Smith

  Devon

  Hattrick Bruce

  Hendry Boot

  James Scott

  Kelsey

  Lilley Construction

  Maurice Hill Ltd.

  McFarlane

  Molem Ltd.

  NEI Cochrane

  N. W. Hoist

  Parkinson Twaddle Ltd.

  Pirie

  Pottins Ltd.

  PSA BM Edinburgh

  R. G. McLeod

  Strathclyde regional council

  Topek Roofing

  Trafalgar House Group

  Watson Norrie Ltd.

  Weir Ferguson and Martin

  The value of individual contracts awarded is commercially confidential; however, the total funding by my Department and NATO for building projects at the station since 1990 is £16.0 million and £39.9 million respectively.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list the current functions of RAF Machrihanish; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Machrihanish is a NATO forward operating base which is assigned to SACLANT.

  Redundant Churches and Chapels
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list the redundant churches and chapels sold by his Department in the last five years; and what 510
  were (a) the original valuation, (b) the eventual selling price and (c) the buyer in each case.

  Mr. Soames
  No redundant churches or chapels have been sold as individual buildings by my Department in the last five years, although St. George's chapel in Chatham is in the process of disposal and is to be sold to Gillingham borough council. In addition, a building at Netheravon, Wiltshire which had been used as a Roman Catholic church some years ago was sold on the open market to Mr. P. Hilliyard who has subsequently converted the property to a house for his own occupation. It is not my Department's practice to disclose the sale price of buildings or sites, which is commercial in confidence to the purchaser.

  Eurofighter 2000
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the progress towards memorandum 4 for Eurofighter 2000 with particular reference to the development assurance phase and integrated logistic support.

  Mr. Freeman
  We and our Eurofighter 2000 partners hope to sign the memorandum of understanding governing the reorientation of the development phase of the programme within the next few months. This will permit the start of the development assurance phase and preparatory integrated logistic support activities.

  Honorary Officers to the Queen
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the current(a) personal aides-de-camp to the Queen, (b) the first and principal naval aide-de-camp to the Queen, (c) the flag aide-de-camp to the Queen, (d) naval aides-de-camp to the Queen, (e) the royal marine aide-de-camp to the Queen, (f) extra naval equerries to the Queen, (g) royal naval reserve aides-de-camp to the Queen, (h) the royal marine reserve aide-de-camp to the Queen, (i) honorary chaplains to the Queen,(j) the honorary surgeons to the Queen, (l) honorary dental surgeons to the Queen, (m) the Royal Navy reserve honorary surgeon to the Queen and (n) the honorary nursing officer to the Queen; what are the duties of each postholder; and if he will list the salaries or other benefits to which each postholder is entitled.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is given in the table. The duties of each post are not set out formally, but are mainly of a representational nature. No remuneration or other benefit is received by any of the postholders.

  Personal ADC to the Queen

  HRH the Prince of Wales

  HRH the Duke of York

  First and Principal Naval ADC to the Queen

  Admiral Sir Benjamin Bathurst

  Flag ADC to the Queen

  Admiral Sir Michael Layard

  Naval ADCs to the Queen

  Commodore B. B. Perowne

  Captain J. A. Benyon

  Captain A. S. Ritchie

  Captain J. G. F. Cooke

  Captain J. B. Simpson

  511

  Captain R. T. R. Phillips

  Captain J. K. Covell

  Captain A. E. Slater

  Royal Marine ADC to the Queen

  Colonel R. E. Dillon

  Extra Naval Equerries to the Queen

  Vice Admiral Sir Peter Ashmore

  Rear Admiral Sir Richard Trowbridge

  Rear Admiral Sir Paul Greening

  Rear Admiral Sir John Garnier

  Rear Admiral Robert Woodard

  Lieutenant General Sir John Richards

  Royal Naval Reserve ADC to the Queen

  Captain D. A. Carr

  Royal Marine Reserve ADC to the Queen

  Colonel T. H. Lang

  Royal Navy Honorary Chaplains to the Queen

  The Ven. M. W. Bucks

  Rev. W. E. Weldon

  Rev. B. F. Neill

  Rev. R. G. Devonshire

  Army Honorary Chaplains to the Queen

  The Ven. A. Deen

  Rev. Dr. V. Dobbin

  Rev. J. Holliman

  Rev. R. McAllen

  RAF Honorary Chaplains to the Queen

  Rev. J. Shedden

  Rev. G. B. McVoy

  The Ven. B. H. Lucas

  Rev. P. R. Turner

  Royal Navy Honorary Physicians to the Queen

  Surgeon Rear Admiral A. Craig

  Surgeon Captain D. L. Swain

  Surgeon Commodore R. Harland

  Army Honorary Physicians to the Queen

  Major General G. O. Cowan

  Brigadier W. R. Short

  Brigadier M. D. Conroy

  Brigadier T. B. N. Oldrey

  Brigadier G. C. Callow

  RAF Honorary Physicians to the Queen

  Air Commodore J. R. Creig

  Air Vice Marshal J. A. Baird

  Air Commodore A. F. Johnson

  Air Commodore J. D. C. Baxandall

  Royal Navy Honorary Surgeons to the Queen

  Surgeon Commodore I. L. Jenkins

  Surgeon Vice Admiral A. L. Revell

  Surgeon Commodore M. P. W. H. Paine

  Army Honorary Surgeons to the Queen

  Major General F. B. Mayes

  Brigadier D. G. Stork

  Brigadier M. H. Daly

  512

  Colonel D. W. Herring

  Brigadier B. Rowe

  RAF Honorary Surgeons to the Queen

  Air Commodore D. H. Hull

  Air Commodore F. K. Amroliwalla

  Air Commodore A. Nicholson

  Air Commodore H. Wober

  Royal Navy Honorary Dental Surgeon to the Queen

  Surgeon Commodore E. J. Grants

  Army Honorary Dental Surgeons to the Queen

  Brigadier C. D. Parkinson

  Brigadier R. A. Smart

  RAF Honorary Dental Surgeons to the Queen

  Air Commodore D. W. Marchant

  Air Vice Marshall J. Mackey

  Royal Naval Reserve Honorary Surgeon to the Queen

  Surgeon Captain T. A. Waterworth

  Royal Navy Honorary Nursing Officer to the Queen

  Principal Nursing Officer C. M. Taylor

  Army Honorary Nursing Officers to the Queen

  Brigadier H. S. Dixon-Nuttall

  Lieutenant Colonel A. Clouston

  RAF Honorary Nursing Officer to the Queen

  Group Captain V. M. Hand

  Fraud
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money was spent by his Department in each of the last 10 years to combat fraud.

  Mr. Soames
  Figures are available only from 1991–92 and relate to the cost of the Ministry of Defence police fraud squad and the defence fraud unit. They are as follows:

  Year

  Cost

  1991–92

  783,000

  1992–93

  932,000

  1993–94

  1,079,000

  1994–95

  1,087,000

  A good deal of effort is expended elsewhere in my Department to combat fraud, but the cost of this could not be separately identified.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many investigations into fraud have been made within his Department in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Soames
  Complete figures are available only from 1986 and include cases where the alleged fraud was not against my Department.

  Year

  Investigations

  1986

  3,983

  1987

  3,275

  1988

  3,205

  1989

  2,251

  1990

  3,837

  513

  Year

  Investigations

  1991

  4,413

  1992

  3,260

  1993

  12,277

  1 Includes MOD police investigations for January to March 1994.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money his Department has lost through fraud in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Soames
  The values of reported fraud for the financial years 1984–85 to 1993–94 inclusive are as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  41,000

  1985–86

  199,000

  1986–87

  244,000

  1987–88

  1,039,000

  1988–89

  334,000

  1989–90

  233,000

  1990–91

  984,000

  1991–92

  63,000

  1992–93

  205,000

  1993–94

  571,000

  These figures exclude "procurement fraud"—fraud perpetrated by contractors, including corruption of officials by contractors and collusion between officials and contractors—which is often difficult to quantify precisely.

  No abatement is made for subsequent recoveries.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by name the five fraud cases which have cost his Department the most money in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Soames
  The largest fraud cases characteristically relate to procurement fraud, where the extent of the cash loss to the Department is often difficult to quantify with any precision. The five highest value cases were as follows:

  Case

  Year

  Director of Ammunition Procurement (Foxley)

  1994

  VMS Ltd.

  1991

  Chellingworth and Singer Ltd.

  1990

  Gateway Motor Auctions

  1987

  CAS Aviation and Marine International

  1986

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions he has taken to combat fraud within his Department.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has taken a range of measures to deter and detect fraud and to make staff aware of the need for vigilance. All suspected cases are vigorously pursued and an internal statement on fraud policy and law makes it clear that we will not tolerate dishonest behaviour among our employees. Investigations into suspected fraud are undertaken by the Ministry of Defence police fraud squad. The service police similarly investigate fraud in the service environment. The deterrence of fraud forms part of high level management plans with requirements placed upon senior line management to impose sound controls, follow up suspicions, and report suspected fraud. There is a514
  consultative panel on fraud and irregularity which is being reconstituted to involve line management representation, supported by a defence fraud unit which is tasked with collating information, assessing policy options and raising fraud awareness. Private sector expertise has been drawn on in the development of a methodology for fraud risk assessment. In the procurement field there has been extension of competitive procurement, a greater rotation of duties in significant procurement posts, and stress on fraud awareness.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the cases when employees of his Department have(a) been tried and (b) been successfully convicted of fraud in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Base Repair Organisation, Old Dalby
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the prospects of allocating new sources of his Department's work to ABRO, Old Dalby.

  Mr. Freeman
  Prior to my announcement on 27 October 1994 of the intention to withdraw work from ABRO Old Dalby, ABRO had undertaken a number of studies to determine the practicality of moving work from its other facilities into Old Dalby. The studies clearly demonstrated that such a course of action was not cost-effective. ABRO also assessed the potential for transferring work undertaken by private contractors into Old Dalby, but concluded that this was neither practical nor cost-effective. The other services are also looking at the need to make effective use of the repair facilities at their disposal and some further rationalisation and consolidation of repair work may result from the defence costs study recommendation for tri-service rationalisation. This will not, however, alter the decision to withdraw all MOD work from ABRO, Old Dalby.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on possible private sector interest in purchasing all or part of ABRO, Old Dalby.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following my announcement of 31 January 1995 that MOD operations were to cease at the ABRO, Old Dalby workshop, a number of companies have expressed tentative interest in some of the facilities. As yet, however, none of these amount to substantive proposals.

  Any costed proposals received before the end of July 1995 will be carefully considered to see if they offer improved value for money compared with transferring work to ABROs Donnington or Bovington workshops or elsewhere within MOD. It is important to bear in mind however that the primary objective of the Old Dalby closure is to rationalise excess capacity within ABRO by moving work to other workshops where spare capacity exists.

  Industry has been invited to come forward with non-MOD uses for the Old Dalby workshop.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many personnel have joined his Department from defence or defence-related companies in the last 10 years;

  (2) if he will list the personnel who have joined his Department from defence or defence-related companies in the last two years; and what were the companies involved and the numbers joining each company.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information concerning previous employment is collected during the recruitment process and is retained on an individual's personal file. This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Mr. Freeman
  My ministerial colleagues and I keep no comprehensive records of all unsolicited mail or other items that we receive.

SCOTLAND

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many accident and emergency departments there are in Scotland; what were the corresponding figures in each year since 1986; and how many accident and emergency departments have been relocated in each year since 1986.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the numbers of accident and emergency units is shown in the table. The relocation of accident and emergency departments is a matter for health boards and the information held centrally does not allow this to be accurately identified.

  Numbers of hospitals with accident and emergency units1; years ending 31 March

  Year

  Number of hospitals

  1986

  104

  1987

  106

  1988

  103

  1989

  101

  1990

  100

  1991

  100

  1992

  101

  1993

  101

  1994

  101

  Note:

  1Hospitals with 100 or more accident and emergency attendances in each year.

  Source:

  Information and statistics division.

  Medical Register
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if inclusion in the medical register with a T(S) indication is the equivalent of accreditation.
  516
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The T(S) indication in the medical register has been used to record that a doctor has been accredited in a specialty—S indicates surgery—or been appointed to a consultant post in the NHS.

  Accreditation represents the decision of the relevant royal college body responsible for training in the specialty that the doctor has completed specialist training. The UK's system of specialist medical training is being reformed in the light of the Calman report "Hospital Doctors: Training for the Future".

  Peterhead Sheriff Court
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the cases dealt with by(a) summary complaint and (b) indictment in Peterhead sheriff court in each year from 1974 to 1994 involved accused with two or more previous convictions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of theft by housebreaking were dealt with on summary complaint at Peterhead sheriff court in each year from 1974 to 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The available information is set out in table:

  Persons called to Peterhead sheriff court on indictment where the main crime was theft by housebreaking1, 1976–1993

  Year

  Persons proceeded against

  1976

  18

  1977

  25

  1978

  27

  1979

  38

  1980

  26

  1981

  44

  1982

  56

  1983

  31

  1984

  52

  1985

  76

  1986

  65

  1987

  80

  1988

  98

  1989

  55

  1990

  58

  1991

  51

  1992

  53

  1993

  28

  Notes:

  1Includes charges of attempted theft by housebreaking and housebreaking with intent to steal.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of theft by housebreaking were dealt with on indictment at Peterhead sheriff court in each year from 1974 to 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Persons called to Peterhead sheriff court on indictment where the main crime was theft by housebreaking1, 1976–1993

  Year

  Persons proceeded against

  1976

  0

  1977

  0

  1978

  7

  517

  Persons called to Peterhead sheriff court on indictment where the main crime was theft by housebreaking1, 1976–1993

  Year

  Persons proceeded against

  1979

  9

  1980

  20

  1981

  2

  1982

  5

  1983

  9

  1984

  4

  1985

  5

  1986

  1

  1987

  4

  1988

  3

  1989

  2

  1990

  1

  1991

  0

  1992

  0

  1993

  0

  1 Includes charges of attempted theft by house breaking and housebreaking with intent to steal.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Scotland what recent guidelines he has issued to national health service trusts and clinics regarding the subject of breast cancer screening programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: A number of guidelines have been produced in recent years by the Scottish breast screening programme on breast cancer screening. Recent publications are set out in the table:

  Title

  Date Published

  Quality Assurance Guidelines for Mammography (Pritchard)

  March 1989

  Guidelines for Pathologists

  February 1990

  Pathology Reporting in Breast Cancer Screening

  February 1990

  Breast Cancer Screening—A Practical Guide for Primary Care Teams

  1990

  Quality Assurance Guidelines for Radiologists

  June 1990

  Radiographic Quality Control Manual for Mammography

  February 1992

  Quality Assurance Guidelines for Surgeons and Beast Cancer Screening

  May 1992

  Guidelines for Cytology Procedures and Reporting in Breast Cancer Screening

  September 1992

  Breast Clinics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many breast clinics there are in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; of these how many are located in out-patient departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: There are five specialist breast clinics for out-patients in Scotland located in Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen and two in Glasgow.

  Breast Care Nurses
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of breast care nurses 518
  employed in (a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland; of these nurses how many are employed by way of funding from outwith the national health service; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: Statistics on the number of nurses engaged on breast care duties are not maintained centrally.

  Disabled People
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what recent discussions he has held with the Art Council concerning barrier-free access to theatres, galleries, museums and other buildings and freedom of movement within such for people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recent discussions he has held with the owners of cinemas regarding harrier-free access to their establishments and the freedom of movement within such for people suffering from disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: None. The provisions in the Disability Discrimination Bill will require service providers, including those who operate cultural and entertainment facilities, to remove physical barriers, where reasonable, in order to improve access for disabled people to their service. The Government's White Paper "Ending Discrimination against Disabled People" makes it clear that there will be a continuing process of consultation on the detailed implementation of their proposals.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with representatives of amateur and professional football clubs, cricket clubs and rugby clubs and others regarding(a) barrier-free access to sporting grounds and (b) the freedom of movement within such for people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The provisions in the Disability Discrimination Bill, currently before the House, will require service providers, including those who operate sports stadiums, to remove physical barriers, where reasonable, in order to improve access for disabled people to their service. The Government's White Paper "Ending Discrimination against Disabled People" makes it clear that there will he a continuing process of consultation on the detailed implementation of its proposals. The Scottish Sports Council, as the Government's advisory body on sport in Scotland, has a strong track record in providing quality information on the design of facilities where people with a disability are concerned. The council has paid particular attention to such needs in preparing the guidelines for application for national lottery funding.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the conduct of the Sports Council in relation to the provision of sporting facilities and activities for people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The Government regard the promotion of sport for people with disabilities as particularly important. The Scottish Sports Council is committed to a programme of initiatives, in partnership with the Scottish Sports Association for People with a Disability and others, to develop opportunities for people with disabilities to

  519
  participate at all levels of sport and generally to raise the profile of athletes with a disability in Scotland. Recent examples of the Scottish Sports Council's commitment in this area include their support for the ready, willing and able initiative, and the inclusion of sport for people with a disability within the teamsport programme.

  National Lottery
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money will be made available from the national lottery in the current financial year to distribute to voluntary organisations and charities; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The control and management of the national lottery distribution fund which channels lottery proceeds to the various distributing bodies is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

  Farmers and Crofters
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farm or croft holdings are estimated to occur within the environmentally sensitive areas of(a) the Shetland Islands, (b) the Cairngorm Straths, (c) the Argyll Islands and (d) the revised Machair of the Uists.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The number of potentially eligible farm or croft holdings is estimated to be as follows:

  Number

  The Shetland Islands

  1,300

  The Cairngorms Straths

  400

  The Argyll Islands

  950

  The Revised Machair of the Uists and Benbecula, Barra and Vatersay

  1,050

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers or crofters have to date completed agreements with the Scottish Office under the environmentally sensitive area schemes in(a) the Shetland Islands, (b) the Cairngorm Straths, (c) the Argyll Islands and (d) the revised Machair of the Uists.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The number of farmers, crofters and crofters grazings committees who currently have environmentally sensitive area scheme agreements with the Secretary of State is as follows:

  Number

  The Shetland Islands Environmentally Sensitive Area

  9

  The Cairngorms Straths Environmentally Sensitive Area

  10

  The Argyll Islands Environmentally Sensitive Area

  13

  Machair of the Uists, Benbecula, Barra and Vatersay Environmentally Sensitive Area (revised boundaries)

  612

  Ground Nesting Birds
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many approved farm conservation plans in the Argyll Islands environmentally sensitive area scheme include measures to be undertaken under the voluntary 2 prescriptions for ground nesting birds.
  520
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: Five.

  Agri-environment Programme
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 308, if he will give a breakdown of the funds allocated to each of the schemes introduced under the Scottish agri-environment programme in (a) the current financial year, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The table sets out the 1994–95 supply estimates provision and the Government's present plans for spending on these schemes for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Financial Year

  Scheme

  1994–95 £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  1996–97 £ million

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas1

  4.5

  5.7

  7.8

  Heather Moorland

  Nil

  0.6

  2.9

  Habitats

  Nil

  0.6

  0.6

  Organic Aid

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  Access to Set-aside

  Nil

  0.5

  0.5

  Total

  4.6

  7.5

  12.0

  1Including new scheme for informal recreation in ESAs.

  Community Care
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what national care standards arc being prescribed for care in the community.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: Standards can only realistically be set at local level. The general policy is that care should he such as to allow vulnerable people to live as independent lives as practical in homely settings in the community. Following reorganisation, we will ask local authorities to develop community care charters in which they will set our standards by which their performance can he judged locally.

  NHS Consultants
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospital consultants have been dismissed from their employment with national health service hospitals in each of the past 15 years; of those how many were reinstated following a successful appeal to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: Information on dismissals is not held centrally. The NHS management executive is informed of dismissals only when a consultant appeals to the Secretary of State against termination of the contract of employment. Since 1983, the earliest date of available records, there have been six such appeals by NHS consultants, two of which resulted in reinstatement.

EDUCATION

  Class Sizes
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the average class sizes in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in 1979–80; and what were the average class sizes for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average sizes of single-teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools in England in 1980 and 1994 are shown in the table.

  Position in January each year

  Primary

  Secondary1

  1980

  25 4

  21.0

  1994

  26.9

  21.4

  1 Excludes sixth form colleges which ceased to be classified as schools from 1 April 1993.

  School Places
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average cost of a school place in a local education authority school in Hampshire; and how many surplus school places there are in local education authority schools in Hampshire.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The national average premises-related cost of maintaining a school place is estimated to be £182 a year for a primary school and £303 a year for a secondary school at 1995–96 prices. It is not possible to give separate estimates at LEA level. The actual cost and the scope for realising savings from removal of surplus school places in practice will depend on local circumstances.

  In January 1994, there were 18,287–13 per cent.—primary surplus school places and 8,834–13 per cent.—secondary places in local education authority schools in Hampshire. The authority has recently completed a reorganisation which, together with pupil population growth, will have reduced the amount of surplus from these levels.

  National Youth Agency
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she plans to announce her decision on the future of the National Youth Agency.

  Mr. Boswell
  As my noble Friend the Lord Lucas said on Monday 23 January 1995,Official Report, House of Lords, columns 860–61. my right hon. Friend will not be making a decision on the policy review of the National Youth Agency until the final report is submitted. Meanwhile, some responses to the second phase consultations of the review team are still outstanding.

  Youth Service Unit
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people work in the youth service unit.

  Mr. Boswell
  The youth service unit of the Department for Education at present comprises 13 members of staff.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for 522
  Education (1) what was the work programme of the youth service unit for 1994–95;

  (2) what is the proposed work programme of the youth service unit for 1995–96.

  Mr. Boswell
  In addition to normal official duties, including policy advice to Ministers, the activities of officials in the Department's youth service unit include the following:administration of relevant DFE grants, including grants to the National Youth Agency, the youth exchange centre, and 60 national voluntary youth organisations;
  co-ordination within Whitehall of the Government's interest in youth issues in the European Union and the Council of Europe. including the proposed youth for Europe III programme, and representation of United Kingdom interests at meetings;
  commissioning or sponsoring national programmes and studies including the GEST youth action scheme and its national evaluation, the GEST activity on the training and youth and community workers, and a survey of youth service participation carried out as part of the OPCS omnibus survey;
  co-ordination of the Department for Education's policy on volunteering;
  liaison with other Government Departments on issues relevant to the youth service, including crime prevention and health education;
  co-ordination with the Department of Employment of national consultations on the scope for developing NVQ standards for youth and community work;
  policy review of the National Youth Agency and review of the administration of grants to national voluntary youth organisations.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools were formerly(a) country, (b) voluntary aided, (c) voluntary controlled and (d) special agreement schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The numbers of grant-maintained primary and secondary schools in each category is as follows:

  Former status

  Number

  County

  698

  Voluntary aided

  226

  Voluntary controlled

  95

  Special agreement

  13

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list, by local authority, the capital bids from grant-maintained schools for 1995–96.

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

  Student Loan Fund
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to amend the rules of the Student Loan Fund to meet the specific and special needs of medical students in the fourth and fifth year of their undergraduate training.
  523
  Mr. Boswell
  The Government keep the operation of the loans scheme under review, but have no current plans to introduce any major changes.

  Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total number of(a) voluntary controlled, (b) voluntary aided, (c) county and (d) special agreement schools in each year from 1992 to 1995.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of voluntary schools and county schools in England in the years 1992 to 1994, the latest date for which information is available, are shown in the table.

  Voluntary and County Schools1 in England 1992–1994 Position in January each year

  1992

  1992

  1994

  Voluntary schools

  Controlled

  2,998

  2,968

  2,909

  Aided

  4,221

  4,174

  4,032

  Special agreement

  67

  64

  54

  County Schools

  15,230

  14,942

  14,503

  1 Excluding sixth form colleges which ceased to be classified as schools in April 1993.

  Enforcement of School Attendance

  Education Welfare Officers1

  School Attendance Orders2

  Education Supervision Orders2

  Prosecutions2

  LEA

  Total

  FTE

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Avon

  61

  56.0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  12

  8

  27

  19

  14

  Barking and Dagenham

  11

  11.0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  2

  50

  62

  35

  Barnet

  12

  12.0

  2

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  6

  Barnsley

  17

  17.0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  13

  16

  26

  Bedfordshire

  32

  32.0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  2

  36

  39

  74

  Berkshire

  31

  31.0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  6

  1

  68

  22

  56

  Bexley

  7

  7.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  2

  24

  19

  21

  Birmingham

  89

  86.0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  48

  67

  54

  Bolton

  22

  19.8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  12

  15

  Bradford

  37

  31.5

  1

  0

  0

  2

  4

  0

  91

  32

  78

  Brent

  19

  19.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  6

  16

  Bromley

  11

  11.0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  33

  33

  27

  Buckinghamshire

  29

  28.5

  1

  3

  1

  1

  2

  2

  10

  52

  65

  Bury

  8

  8.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  22

  20

  33

  Calderdale

  14

  14.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  6

  4

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  28

  26.6

  2

  1

  3

  2

  3

  6

  28

  24

  18

  Camden

  17

  16.7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  6

  Cheshire

  32

  32.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  6

  12

  24

  58

  Cleveland

  47

  45.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  2

  3

  Cornwall

  15

  15.0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  14

  19

  22

  Coventry

  19

  19.0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  38

  16

  11

  Croydon

  16

  16.0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  4

  21

  29

  47

  Cumbria

  39

  36.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  4

  11

  Derbyshire

  46

  41.5

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  3

  43

  45

  40

  Devon

  32

  31.0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  22

  28

  38

  Doncaster

  27

  24.0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  12

  12

  5

  Dorset

  30

  28.0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Dudley

  10

  10.0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  5

  5

  14

  Durham

  38

  38.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  5

  9

  21

  33

  Ealing

  20

  18.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  117

  83

  81

  East Sussex

  21

  12.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  37

  12

  22

  Enfield

  19

  16.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  7

  3

  Essex

  79

  75.5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  11

  51

  64

  105

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in her Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Mr. Boswell
  As stated in my previous answer, on Wednesday 8 February 1995,Official Report, column 310, during the month of February three Ministers in the Department received invitations to a social event, which have been declined.

  School Attendance
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether she will publish the results of the survey of arrangements for enforcing school attendance undertaken by her Department last year.

  Mr. Forth
  The survey showed that 2,689 education welfare officers were employed by English local education authorities as at September 1994. LEAs were also asked to provide information on the number of school attendance orders, education supervision orders and prosecutions mounted against parents over the three school years up to and including 1993–94. The survey revealed that, over the period in question, the total number of SAOs had risen from 40 to 56 a year, ESOs from 81 to 314 a year, and the number of prosecutions had risen from 2,803 to 3,688 a year. The position for individual LEAs is set out in the following table.
  525

  Enforcement of School Attendance

  Education Welfare Officers1

  School Attendance Orders2

  Education Supervision Orders2

  Prosecutions2

  LEA

  Total

  FTE

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Gateshead

  20

  20.0

  1

  0

  0

  8

  5

  4

  22

  45

  46

  Gloucestershire

  16

  16.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15

  11

  19

  Greenwich

  17

  15.3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  109

  138

  151

  Hackney

  15

  14.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  14

  4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  15

  12.5

  1

  4

  6

  6

  4

  9

  10

  12

  14

  Hampshire

  83

  80.6

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  17

  48

  32

  65

  Haringey

  12

  11.5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  5

  7

  8

  Harrow

  9

  9.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  3

  5

  Havering

  13

  13.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  9

  15

  19

  Hereford and Worcester

  20

  20.0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  22

  33

  49

  Hertfordshire

  43

  40.3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  8

  16

  14

  Hillingdon

  10

  10.0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  2

  0

  1

  Hounslow

  9

  9.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  2

  8

  2

  Humberside

  47

  46.5

  0

  1

  0

  1

  6

  6

  83

  94

  83

  Isle of Wight

  9

  8.5

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  4

  5

  5

  Isles of Scilly1

  0

  0.0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  26

  22.6

  0

  0

  0

  6

  5

  6

  6

  6

  7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  15

  15.0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  4

  4

  11

  23

  4

  Kent

  47

  42.0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  8

  4

  96

  236

  244

  Kingston upon Thames

  6

  6.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  26

  23.0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  2

  0

  30

  49

  42

  Knowsley

  15

  14.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  72

  53

  27

  Lambeth

  32

  28.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  11

  0

  Lancashire

  86

  84.8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  40

  36

  57

  Leeds

  62

  56.0

  1

  3

  3

  1

  3

  5

  18

  31

  21

  Leicestershire

  39

  38.5

  1

  0

  4

  1

  7

  11

  25

  35

  69

  Lewisham

  17

  14.5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25

  Lincolnshire

  22

  22.0

  3

  6

  7

  0

  1

  2

  74

  52

  74

  Liverpool

  60

  56.0

  0

  6

  0

  1

  1

  1

  32

  45

  61

  London, Corporation of

  1

  1.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  29

  27.5

  3

  0

  0

  7

  5

  5

  142

  148

  129

  Merton

  8

  8.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  19

  39

  37

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  14

  14.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21

  3

  0

  Newham

  17

  17.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  151

  77

  104

  Norfolk

  35

  30.5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  16

  17

  26

  Northamptonshire

  26

  25.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  6

  70

  97

  79

  Northumberland

  12

  12.0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  6

  6

  7

  North Tyneside

  12

  11.3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  0

  0

  6

  North Yorkshire

  37

  35.0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  3

  4

  17

  21

  Nottinghamshire

  63

  63.0

  2

  3

  5

  0

  0

  0

  66

  148

  229

  Oldham

  7

  7.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  11

  14

  39

  Oxfordshire

  25

  20.0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  7

  5

  5

  12

  Redbridge

  10

  9.8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  6

  13

  5

  Richmond upon Thames

  10

  9.0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  5

  4

  Rochdale

  13

  12.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Rotherham

  19

  18.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  45

  35

  45

  St. Helens

  12

  11.0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  24

  16

  30

  Salford

  22

  22.0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  20

  27

  Sandwell

  23

  22.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  15

  21

  25

  Sefton

  24

  23.5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  3

  8

  21

  18

  Sheffield

  53

  48.5

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  21

  23

  Shropshire

  18

  17.5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  44

  59

  25

  Solihull

  13

  10.0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  7

  0

  6

  Somerset4

  0

  0.0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  10

  12

  10

  17

  South Tyneside

  17

  16.5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  17

  21

  14

  Southwark

  18

  18.0

  3

  2

  5

  2

  4

  3

  12

  12

  11

  Staffordshire

  57

  57.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  15

  33

  8

  50

  Stockport

  19

  19.0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  24

  18

  23

  Suffolk

  24

  24.0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  19

  26

  23

  Sunderland

  24

  24.0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  50

  76

  121

  Surrey

  28

  26.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  14

  18

  Sutton

  10

  10.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  5

  3

  5

  8

  Tameside

  16

  16.0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  8

  8

  53

  43

  35

  Tower Hamlets

  18

  17.5

  4

  7

  3

  0

  5

  8

  31

  42

  30

  526 527

  Enforcement of School Attendance

  Education Welfare Officers1

  School Attendance Orders2

  Education Supervision Orders2

  Prosecutions3

  LEA

  Total

  FTE

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Trafford

  10

  10.0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  3

  21

  31

  41

  Wakefield

  20

  20.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  37

  24

  38

  Walsall

  21

  21.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  64

  44

  54

  Waltham Forest

  14

  14.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  12

  Wandsworth

  17

  17.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  12

  9

  Warwickshire

  30

  25.8

  0

  0

  0

  7

  1

  4

  10

  31

  29

  Westminster, City of

  13

  13.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  3

  2

  West Sussex

  27

  24.0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  4

  30

  0

  12

  25

  Wigan

  17

  17.0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  21

  21.0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  3

  15

  17

  10

  Wirral

  21

  20.5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  9

  1

  Wolverhampton

  18

  18.0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  5

  10

  21

  21

  48

  Total

  2,689

  2,556.6

  40

  47

  56

  81

  220

  314

  2,803

  3,080

  3,688

  1 Position as at September 1994.

  2 Relates to school years.

  3 On the Isles of Scilly, attendance problems are dealt with by headteachers (under 300 pupils in 4 schools)

  4 In Somerset, school attendance enforcement is dealt with by Education officers rather than EWOs.

  Sixteen to Eighteen-year-olds
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students between the ages of 16 and 18 were studying in(a) sixth forms, (b) sixth form colleges and (c) colleges of further education in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Boswell
  The following table shows the number of pupils in school sixth forms, and students in sixth form colleges and colleges of further education in each of the years 1989–90 to 1993–94.

  16 to 18-year-olds in (a) school sixth forms (b) sixth form colleges, and (c) colleges of further education: 1989–90–1993–94

  Academic year-numbers (000s)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  School sixth forms

  315.8

  322.3

  339.3

  344.3

  343.0

  Sixth form colleges

  73.8

  77.7

  84.1

  91.4

  98.7

  FE sector colleges 1

  Full-time

  293.4

  303.6

  341.8

  357.7

  369.6

  Part-time

  311.8

  265.4

  217.2

  172.6

  148.7

  1 Excluding sixth form colleges.

  Business Link, Wirral
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what financial help her Department or its agencies has given to the Business Link, Wirral since its inception.

  Mr. Boswell
  None. This Department is not responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the funding of Business Links.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list in rank order the percentages of their total budgets under local management of schools which county councils delegate to individual schools; and if she will calculate how much extra per pupil Lancashire would have been able to spend if it had delegated as much as the authority which delegated most.
  528
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The percentages of general schools budgets delegated to schools by county councils in 1994–95 are shown in the table below. The percentage delegated does not affect the total spending per pupil by the education authority concerned; but if Lancashire had delegated 78.8 per cent. of the general schools budget rather than 70.3 per cent., schools' delegated budgets would have been larger by approximately £200 per pupil.

  English counties 1994–95

  Local education authority

  Percentage of GSB delegated

  Hertfordshire

  78.8

  Northamptonshire

  76.6

  Suffolk

  75.5

  Berkshire

  75.5

  West Sussex

  75.3

  Avon

  74.9

  North Yorkshire

  74.7

  Northumberland

  74.3

  Staffordshire

  74.2

  Nottinghamshire

  74.1

  Warwickshire

  74.0

  Cheshire

  74.0

  Leicestershire

  73.9

  Hereford/Worcester

  73.9

  Hampshire

  73.7

  Somerset

  73.2

  Durham

  72.8

  Wiltshire

  72.7

  Gloucestershire

  72.6

  Bedfordshire

  72.5

  Cleveland

  72.5

  Humberside

  72.4

  Essex

  72.2

  Lincolnshire

  71.9

  Norfolk

  71.7

  East Sussex

  71.1

  Devon

  70.9

  Dorset

  70.8

  Kent

  70.8

  Buckinghamshire

  70.7

  Lancashire

  70.3

  Isle of Wight

  70.1

  Cornwall

  70.1

  Cambridgeshire

  69.9

  Oxfordshire

  69.8

  529

  English counties 1994–95

  Local education authority

  Percentage of GSB delegated

  Shropshire

  69.1

  Cumbria

  68.9

  Derbyshire

  68.7

  Surrey

  67.9

  Note:

  The figures have been derived from budget statements published by local education authorities under section 42 of the Education Reform Act in respect of the financial year 1994–95, and received by the Department prior to 17 October 1994. The percentages have been rounded in the table to one decimal place.

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the bid for capital allocation—permission to borrow—by Kirklees metropolitan council to assist with the removal of surplus places; and what is the sum allocated.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Kirklees metropolitan council bid for £445,000 in its 1995–96 annual capital guidelines to assist with the removal of surplus places. The notional allocation came to £165,000.

  It is, however, for Kirklees to decide how much of the ACG is spent on surplus place removal.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State of Education how much her Department is allowing Kirklees metropolitan council in capital allocation, permission to borrow, for the upgrading of science facilities at St. John Fisher RC high school in Dewsbury.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Kirklees metropolitan council has been allocated £16,000 to cover its liability on improvement minor works projects at voluntary aided and special agreement schools in 1995–96. The St. John Fisher RC high school project is in this category in the LEA's bid. All LEAs have received an allocation for their liability on such projects based on 20 per cent. of the total allocated for governors' expenditure.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the bids for capital allocation—permission to borrow—submitted by Kirklees metropolitan council for 1995–96 and the projects and amounts approved and rejected.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The council's annual capital guideline for county and voluntary controlled schools for 1995–96 has been calculated on the following basis. It is, however, for the LEA to use the allocation as it wishes.

  Bid

  Allocation

  Commitments

  £1,473,000

  £1,026,000 (Provisional Indicator of £1,022,000, plus £4,000 for Fartown surplus place removal)

  Basic need

  £594,000

  £137,000 (For Shelley First and Shelley High; bids for Fixby and Lydgate were unsuccessful)

  Surplus place removal

  £445,000

  £165,000 (For Birkenshaw, Slaithwaite, Wooldale, Shepley and Marsden. Cover for Royd Edge bid was placed in the 1995–96 Reserve. Rawthorpe and Deighton bids were unsuccessful)

  530

  Bid

  Allocation

  Special education

  £1,085,000

  Nil (unsuccessful bids were for Fairfield, Highfield and Turnshaws schools)

  VA liability

  £20,000

  £16,000 (Formula allocation; St. Saviour's bid placed in the Reserve and All Saints bid was unsuccessful)

  Remainder

  £6,145,000

  £110,000 (given by a national formula)

  Total

  £9,762,000

  £1,455,000

  Temporary Classrooms
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many temporary classrooms are in current use in each local education authority area in England and Wales.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not held centrally.

  University of Cornwall
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will give her support to proposals to set up a university of Cornwall.

  Mr. Boswell
  Support in the form of public funding for this purpose is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  Schools Budgets
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about the amount by which Lancashire county council intends to cut its delegated schools budget; and if she will list the percentage increases and decreases of other local education authorities' schools budgets.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Lancashire county council has provisionally fixed the size of its general schools budget for 1995–96, but the amount within that to be delegated to schools will not be finally determined until March. The information requested on other local education authorities' plans for their 1995–96 delegated school budgets is not yet available: authorities do not have to publish details of school budgets for that year until 31 March 1995.

  Lancashire County Council
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when her Department last raised the base of surplus places in schools with Lancashire county council; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has had no specific contact with Lancashire county council on the issue of surplus places. In January 1994, there were 12,398–9 per cent.—primary surplus school places and 11,754–13 per cent.—secondary surplus school places in Lancashire LEA. Pupil population growth and the authority's plans to rationalise some provision will reduce the amount of surplus from these levels.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest figure for surplus school places for Hampshire local education authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1994, there were 18,287–13 per cent.—primary surplus school places and 10,114–12 per cent.—secondary surplus school places in Hampshire LEA. The authority has recently completed a reorganisation which, together with pupil population growth, will have reduced the amount of surplus from these levels.

  Staff Ratios
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make an assessment of the ratio of administrative employees to teaching staff in each local education authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Local Education Authorities
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent per(a) primary and (b) secondary pupil in each of the local education authorities in England in the most recent year for which figures are available, at constant prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 21 February,Official Report column 177–79.

  School meal arrangements January 1994

  Number of day pupils

  Day pupils taking free meals

  Pupils known to be eligible

  William Parker school

  1,197

  143[12per cent.]

  210 [18 percent.]

  Helenswood school

  1,073

  159 [15 percent.]

  236 [22 per cent.]

  Hillcrest school

  1,250

  158 [13 percent.]

  300 [24 per cent.]

  The Grove school

  1,340

  255 [19 percent.]

  412 [31 percent.]

  Thomas Peacock community college

  928

  90 [10 per cent.]

  147 [16 per cent.]

  Figures are not available for Filsham Valley school, which did not open until September 1994.

  Staffordshire County Council
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent in total on education in Staffordshire in each of the past 20 years, at constant prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table below shows total expenditure by Staffordshire local education authority from 1974–75 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function.

  Staffordshire county council

  Gross expenditure (1994–95 prices)£ million

  1974–75

  460.1

  1975–76

  472.9

  1976–77

  478.9

  1977–78

  460.0

  1978–79

  470.0

  1979–80

  460.2

  532

  Feversham College, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if an official or Ministers at any time since Feversham college in Bradford submitted an application for the college to be guaranteed voluntary aided status have suggested that the college might consider applying for grant-maintained status; if applying for grant-maintained status enables schools to obtain loans from her Department for capital and revenue purposes before a decision on the application is made; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Neither Ministers nor officials of the Department have suggested Feversham college might consider applying for grant-maintained status. The Department does not make loans available to the promoters of any school to approval of their proposals to become a voluntary aided or a grant-maintained school. The Funding Agency for Schools does not have powers to make loans to promoters of new grant-maintained schools.

  Free School Meals
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children either take or are entitled to free school meals at(a) William Parker school, (b) Helenswood, (c) Hillcrest, (d) The Grove, (e) Filsham Valley in Hastings and (f) Thomas Peacock in Rye.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information, from returns made by schools to the Department, is as follows:

  Staffordshire county council

  Gross expenditure (1994–95 prices)£ million

  1980–81

  468.3

  1981–82

  475.8

  1982–83

  465.2

  1983–84

  470.4

  1984–85

  458.3

  1985–86

  449.2

  1986–87

  469.2

  1987–88

  481.9

  1988–89

  491.2

  1989–90

  466.5

  1990–91

  474.8

  1991–92

  479.3

  1992–93

  523.2

  1993–941

  413.3

  1 Provisional.

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the pupil-teacher ratio in Staffordshire(a) in primary schools and (b) in secondary schools in each of the last 20 years.
  533
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The pupil-teacher ratios in primary and secondary schools in Staffordshire in each of the last 20 years are shown in the table.

  Pupil:teacher ratios in maintained primary and secondary schools in Staffordshire LEA Position in January each year

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  1975

  1—

  1—

  1976

  24.2

  17.2

  1977

  24.2

  17.2

  1978

  23.8

  17.0

  1979

  23.2

  16.8

  1980

  22.5

  16.7

  1981

  21.8

  16.5

  1982

  22.4

  16.6

  1983

  22.0

  16.5

  1984

  22.3

  16.4

  1985

  22.4

  16.3

  1986

  22.8

  16.6

  1987

  22.9

  16.6

  1988

  23.2

  16.4

  1989

  23.0

  16.0

  1990

  23.3

  15.8

  1991

  23.1

  15.9

  1992

  23.5

  16.1

  1993

  24.7

  17.0

  1994

  25.1

  17.5

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent per pupil in Staffordshire(a) in primary schools and (b) in secondary schools in each of the past 20 years, at constant prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows expenditure by Staffordshire local education authority on(a) pre-primary and primary pupils combined, and on (b) secondary pupils from 1974–75 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available.

  Staffordshire County Council Spending per pupil (1994–95 prices)

  Nursery/Primary

  Secondary

  1974–75

  1,197

  1,943

  1975–76

  1,204

  2,006

  1976–77

  1,223

  1,949

  1977–78

  1,167

  1,828

  1978–79

  1,180

  1,821

  1979–80

  1,195

  1,783

  1980–81

  1,186

  1,640

  1981–82

  1,253

  1,711

  1982–83

  1,279

  1,709

  1983–84

  1,324

  1,763

  1984–85

  1,288

  1,765

  1985–86

  1,281

  1,822

  1986–87

  1,344

  1,973

  1987–88

  1,418

  2,113

  1988–89

  1,442

  2,225

  1989–90

  1,451

  2,247

  1990–91

  1,464

  2,178

  1991–92

  1,527

  2,236

  1992–93

  1,538

  2,195

  1993–941

  1,565

  2,119

  1 Provisional.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servants (Fast Stream)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those accepted for fast-stream entry for which his Department is responsible(a) in 1991, (b) 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994 were women.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested for the years 1991 and 1992 can be found in the reports of the Civil Service Commissioners for those years, which are available in the Library.

  In 1993, two of the 10 fast streamers assigned to the Home Office were women, and one women joined the Department after deferring entry from an earlier year. In 1994 both those assigned were men.

  Drug Abuse (Prisons)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received alleging that prison staff may condone drug abuse in the interests of avoiding disruption in prisons.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Frank Cook, dated 28 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about representations received alleging that prison staff may condone drug abuse in the interests of avoiding disruption in prisons.
  I have received one representation recently on this issue. Ministers have received none.
  The Prison Service does not tolerate the use of illicit drugs within its establishments, nor do we accept staff condoning such use. This message will be reinforced shortly with the release of the new Prison Service drugs strategy.
  A national drug testing programme for prisoners has just begun. This will emphasise further that the use of illicit drugs within prison is unacceptable and that anyone doing so will now run a far greater risk of being identified and punished.

  Restriction Orders
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the people charged and to date fined as a result of offences committed before, during or after the recent Ireland v. England match in Dublin currently are subject to restriction orders.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Of those so far charged with offences connected to the Ireland v. England match on 15 February, none have been subject to restriction orders.

  Refugees, Campsfield
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the compatibility of detention of refugees at Campsfield with the UN convention on refugees.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Government are committed to their obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees, and the protocol to that convention, and are satisfied that United Kingdom legislation and practice do not breach these or other relevant international obligations.
  535
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those who have been detained at Campsfield over the past 12 months have(a) been given permission to remain in the United Kingdom as political refugees and (b) been deported to their country of origin.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees in Campsfield have(a) died, (b) committed suicide and (c) attempted to commit suicide in the previous 12 months.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No detainee has died or committed suicide at Campsfield house since it opened in November 1993. During the same period, two detainees have attempted to commit suicide.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those who have been detained at Campsfield over the past 12 months have(a) applied for and (b) been granted bail.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if all the detainees at Campsfield have(a) been told in writing why they are being detained and (b) been given the right to challenge that information in civil court.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  All immigration detainees at Campsfield house have been informed of the reasons for detention orally, in a language which they understand, with an interpreter present if necessary. They are entitled to challenge the lawfulness of their detention by applying for a writ of habeas corpus or by seeking judicial review.

  I do not believe that any further written notification of the reasons for detention is necessary. All detainees are informed of their rights of appeal to the independent immigration appellate authorities, but the question of any legal challenge would be a matter for their representatives.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list(a) the nationalities, (b) the gender and (c) the age and the number of each nationality of all those currently detained at Campsfield detention centre;

  (2) for how long the person who has been detained for the longest period of time has been in Campsfield detention centre;

  (3) how many people are currently detained in Campsfield detention centre.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  On 18 February 1995, 191 people were detained in the immigration detention centre, Campsfield house.

  A breakdown by age is as follows:

  Number

  Under 18

  0

  18–20

  4

  21–30

  102

  31–40

  67

  41–50

  18

  Over 50

  0

  Total

  191

  536
  A breakdown by nationalities and gender is as Follows:

  Nationality

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Albania

  3

  —

  3

  Algeria

  7

  1

  8

  Angola

  4

  —

  4

  Bangladesh

  6

  —

  6

  Cameroon

  2

  —

  2

  China

  4

  —

  4

  Colombia

  1

  2

  3

  Cyprus

  10

  —

  10

  Ecuador

  1

  1

  2

  Ghana

  17

  7

  24

  India

  13

  1

  14

  Ivory Coast

  1

  2

  3

  Jamaica

  1

  3

  4

  Kenya

  —

  3

  3

  Lebanon

  1

  —

  1

  Malaysia

  1

  —

  1

  Mauritius

  1

  —

  1

  Morocco

  3

  —

  3

  Niger

  2

  —

  2

  Nigeria

  40

  10

  50

  Pakistan

  12

  —

  12

  Philippines

  —

  1

  1

  Romania

  1

  —

  1

  Senegal

  2

  —

  2

  Sierra Leone

  1

  2

  3

  Somalia

  1

  —

  1

  South Africa

  1

  —

  1

  Sri Lanka

  2

  —

  2

  Sudan

  —

  1

  1

  Togo

  1

  —

  1

  Turkey

  9

  —

  9

  Uganda

  —

  1

  1

  Yugoslavia (former)

  2

  —

  2

  Zaire

  5

  —

  5

  Nationality doubtful

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  155

  36

  191

  The detainee who has been in Campsfield house for the longest period has been there since 5 March 1994.

  Pop Festivals, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers the police have(a) to refuse and (b) to control pop festivals on the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Maclean
  The grant or refusal of a licence for such events is at the discretion of the local authorities concerned, but in coming to their decisions they are required to have regard to any observations submitted to them by the police or fire authority. Chief officers of police do not themselves have powers to refuse such an event.

  Part V of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 gives the police a new power, where two or more people are making preparations, for a large-scale rave on land in the open air or where 10 or more people have gathered on a site to attend a rave which is likely to cause serious distress to the local community through amplified music being played during the night, to direct those people to leave the land. It is a criminal offence to ignore the direction.

  These measures are specifically aimed at the public nuisance of unlicensed night time raves on land which can cause a great deal of distress to local residents.

  Crime, Lancashire
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about levels of crime in Lancashire.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the 12 months to June 1994, there were 128,534 recorded offences in Lancashire, a fall of 6.9 per cent. over the previous 12 months. The decrease for England and Wales as a whole was 5.5 per cent.

  North-east London Probation Service
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were supervised by the north-east London probation service on 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The latest available information is for December 1993, when the number of offenders supervised by the north-east London probation service was 3,887.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many court reports were completed by the north-east London probation service during 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  North-east London probation service completed 4,367 pre-sentence reports, social inquiry reports, family court reports and other reports for courts in 1992 and 5,105 such reports in 1993.

  Gambling
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy in respect of stimulating the demand for gambling.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's policy is to ensure that people are free to gamble if they wish but that there should be some controls on the encouragement of gambling. These controls will vary according to the type of gambling.

  I am currently reviewing the controls on the advertising of commercial gambling and plan to go out to consultation in May.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an independent panel to adjudicate on the cases of all those who seek asylum in Britain and are detained.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The decision to detain a person under Immigration Act powers is taken by a chief immigration officer or above and is reviewed within 24 hours by an immigration inspector. Thereafter, detention is reviewed locally at least every seven days and after one month the case is reviewed at immigration service headquarters monthly and at an increasingly senior level.

  There is also an extensive system under which bail may be sought. Anyone refused asylum has a right of appeal and anyone who has an appeal pending may apply to the independent immigration appellate authorities for bail at any stage until the appeal has been finally determined. In addition, any passenger who has been detained for longer than seven days pending further examination may apply for bail to the appellate authorities. Detention may also be challenged in the courts by way of an application for habeas corpus, or bail may be sought from the courts once a case is before them in an application for judicial review.
  538
  The Government believe that the internal review procedures, together with the opportunities available to apply for bail or to challenge detention through the courts, provide adequate safeguards and that a further independent review process is not justified.

  Burglary
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce the numbers of burglaries in England.

  Mr. Maclean
  Throughout the country, police forces have set up many initiatives which are successfully impacting on the number of domestic burglaries. The Metropolitan police's operation "Bumblebee" is the most widely known. West Yorkshire has run a "Hands Off" domestic burglary campaign and the Huddersfield division is currently developing and implementing a strategy for preventing repeat burglary. The Home Office will continue to encourage police forces to develop effective anti-burglary initiatives, including the project tackling the problem of repeat victimisation, and will support the police through its crime prevention training, publicity and research programmes.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 589, if he will name the prisoners who have been informed that Ministers have set a whole life tariff.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. The prisoners concerned have the right to make representations about the tariff set by previous Ministers. If they do so, their case will be considered afresh. No decision has yet been made in any of these cases. It would therefore be inappropriate to name the prisoners at this stage.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was his Department's expenditure on(a) prisons and (b) the probation service in Wales in the latest available year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The net operating costs of Welsh prisons in 1993–94 were £18.8 million.

  Expenditure by Welsh probation areas in 1993–94 was £18.4 million. The Home Office meets 80 per cent. of this expenditure and the responsible local authorities meet the remaining 20 per cent.

  Pollok Free State
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the statement by the self-styled Pollok free state in Glasgow that foreign nationals are occupying the area claimed; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he proposes to take to review the passports and visas held by the foreign nationals currently occupying the self-styled Pollok free state in Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.
  539
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I understand that people, including a number of overseas nationals, are protesting against the construction of the M77 motorway through the Pollok area of south-west Glasgow and have been using the area adjacent to the construction site to enter it.

  I understand that while there are believed to be a number of overseas nationals involved in the protest, there is no information to suggest that any of them has breached the immigration laws. If the immigration service receives such information, it will be investigated and appropriate action will be taken.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the allocation of section 11 grant for 1995–96 for each local authority, school or college(a) following the recent applications round and (b) in respect of existing projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce his decisions on applications made by local education authorities under section 11.

  Mr. Howard
  I am announcing today the outcome of the bidding round for new section 11 projects from 1995–96. Applicants are being informed. As I announced in reply to a question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on 22 November,Official Report, column 64, we have doubled the amount of funding on offer in each of the next two financial years to around £30 million. In deciding on the allocation of the funding, I gave highest priority to applications concerned with addressing additional educational needs among members of ethnic minorities, and particularly those seeking provision for the teaching of English as a second language in schools. Authorities and local communities will be pleased to learn that it has been possible to accommodate the key needs in this category of all authorities whose current section 11 funding is due to run out entirely at the end of this financial year.

  The table shows the allocations in relation to 1995–96 for new projects and for existing projects, allocations for which were recently notified separately to authorities and institutions.

  Section 11 Budget allocations for 1995–96 Existing and new projects

  Grant recipient

  New projects

  Existing projects

  Total allocation

  Local authorities and other. public bodies

  Avon

  568,144

  0

  568,144

  Barking and Dagenham

  258,362

  0

  258,362

  Barnet

  166,208

  609,490

  775,698

  Bedfordshire

  0

  1,988,238

  1,988,238

  Berkshire

  10,110

  715,258

  725,368

  Bexley

  19,900

  110,848

  130,748

  Birmingham

  43,676

  3,324,125

  3,367,801

  Bolton

  76,430

  501,946

  578,376

  Bradford

  3,612,026

  0

  3,612,026

  Brent

  155,693

  986,294

  1,141,987

  Bromley

  24,264

  0

  24,264

  Buckinghamshire

  884,119

  0

  884,119

  Bury

  0

  300,468

  300,468

  Calderdale

  0

  709,517

  709,517

  Cambridgeshire

  25,253

  862,061

  887,314

  Camden

  1,438,340

  0

  1,438,340

  Cardiff

  8,119

  0

  8,119

  540

  Section 11 Budget allocations for 1995–96 Existing and new projects

  Grant recipient

  New projects

  Existing projects

  Total allocation

  Cheshire

  0

  68,369

  68,369

  Cleveland

  93,483

  323,058

  416,541

  Coventry

  86,295

  1,781,970

  1,868,265

  Croydon

  431,698

  678,440

  1,110,138

  Derbyshire

  139,725

  964,843

  1,104,568

  Devon

  35,891

  10,850

  46,741

  Doncaster MBC

  0

  86,240

  86,240

  Dorset

  23,101

  0

  23,101

  Dudley

  776,954

  0

  776,954

  Durham

  0

  117,811

  117,811

  Ealing

  1,176,997

  0

  1,176,997

  East Sussex

  66,725

  113,948

  180,673

  Enfield

  423,923

  810,966

  1,234,889

  Essex

  24,258

  0

  24,258

  Gateshead

  25,803

  0

  25,803

  Gloucestershire

  68,213

  185,988

  254,201

  Greenwich

  845,944

  0

  845,944

  Gwent

  186,024

  52,321

  238,345

  Hackney

  147,091

  2,377,959

  2,525,050

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  449,738

  0

  449,738

  Hampshire

  0

  513,435

  513,435

  Haringey

  286,944

  1,804,773

  2,091,717

  Harrow

  27,286

  496,519

  523,805

  Havering

  35,875

  0

  35,875

  Hereford and Worcester

  177,430

  0

  177,430

  Hertfordshire

  29,319

  1,340,169

  1,369,488

  Hillingdon

  122,663

  203,954

  326,617

  Hounslow

  439,279

  624,548

  1,063,827

  Humberside

  17,187

  232,011

  249,198

  Hyndburn

  8,593

  0

  8,593

  Islington

  1,343,833

  0

  1,343,833

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  721,151

  721,151

  Kent

  174,943

  736,981

  911,924

  Kingston

  0

  83,838

  83,838

  Kirklees

  1,962,654

  0

  1,962,654

  Lambeth

  1,605,407

  0

  1,605,407

  Lancashire

  579,948

  3,319,356

  3,899,304

  Leeds

  118,702

  709,138

  827,840

  Leicester

  86,481

  0

  86,481

  Leicestershire

  165,605

  2,399,322

  2,564,927

  Lewisham

  1,069,847

  0

  1,069,847

  Lincolnshire

  18,640

  52,332

  70,972

  Liverpool

  127,746

  112,985

  240,731

  London Boroughs Grants Committee

  22,454

  0

  22,454

  Manchester

  243,642

  1,937,597

  2,181,239

  Merton

  136,574

  415,668

  552,242

  Middlesborough

  9,245

  0

  9,245

  Milton Keynes

  24,704

  0

  24,704

  Newcastle

  0

  209,981

  209,981

  Newham

  304,556

  1,287,757

  1,592,313

  Norfolk

  121,671

  0

  121,671

  North Tyneside

  0

  95,879

  95,879

  North Yorkshire

  0

  44,675

  44,675

  Northamptonshire

  114,936

  324,943

  439,879

  Nottingham

  57,122

  0

  57,122

  Nottinghamshire

  427,113

  793,892

  1,221,005

  Oldham

  91,495

  1,595,492

  1,686,987

  Oxford

  10,009

  0

  10,009

  Oxfordshire

  0

  425,844

  425,844

  Peterborough

  9,345

  0

  9,345

  Redbridge

  218,881

  730,452

  949,333

  Redditch

  13,686

  0

  13,686

  Richmond

  0

  47,343

  47,343

  Rochdale

  27,298

  904,920

  932,218

  Rotherham

  320,381

  0

  320,381

  Salford

  75,910

  0

  75,910

  Sandwell

  0

  1,044,197

  1,044,197

  Sheffield

  180,465

  973,053

  1,153,518

  Shropshire

  90,052

  0

  90,052

  Somerset

  28,875

  0

  28,875

  541

  Section 11 Budget allocations for 1995–96 Existing and new projects

  Grant recipient

  New projects

  Existing projects

  Total allocation

  South Glamorgan

  0

  344,337

  344,337

  South Tyneside

  99,071

  0

  99,071

  South Yorkshire FCDA

  12,328

  0

  12,328

  Southampton

  8,701

  0

  8,701

  Southwark

  710,672

  0

  710,672

  St. Albans

  28,070

  0

  28,070

  St. Helens

  15,367

  0

  15,367

  Staffordshire

  191,337

  560,176

  751,513

  Stockport

  0

  70,839

  70,839

  Suffolk

  11,121

  196,388

  207,509

  Sunderland

  0

  79,456

  79,456

  Surrey

  0

  247,145

  247,145

  Sutton

  71,781

  0

  71,781

  Tameside

  11,446

  327,957

  339,403

  Tower Hamlets

  120,688

  4,958,796

  5,079,484

  Trafford

  0

  210,477

  210,477

  Wakefield

  241,630

  0

  241,630

  Walsall

  1,198,599

  0

  1,198,599

  Waltham Forest

  23,080

  1,266,507

  1,289,587

  Wandsworth

  0

  1,112,048

  1,112,048

  Warwickshire

  762,421

  0

  762,421

  West Glamorgan

  244,221

  0

  244,221

  West Midlands FCDA

  56,191

  0

  56,191

  West Sussex

  0

  192,511

  192,511

  West Yorkshire FCDA

  51,142

  0

  51,142

  Westminster

  179,121

  1,217,389

  1,396,510

  Wigan

  57,627

  0

  57,627

  Wiltshire

  0

  109,967

  109,967

  Wirral

  0

  65,439

  65,439

  Wolverhampton

  1,185,096

  0

  1,185,096

  Grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges

  Ash Green GM school

  6,351

  0

  6,351

  Beechview Middle GM school

  6,913

  0

  6,913

  Bishop Challoner RG GM school

  5,298

  0

  5,298

  Brentside High school

  20,220

  0

  20,220

  Brushwood Middle GM school

  4,676

  0

  4,676

  Burntwood GM school

  0

  50,820

  50,820

  Castle Hall GM school

  6,976

  0

  6,976

  Castlefield GM school

  70,257

  0

  70,257

  Chadwell Heath GM school

  0

  13,583

  13,583

  Claremont GM school

  41,374

  0

  41,374

  Copland Community school

  63,693

  0

  63,693

  Deacons school

  23,003

  0

  23,003

  Desborough school

  11,627

  0

  11,627

  Djanogly City Technology college

  23,001

  0

  23,001

  Dormers Wells Infants GM school

  45,021

  0

  45,021

  Dormers Wells Junior GM school

  29,747

  0

  29,747

  Drayton Manor school

  25,275

  0

  25,275

  Dunraven GM school

  24,264

  0

  24,264

  Francis Bacon school

  13,143

  0

  13,143

  George Dixon GM school

  0

  78,054

  78,054

  Graveney GM school

  41,399

  0

  41,399

  Greenford High school

  55,656

  0

  55,656

  Greenwood Dale school

  23,828

  0

  23,828

  Hall Green GM school

  11,447

  0

  11,447

  Hamilton Combined GM school

  42,936

  0

  42,936

  Hendon GM school

  33,515

  0

  33,515

  Holly Hall GM school

  19,715

  0

  19,715

  Holy Trinity school

  10,182

  0

  10,182

  542

  Section 11 Budget allocations for 1995–96 Existing and new projects

  Grant recipient

  New projects

  Existing projects

  Total allocation

  John Kelly Girls' Technical college

  11,491

  12,872

  24,363

  London Oratory GM school

  27,868

  0

  27,868

  Manor Park GM school

  0

  9,755

  9,755

  Marlborough GM school

  0

  18,347

  18,347

  Myton GM school

  18,616

  0

  18,616

  Northampton Boys GM school

  11,615

  0

  11,615

  Northolt High school

  17,693

  0

  17,693

  Prospect school

  10,666

  0

  10,666

  Queens Park GM school

  75,825

  0

  75,825

  Radcliffe GM school

  11,627

  0

  11,627

  Reading Girls school

  11,472

  0

  11,472

  Sacred Heart RC school

  5,781

  0

  5,781

  Salesian college

  0

  15,526

  15,526

  Small Heath school

  62,991

  0

  62,991

  St. Andrews RC GM school

  13,329

  0

  13,329

  St. Luke's GM school

  0

  1,508

  1,508

  St. Marks West Essex GM school

  5,055

  0

  5,055

  Stantonbury Campus

  12,181

  0

  12,181

  Stopsley High school

  5,308

  0

  5,308

  Stratford GM school

  34,775

  0

  34,775

  Surrey Square GM school

  16,520

  0

  16,520

  Wood End Infant GM school

  7,406

  0

  7,406

  Wood End Junior GM school

  4,945

  0

  4,945

  Wrenn GM school

  25,199

  0

  25,199

  Colleges of further education

  Arnold and Carlton college

  17,964

  47,620

  65,584

  Bexley FE college

  9,782

  0

  9,782

  Birmingham FE Consortium

  950,000

  0

  950,000

  Cambridge Regional college

  15,165

  0

  15,165

  Charles Keene college

  210,000

  0

  210,000

  City college Manchester

  0

  72,798

  72,798

  City and Islington college

  52,000

  0

  52,000

  Clarendon college

  50,000

  0

  50,000

  Coventry Technical college

  26,539

  0

  26,539

  Crawley college

  4,158

  0

  4,158

  Croydon college

  36,752

  0

  36,752

  Ealing Tertiary college

  70,000

  0

  70,000

  Enfield FE college

  46,016

  0

  46,016

  Greenhill college

  130,000

  0

  130,000

  Hackney Community college

  46,759

  0

  46,759

  Hendon college

  106,155

  0

  106,155

  Huddersfield Technical college

  19,585

  0

  19,585

  Kingsway college

  25,000

  0

  25,000

  Language and Literacy

  Unit Southwark

  59,766

  0

  59,766

  Luton 6th Form college

  0

  60,221

  60,221

  Mancat

  0

  30,079

  30,079

  Newham FE college

  160,000

  0

  160,000

  Oaklands college

  43,000

  0

  43,000

  Park Lane college

  43,478

  0

  43,478

  Sandwell college

  0

  36,928

  36,928

  Sheffield college

  130,000

  0

  130,000

  South Nottingham college

  17,490

  0

  17,490

  Southgate college

  49,741

  0

  49,741

  St. Francis Xavier 6th Form college

  12,615

  8,631

  21,246

  Tameside college of Technology

  32,352

  0

  32,352

  543

  Section 11 Budget allocations for 1995–96 Existing and new projects

  Grant recipient

  New projects

  Existing projects

  Total allocation

  Thomas Danby college

  17,591

  0

  17,591

  Tile Hill college

  48,023

  0

  48,023

  Tower Hamlets college

  70,000

  0

  70,000

  Uxbridge college

  11,122

  0

  11,122

  West Hertfordshire college

  50,000

  0

  50,000

  Wirral FE college

  0

  10,121

  10,121

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Mr. Howard
  None.

  Female Prisoners
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women with children under five years of age are in prison at the present time.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 28 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many women with children under five years of age are in prison at the present time.
  No information is held centrally on this subject. However, a census of mothers in prison is being undertaken by the Home Office Research and Planning Unit and the findings will provide information on the number of women with children under five years of age. It is expected that preliminary results will be available in June and a full report in September.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are in Her Majesty's prisons in Britain currently one year ago, and five years ago; and what percentage this is of the total prison population.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 28 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many women are in Her Majesty's prisons in Britain currently, one year ago, and five years ago; and what percentage this is of the total prison population.
  The total number of women, and the percentages of the total prison population, on 17 February 1995, and at the end of January in the years 1994 and 1990 in England and Wales and Scotland are given in the attached table.
  544

  The number of women in prison in England, Wales and Scotland, and the percentage of the total prison population

  Date

  Number of women

  Percentage of total prison population3

  17 February 1995

  2,117

  3.8

  January 19941

  1,808

  3.5

  January 19902

  1,811

  3.5

  1 The population for England and Wales is for 31 January 1994, and for Scotland is for 28 January 1994.

  2 The population for England and Wales is for 31 January 1990, and for Scotland is for 26 January 1990.

  3 Total population includes persons held in police cells.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of female prisoners and the percentage of the total figures in each European Union country.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The countries of the European Union are covered by the statistics collated by the Council of Europe. The latest available information is given in the table. An article, "International comparisons of prison populations", by Collier and Tarling—Home Office research bulletin No. 23, pages 48 to 54—showed that the figures for different countries are unlikely to be strictly comparable because the definitions of prisons and prisoners vary from one country to another, reflecting different legal and administrative systems.

  Female prison population in each of the countries of the European Union as at 1 September 19931

  Country

  Number

  Proportion of prison population

  Belgium

  348

  4.8

  Denmark

  178

  4.8

  France

  2,100

  4.1

  Germany

  2,803

  4.3

  Greece

  300

  4.6

  Ireland

  34

  1.6

  Italy

  2,775

  5.5

  Luxembourg

  16

  3.8

  Netherlands

  339

  4.3

  Portugal

  795

  7.3

  Spain

  4,300

  9.4

  United Kingdom

  1,896

  3.6

  1 Provisional figures.

  Tote
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the future of the Horserace Totalisator Board.

  Mr. Howard
  I have been considering the future of the Horserace Totalisator Board, the Tote. In 1991, the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that the Tote should be vested in a racing body which was truly responsible to representative groups of all who work in the industry. In their response, the Government accepted that the position of the Tote was anomalous but accepted the Committee's view that at that time no suitable body in the racing industry existed.

  There have been a number of significant developments in the racing industry since 1991 including, most significantly, the setting up of the British Horseracing Board. I therefore believe that the time is now right to take forward consideration of the Committee's recommendation. I therefore intend to review the options

  545
  for the Tote in a way which preserves the extent to which racing benefits from the Tote's activities.

  Any change to the Tote's status would require primary legislation. Before that, there will be full consultation on the many practical issues to be addressed with interested parties, including the Tote itself, the racing industry and bookmakers.

  I intend to address all these issues in a consultation document which will be issued in the next six months.

  In taking forward this process, I think it very desirable that we continue to benefit from Lord Wyatt's experience and expertise. I have therefore asked him to stay on as chairman for a further two years to enable him to contribute to the review process. This will be his last term and I would hope that by the end of his tenure a new framework for the organisation of the Tote will have been decided.

  In addition, I have decided that in view of its role as the governing authority for racing in Britain, the British Horseracing Board should have its own seat on the Tote Board.

  Research (Prisoners)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public opinion research has been carried out since 1992 by or on behalf of his Department or the Prison Service Agency relating to prisoners and at what cost; and if he will place copies in the Library.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 8 February 1995]In January 1994, following a competitive tender, the Prison Service commissioned Market and Opinion Research International Ltd. to carry out some research into public attitudes towards the Prison Service for its own management purposes.

  The total cost of the research work was £29,000, including VAT.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Repossession
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what help is being given to those who

  Benefit cases where the claimant and/or partner has earnings

  Thousands

  Benefit

  Numbers where main earner works full-time

  Numbers where main earner works part-time

  Total

  Family credit1

  Male main earner

  202.9

  43.1

  571.7

  Female main earner

  97.5

  228.2

  Housing benefit2

  —

  —

  —

  390

  Notes:

  1 Source: Family credit statistical system—5 per cent., sample of awards at July 1994. Estimates are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2Source: Housing benefit management information system—annual 1 per cent. sample of awards at May 1993. Estimate has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  1. Cases refer to benefit units which may be a single person or a couple. In couple cases where both partners are working the sex of the main earner has been used.

  2. Individuals may be in receipt of family credit and housing benefit at the same time. The final column cannot be totalled because of the overlap between the benefits.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for the contracting out of
  546
  have lost their life assets through having their homes repossessed.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  People who become homeless through no fault of their own and who have a priority need for housing are eligible for rehousing by local authorities under the homelessness legislation. Furthermore, people whose homes have been repossessed may be entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit, subject to the normal income and liability tests, where they move to rented accommodation. A number of other social security benefits are available to help people meet day-to-day living expenses.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many(a) men and (b) women in (i) full and (ii) part-time employment receive housing or family income benefit;

  (2) what is the number of people in work whose rates of take-home pay entitle them to housing or family income benefits.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The available information is in the table. Part-time employment has been interpreted to mean employment for fewer than 30 hours per week. Housing or family income benefits have been interpreted to mean housing benefit or family credit. A breakdown of full-time and part-time workers receiving housing benefit is not available.

  In addition to those actually receiving family credit and housing benefit, there will be some families who have not taken up their entitlement to benefit. Latest estimates of housing benefit take-up, which are for 1992, show that between 310,000 and 600,000 people, 7 to 12 per cent. of those eligible, are not taking up their entitlement. Not all of these people will be in work. It is estimated that in 1991 and 1992, 160,000 families had levels of take-home pay that would bring entitlement to family credit if a claim were made.

  From July 1995, a £10 premium will be introduced in family credit for those working 30 hours or more per week. It is estimated that 345,000 families will benefit from this change, including 50,000 who will become newly entitled to family credit.

  all or of some of the functions of the compensation recovery unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None.

  Income Support
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of habitual residence tests on claimants for income support are conducted by interview; and what proportions of those who have failed the test were interviewed in person.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review paragraphs 4 and 13 of Schedule 2 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have been refused income support under the habitual residence test(a) in total and (b) in each Benefits Agency office in England, Wales and Scotland; and how many in each case have won the appeal against this decision.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 27 February 1995:

  Gain from work at £3.20 per hour

  Hours worked

  Pay

  Income support

  Rent

  Housing benefit

  Council tax

  Council tax benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after payment of rent and council tax when in work

  Net income after payment of rent and council tax when not in work

  Net gain from work

  8

  25.60

  25.10

  30.91

  30.91

  6.60

  6.60

  88.21

  50.70

  45.70

  5.00

  16

  51.20

  —

  30.91

  30.59

  6.60

  6.50

  88.29

  50.78

  45.70

  5.08

  Notes:

  1. The person is assumed to be single, aged 25 or over, living in local authority accommodation and liable for average council tax and local authority rent.

  2. The person is assumed to take-up full entitlement to income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  3. Tax and national insurance contributions are not payable at the earnings levels shown.

  Civil Servants (Fast Stream)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those accepted for fast-stream entry for which his Department is responsible

  Grade

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Percentage of women

  1993

  Administration Trainee/Higher Executive Officer (Development)

  6

  5

  11

  45

  Assistant Statistician

  3

  2

  5

  40

  Economic Assistant

  0

  3

  3

  100

  Trainee Statistician

  1

  2

  3

  67

  1994

  Administration Trainee/Higher Executive Officer (Development)

  4

  5

  9

  56

  Assistant Statistician

  0

  1

  1

  100

  Economic Statistician

  2

  1

  3

  33

  Trainee Statistician

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of state for social security if he will publish a table showing the number of grants to funeral expenses made by his Department each
  548
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for statistical information in connection with the habitual residence test for each Benefits Agency district office.
  Information about the number of people refused Income Support after failing the habitual residence test has been collated for the period 1 August 1994 to 31 January 1994 and is provided at Annex A. The table shows the twenty one Benefits Agency Area Directorates that make up Great Britain and lists the districts that make up each area. A copy has been placed in the Library.
  Housing and Council Tax Benefits information is collected annually from Local Authorities by the Department of Social Security. Habitual residency test figures will not be available until after the end of the financial year.
  Data regarding the number of successful appeals, in cases where Income Support has been disallowed as a result of the application of the test, is not collected in the format requested; this could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the net gain for a person who is on income support and has worked at £3.20 per hour for(a) eight hours and (b) 16 hours, showing calculations in each case.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 February 1995, c.872–74]: The table provided included an incorrect figure for net pay for eight hours work at £3.20 per hour. The figure should be £25.60, not £25.50 as shown in the second column of the first row. The correct information is in the table.

  (a) in 1991, (b) in 1992,(c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994 were women.

  Mr. Hague
  The figures for 1991 and 1992 are contained in the Civil Service Commissioners report for the relevant year, copies of which are in the Library.

  The figures for 1993 and 1994 are as follows:

  year since the introduction of the social fund, together with the total and average costs of such grants.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available for the first year of the funeral payment
  549
  scheme—1987–88. Information for subsequent years is set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of awards(000)

  Gross expenditure(£m)

  Average award(£)

  1988–89

  37

  18.4

  497

  1989–90

  44

  23.9

  545

  1990–91

  49

  29.7

  612

  1991–92

  57

  40.1

  706

  1992–93

  63

  49.5

  789

  1993–94

  72

  62.5

  873

  1 April 1994 to 31 January 1995

  55

  51.1

  923

  Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of housing benefit claimants have changed the address for which they were claiming during each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what proportion of them moved into more expensive properties in each of these years.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proportion of housing benefit claimants have their rents paid in full for housing benefit; and what the comparable figure was for each year since 1979;

  (2) what proportion of new housing benefit claimants had their rents paid in full by housing benefit for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table. Data are not available prior to 1989 and no separate records are kept for new housing benefit claimants.

  Housing Benefit recipients—proportion who have their rents paid in full by Housing Benefit

  Inquiry

  All HB recipients

  HB recipients who have their eligible rent paid in full by HB(000s)

  Proportion who have their eligible rent paid in full by HB(Percentage)

  May 1989

  3,939

  2,302

  58

  May 1990

  3,979

  2,290

  58

  May 1991

  4,021

  2,315

  58

  May 1992

  4,320

  2,725

  63

  May 1993

  4,521

  2,941

  65

  Source:

  Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiries with and without income support, taken at the end of May for each year.

  Notes:

  1. The numbers given refer to the number of benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. The numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand and the percentages to the nearest whole percent.

  3. Information on actual rent is not available, therefore the data given relates to rent eligible for HB.

  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research he has undertaken on the 550
  effect of the changes to the eligible amount of rent for housing benefit purposes announced in the December 1994 Budget on the willingness of private landlords and potential private landlords to let properties.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No specific research on the impact on landlords of the proposed housing benefit changes has been undertaken. However, the Department of the Environment has been undertaking more general research into the motives, experience and future intentions of landlords. Both Departments will be monitoring closely the impact of the proposed changes on both landlords and tenants through on-going research surveys and specific studies as necessary.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security pursuant to his answer of 13 February to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd),Official Report, column 536, how many of those receiving invalidity benefit in Great Britain in 1993 (a) are single people and (b) have partners.

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

  On average, in the years 1991 to 1993, 30 per cent. of invalidity benefit recipients were single, and 70 per cent had partners.

  Source:

  1991, 1992 and 1993 family expenditure surveys.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants since the advent of statutory sick pay have been refused invalidity benefit on the basis that they would not have otherwise qualified for the national insurance sickness benefit; if he will divide these totals down into men and women claimants; what were the main causes of the failure of claimants to have full contribution records; and how many nevertheless gained full statutory sick pay.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer Monday 13 February 1995]The available information for the last five years is shown in the table below. Earlier figures can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sickness benefit spells commencing in the period where 28 weeks statutory sick pay has previously been paid and the contribution conditions not satisfied

  Period

  Men

  Women

  4 April 1988 to 1 April 1989

  1,000

  3,000

  3 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  1,000

  4,000

  2 April 1990 to 30 March 1991

  2,000

  5,000

  1 April 1991 to 4 April 1992

  1,000

  3,000

  6 April 1992 to 3 April 1993

  1—

  3,000

  Notes:

  1. If after 28 weeks statutory sick pay has been paid and the contribution condition is not satisfied, the claimant is not entitled to invalidity benefit and the spell becomes a sickness benefit spell.

  2. The information is based on a I per cent. sample of claimants to benefit within Great Britain, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  1Sample insufficient size to provide a figure.
  551
  Information on the reasons for claimants' failure to have full contribution records is not available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to alter the retirement age for men and women; and when he is proposing to present measures to the House;

  (2) what plans he has to make changes in the provision of state pensions.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have issued two White Papers outlining the Government's proposals on state pension age and occupational and state pension provision. The first, "Equality in State Pension Age" (Cm 2420) was published in December 1993 and the second, "Security, Equality, Choice: The Future for Pensions" (Cm 2594) was published in June 1994, copies are available in the Library. The legislation needed to implement these proposals is included in the Pensions Bill, which was introduced into Parliament on 15 December 1994.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Mr. Hague
  Three items have been received, all of which were invitations to Ministers to attend a drinks engagement on 1 March.

EMPLOYMENT

  Civil Servants (Fast Stream)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of those accepted for fast-stream entry for which his Department is responsible(a) in 1991, (b) 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994 were women.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on 1991 and 1992 is contained in the Civil Service Commissioners' reports for those years, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The numbers and percentage of women recruited by the Employment Department from the civil service fast stream recruitment programme in 1993 and 1994 are shown in the following table:

  Year

  Number of women

  Percentage of women

  1993

  14

  67

  1994

  7

  58

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions his Department has issued, when, and to whom, as to the mechanisms required to monitor(a) youth training scheme performance, (b) adult training schemes' performance and (c) financial performance by training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Paice
  The monitoring and financial information which the Department requires from training and 552
  enterprise councils is set out in the TEC operating agreement and TEC annual funding agreement. The TEC management information guide gives further details to TECs on what information is required. These documents are revised annually and are available in the Library.

  Out-of-school Child Care Initiative
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information is currently available, or will be available shortly, on(a) the labour market impact of the out-of-school child care initiative and (b) the number of projects achieving the self-financing criteria.

  Miss Widdecombe
  An interim evaluation of the initiative was published on 8 February this year by the Department in its research series under the title "The Out-of-School Childcare Grant Initiative: an Interim Evaluation". At the time when the evaluation was carried out, it was too early to assess the labour market impact of the initiative and few schemes had reached the end of their period of grant support. I will arrange for a copy of the evaluation to be placed in the Library.

  A further evaluation is currently in progress. The results will be available in late 1995.

  Health and Safety (Fire)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, if the restriction contained within paragraph 12 of schedule 3 to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 permits him to make regulations under that Act relating to general fire safety matters.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Paragraph 12 of schedule 3 to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 provides that health and safety regulations may require, in specified circumstances, the taking of specified precautions in connection with the risk of fire. Paragraph 23 of that schedule defines "specified" as specified in the regulations. This therefore enables regulations to relate to general fire precautions if the circumstances and precautions are specified in the regulations and the regulations are made for the general purposes of the Act as set out in section 1.

  Young People (Employment)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are employed as full-time workers; and what this number is as a proportion of the total number of full-time employed in each industrial sector;

  (2) how many young people are employed in each industrial sector; and if he will give the figures as a proportion of the total number employed in each sector.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is given in the following tables:

  Full-time employees and self-employed aged 16 to 24 working in the following industry sectors in Great Britain Summer: 1994

  Thousands

  As proportion of all ages (per cent.)

  Agriculture and Fishing

  57

  14

  Energy and Water

  29

  10

  Manufacturing

  650

  15

  Construction

  246

  15

  Services

  1,831

  15

  553

  All employees and self employed aged 16 to 24 working in the following industry sectors in Great Britain Summer: 1994

  Thousands

  As proportion of all ages (per cent.)

  Agriculture and Fishing

  68

  14

  Energy and Water

  29

  9

  Manufacturing

  689

  14

  Construction

  253

  14

  Services

  2,763

  16

  Source:

  Labour Force survey.

  Defence Industry, North-west
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what is his estimate of the number of people employed in the defence industry in the north-west region.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is not available.

  South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what severance package the former director of finance for South Thames training and enterprise council received when he left his post in August 1994.

  Mr. Paice
  I have no knowledge of this, nor would it be appropriate for me to seek such commercial information from the board of South Thames training and enterprise council.

  Child Labour
  Mrs. Llin Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is(a) the total amount of compensation paid to children injured in employment and (b) the number of children who received awards for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Children who are injured while working as a result of their employer's negligence may be entitled to compensation from the employer under civil law. Details of compensation paid by employers or their insurers to children is not available.

  Mrs. Llin Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many children were killed or injured while in employment for the last year for which figures were available.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  For 1993–94, the provisional figures for fatal and other injuries to employees aged under 16 reported to the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division inspectorates and local authorities are:

  Severity of injury

  Number of injuries1

  Fatal

  1

  Major2

  21

  Over-three-day3

  16

  Total

  38

  1Including injuries to trainees.

  2As defined under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  3Any other injury that results in incapacity for normal work for more than three days.

  Football Pools
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the recent job losses announced by(a) Littlewoods and (b) Vernons.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Job losses are always regrettable and I sympathise with all those adversely affected. However, companies have to adjust to remain competitive in changing markets. The gambling sector is no exception, but the pools companies, as recently announced by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, will he allowed to advertise on television and modernise their operations in a number of other ways. People who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs from any sector can benefit from the Department's extensive range of measures designed to help them find new jobs, re-train or set up in business.

  EU Industrial Hazards Directive
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 703, if he has now decided upon the view on proposals put forward to be taken by his Department in respect of amendments to the EC industrial hazards directive 82/501.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The European Parliament considered amendments suggested by its members to the proposed Council directive on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances at its session on 16 February. The amendment to article 15 of the proposed directive was agreed by the European Parliament, but I understand that the Commission of the European Communities has not accepted it and the amendment will not therefore be put to member states for consideration.

  It is the view of the Health and Safety Executive and of the Department of Environment, which jointly lead on negotiations on the proposed directive, that the existing arrangements under directive EC 82/501 for member states to notify the Commission of major accidents has worked well and should continue. But no useful purpose would be served by having a duplicate requirement on member states to provide the same information to another EC institution.

  Pregnant Employees
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received in the past year concerning the impact of European Union directive 92/85 and the Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provision Order 1994, SI 1365, on the problems faced by pregnant employees handling horses.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Ministerial colleagues and I have received three such representations, all from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).

  Horse Riding Organisations
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the Association of British Riding Schools and the British Horse Society in the past year; and what meetings he has
  555
  held with representatives of these organisations within the same period.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None.

  Training Schemes (Women)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women are currently on Government training schemes by(a) training scheme and (b) individual TEC; and what is the overall figure as a percentage of the overall number of trainees on Government training schemes.

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is given in the following table. The information covers those leaving youth training and training for work between April and September 1994. As these figures are estimated from incomplete information, it is possible only to give the percentage of women leavers and not the actual numbers.

  April 1994 to September 1994

  England and Wales and TECs

  Percentage of youth training leavers who were female

  Percentage of training for work leavers who were female

  England and Wales

  42

  30

  Bedfordshire TEC

  41

  29

  Central and South

  Cambridgeshire TEC

  39

  32

  North Derbyshire TEC

  37

  20

  South Derbyshire TEC

  47

  37

  Leicestershire TEC

  43

  29

  Lincolnshire TEC

  43

  39

  Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  38

  28

  Northamptonshire TEC

  47

  30

  Greater Nottingham TEC

  41

  23

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  46

  25

  Greater Peterborough TEC

  38

  32

  Suffolk TEC

  45

  31

  County Durham TEC

  38

  23

  Northumberland TEC

  43

  34

  Teeside TEC

  40

  26

  Tyneside TEC

  39

  25

  Wearside TEC

  n/a

  25

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC

  42

  25

  Bradford TEC

  40

  22

  Calderdale—Kirklees

  42

  35

  Humberside TEC

  38

  31

  Leeds TEC

  43

  36

  Rotherham TEC

  43

  22

  Sheffield TEC

  43

  25

  Wakefield TEC

  40

  16

  North Yorkshire TEC

  41

  33

  Bolton—Bury TEC

  45

  27

  North Chesire TEC

  46

  33

  South and East Chesire TEC

  32

  30

  Cumbria TEC

  41

  36

  East Lancashire TEC

  40

  32

  West Lancashire TEC

  42

  28

  Central Manchester TEC

  42

  24

  Merseyside TEC

  n/a

  31

  Oldham TEC

  48

  31

  Rochdale TEC

  43

  26

  St. Helens TEC

  39

  25

  Stockport—High Peak

  n/a

  n/a

  Wigan TEC

  45

  27

  Wirral—Chester TEC

  45

  37

  Birmingham TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  556

  April 1994 to September 1994

  England and Wales and TECs

  Percentage of youth training leavers who were female

  Percentage of training for work leavers who were female

  Central England TEC

  46

  38

  Coventry—Warwickshire TEC

  43

  30

  Dudley TEC

  45

  22

  Hereford—Worcestershire TEC

  40

  32

  Sandwell TEC

  45

  28

  Shropshire TEC

  37

  37

  Staffordshire TEC

  42

  24

  Walsall TEC

  53

  30

  Wolverhampton TEC

  46

  36

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  32

  24

  South Glamorgan TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  Gwent TEC

  40

  29

  Powys TEC

  39

  34

  North East Wales TEC

  42

  28

  North West Wales TEC

  44

  34

  West Wales TEC

  34

  27

  Avon TEC

  46

  36

  Devon—Cornwall TEC

  n/a

  27

  Dorset TEC

  40

  26

  Gloucester TEC

  42

  25

  Somerset TEC

  39

  28

  Wiltshire TEC

  39

  31

  Essex TEC

  44

  35

  Hampshire TEC

  40

  31

  Heart of England TEC

  36

  36

  Hertfordshire TEC

  36

  32

  Isle of Wight TEC

  35

  25

  Kent TEC

  44

  31

  Milton Keynes TEC

  47

  32

  Surrey TEC

  41

  29

  Sussex TEC

  45

  30

  Thames Valley TEC

  43

  33

  Aztec TEC

  50

  41

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  42

  42

  Brent, Harrow TEC

  35

  43

  Islington, Hackney TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  40

  41

  London East TEC

  41

  38

  South London TEC

  43

  46

  West London TEC

  43

  43

  South Thames TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  Source:

  YT and TFW national leavers certificate databases.

  Notes:

  n/a—Not available due to low number of processed returns.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the expenditure on women on training programmes by(a) training schemes and (b) individual TEC; and what is the figure as a percentage of overall expenditure on training.

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is not available.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in this Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have received one invitation to a reception from Messrs Ian Greer Associates.

  Labour Force Survey (Women)
  Ms Harriet Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 6 February 1995, Official Report, column 94, if he will list for each year since 1984 (a) annually and (b) quarterly the number of women in Great Britain surveyed by the labour force survey who, although they are without a job, have looked for a job within the four weeks prior to their labour force survey interview or are waiting to start a job within the two weeks following their labour force survey interview, and the number of women who are neither in employment nor unemployed on the International Labour Organisation measure but who said that they would like a job, also expressing the number of women in both categories who are single parents.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  This information is available from the labour force survey and can be obtained via the Quantime LFS service available in the Library.

  Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) who is the current Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members; what are the background and qualifications of the commissioner; how many days per week the commissioner is expected to work; and what remuneration the commissioner receives;

  (2) what has been the total expenditure to date on the Commission for the Rights of Trade Union Members; how many staff are employed by the Commission; how many specific applications for help have been received since its establishment; and in how many cases actions have been pursued by the Commission.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on 17 February 1995, Official Report, columns 852–61.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to review the work and funding of the Commission on the Rights of Trade Union Members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]Like other executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department, the role and activities of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members are monitored and reviewed in accordance with the arrangements set out in the Cabinet Office/HM Treasury publication "Non-Departmental Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments". The commissioner's grant in aid is reviewed annually as part of the normal public expenditure procedures.

  Earnings
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) by what percentage the upper deciles weekly full-time earnings exceeded(a) the lowest deciles weekly full-time earnings for men, women and all full-time workers, (b) the lower quartiles weekly full-time earnings for men, women and all full-time workers, (c) the mean level of weekly full-time earnings for men, women and all full-time workers and (d) the upper quartiles weekly full-time earnings for men, women and all full-time workers in 1992;
  558
  (2) by what percentage the upper deciles weekly full-time earnings exceeded (a) the lowest deciles weekly full-time earnings for men, women and all full-time workers, (b) the lower quartiles weekly full-time earnings for men, women and all full-time workers, (c) the mean level of weekly full-time earnings for men, women and all full-time workers and (d) the upper quartiles weekly full-time earnings for men, women and all full-time workers in 1994;

  (3) what was the percentage change in the gap between mean full-time weekly earnings and the upper quartiles full-time weekly earnings between 1992 and 1994 for (a) men, (b) women and (c) all full-time workers;

  (4) what was the percentage change in the gap between mean full-time weekly earnings and full-time weekly earnings for the upper decile between 1992 and 1994 for (a) men, (b) women and (c) all full-time workers;

  (5) what was the percentage change in the gap between mean weekly full-time earnings and the lower quartiles full-time weekly earnings between 1992 and 1994 for (a) men, (b) women and (c) all full-time workers;

  (6) what was the percentage change in the gap between mean full-time weekly earnings and the lowest deciles full-time weekly earnings between 1992 and 1994 for (a) men, (b) women and (c) full-time workers;

  (7) what was the percentage difference in pay rise between mean weekly full-time earnings and the lowest deciles weekly full-time earnings, adjusted for inflation, between 1992 and 1994 for (a) men, (b) women and (c) all full-time workers;

  (8) what was the percentage difference in pay rise between the upper deciles weekly full-time earnings and the upper quartiles weekly full-time earnings, adjusted for inflation, between 1992 and 1994 for (a) men, (b) women and (c) all full-time workers;

  (9) what was the percentage difference in pay rise between mean weekly full-time earnings and the lower quartiles weekly full-time earnings, adjusted for inflation, between 1992 and 1994 for (a) men, (b) women and (c) all full-time workers;

  (10) what was the percentage difference in pay rise between the upper deciles weekly full-time earnings and the lowest deciles weekly full-time earnings, adjusted for inflation, between 1992 and 1994 for (a) men, (b) women and (c) all full-time workers;

  (11) what was the percentage difference in pay rise between the upper deciles weekly full-time earnings and the lower quartiles weekly full-time earnings, adjusted for inflation, between 1992 and 1994 for (a) men, (b) women and (c) all full-time workers;

  (12) what was the percentage difference in pay rise between mean weekly full-time earnings and the upper deciles full-time weekly earnings, all adjusted for inflation, between 1992 and 1994 for (a) men (b) women and (c) all full-time workers;

  (13) what was the percentage difference in pay rise between mean full-time weekly earnings and the upper quartiles full-time weekly earnings, adjusted for inflation, between 1992 and 1994 for (a) men, (b) women and (c) all full-time workers.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]The mean, deciles, median and quartiles of weekly earnings for full-time men and women in 1992 and 1994 are published in table 15 of part A of the 1994 new
  559
  earnings survey report. Corresponding statistics for all full-time employees is in table 17.

  The retail price index for April 1992 and for April 1994 can be found in table 6.4 of the Employment Gazette for June 1994. Changes in the index are in table 6.5.

  Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the statutory instruments which his Department has sponsored in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]The following is a list of statutory instruments produced by the Employment Department in the last 12 months:

  List of Statutory Instruments introduced by the Employment Department from February 1994 to January 1995 inclusive:

  The Offshore Installations (Safety Zones) Order 1994 (Johnson Field Development): Published 22 February 1994.

  The Health and Safety (Fees) Regulation 1994: Published 3 March 1994.

  The Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1994: Published 4 March 1994.

  The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 1994: Published 7 March 1994.

  The Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 1994: Published 9 March 1994.

  The Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1994: Published 9 March 1994.

  The Certification Officer (Amendment of Fees) Regulations 1994: Published 10 March 1994.

  The Industrial Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (England and Wales) Order 1994: Published 10 May 1994.

  The Industrial Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Order 1994: Published 10 May 1994.

  The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 (Commencement No 3 and Transitional Provisions) Order 1994: Published 25 May 1994.

  The Guarantee Payments (Exemption) Order No 29 1994: Published 6 June 1994.

  The Race Relations (Remedies) Regulations 1994: Published 8 July 1994.

  The Offshore Installations (Safety Zones) (No.2) Order 1994: Published 18 July 1994.

  The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994: Published 20 July 1994.

  The Maternity (Compulsory-Leave) Regulations 1994: Published September 1994.

  The Management of Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Regulations 1994: Published 10 November 1994.

  The Suspension from Work (on Maternity Grounds) Order 1994: Published 21 November 1994.

  The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994: Published 22 December 1994.

  The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) General (Amendment) Regulations 1994: Published 6 January 1995.

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994: Published 9 January 1995.

  The Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1995: Published 10 January 1995.

  The Industrial Training levy (Construction Board) Order 1995: Published 10 January 1995.

  The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994: Published 10 January 1995,.

  The Employment Protection (Part-time Employees) Regulations 1995: Published 16 January 1995.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will ensure the enforcement provisions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 apply to all regulations for which his Department is responsible, past, present and future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Zaire (Rwandan Refugees)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what operational resources the United Nations has put in place to ensure that the Zairean military authorities comply with international standards including the international conventions on protection of the rights of refugees in relation to the army of Zaire policing camps for displaced Rwandese; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The UNHCR agreement with Zaire provides for a 50-man international "camp security liaison group" to organise material support, monitor the operation and liaise with the Zaire authorities. We have contributed £0.5 million towards the UNHCR's costs for the international liaison group. The first group of international monitors is undergoing selection by the UNHCR.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in the cost of Britain's diplomatic presence in Indonesia since 1983–84 in relation to the number of United Kingdom based staff stationed in Indonesia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The change in the cost of Britain's diplomatic presence in Indonesia since 1983–84 results mainly from(a) substantial local inflation of about 125 per cent. (b) some upgrading of the United Kingdom based staff and an increase in locally engaged staff numbers and (c) the inclusion since 1990–91 of notional rent costs in respect of Government-owned residential properties.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 February Official Report, column 884,if he will divide the totals of numbers of United Kingdom based staff stationed at the British embassy, Jarkarta, into the Government Departments and agencies of which they were part for each year since 1992.

  Mr. Goodlad
  It is not our practice to provide a detailed breakdown of other Government Departments' and agencies' staff functions is however available in the HM diplomatic service overseas reference list, a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any diplomatic staff
  561
  stationed in Indonesia since 1979 have been based outside of the British embassy, Jakarta.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There is no record of any diplomatic staff in Indonesia since 1979 having been based outside of the British embassy, Jakarta.

  Nuclear-capable Aircraft
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the policy of the British Government to decline to supply nuclear-capable aircraft(a) to NATO and (b) to non-NATO countries; and what was the date from which such a policy came into operation.

  Mr. David Davies
  Any military aircraft can be made capable of delivering nuclear weapons during manufacture or later. Applications for the export of all defence equipment, whether to NATO or non-NATO countries, are subject to case by case consideration against the international criteria to which we are committed. These include consideration of whether such equipment fulfils the legitimate domestic security needs of the recipient country.

  Palestine
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met Mr. Yasser Arafat.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last met Mr. Arafat on 28 November 1994 in Brussels.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Palestine National Authority.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans at present to meet Mr. Arafat. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to meet him in Gaza in March.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy for the promotion of United Kingdom trade with the Palestine National Authority.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We encourage it. We consider such trade to be mutually beneficial in its own right and supportive of the middle east peace process. The Prime Minister will be accompanied by a party of senior business leaders on his visit to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan next month.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what plans he has to visit(a) Gaza and (b) the west bank.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans at present to do so. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to visit Gaza in March.

  UN Summit on Social Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the representatives of the United Kingdom Government at the United Nations summit conference on social development in March; and if he will list the names and status of the representatives of(a) United States, (b) the
  562
  Japanese and (c) the French Governments whose attendance has been notified to him.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom delegation to the world summit for social development in Copenhagen from 6 to 12 March will be led by Baroness Chalker of Wallasey. She will be accompanied by officials from the Foreign Office, the Overseas Development Administration, the Department of Employment and the Department of Social Security. We understand that the United States delegation will be led by Vice-President Al Gore and the French delegation by President Mitterrand. We understand that no decision has yet been taken on the leadership of the Japanese delegation.

  Northern Caucasus
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Ambassadors in the Baltic States have had with the Governments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania about Russian military activity in Chechnya; what concerns they expressed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Governments of all three Baltic countries have raised the question of Russian intervention in Chechnya with our ambassadors. In particular they are concerned, like ourselves, about the disproportionate use of force and about abuses of human rights.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what estimate he has made of the numbers of Russian troops so far committed to the military operation in Chechnya.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We estimate that the Russian army has deployed some 40,000 to 50,000 troops to Chechnya, and the interior ministry a further 10,000 to 15,000 troops.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if his Department has yet made an estimate of the financial cost to the Russian Government of the military action in the northern Caucasus.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Because of the continuing uncertainty surrounding the situation in the region, we do not yet feel that we are in a position to make an accurate estimate of the likely costs. Russian official estimates have varied widely and indicate just how speculative such an exercise would be at this stage.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with President Shevardnadze about the security of the Republic of Georgia following the Russian military action in Chechnya; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the situation in Chechnya with Mr. Shevardnadze when he was visiting the UK earlier this month. Mr. Shevardnadze expressed support for the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and understanding for the Russian decision to intervene militarily.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Russian military action in the northern Caucasus with the Turkish Government; what concerns the Turks expressed; and if he will make a statement.
  563
  Mr. David Davis
  The Russian intervention in Chechnya was one of the subjects discussed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, together with his French, German and Italian colleagues, met the Turkish Foreign Minister in London on 2 February. Mr. Karayalcin made clear to the press afterwards the importance of working for peace in the region.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the sovereignty of the trans-Caucasian republics with the Russian Government; what assurances he received about non-interference in their domestic affairs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. We have frequently made this clear in discussions with the Russian Government.

  Mr. Oleg Gordievsky
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how much United Kingdom public money has been provided to Mr. Oleg Gordievsky since his defection to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 July 1994,Official Report, columns 711–12. It remains the Government's policy not to provide information on the operations, or detailed information about the expenditure, of the security and intelligence agencies.

  Russian Human Rights Commissioner
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will invite Russia's human rights commissioner, Mr. Sergei Kovalev, to visit the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We understand that Mr. Kovalev has already been invited to visit the United Kingdom and therefore see no need to issue an official invitation at this stage.

  WEU and Russian Federation
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 888, if he will list the informal links between the Western European Union and the Russian Federation in which staff of his Department have participated in the last two years; what he attaches to such links; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  There has been only one informal contact between the Western European Union and the Russian Federation in which staff of my Department have been involved. This was an informal meeting in March last year between the Russian ambassador and permanent representatives of all full WEU members. However a number of informal contacts have also taken place involving the WEU Secretary-General and presidency.

  European Court
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases are currently before(a) the European Commission on Human Rights and (b) the European Court of Human Rights; how
  564
  many judgments were delivered by the European Court in 1994; how many member states have introduced the right of petition since 1989; and if he will make a statement on how it is proposed to speed up the procedures.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We understand from the human rights directorate of the Council of Europe that, as of 31 December 1994, the European Commission of Human Rights had before it 2,927 applications, of which 583 had been declared admissible. As of the same date, there were 67 cases before the European Court of Human Rights. The court delivered 540 judgments in 1994.

  The following member states of the Council of Europe have recognised the right of individual petition since 1989:

  Bulgaria

  Cyprus

  Czech Republic

  Finland

  Hungary

  Poland

  Romania

  San Marino

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  In addition, Turkey, which recognised the right of individual petition in 1987, recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the court in 1990.

  Some streamlining of the procedures of the Commission and Court was introduced by additional protocol No. 8 to the European convention on human rights. A more radical reform is envisaged under additional protocol No. 11 to the convention, which provides for the present two-tier system of Commission and Court to be replaced by a single court. The aim is to enable the machinery to deal efficiently with the caseload arising from both the growing membership of the Council of Europe and increasing public awareness of the convention.

  Protocol 11 must be signed and ratified by all of the member states before it can come into effect. All 34 member states have now signed the protocol. Four, including the United Kingdom, have ratified it and others are expected to do so soon.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States Government on joint policies which could lead to a settlement in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last discussed Cyprus in detail with the United States Secretary of State when he was in Washington on 22 June 1994. We are in regular contact with the US Administration over Cyprus at official level, most recently with Mr. Williams, the US special co-ordinator for Cyprus, on 22 February. We are also active in support of the UN Secretary-General's search for a settlement of the Cyprus problem.

  Bangladesh (Chittagong Hill Tracts)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's
  565
  Government to the Bangledeshi Government concerning the Chittagong hill tracts.

  Mr. Baldry
  We regularly discuss the Chittagong hill tracts with the Bangladesh authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised this issue when he saw the Bangladesh Foreign Minister in Dhaka in January.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his 566
  Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  UN Obscene Publications Agreement
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which were the last five years in which a report was made to the United Nations under the provisions of the 1910 agreement for the suppression of the circulation of obscene publications; if he will place copies of those reports in the Library; if he will summarise the main provisions of the agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not readily available. I will arrange for further research and write to the hon. Member shortly.

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

Speaker of the Commons: Pension
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will refer to the senior salaries review body the level of pensions paid to ex-Speakers of the House of Commons and their widows.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the pensions in question are based on the recommendations of the review body to which successive governments have referred the pension arrangements for the great offices of state; namely, the Prime Minister, the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor. The Government's policy is not to alter the basis of a pension after it has been awarded.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend and my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons for the courtesy, understanding and sympathy with which they have approached what I know to be a very difficult problem indeed. I hope that my noble friend will agree that the Speakership of the House of Commons is the highest and most important office that Parliament has in its gift. I ask my noble friend to apply his mind to one case, and to one part of that case. When the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, retired from the Chair of the House of Commons after 38 years of membership of the House, he received a modest pension for his years as Speaker. For the preceding 33 years or so, he received nothing beyond the repayment of his own contributions, unindexed, plus interest, net of tax. By any account, that was not generous.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for the opening part of what he said. He acknowledged that this is a difficult question at a time when many sectors of society are thought to have pensions which are too exiguous by far. As my noble friend observed, it becomes all the more difficult when it is important that the former holders of the greatest offices of state should not be seen to be treated meanly by an apparently ungrateful country. Therefore, I acknowledge wholly the justice of the sentiments which my noble friend has expressed, in particular because he mentioned the name of one of the most universally liked and respected Speakers of recent times.
In the end, I submit with the greatest respect to the House and to my noble friend that the remedy, if a remedy is deemed to be needed, is in the hands of Parliament, which can decide whether the great offices of state are paid enough so that the pension received is
1400
adequate. That should be the starting point because, as my noble friend knows, the pension flows directly from the amount of the final salary.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I support the strong case which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, made in favour of referring the matter to the review body. I see no argument against that. If that is not done, I am bound to say that I am tempted to suggest to the Government that they should privatise the Speakership.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, somebody with the parliamentary experience of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, would also be able to advise on whether or not stock options would go with such a privatisation; and, if so, how that could be achieved.
More seriously, quite simply the difficulty is that, very sensibly it seems to me, the matter was referred in 1988 to what is now known as the senior salaries review body with the object of removing these embarrassing questions from regular review. A settlement was struck. That settlement is subject to up-rating according to the record of inflation every April. It is in the nature of those referrals, as your Lordships will be aware, that not only should the mechanism be allowed to work, but that it is extremely difficult, however much one may sympathise with the case in hand, to make them retrospective. The noble Lord advocates an element of retrospection which would cause the Government—and, I suspect, the country at large—considerable difficulties.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, for once the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has substantially understated the case. The plain fact is that the ex-Speaker to whom he referred would have received a higher pension if he had not drawn the Speaker's pension. He would have been better off without it, in view of his years as an MP and his years of Ministerial service. In those circumstances, do we not find ourselves in an absurd situation? The noble Viscount said that it is up to Parliament. I ask him to give us an assurance about this matter. Why is Parliament not asked—and it will not cost a huge amount of money—whether it wants to be able to help somebody who is now well over 80 years of age, and who is well deserving of rather better treatment than he has been given so far?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that it is only a matter of a very few weeks before the pension of the noble Viscount to whom he refers, in respect of his service as Speaker, will overtake in monetary terms what the present Speaker of the House of Commons will be entitled to by way of her pension. We must also have regard to that matter. The noble Lord may also be aware that such matters were debated in another place as little time ago as 1991. The opportunity was taken by Parliament to consider the matter, but no adverse comment was made at the time.
Lord Richard: My Lords, if I may say so, this is very much not a party issue; indeed, I believe that it is a matter for Parliament and, as we are looking at it in respect of this place, for the whole House. Having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and my noble friend said, there seems to be a real problem here.

1401
Somehow or other, I should have thought that the Government ought to be prepared at least to say that they will look again at the matter.
I must tell the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that I do not have such a difficulty with the issue of retrospection—that is, if the result of being retrospective is that one tends to remedy an injustice which took place in the past. On the face of it, and judging by the nods that I seem to be getting from the other side of the House and, no doubt, from those behind me—although I cannot see those behind me—I should have thought that the House as a whole would think that the Government ought to look again at the matter. There is an issue here that ought to be redressed. Can the noble Viscount tell us whether they will do so?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord carries the whole House with him when he says that this is not a party issue. I believe that I can speak for all my noble and right honourable friends in the Government when I say that we do regard the matter as one which should be treated with the greatest amount of sympathy. The noble Lord will no doubt also be aware that the salaries and pensions of Speakers have, hitherto, been treated in conjunction with the salaries and pensions of—dare I say so in front of my noble and learned friend? —Lord Chancellors and Prime Ministers. If we were to re-examine the matter again, I am sure that the noble Lord would want to ensure that those pensions were examined in the same context. The noble Lord will be aware that there is much political baggage which could accompany such an inquiry.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, Members of the Cross-Benches do not have a collective voice; but a number of us do not regard the present position as being very satisfactory. We very much hope that the Government will think again and that they include in their reconsideration the possibility of legislation limited solely to the office of Speaker. I imagine that such legislation would not be highly controversial. If that were to be considered, could it be borne in mind that the annuity paid to my noble friend Lady Hylton-Foster was fixed by an Act of Parliament passed for that specific purpose at the very modest rate of one-third of the rather modest pension which her husband would have received? I should like to add my voice to those asking the Government to have another look at the matter.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can do no more than assure your Lordships that I shall make all my colleagues aware of the very strong feelings of sympathy that have been expressed in the House—feelings of sympathy with which I wholly agree. However, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, will be aware that any form of legislation of the kind he proposes could, with legitimacy, unless the parliamentary draftsman works more than his usual magic, also raise questions affecting pre-1973 war widows, a class of people with whom I have great sympathy; war disability pensioners; those whose pensions have been affected during periods of pay restraint; and, indeed, those affected by pay policy since 1984. They are all good causes in
1402
themselves. The Government have to consider how such matters can be treated as exceptions and attract the sympathy which we would all like such issues to attract.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for all his answers. However, would he not agree that for the message to go out to the people of this country that holders of an office such as that of Speaker of the House of Commons are to be treated in an ungenerous and even a mean fashion would be very damaging for the future? I hope that we can take the matter further at a later stage.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware—and I believe that I am right in saying this—that in the 19th century a Cabinet Minister was paid £5,000. That enabled Lord Palmerston to maintain what is now the In and Out Club in great state, without any call on other resources. My noble friend may feel that we live in a regrettably more egalitarian age. As I said, it is up to Parliament to decide whether the dignities of such great offices of state should be upheld in the way that my noble friend would like. I should tell my noble friend that I personally have considerable sympathy for what he has said.

West Highland Sleeper Service
2.50 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I should declare an interest in that my home is near a station on the West Highland line. I should also apologise to your Lordships for a mistake in the drafting of the Question as it appears on the Order Paper. It appears that the West Highland sleeper service is to be withdrawn from 28th April and not from 28th May.
The Question was as follows:
Whether, as suggested by the rail franchising director, the West Highland sleeper service requires an annual subsidy of £3 million, and if so whether the social and economic consequences of his decision to close this service from 28th April 1995 have been considered.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the annual subsidy for the West Highland sleeper service is £6.6 million including infrastructure costs using a 1994–95 price base. Any decision concerning the service prior to franchising would be a commercial matter for BR. In determining the passenger service requirement for the ScotRail franchise, the franchising director will be consulting the Scottish regional councils and the Rail Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland. He will take into account all relevant representations about the consequences of the withdrawal of the service.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which I fear may be regarded

1403
as coming more from the pages of Alice in Wonderland than any brief which should have been put in front of him. Unless full and formal consultation about the future of this service takes place, as promised by my honourable friend Sir Hector Monro in the Scottish Grand Committee on 8th February, and until the railway establishment can be forced to reveal the occupancy figures for each month of the year, I am afraid that my stricture to my noble friend must stand. Can he say whether the Government's pledge is to be fulfilled and can he now confirm that the annual loading figure is at least 16,000 passengers? If so, does he agree with the Written Answer in another place of 20th February indicating annual costs of between £2.9 million and £8.7 million depending on whether infrastructure costs are included? Finally, does he agree that as the trains which take the sleepers will be going anyway, a full marginal costing of the service is required, and without that no savings at all are to be caused?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not agree with much of what my noble friend says. He asks about occupancy figures. The average occupancy figure for the Fort William sleeper is some 60 per cent. in summer—that is, about 36 people—and about 50 per cent. in the winter, which is only about some 18 people per train. The Government have committed themselves to consultation and the franchising director will consult with the bodies I mentioned. There is absolutely no doubt that that will go ahead.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister more about the process of consultation. Is it not a fact that the franchising director had already committed himself in a press release before Christmas to the withdrawal of the services by simply withdrawing subsidy? He has stated subsequently that he will consult on a timetable which no longer includes the services because they have been withdrawn in advance. What is the value of consultation under those circumstances?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is not correct. The franchising director has made a preliminary announcement. No final decision has been made; none will be made until after the consultation has been completed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why does the franchising director make a preliminary decision when he has to base his views on consultation? Would it not be better to listen to the views of the tourist authorities and other relevant bodies before making this prima facie declaration?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the objective behind the early statement of the franchising director was to end the great amount of speculation that has surrounded other sleeper services which the franchising director has indicated he is minded to safeguard.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Government, while this consultation takes place, bear in mind that the area served by the West Highland sleeper is nowhere near an airport and that busy people, with a
1404
day's work to do following a journey, need a night's sleep? Is the Minister aware that busy people live in that part of the world and that they are not all tourists?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there may be a number of busy people but few of them use the sleeper service. The numbers are extremely small. They are down, as I said, to around an average of 18 per train in the winter. However, I can assure the noble Lady that those types of concerns will no doubt be made in the representations to the franchising director.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the services would be better used if they were better advertised and that often too many sleeper coaches are put on to a train when one or two would be enough? Will he also bear in mind that the regulator has a duty to watch consumer interests? What is to happen when there is a conflict of his opinion with that of the other person?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I think the franchising director is the name my noble friend is searching for. The point is that the levels of occupancy of these services are extremely low. It is easy to see from the figures that the subsidy required—a total figure of some £450 per passenger per journey—is enormous. The numbers of people who use the services is tiny and the money involved could well be used on more socially necessary services.
Noble Lords: Next question!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I regret to say that the House has been the victim of my long-windedness for which I apologise. We have two more Questions. The House may wish to continue with this one but I suggest that perhaps we should give others a chance.

Veal Calves: Protection
2.56 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in persuading relevant member states of the European Union that veal crates should no longer be used in the rearing of calves exported from the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, it would not add to the sum of animal welfare to require calves exported from the UK to receive different treatment from calves from other member states. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been pressing hard for the abolition of the close confinement veal crate system across the Community and, with the support of many other member states, has secured the advancement to this year of the review of the current EU rules. My honourable friend the Parliamentary

1405
Secretary has had encouraging reactions to her programme of visits to EU capitals to enlist support for a Community-wide ban.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. While my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture clearly made determined efforts last week to improve travelling conditions for farm animals, is there any early prospect of an agreement being reached among the countries concerned aimed at freeing calves from their close confinement during the weeks and months which they spend abroad?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said. The Government take these issues very seriously indeed. Negotiations in Brussels have certainly not been easy but if we are to secure real welfare benefits progress is essential at Community level. As I said, my honourable friend Mrs. Browning has been undertaking a number of meetings in other EU capitals to set out the basis for our objections to the close confinement veal crate system. Reactions to her visits have been most encouraging. Meetings of the scientific experts, which constitute the first step in the Commission's review of the current EU rules on the welfare of calves, have already begun. My right honourable friend the Minister asked about progress with the review at the Agriculture Council last week and I am pleased to say that in response the Commission confirmed that the results will be made available to the Council as soon as possible this year.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, is it not quite cruel enough to confine a calf in a crate for the whole of its life? Is it not even more cruel to give it freedom to roam on an English farm and then send it abroad to be confined in a crate for the rest of its life, having known freedom?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is suggesting that the UK should implement some kind of unilateral ban. I suggest to him that that idea is not a route which we should take up. The legal advice available to Ministers indicates that a unilateral ban on live exports, whether a blanket ban or indeed a selective ban relating only to calves, could not be reconciled with Community law; nor would it be feasible to make a unilateral ban stick. If we really want to improve animal welfare across the Community we need Community-wide legislation.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the furore over veal crates has managed to entangle three quite separate problems? The first is the problem for British dairy farmers of disposing of half a million calves each year; the second is the humane transport of live animals of all species; and the third is this detestable business of the use of veal crates which mainly occurs in France and Holland. Does the Minister agree that
1406
each of these problems needs to be dealt with separately? I must say that so far the Government have not had much success in dealing with any of them.
Earl Howe: My Lords, to pick up one of the points which the noble Lord made, our estimate is that of about 1.2 million male dairy calves born each year the majority—perhaps three-quarters of a million—are used for beef production.
I endorse the overall sentiment expressed by the noble Lord. There are three distinct issues, on all of which the Government are energetically engaged. But in everything we do we must bear in mind not only the welfare of farm animals in the UK, which is very important, but also the welfare of animals across the Community as a whole. That is why the UK is playing a leading part in bringing pressure to bear on the Commission and other member states.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when my noble friend says that this country is not free to go its own way in this matter because of Community law, is he in fact confessing that once again we are the victim of the qualified majority vote?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is always quick to advance arguments for subsidiarity. Subsidiarity does not mean that there is never a case for Community law. It is a question of actions being taken at the most appropriate level. The best interests of animals are not served by different rules in different member states.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Earl gives the House the impression that he wants to do something, notably the right thing, but European law prevents him. Why does he not go right into the heart of Europe and do exactly what other member states do? When it suits them they break European law and, indeed, they make their own laws. Why should we not follow their example?
Earl Howe: My Lords, because by acting unilaterally we would lose the leverage that we are building up in the Community negotiations, quite apart from the legal considerations I mentioned. We would also risk handing the whole trade to other countries, some outside the Community, with less stringent rules on welfare than our own. That would benefit neither farmers nor the cause of animal welfare.
Lord Gray: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we are very short of time. If my noble friend will allow, we should move on to the next Question.

TECs: Funding
3.2 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that training and enterprise councils are funded adequately.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, yes. The Government provide sufficient resources to training and enterprise councils annually to enable them to undertake the tasks they have contracted to deliver. In 1994–95 the Employment Department is providing £1.7 billion for training and vocational education programmes managed by TECs.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the statement reported to have been made last month to the Employment Select Committee in another place by the director of the TECs national council that funding levels for the training for work programme, which is the main measure for the long-term adult unemployed, were inadequate to allow TECs to provide significant amounts of necessary higher level skills? Would not the country benefit much more from substantially increased investment in TECs than from what appears to be a 20 per cent. cut in their funding announced in last November's Budget?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is important to be clear about exactly what is happening. It is the case that there will be a reduction in the number of places on the training for work programme, which is targeted at those who have been out of work for more than six months. Over the past 12 months there has been a drop of more than 400,000 in the number of unemployed, of whom just over 250,000 were long-term unemployed. We believe that against that background alone there is a case for looking at the matter. At the same time my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has set a tight target to increase the effectiveness of the training for work programme in getting people back to work.
We must also be aware that this is not the only programme which is managed by TECs. We are bringing in a variety of new measures, many of them associated with the competitiveness White Paper. If one compares the amount of money which TECs will be able to spend next year with what they are likely to spend this year, TECs will spend £19 million more next year. In other words, the level of expenditure they will be able to incur is the same.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is it not true that in future there will be an outcome payment system whereby trainers will be paid in relation to the success of their trainees in gaining qualifications? If that is so, will it not mean that trainers will adopt a selection process in order that people will pass and they will be paid, and therefore the people most in need of training and most unlikely to have qualifications will miss out?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the change in the funding of the training for work programme described by my noble friend is correct. That change was asked for by the TECs themselves. It has led to a considerable increase in the effectiveness of those TECs where there have been pilot studies. We believe that it will assist in creating jobs.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord not realise that that system is bound to be extremely harmful to people with special needs? In the early days of the YTS there were special needs premiums. It is now
1408
increasingly difficult to obtain money for the training of people who need it desperately if they are ever to earn a living at all. Does the noble Lord agree that they will be a great charge on the community if they do not receive training?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right about the problems of those with special needs. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has agreed with the TECs that there should be extra money for people in that position.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that on 6th February last I asked him a Question about South Thames TEC? Is he yet in a position to reassure the House about the position of the small training organisations awaiting payment and in which staff could well face redundancy unless funding is provided? Can he yet assure the House that the appropriate funds are being provided and that everything is in order?
Secondly, would it not be a good idea for local authorities to be directly represented on TECs, not merely as local authorities but as major employers in their own areas?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, concerning the South Thames TEC I have nothing to add to what I explained to the House on the previous occasion to which the noble Baroness referred. So far as I know, no provider has gone bust by virtue of what has happened in the South Thames TEC.
Turning to the noble Baroness's question about the membership of the boards of TECs, currently they include about 700 directors from the private sector and 300 community leaders. In relation to the wider community interest, we believe that the presence of community leaders fulfils the function which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, sees for local authorities.

Business of the House: Debate, 1st March
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Eatwell set down for 1st March shall be limited to five hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half-past three my noble friend Lord Goschen will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the Government's response to the Donaldson Report.

Crown Agents Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Today your Lordships are asked to agree another major step forward in the long history of the Crown Agents. Their business has greatly changed over the decades. It is now time to transform their legal and financial structure in response to those changing needs while retaining for their UK and international clients the essential characteristics and qualities for which they are rightly renowned worldwide.
Crown Agents were first appointed in 1833 as Crown Servants, acting under prerogative, for the procurement of goods and services for colonial administrations. They undertook this task on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Colonies for more than a century. In 1954 their full name was changed from Crown Agents for the Colonies to Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administration, as they are still called. In 1979 the present legislation was enacted. For the first time Crown Agents were given legal status as a public corporation, responsible to the Minister for Overseas Development and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Secretary of State appoints the chairman and board and has certain powers of direction over the work of the Crown Agents. The Act took care, however, to protect the traditional confidential nature of their relationship with their principals.
Crown Agents are now one of the world's largest international public sector purchasing organisations. They provide procurement, management and technical services to around 150 clients, serving 130 countries. They employ about 600 permanent staff plus 250 overseas and contract staff. Their clients include other bilateral aid donors such as Japan and the Netherlands and multilateral agencies, in particular the World Bank, the European Union and the United Nations. I shall say more about their work later.
In the 1990s it is no longer necessary, or indeed appropriate, for the Crown Agents to remain within the public sector. The present Act is increasingly outdated and no longer provides the right framework. Sixteen years ago Crown Agents provided the bulk of their services under funding provided through the British aid programme even though they served many other public sector clients around the world. Today Crown Agents obtain over 70 per cent. of their work from non-UK principals. The change in the pattern of British bilateral aid has also meant that ODA has less need of Crown Agents' traditional procurement services than in the past, although their use for humanitarian aid delivery has expanded enormously in recent years.
I announced in August 1993 that, subject to certain conditions, the Government would bring forward proposals which would allow the Crown Agents to be transferred to a suitably formed foundation. In his annual report for that year, laid before Parliament last
1410
summer, the chairman of Crown Agents, David Probert, recorded the board's welcome in principle for that decision. The present Bill will provide the powers to implement it.
The Bill before your Lordships' House provides for the transfer of the Crown Agents' business from the present statutory corporation to a successor company under the Companies Act, wholly owned by the Crown and therefore still in the public sector. The Bill gives the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, the power to dispose of the successor company to a new owner.
The Government intend to exercise these powers in order to secure the objective I set out in my letter of 13th August 1993 to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place; that is, to transfer the business to a new and independent foundation. This is the point at which Crown Agents will leave the public sector. I recognise that, although the terms of this further transfer are not specifically addressed in the Bill, your Lordships will have a considerable interest in it. I shall say something about the process now, and, as the Bill progresses, I shall explain more. The Government are presently considering proposals from the board of Crown Agents for the structure of the foundation. We shall also need, once Parliament has agreed the arrangements set out in the Bill, to settle the terms of the transfer to the operating company. Those discussions will need to involve members of the foundation once it has been established. With those reservations, let me explain what we envisage, and why this interesting and unusual route has been chosen.
We envisage that the foundation will be established as a company limited by guarantee. Its memorandum and articles will be tightly drawn to reflect, and to build on, the social, ethical and developmental principles on which Crown Agents' business is based. These are set out in detail at the front of Crown Agents annual report. The foundation will be the sole shareholder in the new company. The company will operate the Crown Agents' business along normal commercial lines. It will not distribute dividends but will use any profits from the Crown Agents' business in pursuit of its overall objectives. Foundation members will wish to consider registration as a charity, or other possibilities open to companies limited by guarantee. The Government too will wish to be assured that the future structure will be fully satisfactory. We are taking expert advice on the implications of each of the options.
Members of the foundation will not receive dividends and will not be appointed by Ministers. Some of them may serve on the board. In order to help ensure continuity of experience the existing members of Crown Agents' board would be among the founder members of the foundation. In addition Crown Agents are in touch with a number of potential founder members drawn from a range of institutions including finance and trading companies, professional and trade organisations, charities and other development aid bodies. Additional new members would be nominated and selected by existing members in accordance with the foundation's articles of association. Also, for a restricted period, extending probably for up to five years, we intend that

1411
the Secretary of State should have limited reserve powers. These would not permit the Secretary of State to have any role in the management of the foundation, still less of the operating company; but they would enable him to ensure that no changes could be made to its fundamental purpose. The intention behind the proposal is that we recognise the unusual nature of the foundation route. We want to ensure that it settles down successfully. We also want to provide full assurances to the international clients of Crown Agents that the foundation will maintain a continuity of principles and purpose with those of the existing corporation.
Although ownership will change, the Government have taken care in preparing the Bill to allow for fair treatment for Crown Agents' staff. I understand from Crown Agents that they have no plans for redundancies as a result of the proposed change of status. We anticipate that the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply. The Crown Agents' pension funds are held in trust. The funds are a matter for the trustees and Crown Agents. I understand that Crown Agents have no plans to alter their present pensions arrangements. The security of trust-based schemes will be further protected by the provisions of the Pensions Bill currently being considered by your Lordships' House. We do not envisage any change in the assets and liabilities of the funds when the business transfers.
The trust's current assets are more than sufficient to meet current and future pension requirements. The Crown Agents' business projections show no need to make a pensions contribution during the current funding period. This contributions holiday has substantial value for the business and will be taken fully into account in our decision to ensure value for money for the taxpayer in the transfer.
I now want to say something more about the financial implications of the proposals. We are also concerned to ensure that a viable business is passed to the new owner, the foundation. It is a business which will continue to make a substantial contribution to the success of the British bilateral aid programme as well as serving Britain's wider commercial objectives. As the annual report and accounts show, Crown Agents are a modestly profitable business. Since incorporation in 1979 they have not received any subsidy by way of new cash payments from the Government. The value of the business lies mainly in the quality of its staff and the good will attaching to its reputation. Physical assets are modest. However, because we think so well of them, we are doing all we can to make sure that no one has any doubt about the real assets that they have, which are as I described, their quality, and their quality product for all who buy from them. We are taking independent advice, but I should warn that there is little prospect of substantial receipts for government from the transfer of this business. The Bill, however, requires the Crown Agents' outstanding debt of £2 million to the National Loans Fund to be repaid.
The Bill is designed to allow the Crown Agents to fulfil all existing and new contractual obligations exactly as if they had remained a statutory corporation. It is clearly of considerable importance to the Crown
1412
Agents and to their clients to know that that is the case. During the process of transfer, it is the Government's intention, and that of the Crown Agents, that there will be no difference in the quality and range of services that they currently enjoy and that thereafter the programme of internal restructuring and investment which Crown Agents have in hand will allow for further steady improvements. The confidential nature of client dealings with the Crown Agents will also continue to be fully respected and will be further protected by the articles of association of the new company.
I expect ODA's long-established client-supplier relationship with Crown Agents to continue. They provide valuable procurement, legal, financial and technical services to ODA at a competitive price. In common with their other international clients we will continue to benefit from the high ethical standards Crown Agents uphold in managing their business activities.
Noble Lords will notice that the Bill also contains provisions for the future of the Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board (CAHRB). This is a separate legal entity created under the 1979 Act to manage and wind up the assets and liabilities of the business previously undertaken by the unincorporated Crown Agents on their own account. At present it shares the same board as the public corporation. While the bulk of its work is complete, we envisage that there will still be some residual duties to be undertaken for some time. The Bill makes provisions for separate arrangements for CAHRB in future. I shall say more on this in due course.
I recognise that many of your Lordships have had contact with the work of Crown Agents in one part of the world or another. But your Lordships may not be aware of their extensive range of activity. Over the past year, I am proud that 11 employees of Crown Agents have received honours for delivering British and other emergency aid in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Many more lives would have been lost had Crown Agents not been there, alongside our own ODA staff, to do the work.
Most of Crown Agents' business is less dramatic than that. It ranges from advising the national state bank of Kazakhstan on a 200 million dollar programme of procurement financed by the World Bank, one of many similar contracts in the former Soviet Union since the Know-How fund first introduced them to Moscow in 1991, to the totally different pursuit of providing philatelic services through their stamp bureau to nearly one-quarter of the world's postal administrations. The group includes an assets management arm regulated by IMRO and a financial services company which has applied for supervision, once the Bill is passed, by the Bank of England. A wholly-owned subsidiary, Resource, is helping the standards organisations of over 30 newly industrialised countries to establish standards for product testing and inspection—an essential basis for lowering technical barriers to trade. But the heart of the business is, and is likely to remain, the provision of procurement services to Crown Agents' clients in the public and private sectors, both in the UK and around

1413
the world. In delivering those services Crown Agents' commitment to their present high ethical standards will remain unchanged.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Crown Agents to have a strong and stable structure within which to carry forward their business into the 21st century on a viable and sustainable basis. I commend the Bill to the House and trust that your Lordships will be content to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
3.24 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, there is a real responsibility on all of us to act as trustees of our national assets. It is in that spirit that we on this side of the House wish to consider the proposals before us today. We share with the Minister a recognition of the valuable work of the Crown Agents—I thought she described it splendidly in her speech. We fully understand the arguments that have been made for removing the constraints on their ability to take the kind of commercial opportunities which would further strengthen their business. We are not, however, convinced by the means which the noble Baroness has put forward to meet that objective. We are certainly not satisfied with the form of the legislation which has been presented today.
Let me begin with the arguments for change and some of the areas of agreement. The Crown Agents were, until 15 years ago, servants as well as agents of the Crown, directly accountable to Ministers for what they had to do. At one period, as the House will be aware, some of what was done turned out to be most unfortunate and unwise. Those of us who were in office when that became evident had to move speedily to call them to account. We then determined, in the light of that, to establish a new statutory basis for the Crown Agents to improve both their accountability and efficiency.
The current legislation covering the Crown Agents was drafted by Labour Ministers and implemented, interestingly, by a Conservative Government. The Minister and I agree, I think, that the 1979 Act met the needs of the time. It established the Crown Agents as a public sector corporation and set up a legislative and regulatory framework that was designed to guard against a repetition of the unfortunate events which had prompted that reform.
The Minister and I also certainly agree that the framework established in the 1979 Act is in need of review. The Crown Agents themselves, as the Minister described, have greatly diversified their interests and sources of business. The ODA remains a major client, accounting for about 30 per cent. of the business done. But, as the Minister told us, in the course of the past 15 years the Crown Agents have steadily increased the range and scale of business done on behalf of other agencies and other governments. We on this side of the House would certainly not wish to inhibit their ability to continue on that course.
1414
Indeed, it is precisely because of the value we put on the work of the Crown Agents that we have serious reservations about the form and content of the Bill. The agency provide important services to clients around the world and contribute to the development objectives of many of the world's poorer countries and to the work of aid donors. We do not wish that role to be jeopardised, any more than we wish to see their capacity to generate business needlessly constrained.
Essentially, what we seek is the provision of greater commercial freedom for the Crown Agents, while at the same time maintaining their active involvement in promoting development by, for example, providing impartial advice and services which allow their clients to make the best use possible of available resources. Here again, it is clear that the Minister and we share common objectives.
Where I fear we part company is on the means for achieving those ends. The Minister appears to take the view that greater commercial freedom can be achieved only by removing the Crown Agents from the public sector. It is, of course, an argument that we have heard before. The President of the Board of Trade took a similar view in the case of the Post Office. Now, having failed to win the argument for privatisation, he obstinately continues to refuse such freedom within the public sector—a slavish and dogmatic commitment to ideological nonsense at the expense of common sense and the national interest, if ever I saw one!
Of course, the case of the Crown Agents is not exactly the same as that of the Royal Mail, any more than the objectives of the Minister for Overseas Development are the same as those of the President of the Board of Trade. In both cases, however, we must remember that we are considering the responsible disposal of the nation's assets. What would be totally unforgivable in either Government or Opposition would be to decide the future of the Crown Agents for party political reasons alone. I am, therefore, sorry to have to remind noble Lords that sources close to the Conservative Party have suggested that that may be just what is going on.
On 12th November last year, just before the Queen's Speech, Arthur Leathley in The Times claimed that plans for privatisation had been shelved by the Cabinet earlier in the year. He described revival of those plans as "a surprising U-turn", which followed the failure of plans to privatise the Post Office. George Jones had made the same connection in the Daily Telegraph of the previous day, saying that,
"a scheme to privatise the Crown Agents has been revived by the Government after the collapse of the plans to sell the Royal Mail".
These stories were no doubt inspired by government spin-doctors seeking to cover their retreat on the Post Office by producing the Crown Agents as a fig leaf. Here, after all, was a substitute sacrificial lamb to assuage the doctrinaire demands of the high priest of the Conservative Right. The disturbing notion that this privatisation is merely to compensate for dropping others that proved too difficult will be dispelled only if the Minister can show beyond reasonable doubt that privatisation is the best route for the Crown Agents to take. With the greatest possible respect, this she has so

1415
far failed to do. I suspect that that is because neither her considerable intellect nor her enviable heart are really in the exercise at all.
I recognise that the Crown Agents, like the Royal Mail, are a public sector corporation, and it is because of that that the Government argue that they are consequently subject to similar constraints on their freedom to borrow and to engage in joint enterprises with private sector partners.
Such constraints are not an inevitable consequence of public ownership. They are the result of the application of government policy dressed up as Treasury rules. They are, in other words, constraints which are deliberately imposed by the Government. There is no reason that I know why the Government should not change those rules.
Crown Agents are also constrained from providing services to private sector clients. Since the 1979 Act was passed, many enterprises that were once in public ownership in developing countries and in Eastern Europe have passed into private hands. Some of those privatisations may have been wise and some may have been foolish. But in this context it is absolutely right and proper that Parliament should consider whether Crown Agents should be free to provide services to privatised enterprises which still contribute to developmental objectives.
The same is true of the constraints which prevent the Crown Agents from seeking business in the domestic market in this country, not least in the realm of public services and utilities. That constraint also derives from the 1979 Act, and again it is a legitimate matter to bring before Parliament at this time.
Again, the case for removing constraints is not in itself a case for privatising the Crown Agents. The constraints in the 1979 Act can be modified or removed simply by amending that Act. A Crown Agents Bill might well have been brought before this House for just that purpose; but it was not. Instead of sensibly modifying the existing legislative framework, the Government extravagantly propose to sweep it entirely away.
It is our firm conviction that the Crown Agents could be given greater commercial freedom within the public sector if only the Government had the will to make that happen. Privatisation is not the only possible course. And that is not our view alone. After the review of their status to which the Minister referred had been announced by her to the House in December 1992, Mr. David Probert, Chairman of the Crown Agents, said in his 1993 annual report:
"The Board of the Crown Agents, after consulting with its advisers, Price Waterhouse and S G Warburg & Co, recommended to the Minister for Overseas Development, Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, that the interests of clients, aid programmes and employees would be well served if the organisation were to remain as part of the UK public sector, but with greater freedom of operation than its 1979 Act of Parliament permits".
That was their preferred option. It is also ours.
The Crown Agents, like the Royal Mail, operate successfully at no cost to the taxpayer, providing the useful and valuable services as a public sector enterprise that the Minister described. They manage very
1416
considerable funds for organisations such as the United Nations, the European Commission and the World Bank, but also on behalf of the Government of this country and the governments of many other countries. There is no obvious reason why they should not remain in the public sector. Indeed, for this kind of operation, it is surely the proper place for them to be. As the extraordinary financial happenings of the past few days have once more illustrated, there is much to be said for the highest traditions of accountable public service. I repeat: the constraints that exist under the present legislation and Treasury rules can be amended by the Government if they so choose. And such amendments would attract widespread support, certainly from this side of the House.
It is fair to note that the chairman of the Crown Agents also expressed a second preference. He suggested that if the agency could not remain in the public sector, the best alternative would be to transfer the business and assets of the Crown Agents,
"to a specially formed Foundation, the profits of which would not be distributed but retained for the development of the organisation and its services to clients".
That is the course of which the Minister spoke today. She has made plain that she herself wishes to establish a foundation governed by social and developmental objectives as sole owners of the business operation, which would be run on commercial lines but which would hand over its surplus to the foundation. Such a foundation might operate as a company limited by guarantee.
The option of charitable status has also been raised by the Minister—although the constraint that prevents a charity from trading must raise questions about how the relationship between a charitable foundation and a business venture operating under its authority should be effectively regulated; how the hard-nosed businessmen whom we know the Government will want in the business operation will be meaningfully accountable to their trustees with wider social responsibilities; and how the potential conflicts between some—not all—trading opportunities and development priorities will be resolved.
I have no doubt that less desirable options than a foundation have been considered within government. Arguments were doubtless made that a trade sale of Crown Agents might yield a profitable financial consideration for the Treasury; that the agency would then be expected to earn a profit; and that as a result it would—if I may use the kind of language beloved of the ideological wing of the present Government—
"be exposed to the full rigours of the competitive, free market environment".
It seems that, so far, such arguments have been rejected, at least by the Minister. And if that proves to be a final victory over the wilder voices within her own party, then the Minister will have earned considerable credit. If Crown Agents were to be sold off to the highest bidder and were to become the marketing arm of a multinational conglomerate, they would certainly lose much of their current reputation for impartiality in advising clients. Important aid donors such as the Japanese Government could not be expected to continue

1417
to bring their business to Britain under such circumstances. No doubt it was in fact the concern of precisely such clients which proved vital in helping the Minister to resist those who would prefer to sell the Crown Agents on the open market.
The Minister would, I think, agree with me that the value of the Crown Agents goes far beyond the fixed assets that they possess and any trading surplus that they might make. A procurement agency which sets high standards in global markets, and which generates international business for private sector British companies worth tens of millions of pounds a year, is of immense value to this country. It is an asset in itself because of that; and no Minister committed to British export efforts or to the general good name of this country would wish to jeopardise the Crown Agents in order to pursue an ideological commitment to free market forces. By the same token, we must not allow all that the title "Crown Agents" has come to represent to be threatened by the prospect that that title could at some future date be passed on without any accountability. But that is what the Bill as drafted would make possible.
We believe the Minister when she insists that she wishes to pursue the foundation strategy. But I am sure she will agree that, unfortunately, the Bill before the House today is not a Bill to establish such a foundation. In the Minister's own words when she wrote to me and to other noble Lords last week:
"The Bill provides enabling powers for the Secretary of State to vest the Corporation's assets, rights and liabilities in a Government-owned share company. This company will be transferred to a new owner. The present statutory corporation will be dissolved once its remaining functions have been satisfactorily discharged".
That is all there is in this Bill. The Minister's letter goes on to detail the foundation proposal, but only as "the Government's preferred option". I am certain that it is the Minister's preferred option, but I think we are entitled to ask for a clear indication in the proposed legislation itself that the Government will indeed follow that course.
Preferred options come and go, just as Ministers come and go. It is a fact of political life. Because we have a Minister at the ODA who believes in social purpose and developmental objectives, we cannot take for granted that those priorities will continue to guide government policy. Recent sad experiences with the aid and trade provision have underlined the dangers. We should think long and hard before we consent to enabling legislation that gives the Government a free hand to do whatever they wish. Legislation by intent is not a good principle.
Another Minister for Overseas Development may have another preferred option. Another department of state may press in due course for another type of successor company. We know, for example, that the Treasury takes a close interest in such matters. We can anticipate that in reality Treasury Ministers will insist that it must be the hard-nosed business men who make all the real commercial decisions and that wider considerations should not get in the way.
1418
There is nothing—nothing—in this Bill to guarantee that the new owners of the Crown Agents will be a foundation such as the Minister described. There is no mention of developmental objectives, social purposes or a non-profit company limited by guarantee. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that another Minister will not be able to change course and sell Crown Agents to the highest bidder.
Parliament is entitled to such guarantees. If the approval of this House is sought for the concept of a foundation, we must have as part of the Bill, at least in its schedules, the memorandum and articles of association under which it would operate. The Minister may take the view that there are legal reasons why that cannot be done. If so, she should explain to the House the legal advice that she has received, as others, frankly, may take a different view.
If the constitution of the eventual successor company does not appear in the Bill, I hope that the Minister will accept that Parliament must be entitled to consider this matter again before Crown Agents pass out of public ownership. Indeed, we on this side believe that as a minimum the Bill needs to be so amended that the Secretary of State may not act upon it until the detailed provisions for the new foundation have been subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
There is also no mention in the Bill of those who should, as the Minister herself tellingly said today, take much of the credit for the successes of the Crown Agents: those who have been employed by them. Their loyalty, courage and service should be recognised. Those are qualities which will be indispensable to future success. The 1979 Act devoted a significant part of its first schedule to the employment and pension rights of Crown Agents' staff. By contrast, there is no mention whatsoever of those in the Bill before us today. I believe that that is a serious and grave omission. Again, I believe that detailed provisions for the rights of employees and pensioners of the Crown Agents should at least be subject to affirmative resolution before any change is carried into force.
My concern here is not only that existing staff should be given assurances about their terms and conditions under new ownership and about their right to trade union representation. I am also concerned that there should be no ambiguity at all about the future of the pension funds accumulated by contributions from Crown Agents and their staff. Parliament is entitled to know a good deal more about the plans for initial capitalisation of the successor company. Staff and pensioners of the Crown Agents are entitled to guarantees, not just well meaning assurances, that their pension funds will be protected.
In seeking to protect the benefits that the Crown Agents have brought to the developing world, it is surely right to protect the well-being of those who, as the Minister herself so powerfully described today, have served them so faithfully and well in the past. The Crown Agents have become a credit to this country. With greater commercial freedom in the public sector, they could be set fair to achieve a substantial trading surplus on a regular basis. Let us not go down the road indicated by this inadequate Bill until we can be certain

1419
of the final destination and until we can be quite sure that the direction that we are being invited to take is convincingly, in every sense, the right one for the Crown Agents, their clients and their beneficiaries, for development and for all their dedicated staff.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I believe that the reason the Crown Agents were mentioned in the gracious Speech was because this Government failed to bring the Post Office privatisation to this House. Perhaps on that point I share the cynical beliefs of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. It is ironic that the economic freedoms that are given as one of the main reasons for the Bill are denied to the Post Office. However, I digress.
The Bill aims to move the Crown Agents to the private sector. Indeed—if the words of the Foreign Secretary as reported in the Daily Telegraph are to be accepted—he said:
"The Crown Agents are buyers and sellers for the Government overseas. But the aid budget is falling. They do a lot of foreign business and need to be free of public sector constraints. It is privatising in order to preserve".
That is perhaps a pessimistic view of the future of the Crown Agents.
The move to the private sector will be advantageous for the Crown Agents in as much as they are to be given greater financial independence than under the 1979 Act of Parliament. The Minister, in his reply to the gracious Speech, implied that they would receive that freedom. Considering that the vast amount of work that the Crown Agents undertake is for clients other than the ODA—ndeed, only 27 per cent. of their income is generated from the United Kingdom—the removal of constraints might not only preserve their position but allow them to expand their activities.
The Crown Agents have been involved in much excellent work in recent years, including organising aid convoys to Bosnia, as the Minister mentioned, providing technical assistance to sub-Saharan Africa and promoting institutional development and capacity building in the developing world. The Crown Agents' work has shifted with the rapid new developments in aid policies and they have had to adapt to falling ODA budgets by changing the way that public funds are generated. They now play an important and growing role in promoting private sector enterprises and developing trade. Such work suggests that the value of the Crown Agents can hardly be in doubt. However, the future of the Crown Agents through this Bill is not clear.
I realise that the Minister said that the Crown Agents will become a foundation, with any profits being reinvested in the activities of the successor to the Crown Agents—a foundation that, under Clause 7, may well be called the Crown Agents. One effect of the Bill is that the Crown Agents will be required to repay what is left of their commencing capital debt. Although the Crown Agents have been squeezed of resources through falling aid budgets and have not received any subsidy from the Government since their incorporation, they are being asked to repay capital debts of some £2 million. With
1420
capital and reserves amounting to no more than £15 million, that represents a sizeable chunk of the assets available to the successor company.
The Bill indicates that the repayment of that money to the Consolidated Loan Fund will be directed by the Secretary of State. He may also determine full repayments of the principal or interest on such deemed debt to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Considering that at present the £2 million is being repaid over the long term at low interest rates, will the Minister indicate the terms and conditions of the repayments set out in the Bill?
The House may in fact regard the Bill as a skeleton Bill. It is a crude enabling piece of legislation which allows the Secretary of State to form a foundation in any form that he thinks fit. Although the Minister has indicated that a foundation is to be set up, there is no mention at all of such a body in the Bill. It is questionable even whether the notion of a foundation is a suitable means of transferring the Crown Agents, given that they are limited by guarantee. Nor is there any mention of pensions for staff. The Crown Agents employ some 800 people. What security are they offered in the Bill as a result of this transfer?
The Government insist that the transfer of ownership is appropriate in view of the Crown Agents' international character. But where in the Bill is the guarantee that an independent foundation will be formed of representatives of the different sectors with which it deals and will not become a quango?
The Bill seeks to change primary legislation by secondary legislation. It is not a privatisation because it only places the Crown Agents into a body that has yet to be appointed by the Secretary of State. All further changes to the Crown Agents will be covered by subordinate legislation as set out in Clause 1. I hope that the Minister will consider redrafting Clause 1 to make clear the exact status of the successor company of the Crown Agents. Perhaps the word "foundation" could be added to the Bill.

Donaldson Report: Sea Pollution
3.50 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the
House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to made a Statement on the Government's response to the report of Lord Donaldson's inquiry into the prevention of pollution from merchant shipping. The response is published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and are available in the Vote Office.
"When Lord Donaldson's report, Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas, was published in May 1994, it was welcomed both within the United Kingdom and internationally. I am pleased to have this opportunity to echo my predecessor in thanking Lord Donaldson and his team for the depth and quality of their report.

1421
The Government have already accepted its broad thrust. I now go further. The Government accept 86 of the 103 recommendations. Most of the others are still being considered. We were unable to accept only four recommendations where we decided that the action proposed was inappropriate. Our response clearly demonstrates that the Government are serious both about ship safety and pollution prevention, and serious about implementing the Donaldson Report.
"It is essential that those operating substandard shipping in United Kingdom waters should be clearly identifiable. I am pleased to say that our initiative in publishing monthly lists of such ships detained in United Kingdom ports has been well received by responsible shipowners. The message is clear: substandard ships will be detained and information about detentions will be published.
"The Government support the report's emphasis on port state control and have acted to ensure that the recommendations on improved targeting of substandard ships are considered by the EC and the Paris Memorandum of Understanding.
"We undertook to consider recommendations on providing emergency towing capability. I expect a final report in June from the Coastguard Agency on the feasibility, costs and benefits of the inquiry's proposals. I also announced last December that we had accepted the Donaldson recommendation that two tugs should be stationed in the Dover Strait and the Minches to provide emergency cover this winter. These tugs are now in place. This trial will also provide operational experience for the agency's final report.
"With all-party support, the merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994 is now law. This has allowed us to ratify two international conventions, one on salvage and the other on increased compensation for oil pollution. We are encouraging other states to do likewise.
"At a national level the Act extends the principle of strict liability for oil pollution in United Kingdom waters to cover spills of persistent oil from ships other than oil tankers. The problem now is to ensure that the owners of ships whose bunkers cause damage are able to pay. We are pressing internationally for the extension of compulsory liability insurance and are considering the scope for unilateral action.
"We do not want ships to be able to continue to operate anonymously off our coasts. We have been vigorous, therefore, in seeking international agreement on the mandatory fitting of transponders and we will maintain this pressure at the IMO. Pending agreement on transponders we also intend to act on Lord Donaldson's recommendation that ships should have recognition marks that are clearly visible, by presenting proposals to the next meeting of IMO's Maritime Safety Committee.
"Since last July the Marine Safety Agency has been carrying out a programme of inspections of foreign fish factory ships—Klondikers—working off the UK. Substandard Klondikers found in port have been
1422
detained and vessels at anchor have been told that deficiencies must be put right. However, the problems and the risks remain.
"The Scottish Office has brought forward proposals to improve fisheries management by limiting the number of fish transhipment licences issued to Klondikers and by introducing an advance notice period for licence applications from May this year. We are considering a number of options for further action, under merchant shipping powers, such as preventing loading or unloading and requiring vessels to leave our waters. These should help to ensure that Klondikers meet agreed safety standards and carry adequate insurance. We will issue a consultation paper shortly with proposals for possible legislative action, including the extension of our powers of inspection and detention to ships in United Kingdom waters not on innocent or transit passage.
"The report recommended that a statutory obligation should be placed on ports to provide adequate and convenient waste reception facilities which should be free at the point of use. Before deciding on the form of legislation we need to establish the scale of the problem. Those with responsibility for ports should be consulted on specific proposals. Research is already being conducted to address these issues. Results will be available soon and we expect to consult interested parties shortly thereafter. As part of our initiative against pollution from ships we will also bring forward regulations defining our exclusive economic zone which will extend our jurisdiction over pollution from ships up to 200 miles from our shores. We are considering how best to enhance surveillance and enforcement of this extended area.
"The inquiry also made recommendations on responsibility for clean-up operations in harbour areas and on the coast. We will consult interested parties on these recommendations and on possible courses of action.
"We are determined to continue working towards the elimination of poor operational practices on ships. In line with Lord Donaldson's recommendations we are strongly supporting the IMO revision of the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Convention which should be completed in June. We also fully endorse the IMO's International Safety Management Code and are encouraging its widespread use on United Kingdom ships in advance of its mandatory introduction in 1998.
"The shipping industry has expressed concern about Lord Donaldson's recommendation that shipowners should pay into two funds for port state control inspections and the United Kingdom's standing counter-pollution capacity. We have long supported the "user pays" and "polluter pays" principles and are keen to explore new options for funding. These need to be consistent with a competitive, as well as a safe fleet. We are clear that there may be problems in seeking to establish United Kingdom funds without first seeking regional agreement. We will work to develop funding

1423
proposals and to securing agreement on them with our regional partners. But it would not be right to close the door forever on a unilateral approach if regional agreement cannot be secured. We intend to consult on possible regional and unilateral approaches.
"Madam Speaker, in the time available I have highlighted the key elements of our response to the major issues raised by the Donaldson Report. We have accepted and acted upon many more recommendations, as outlined in our detailed response, and we will continue to take forward initiatives to implement the remaining recommendations. Lord Donaldson's report has set the agenda; we intend to follow it. My department's marine safety and coastguard agencies will play a key role in this process. Like all sensible people, we want a safe and pollution free marine environment".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister on behalf of my colleagues for repeating the Statement in this House. I share his view that the Donaldson Report is a remarkable report of great scholarship. It assimilated a great deal of evidence and all that clearly has major national and international maritime and environmental implications.
We shall clearly need time to absorb the Government's conclusions in this document, which was issued this afternoon. I confess that I have not had time to read it all. It is evident that today's Statement should not be seen as a substitute for a full debate on the Donaldson Report. The conclusions reached by the report and the Government's responses deserve that.
I can only focus this afternoon on what I consider to be the priority areas for action, many of which were underlined by the Government and we support them as far as they go. In particular, I welcome the greater transparency regarding accident information, which is of critical importance. The Donaldson recommendations were effectively split into two areas—those recommendations regarding deterrents and the detection of wrongdoing and those recommendations requiring the dissemination of information to ships' masters concerning the planning of a voyage. Perhaps I can deal first with the role of the port state, which was given some emphasis by the Minister's Statement.
What specific action are the Government taking to include the Donaldson recommendations in the draft European Union directive on port state control, to get them incorporated into the Paris Memorandum of Understanding and to highlight these issues at the North Sea conference in June? How will the Government, through the IMO, seek to enlarge the scope of their own powers under port state control? Have they any plans to increase the number of surveyors required to undertake the necessary investigations in port; and if so, what training provision do they have in mind? Or is it that they propose to continue with the delegation of powers to classification societies which they intimated in the recent debate on shipping and also in their deregulation proposals? How does that stand alongside the view, as
1424
expressed in the final paragraph of the Statement, that the department's marine safety and coastguard agencies will pay a key role in these processes? Is it not a fact that the Government have plans to reduce the Marine Safety Agency by 14.8 per cent., the Marine Accident Investigation Branch by 7.4 per cent. and the Coastguard Agency by 6.4 per cent.? Why should that proceed when the Government are now saying that they have it in mind that people who use these facilities and polluters who have to pay for clearing up their pollution will have to pay towards the inspection of their ships?
I welcome what the Minister said about Klondikers, but is he not aware that recommendation 77(f) of the report states that the Government should,
"declare straight away that from a specified date, well before next Winter [1994–95], the Fisheries Departments will not consider any application for a transhipment licence unless the Master concerned produces evidence that his vessel is adequately insured and reaches minimum safety standards. Any licences issued under existing rules before that date should not run beyond that date".
Why have the Government prevaricated on that recommendation? The are now seriously in arrears.
On the question of emergency towing, the Minister said that there are now two tugs in place. Is it not a fact that the tugs are flag of convenience vessels, crewed by non-English speaking Croatians? Is that a satisfactory way of proceeding on a matter where a common language is a rather important issue, as underlined by the report?
I turn from that issue to the marine environment in high risk areas. The report highlights the need for greater willingness on the part of the coastal state to intervene to protect areas especially vulnerable to the risk of exceptional damage through concentration of shipping or marine environmental damage. What initiatives do the Government propose as a matter of urgency to take in the IMO and at EU level in that regard? Is it not desirable, too, to rationalise the burgeoning use of special areas in some way, as not to do so could cause confusion?
I welcome the Government's undertaking in relation to the exclusive economic zone. That is absolutely right. But can the Minister state what options are being considered to enhance surveillance and the enforcement of the extended area? The Statement is very vague on that matter.
Many years ago, in 1977—I raised this point in our recent debate on shipping—the Labour Government introduced into the International Maritime Organisation the idea, which was adopted, of a marine safety corps, the idea being that developed shipping companies would help developing countries to establish more effective flag state control, which goes to the heart of this issue. That idea, which was supported for two or three years by the developed shipping nations, seems to have fallen into desuetude. Do not the Government agree that it would be quite a good idea to return to that concept as a way of effectively dealing with some of the lacunae of flag state control?
Regrettably, too many ship owners involved in the international business of shipping are prepared to cut corners and take chances with safety and damage to the environment. I believe that it would be appropriate if

1425
the Government were to respond to those activities by disregarding their own deregulation proposals which place their protestations about safety, which have been made clearly today, in jeopardy.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I join the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in paying tribute to the Donaldson Report. It is a most thorough and exhaustive but readable report on this subject and needs to be taken very seriously indeed. I am glad that the Government's response has been positive and detailed.
The report gave rise to a debate on 25th January which was initiated by my noble friend Lord Perry of Walton. Many of the points in the report were highlighted then. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, took part in the debate. As the report indicates, the UK merchant shipping fleet now, regrettably, represents only 1.35 per cent. of the world total. That is an appalling figure when one considers our great maritime past. I was shaken when I read that statistic. However, the smallness of the size of our merchant fleet does not mean that we do not have to take this problem seriously as the UK is one of the major port and coastal states in terms of shipping calling at and passing by our ports. It is for that reason that the report has been prepared and the recommendations made.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, shipping is now becoming more and more competitive. Ship owners are tending to cut costs in order to maintain margins. Therefore, it is more important than ever that a proper regulatory system for inspection should be introduced. The first responsibility is obviously with the flag state. However, we know how deficient that system is and therefore, quite rightly, the report and the Government in their response have emphasised the need for port state control. There is a graphic phrase in the report which I shall quote and then I shall ask the noble Viscount whether that is the way in which the Government are proceeding in this connection. The report states in paragraph 10:
"At present the inspections constitute the maritime equivalent of roadside checks of heavy goods vehicles … The essence of our proposals is that these inspections should take on more the character of the Ministry of Transport (MOT) Test enforced for vehicles registered in the United Kingdom".
In the light of that comment, is the noble Viscount satisfied that the steps now being taken will achieve the objective mentioned in the report?
This is not only a national but an international issue. So the question arises, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has properly mentioned, as to what we are doing with our partners in the European Union and at the International Maritime Organisation. They are no doubt fully familiar with the report. Will they also ensure that it is acted upon by the individual countries of the Union and by the other signatories of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding?
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to marine environmental high risk areas. That is one of the recommendations which the Government said they
1426
would have to consider. In view of the importance of the issue I should like to express the hope that that consideration will be quickly completed.
Finally, I come to funding. Quite obviously, these improved methods of inspection have to be paid for. The proposal is that they should be paid for by the shipping industry. But that raises the question of finding a regional solution which the Government are exploring. Can the noble Viscount explain to us how that is going to be undertaken and what hopes he has of achieving a regional solution?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, has been widely welcomed. I also believe that the Government's response today will be similarly widely welcomed because it basically accepts the broad thrust of the report. It also accepts the vast majority of the noble and learned Lord's recommendations, only four being rejected. I welcome also the attitude of the parties opposite in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, on the work that he has done.
A number of detailed points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Perhaps I may begin with those points made about the Coastguard Agency and the Marine Safety Agency. These agencies are at the very core of our policies on safety of life at sea around our coasts and also on the prevention of marine pollution.
Efficiency exercises have been carried out, but it is important for me to emphasise to the House today that safety is our paramount concern. It will not be compromised. The Coastguard Agency has been asked to achieve realistic economies without affecting its operational effectiveness or diminishing safety levels. It is important to note that about £3 million has been allocated to the agency to allow implementation of the recommendations following the Donaldson Report. Similarly, the Marine Safety Agency has a reputation for quality. I believe that the two enforce our port state control regime. It is absolutely vital that the agency has the credibility which it has at the moment. Again, reorganisation and efficiency gains have been required from the MSA. Provision has been made for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, talked about the provision of tugs. The report suggests that interim arrangements should be put in place, and that we have done. We have sought to provide interim cover which will act as a trial exercise. A great deal has been said both in the press and by the noble Lord today about the nationality of the tugs. It is important to give a little background about that situation. The two tugs chartered by the agency are controlled by the United Kingdom-based company, United Towing, which is a leading member of the International Salvage Union.
Although foreign flagged and crewed, the ships meet the necessary safety and operational standards. They provide an emergency towing response capability at reasonable cost to the taxpayer. We were looking for ships that would be able to do the job properly and these vessels had been operating very successfully in the North Sea. In the incidents to which they have responded they have shown that they represent an extremely effective and efficient response capability.

1427
This is a trial and we shall be analysing the data which results. We shall see what action needs to be taken on a more permanent basis.
Port state control was the theme of the questions put to me by noble Lords opposite. Taken together, the noble and learned Lord's recommendations on that subject suggested radical alteration to the way in which port state control is currently undertaken. We indicated that we would present the recommendations to our port state control partners, and that we have done. We have put great emphasis behind the noble and learned Lord's recommendations concerning the targeting of ships. It is absolutely vital that the correct ships are targeted so that limited resources can be concentrated on those ships which we believe present the greatest risk. We are pursuing that with our partners in port state control. I believe that the pressure we shall apply will bring them round to our way of thinking on targeting.
It is also worth re-emphasising the policy of dentention which we have pursued and publication of the names of the ships which we have detained. At the onset of that policy there was some concern that that would not be a fair way of going about the business. However, I believe that the policy has been welcomed. Sub-standard ships need to be publicised so that everybody knows what ships have failed to attain the, required standard.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to Klondikers. We all accept that this is an intolerable situation particularly for those who live in the Shetland Islands. The situation there is that there are a great many ships, many of which are unsatisfactory, concentrated in a small area. The accidents and losses which have taken place show the risks that are being posed by these vessels. However, at the moment our powers to take action are limited. One of the Government's papers will consider a significant extension of our current powers as we seek to close the gaps which the Klondikers have demonstrated exist. Our programme of inspection of Klondikers will continue and we shall detain sub-standard ships if they are in port. The Scottish Office has produced a consultation document aimed at limiting the number of Klondiker licences issued on fisheries grounds. The Department of Transport's consultation paper will examine alternative means of ensuring that Klondikers and other ships operating in our waters conform to agreed safety standards.
In looking at the issue of Klondikers it is important to realise that they are very important to the economy of the region. The fishermen welcome them as a market for their catches. But we have to ensure that the right number of Klondikers are there. Some of them have seen no fish over their sides at all during the season. There are crews which have not been paid or there are not insufficient bunkers on board. There is a wide range of problems. It is not the case that we can just snap our fingers and solve the problem. We take it very seriously and that is why we are consulting in two different ways.
As regards funding, we are committed to the principle that the user should pay. It is because of the possible competitive disadvantage to our ports and shipping industry that we are initially seeking a European approach to user charging. Our proposed consultation
1428
paper on funding will advance possible regional approaches. The paper will also consider the scope for unilateral action and the possibility of early legislation in order to seek enabling powers to allow charging.
I hope that that response covers the bulk of the questions which were put to me by noble Lords opposite. If I have missed any I shall certainly write to noble Lords.

Crown Agents Bill [H.L.]
4.18 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for having introduced so ably the Second Reading of the Bill. It is technical and complex, but I believe my noble friend was able to set out the main provisions for the legal, financial and commercial future of the Crown Agents.
I thought the spirited visual imagery of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and his description of the Bill as a fig leaf somewhat exaggerated. It is no fig leaf; it is a very important Bill which sets out the future of a very important part of our activities in this country. It was also extraordinary to hear what I might call the "Pavlovian" link in the reactions of the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale, for whom the mere word "privatisation" brought together in their minds the Post Office and the Crown Agents. I can only assume that my noble friend's reference to the philately service of the Crown Agents induced that thought in their minds because clearly there is no other link. I wonder whether the Benches opposite sometimes forget British Airways, British Telecom and a whole raft of successful privatisations since 1979 which have been working so successfully for the benefit of the people of this country.
I return to the Bill. The Crown Agents have a very large list of clients which my noble friend listed, including leading European and international organisations. With the effects of the Bill that will be extended to include the private sector. As the ODA's contribution to the work of the Crown Agents now stands at about 27 per cent., which I believe was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, there will be greater opportunities for increasing their commercial opportunities. The list of countries is already impressive. It ranges throughout the world—from Albania to Zimbabwe. The Crown Agents undertake a wide range of services throughout the world. It is truly impressive.
I believe that it will be accepted on all sides that the 1979 Act is out of date and needs to be changed. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, accepted that it is no longer relevant although he did not accept the need for a new Bill. Nevertheless, the noble Lord must accept that the present situation is intolerable for a company such as the Crown Agents which has to act throughout the world. Information given by the Crown Agents shows that the Crown Agents Act 1979 is littered with references to restrictions on their activities and to the fact that they have to get consent from Ministers for some activities.

1429
I understand that something like 102 consents have been required for the Crown Agents to be able to carry out certain financial obligations.
We must accept that this is an era of rapid change in world trading patterns. One need think only of the finalising of the Uruguay Round and the establishment of the World Trading Organisation to realise that there has been an extraordinary change in world trading patterns in recent years. Surely it is the duty of the Government to see that the Crown Agents are in a position to benefit from those changes and to improve their commercial activities.
As has been said, this is an enabling Bill, transferring the Crown Agents to a company. As my noble friend explained, not only are the Crown Agents to be transferred to a company, but, as I understand it, we shall get further details during the passage of the Bill of the later transfer of the company to a foundation. I understand from what my noble friend said that it is a guarantee by the Government that there will be a foundation. As far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant whether or not that is written into the Bill because I take my noble friend's words as coming from the Government and as an undertaking from the Government that that will happen. Frankly, I believe that the suspicions expressed from the Opposition Front Benches are unjustified. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has the greatest respect for my noble friend Lady Chalker. I think that we can rest assured that, whatever else happens, there will be a foundation. As I understand it, the foundation will act as a guarantee to the Crown Agents' clients that their objectives remain tied to a—I quote from the objectives stated by the Crown Agents themselves—
"social purpose and developmental character".
I also understand that there is a possibility, but no more, of the foundation acquiring charitable status. It may be thought convenient—indeed, in my view it would be more convenient—if the foundation were able to become the equivalent of an association of a type that is found on the continent. I was advised that I should not say that because anything European is probably suspect nowadays. I refer nevertheless to an association such as exists in Belgium where the profits go back into the foundation and are used in accordance with its constitution. That might be a suitable framework for the foundation rather than restricting it under the Charities Act and obliging it to work under the provisions which govern charitable status.
There will no doubt be an opportunity to discuss some of those points in further detail during the later stages of the Bill. But at least we can see possibilities opening up for the Crown Agents which should lead to greater activity in the private sector and an ability to meet the changing needs especially of developing countries which demand and need a service which is both reliable and committed to the highest standards. Surely those who are in favour of helping developing countries, who have seen the very high standards of integrity to which
1430
the Crown Agents work, could wish for no better future than that proposed under the Bill. I am pleased to tell my noble friend that I support the Bill with great pleasure.
4.23 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend Lady Chalker for the manner in which she presented the Bill's Second Reading to the House.
This Second Reading debate enables me to contribute to a subject involving an institution with which I can record some 30 years of association—an association that can fairly be described as from the grass roots level. Almost all of my professional life has been concerned with the marketing of British-manufactured engineering products abroad. This has brought me into close contact with the Crown Agents' multifaceted activities in almost every corner of the globe. I have perceived, and have often been assisted by, a highly professional organisation, but one that has always kept its feet very firmly on the ground.
I am aware that there are a number of noble Lords more versed than I am in matters of the law who are speaking this afternoon, so I intend to say nothing at all about the legal framework that supports this enabling Bill. I should like to concentrate entirely on the practical consequences of what is proposed.
It is extremely important to realise that over the years the Crown Agents have built up a wealth of experience and have developed a strong rapport with a wide portfolio of clients. They have earned the confidence of officials, Ministers and governments—most importantly, governments—all over the world and it is vital that we do not just take that for granted.
Supplying goods overseas, particularly capital goods, is not a short-term experience. The initial supply is only the start of a long-term relationship. After the initial sale comes aftersales support: operator training, spare parts supply, maintenance training, expert back-up and technology updates. In fact, over a period of time this ongoing connection often becomes a long-term and enduring relationship.
Many years ago I was involved in a major container handling project in India. This project was the ab initio venture by the Indian authorities into setting up a full containerisation facility within their ports, and a World Bank loan was in place to support the tender. The validity of the tender was 180 days—six months—with the usual performance and bid bond demands. Based on the specification, the supply should have been completed within 18 months, but due to the lack of experience of the new technology within the purchaser's organisation, the eventual supply was not completed for nearly six years.
If Crown Agents had been involved, their experience would have ensured that the original deadlines would have been met and the containerisation systems would have been operational four-and-a-half years earlier, with consequent massive cost savings. It is in that aftersales area—in the area of providing long-term logistical back-up and support for their clients—that the Crown Agents are so strong.

1431
I see it as very much the intention of this Bill to preserve all that is best of the long-term relationships that the Crown Agents have spent years in establishing—which might be described as the Crown Agent's public service ethos, while promoting the freedom to respond to the rapidly changing needs of their overseas clients.
The roots of the Crown Agents stretch back to our Imperial past—a past with which I, for one, have no problems. In the recent past, however, much has quite rightly changed and the enterprise has adapted to becoming a trading entity with a much broader brief, operating in many trading areas, including Europe, the United States, Japan, Africa, South Africa and South-East Asia.
There is nothing wrong with that, I would submit, for two very sound reasons. The first is the concept of trading. Some long-dead Corsican once called us a nation of shopkeepers. I prefer to think of us as a nation of traders—of international or global traders.
In 1901, the Duke of York, who was later to become King George V, said on 5th December in a speech at the Guildhall:
"I venture to allude to the impression which seemed generally to prevail among our brethren across the seas, that the Old Country must wake up if she intends to maintain her old position of pre-eminence in her Colonial trade against foreign competitors".
Those words were spoken in 1901, less than 11 months after the death of the Queen Empress Victoria. They lead me perfectly into my second point, which is the overriding need to adapt—to change—to new situations. That is the whole point of this Bill.
The Crown Agents have many skills built up over more than a century of trading experience. But to utilise those skills to the full benefit of our nation, it is necessary to adapt them into a restructured and reconstituted organisation—an organisation with more commercial freedom but with all of the essential professional qualities which have sustained it over the years.
In a recent interview with the Daily Telegraph, the Foreign Secretary described the purpose of this Bill as "privatisation to preserve". I would go even further and describe it as privatisation to preserve and enhance.
I have tried to outline briefly why I support the Bill. Perhaps I may spend just a little time explaining why I feel that it has taken account of our experiences with the earlier 1979 Act and learned from them.
Almost inevitably, with hindsight, based upon my commercial experience, there are operational details of the 1979 Act which cause me concern. I am worried that the 1979 Act places too great a restriction on the Crown Agents in providing agency services to the private sector. Ironically, it seems that under the 1979 Act, if an aid programme for which the Crown Agents are procurement agents is available to a private sector end user, they can act for him. If, however, he then builds his business, is satisfied with the services of the Crown Agents and would like to continue employing them as agents using his own money, the Crown Agents must turn down the business unless they have gone through the rather cumbersome process of seeking specific ministerial consent via a statutory instrument of 1990.
1432
That is just one example. The 1979 Act seems to me to be overburdened with references to obtaining ministerial consent which are not in the spirit of the greater commercial freedom which this Bill seeks to achieve.
Crown Agents operate with a social and developmental purpose but within a commercial framework and an entirely independent commercial board. They receive no subsidy or grant from Her Majesty's Government, who as a client account for less than 30 per cent. of their business. I know that my noble friend the Minister has borne those points in mind when introducing the Bill.
The Minister has explained that foundation members will wish to consider whether they should seek charitable status, or that of a friendly or provident society, or other suitable structure for companies limited by guarantee. That gives a clear signal to Crown Agents' clients and their many friends and supporters about the way the foundation sees their future development. What is most important is that among those clients, supporters and friends are overseas governments. Those governments need comfort and this is the route for their comfort.
As a policy, transferring organisations out of the public sector has proved to be one of the great triumphs of the present Government, and the UK model is now being copied all over the world, even by some seemingly socialist administrations. One lesson that we have learnt is the importance of not saddling the fledgling successor body with an inherited burden of debt imposed by an over-zealous Treasury.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will bear this point in mind and fight to ensure that the reconstituted Crown Agents, reborn as a result of this Bill, are not born into a state of penury. Overall, this is a very good Bill. I shall be supporting it and I urge your Lordships to do so as well.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, on one issue there has been absolute unanimity from the moment at which the Minister introduced the Bill to the completion of the speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, and in particular, in the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles; namely, we all pay tribute to the work of the Crown Agents. There is a feeling across the House that over the years they have done a magnificent job. I have never been a trader but I had some experience of the Crown Agents when I was a Minister. The question I wish to ask first is why there is an urgency to change what is already good.
As my noble friend Lord Judd said, amendments can be made so that the commercialisation of the Crown Agents can be expanded, but I see no reason to change what is already very good. One of my criticisms of this Government is that when something is going well they always seem to step in and reorganise it. There are examples of that in all sorts of fields—the National Health Service, education and local government finance. They are a meddling government. I do not believe that we need to meddle too much with the role which the Crown Agents have so ably fulfilled. It is in no way

1433
obvious to me that the services will necessarily be improved by reorganisation, which is the Government's answer to every situation.
Of course I recognise that there is an element of privatisation dogma here. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, put his finger on that in his speech. The timing of the announcement was extremely important. It is my impression —I do not claim to be an expert—that over the years the Crown Agents have performed a very valuable service not just for Britain but also for Britain in its relationship with the rest of the world. As the noble Baroness said in her introduction, in 1993 the Crown Agents managed disbursement arrangements for 150 British bilateral aid agreements worldwide with a total value of £1.8 billion. Other major aid donors for whom Crown Agents do international procurement work include the Japanese Government and the European Community, although some people may not like the idea of the provision of that service to the European Community. The Crown Agents have done work for the World Bank and the UN. I agree with those noble Lords who have said that the Japanese business is particularly important, with Crown Agents managing a purchasing programmes for 13 African countries and the Philippines with a total value to date of 720 million dollars.
In some cases the Crown Agents' role is advisory; in others, they provide legal services, logistical services and specification reports. They undertake direct procurement, including specification, tendering, contract purchase, packing, shipping and insurance payments, and institutional development is of growing importance. I am particularly interested in the work which is being done in the former Soviet republic where the Crown Agents provide advice and technical assistance for procurement under a series of contracts and projects funded mainly by the World Bank. They also provide training in public sector finance, banking and privatisation. In Commonwealth countries in Africa, Crown Agents have been involved in public sector procurement reviews for governments obliged to re-examine their priorities as a result of structural adjustment programmes.
Crown Agents are also involved in the delivery of humanitarian assistance. I believe that the breadth of their service is part of what they have to offer our society. Indeed, it is a very impressive story worldwide. Of course, it is not perfect, and I am not saying that just because the Crown Agents were reorganised, as has been said, in April 1979 by the Labour Government. Those arrangements are certainly by no means sacrosanct. However, I believe that they have stood the pressure of time remarkably well. My only connection in that respect is that I was a member of the Cabinet committee which was responsible for making those changes.
Can the Minister tell us whether she and other Ministers feel that the performance of the Crown Agents is so inadequate as to cry out for change? I know that the noble Baroness will not do so; indeed, she has paid them her own tribute. But, at the same time, and having
1434
paid her tribute, the Minister has brought before us a project which leaves many questions unanswered. It is an enabling provision instead of a substantial provision.
Nevertheless, the Minister told us in December 1992 that the future of the Crown Agents was to be reviewed by Coopers & Lybrand. Has that report been published? If so, I have not seen it. Moreover, if it is available, perhaps the Minister can confirm that there is a copy in the Library or, alternatively, perhaps she will arrange to make copies available. If the report has not been made available, I should like to know why. How much did it cost to prepare and how much did taxpayers pay for that particular piece of advice?
Further, have the Government followed the conclusions of Coopers & Lybrand? Will the Minister confirm that the chosen option was as follows:
"The Board of the Crown Agents, after consulting with its advisers"—
and so on, including consulting the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, recommended that all interests,
"would be well served if the organisation were to remain as part of the UK public sector, but with greater freedom of operation than its 1979 Act of Parliament permits"?
I believe that that statement sets out exactly what my plea is as to how we should tackle the situation. It does not require a Bill like this to achieve that.
In August 1993 the Minister announced:
"Membership of the Foundation would reflect the international character of Crown Agents' activities and its social purpose and would include representatives from the corporate sector. Crown Agents will maintain their traditional standards of probity and impartiality and will continue their business activities on a fully commercial basis, servicing their capital in the normal way and generating surpluses which will be available to the Foundation to finance its developmental objectives".
If the purpose is to create a foundation, why are not the terms of such a foundation set out in the Bill? Indeed, the foundation does not seem to be referred to at all in the legislation. I hope that the Minister will explain why there has been such a change. What has happened since that time? Is it that the noble Baroness and her ministerial colleagues were not satisfied with the Coopers & Lybrand study? In fact, as is known, the ODA—indeed, the Minister herself—appointed Peat Marwick Corporate Finance to advise on privatisation. It is not clear that work on the form of privatisation had been completed before the Bill was printed. As I said, what has emerged contains no reference to the key parts of the proposals announced as the preferred option by the noble Baroness.
There is no reference to social purpose, developmental objectives, non-distribution of funds, independence from commercial corporations, or even to the establishment of a foundation. The Bill is only enabling legislation which provides for a company nominated by the Secretary of State to take over the property, rights and liabilities of the Crown Agents in the United Kingdom; in other words, it will create another quango.
I should have thought that the lesson had now been learnt, even by this Government, that the proliferation of quangos with powers given to Secretaries of State to appoint chairmen to such bodies must be questioned. Of

1435
course, we know that the Nolan Committee is now doing so. I have to say—with a twinkle in my eye—that my fear is that the noble Baroness is preparing for her next job and we shall find that she will be appointed as chairman. I hope that she will not be. I want to keep the noble Baroness in this Chamber just as long as she sits on that side of the House. Of course, I should be happy for her to sit on this side, but that is another matter.
I believe that the Bill is unnecessary. However, it is before us and I guess that some legislation will go through. Our job on this side of the House is to try to make it a little more constructive and clearer so that there will be fewer doubts as to whether the reorganisation will produce some of the same unfortunate results of other reorganisations undertaken by the Government of services which have been meeting the needs of the nation well.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are certainly all agreed that the Crown Agents do a good job in an exemplary way and that they are well thought of in world circles. Much has been said about the detail of their work, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Anyone in doubt should look at last year's annual report and accounts, which makes very satisfactory reading. In my own experience, I have certainly come across Crown Agents at their work in Central and Eastern Europe and a more highly motivated and effective bunch of people I have yet to find.
I believe that we are also all agreed that, however good an organisation may be at any one time, its activities and manner of acting should be subject to review and should, if necessary, change to meet changing times and needs. In that context, we have been made aware—and my noble friend the Minister gave us illustrations—that the Crown Agents themselves are eager to continue to develop their past success story and that they expect more freedom and independence from government constraints in order to do so. So change has to be expected. Indeed, even the noble Lord, Lord Judd, acknowledged that fact.
In those circumstances, and when considering a changed structure, there are several key words which spring to mind; indeed, we have had much experience of decentralisation in a number of areas during my time in your Lordships' House. The first key word that springs to my mind is consultation —consultation about the arrangements and about the way in which changes will be brought about. In that context, I believe that we can refer back to the announcement made by my noble friend the Minister in August 1993, which gave plenty of time to interested parties to make their concerns and wishes known and which also allowed plenty of time to work through proposals for the present Bill.
Another key word is flexibility. There should be flexibility as regards the way that the change should be brought about. The Bill certainly allows for that—clearly, too greatly, in some people's opinions. The third key word in the area is transparency. I refer to transparency both about the way in which changes are brought about and, indeed, about the appointments that may be made as a consequence. I think that it was
1436
unnecessary for the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to imply and insinuate that my noble friend was motivated by self-interest in this respect.
The fourth word that springs to mind is accountability. I should be grateful to hear from my noble friend, when she winds up, what is to be provided in this respect, as we have a proposal for an organisation which will be subject neither to the customary accountability of a public body nor to the accountability of shareholders in the strictly commercial sense. This is an important area.
The fifth word that springs to mind is regulation. Again the Crown Agents have been quite properly subject to strict and effective government controls in the past. I think it is essential that this should be the case in the future also, while bearing in mind that such regulation should if possible be less cumbersome than that of a public corporation.
Complaint has been made during the course of this debate that the Bill does not contain sufficiently detailed provisions and indeed that it is privatisation by the back door. But it seems to me that in the circumstances it is desirable that there should be the greatest flexibility to allow for what will be a unique foundation to be created to carry on the valued work of the Crown Agents.
There is certainly, so far as I can see, no question of a disposal of government assets as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested. Indeed, I shall be very surprised if we do not hear in due course complaints that the Government are not going far enough in what is proposed, and that what should be created is a commercial company which would operate on equal terms with other competitors in the field. However, I understand that this would not be welcome to existing clients, particularly perhaps the Japanese. Therefore the proposals before us, as explained by my noble friend the Minister, seem to me an excellent way forward which will give the Crown Agents greater freedom to develop their business while maintaining their essential characteristics and qualities. As my noble friend said, they will provide a strong and stable structure to enable the Crown Agents to move into the 21st century. I certainly support this Bill.
4.53 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, like many of your Lordships I welcome this Bill this afternoon. Through my work in industry, I have been interested for quite a long while in the work that the Crown Agents do, and I am delighted to support their cause today. As we have heard on many occasions this afternoon—I make no apology for repetition—the Crown Agents have an admirable history. Almost wherever there has been strife in the world, Crown Agents have been involved, making things happen, bringing relief to so many, procuring the goods which are so necessary, giving advice to many foreign governments and acting as the catalyst for many aid programmes. Crown Agents are at the forefront of all these matters and they are indeed the world leaders in their field.
Many other countries have tried to emulate the role taken on by Crown Agents, but, in basic terms—I am extremely proud to say it—we in Britain do the job best.

1437
It seems to me to be abundantly clear from this afternoon's debate that your Lordships in general fully support the Crown Agents' excellent work. This Bill, which is basically to enable the privatisation of Crown Agents, is just what has been needed and the time is right for the Government to take such action.
Crown Agents need the extra freedoms provided by privatisation to be able to compete in the global marketplace and to compete effectively. Crown Agents procure many goods from British companies only if the price is right and the circumstances are correct and competitive. They deliver a pretty large amount to the UK Exchequer. Indeed I understand that, since 1979, they have paid in interest and capital to the Treasury somewhere in the region of £20 million. The benefits the Crown Agents produce are excellent.
Crown Agents, through their outstanding reputation of integrity, also act as fine ambassadors for this country and its Government. Crown Agents' clients are attracted to them because of the quality of their service, their reliability and their ethical standards. They are of course also attracted by Crown Agents' worldwide coverage and the ability to purchase goods in markets anywhere. Top of the list has to be the transparency and the integrity—that is a phrase which keeps on being repeated—of their operations. Therefore I warmly welcome this Bill. It will give Crown Agents the freedom to build on their past successes, their excellent reputation of integrity, impartiality and probity and their past achievements, which are many.
But perhaps I should add just a word of caution. In order to be effective and efficient world players, I believe that Crown Agents must not under any circumstances be burdened by government with debt, and must have adequate capital resources. I think the figure that has to be repaid to the Government is some £2 million. I believe it would be much better if it were written off by the Government on the basis of goodwill for the Crown Agents in the future. I wonder whether, when she winds up, my noble friend the Minister will be able to give some sort of indication, or perhaps even an assurance to your Lordships, that this will indeed be the case. I warmly welcome this Bill.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Ennals and other noble Lords have said, hardly a single speaker, including those who are critical of this Bill, has had anything but praise and appreciation for the work of the Crown Agents. But it is precisely because it is a valuable national and international asset that we on these Benches are not entirely happy with this Bill. For a relatively small organisation they have a really impressive record. They have an involvement in projects covering 130 countries, as mentioned by the noble Baroness.
The Crown Agents could be described as a typically British institution in the best sense, in that they have quietly and effectively got on with the job without particularly trumpeting their successes. As all noble Lords have said, they have gained international respect and obtained contracts from many national and
1438
international organisations—for example, the World Bank and the European Union—as has been mentioned, diversifying as the volume of work for ODA has decreased during recent years.
The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, gave us some practical examples of the sort of things that Crown Agents are particularly good at doing and one case where they should have been used but were not and where they would have been extremely useful. The Crown Agents wish to continue to expand and diversify their activities. If this Bill allows that to happen we on these Benches would be entirely happy. But I have to say that, speaking personally, I am old-fashioned enough still to believe that small is beautiful. In this case perhaps one should not so much say small but, rather, medium-sized about an organisation that managed to disburse £1.8 billion for ODA last year.
I hope that the Crown Agents in their new clothes will still be able to supply the cost-effective, individually-tailored and ethically sound services for which they are so well known and respected. My noble friend Lord Judd has pointed out our view, and that of the chairman of the Crown Agents, that this expanded role could have been achieved in the public sector by relaxing certain Treasury and other rules—for example, not having to get permission from the Government for various transactions with the private sector. But that was not to be and we have this Bill in front of us which we hope to improve somewhat in Committee.
Clause 1(1) of the Bill is of course the operative part, allowing the vesting of Crown Agents by order of the Secretary of State in a successor company,
"nominated … by the Secretary of State".
Subsection (4) of that clause states:
"An order … under subsection (1) … may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order at any time before any property, rights or liabilities of the Crown Agents vest in a company by virtue of this section".
In my view that gives the Secretary of State virtual carte blanche to do what he or she wishes with Crown Agents, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, pointed out. For instance, they could be floated on the Stock Exchange, sold directly to a multinational organisation or closed down.
We very much hope that the Government will bring forward by the Committee stage a form of words for the memorandum and articles of association of the final successor company, preferably the independent charitable (or otherwise) foundation which was mentioned so frequently by the noble Baroness.
If for technical or legal reasons that is not possible—and I still do not understand why it should not be possible—then a requirement could be inserted into the Bill that the nature of the final successor company must first be approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. As it stands, there is no safeguard in the Bill to stop the Secretary of State from selling off Crown Agents to the highest bidder or closing them down.
Finally, I ask the noble Baroness to consider inserting into the Bill a more specific provision than merely a promise to protect the pension fund built up for the staff of Crown Agents over the years. I gather that the

1439
pension fund has been so well managed—as was mentioned by the noble Baroness—that over the past few years the Crown Agents and their staff have enjoyed a pensions holiday and have not had to make the normal contributions. Such a prosperous fund would be an attractive morsel for predators. As the final successor company is not known, the Bill should include safeguards to protect the pension fund. As the noble Baroness pointed out, that would be in line with the provisions of the Pensions Bill, which increases the role of staff representatives as trustees of pension funds. The reasons behind that are familiar to all of us.
Those are just two of the areas in which we feel the Bill could be improved. It would speed up the Committee stage greatly if the noble Baroness herself were to bring forward amendments along the lines I have suggested.
We on these Benches wish the Crown Agents every success and will do our best to see that they continue to provide the first class services which are so valuable to the developing world. The changes to the Bill that I have suggested are offered in that spirit.
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this has been a striking Second Reading debate. It is rarely that we hear such all round support for an organisation. I am proud that that body is the Crown Agents. As my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury said, they have had great past successes and achievements. As my noble friend Lady Elles said, we want to build on those past achievements.
I listened to your Lordships' comments with the keenest interest. A few were not totally supportive of the Government's actions. It is clear that the whole House shares a common concern to give Crown Agents the best possible future. I shall give careful thought to all the suggestions that have been made. However, noble Lords will understand if I do not respond immediately to the many and varied ideas that have been put forward. I wish, however, to say a few words in response to specific questions that have been posed.
Ever since 1984 the Government have considered that the Crown Agents' business could be carried out in the private sector. We want to strengthen the Crown Agents' ability to meet the demands and needs of their customers. We also believe it right to end the requirement for the Government to be involved in the details of the business. As my noble friend Lord Oxfuird said, we need to reflect the circumstances of today. The Act to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, are so attached is too prescriptive and limiting for the 1990s and the future.
Crown Agents cannot carry out own right activities beyond those set out in the Act. We know why that provision was included in the 1979 Act. During the 1970s it was the own right activities which caused a problem. But there must be ways of making sure that the activities that my noble friend Lord Oxfuird mentioned can be carried out without the prescriptive intervention of government on each occasion.
1440
The other prescriptive and limiting aspect of the current Act is that it requires me to consent to what are properly business decisions for Crown Agents. I do not believe that it is right for any Minister to be so involved in the business of Crown Agents, which is essentially one of providing procurement for as many clients as possible in the most cost effective way.
We heard a number of comments from the noble Lords, Lord Judd, Lord Rea, Lord Redesdale, and others about parliamentary approval for the transfer. I recognise the interest in the subject. I have sought to spell out some of the ideas, and I shall provide as much information as possible about our plans as the Bill progresses. But I shall also ensure that full information is provided to Parliament before the transfer is carried out. I am obviously willing to look at what is necessary and how best that should be done.
It is quite usual for legislation on such transfers to be enabling. It is not appropriate to be tied down to the crossing of the last "t" and the dotting of the last "i". I suggest that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented in this Bill. However, the situation is unusual in that we believe that it is right to create a foundation with the specific social and developmental objectives that I outlined in introducing the Bill.
A number of noble Lords on the Benches opposite, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked why we did not retain Crown Agents in the public sector with greater freedom. That is the wrong question to ask. The right question is surely: why should Crown Agents continue to be owned by government? They have always been the agents of what are now independent governments and, increasingly, aid agencies. In my discussions with other governments it has been clear that that is how it should be. Governments of all parties have also been careful not to interfere with the work that Crown Agents do for other independent governments.
There is a real opportunity here for Crown Agents. We should like to be able to stand back from detailed control. We would not be able to do that if we continued to bear the ultimate financial responsibility. Government ownership requires the Government to take an interest. I fear that in terms of the development of Crown Agents' business that has meant not merely that we take an interest—which we willingly do—but, because they have to come to the Minister for consent, that Ministers interfere. That is why I am certain that, although we shall always take a keen interest as a customer of Crown Agents, we do not need to own Crown Agents.
There was some debate about the view of the Crown Agents board. I know that it is clearly printed for all to see in their last annual report that Crown Agents would be happy to remain in the public sector. But we have had a long discussion and their remaining happy to be in the public sector would only be achieved if they had far greater freedom of operation than is possible under the 1979 Act. I can assure your Lordships that in making plans for the foundation we have consulted closely with Crown Agents and shall continue to do so because the foundation will give the Crown Agents the freedom they require to meet the changing needs of their clients.

1441
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, hinted that government might be considering a trade sale. We have concluded that a trade sale is not appropriate. Crown Agents make a particular contribution to development. That is what we and other international clients of Crown Agents feel is important to maintain; and that is why we have ruled out a trade sale. I can say without fear of contradiction that I believe that the foundation route is the right route, and it is the route down which we shall go.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, wanted to know about the Coopers and Lybrand report. In fact, there were two reports. As advice to Ministers they were not published. They will not be published. However, the decision that I took following the report was published in my letter of 13th August 1993 to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Bill enables the Government to implement the decision taken on the basis of those reports.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury mentioned the debt and the financial structure of the successor company. It is true that the Bill provides for the repayment of the debt of £2 million to the National Loans Fund. The National Loans Fund debt is not being repaid at a low interest rate because it is fixed at 10.875 per cent. But the Bill allows the Secretary of State to determine an appropriate capital structure for the successor company. The Bill contains enabling provisions for deemed debt and for the purchase of securities as appropriate. Our aim is to strike the right balance to ensure the viability of new Crown Agents while obtaining good value for money for the taxpayer, as I said in my opening remarks. I assure my noble friend that we shall take full account of the views of Crown Agents on future viability. We shall look with the greatest of care at their future capital structure. I have noted my noble friend's comments. I certainly cannot promise to write off another £2 million. I note that in 1988 we made a grant of £16 million to redeem most of the outstanding debt plus the premium due to the NLF for early repayment. I rather doubt whether I can do something more now that this is to be transferred. However, I shall examine in detail what my noble friend said.
My noble friend Lady Hooper and a number of your Lordships were interested in the foundation, so allow me to expand on what I said at the beginning. The proposed foundation will be a company limited by guarantee in the private sector. Its memorandum and articles of association commit the company to a clear social and developmental purpose. The foundation may wish to seek registration as a charity, and, as I said earlier, other possibilities will be open to them. We are examining those at present. But the main thing is that the future structure of the foundation must be fully satisfactory before the transfer of the business. That is a matter on which we are working together with Crown Agents.
The foundation will be the sole shareholder of the limited company which will carry on the business of Crown Agents on a commercial basis but maintain those famous traditional standards of transparency and integrity for which Crown Agents are so well known worldwide. Any trading surpluses of the business would
1442
go to the foundation. Its constitution would ensure that they could not be distributed to foundation members but would be used to support the objectives of the foundation.
The idea is for a two-tier structure which would ensure a clear division of responsibilities and rights. The operating company runs the business. The top company ensures stable ownership committed to maintaining those standards, and it uses the profits in accordance with the objectives.
There will be concerns—we can go into them in detail during the Committee stage of the Bill—about accountability. Perhaps I may say this. With the memorandum and articles of association which are intended for the foundation and without which the foundation would not have the business transferred to it, I do not see any way in which the anxieties expressed by some noble Lords have any basis.
Certainly the Government would intend to be a member of the foundation with power, for a limited time, to ensure that no substantial changes could be made in the objectives of the foundation without prior government agreement. The operating principles of the foundation would mean that the developmental role stipulated by the memorandum and articles would continue. This power would simply be retained by government for a limited period because it would ensure that those objectives were firmly established.
My noble friend Lord Oxfuird raised the question, as did a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Elles, of charitable status. I am very open minded about the matter. I know that the foundation may wish to seek registration as a charity or, as my noble friend Lady Hooper said, perhaps as a provident institution. Other possibilities may also be open. My only concern in deciding the issue will be to find a future structure which is fully satisfactory in line with the objectives which all have endorsed during the debate.
I was saddened by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he spoke about the membership of the foundation. About half way through my opening speech I made it clear that members of the foundation will not be appointed by Ministers. When the noble Lord talks about quangos, it shows that he did not hear what I said. I shall take his later remarks about my future as a joke. I hope that that is how he meant them. I hope that any other implication he might have sought to make was not there.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. I hope that Hansard will show, because I said it, that it was with a twinkle in my eye that I said that I think the noble Baroness knows my admiration for her. I followed it with an assurance that my fear was that we might lose her from her present post.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am very happy to continue in my present post. But, as some people say, you cannot go on and on. So we shall have to see what the future holds. I am a mortal being.
The important matter is that the foundation, as Crown Agents will become, should reflect the international character of the Crown Agents' activities and their

1443
social purpose and provide an enduring basis on which Crown Agents can expand their business. When one has something as good as Crown Agents, as noble Lords have said in the debate, it deserves to be applied to more countries and to more clients. That is why I have made clear that the foundation membership will consist of organisations active in international development to endorse the Crown Agents' purpose and principles. I mentioned the charities, private sector companies, professional trade organisations, other aid organisations and enduring institutions. That will bring together business ability with wide experience of aid and development which will benefit the Crown Agents of the future. But it is obviously too soon to announce names. Before vesting Crown Agents in the foundation, Ministers will wish to be satisfied that the initial members are appropriate. I sincerely hope that the initial members will have the benefit of the experience of many members of the existing Crown Agents board who have done so much to put this public sector company where it is at present—well and truly on the international map as one of the outstanding providers of goods.
Many comments made in the debate cannot be given a specific answer today, but there is one subject I must mention. Pensions were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. She pointed out that Ministers would not appoint the board members. Can she indicate who will appoint the board members?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, on the transfer to the foundation the board's membership will be decided by those who take shares in the foundation. It is a technical matter which I shall go into in greater detail in Committee. It is too early to give details now. I am determined that all the bodies I mentioned earlier and just now should be properly represented in the foundation, as well as the Crown Agents themselves, in order to carry on the business.
I was about to turn to pensions which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said were not included in the Bill. He will notice that Schedule 1 to the Bill provides for employment rights to transfer unchanged—an important point—and for the continuity of rights in the pension scheme. I sought to explain at the start of the debate what that would mean in practice for the staff. That is also a matter for detailed exchanges in Committee. Above all, however, it is a matter of the continuity of treatment of employment for pensions purposes and the safeguarding of the value of pensions for Crown Agents' staff. I am certain that that can be achieved without difficulty.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned redundancies; if not, I misunderstood him. I mentioned, but let me repeat, that there are no plans for redundancies as a result of the change of status. The Crown Agents have undergone successful major restructuring in recent years and have cut their costs. They have a workforce suitable for their business. The programme is essential for the viability of their business and for the future foundation. They have a good plan to
1444
implement that; they run a tight business and have never received a subsidy. They know full well that their current and future prosperity depends on satisfying the markets they serve. It is that ability to satisfy their clients at an acceptable margin that has put them so far ahead of all other procurement companies. Through the foundation's status they will be enabled to take advantage of the new opportunities and of the wider breadth of clients in the private sector.
We have had a short but important debate. I am glad that so much that is positive has been said about the Crown Agents. The Bill allows us to put in place a sound and sensible new structure for Crown Agents. It will be appropriate for the continuation of their traditional activities in which they have been engaged for 162 years and which they are keen to develop on behalf of their international clients in the future. I look forward to a constructive discussion on the provisions of the Bill in Committee. I am confident that we will give Crown Agents the new freedoms they require while retaining the high standards for which they are so widely respected. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

European Convergence Criteria: Deficit Assessment
5.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley) rose to move, That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96, as updated.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the second annual debate under Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. Section 5 is about the provision of information to the Commission on economic matters. It asks the Government to report to Parliament, for its approval, an assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position. It also states that this report shall form the basis of any submission to the Council and Commission in pursuit of their responsibilities under Articles 103 and 104C of the Maastricht Treaty. The Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96 provides this report.
In order that there should be no confusion, perhaps I might further clarify the wording of the Motion before us today and in particular the meaning of the phrase "as updated". As the House will no doubt recall, following the decision to leave the rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power at 8 per cent., my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a number of further fiscal measures on 8th December last year in order to ensure that government borrowing would continue to decline along the path set out in the November Budget. On 1st February, I announced to the House in a Written Answer that the Government had published a complete set of tables from the FSBR, revised to take account of the effect of these additional

1445
measures. These revised tables are also to be regarded as part of the report comprising Chapters 4,5 and 6 of the Red Book.
As the House will be aware, Articles 103 and 104C of the Treaty on European Union require the Government to supply information on the United Kingdom's economic and budgetary position in order to facilitate the various multilateral surveillance discussions that take place during the year. In order to comply with the requirements of Article 103(3) of the treaty, which requires member states to,
"forward information to the Commission about important measures taken by them in the field of their economic policy",
the Government will send to the Commission a copy of the FSBR together with the revised tables published on 1st February. Since the introduction of the unified Budget in November 1993 the FSBR now contains a full statement of changes to the Government's tax and spending plans as well as a description of the Government's general approach to the fiscal and monetary policy. As such, it is a document that clearly fulfils the requirements of Article 103(3).
In addition, the Government will also make a return which sets out published data on debt and deficit levels together with projections for 1994–95 and 1995–96 taken from Chapter 4 of the FSBR. That is in order to comply with the obligation that,
"Member States shall report their planned and actual deficits and the levels of their debt promptly and regularly to the Commission",
under the excessive deficit procedure which is set out in Article 104C of the treaty and Council Regulation 3605/93.
The House will therefore recognise that in fulfilling its obligations under the treaty, the Government are not supplying the Commission with unpublished or privileged information. The Government are simply continuing to co-operate in the long-established practice of a free exchange of information and ideas between ourselves and our partners in the Community. The reason that we are here today is not because of the controversial nature of the information required by the Commission, but because the Government remain committed to the undertaking given to this House by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to submit information to the Commission only after parliamentary approval had been secured.
Perhaps I might take a few minutes to remind the House of the key points of the medium-term outlook for the United Kingdom economy, which after all is the subject of this afternoon's debate. Of course, the background to last November's budget decisions was the excellent economic developments witnessed in the United Kingdom in 1994 and the tough decisions of the two 1993 Budgets which set public sector borrowing on a downward path.
One of the most striking developments since our debate last year has been the continuing fall in the number of people registered as unemployed. Since it began to fall in December 1992, unemployment has fallen by over 580,000 and the signs are that it will fall further in the coming months. Such a visible sign of the success of the Government's economic strategy is to be
1446
welcomed because of the direct effects it has on ordinary people's lives. It will not escape the attention of the noble Lords who took part in the debate last year that these figures are quite at odds with the doom and gloom predictions of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who spoke for the Opposition Front Bench on that occasion.
However, while the unemployment figures are encouraging, the Government remain concerned that the proportion of long-term unemployed—people who have been out of work for more than a year—remains too high. That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor introduced a package of measures specifically designed to assist that group of people in their efforts to find work. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, will find time in his speech to join me in congratulating my right honourable friend on his determination to tackle this major problem.
In 1994 output grew by some 3.8 per cent. (that is, very nearly 4 per cent.) with a strong export performance being the major contributory factor to this and to the marked improvement in the United Kingdom's balance of payments. In addition, throughout 1994 the Government achieved inflation levels the like of which we have not seen for a generation. Underlying inflation has been below 3 per cent. for 16 months, the longest such period since 1961. The prompt action taken by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in raising interest rates will help to ensure that the recent rises in inflation which reflect the effect of high commodity prices and increases in excise duties announced on 8th December will indeed be only temporary.
Thus, my right honourable friend's priority in framing his November Budget decisions was to ensure that the downward trend in the budget deficit continued, and hence that the recovery will be sustainable—not simply a repeat of the "boom-bust" experiences of the past.
While the faster than expected growth of 1994 has tended to bring down the budget deficit more rapidly than expected this time last year, lower than expected inflation would have tended to increase the deficit had the Government done nothing. Accordingly, the Government made substantial reductions in their cash spending plans to offset the effects of lower prices, leaving those plans broadly unchanged in real terms. As a result, the medium-term outlook for public finances is slightly more favourable than envisaged last year, with a return to budget balance now expected by 1998–99.
The FSBR which the Chancellor presented in November has been thoroughly debated in another place. I hope that the House will agree with me that the said assessment is a prudent and reasonable one and that the Government's economic policies mean that there is every chance of achieving sustained and non-inflationary growth into the medium term. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96, as updated. — (Lord Henley.)
5.32 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, this debate is to consider European convergence criteria—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, devoted only a few minutes at the beginning of his speech. I hope that when he comes to sum up he will have something more to say on the topic of the debate.
When we debated a year ago the equivalent report to that which we are considering today considerable displeasure was expressed on all sides of the House—by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, from the Government Benches; by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, from the Liberal Democrat Benches; and by myself from these Benches—that instead of the report that was required by the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Parliament was offered chapters of the Red Book—which is not the same thing at all.
The Red Book contains virtually no information on the social and environmental goals set out in Article 2 of the Maastricht Treaty which Section 5 of the Act calls for. Nor does it contain any information whatsoever on the comparative performance of the UK and other member states as required by Section 4 of the Act, to which Section 5 is clearly linked.
Last year the critics were ready to be indulgent. They accepted that this procedure was being invoked for the first time, and it was just nine months after the passage of the Act. Moreover, they realised that the debate took place just three months after the first consolidated Budget and conceded that the Government might be allowed a certain latitude in substituting the Red Book for the required report on that first occasion.
But it is clear today that we were too indulgent. Instead of responding to our legitimate concerns, the Government have simply, without explanation, totally ignored them. And indeed they have ignored the law of the land from which those concerns derived. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance this evening that this evasion of government responsibilities will not happen again.
Despite the Government's obvious unwillingness to obey the requirements of the Act, this debate comes at a propitious time. Never before have the convergence requirements of Stage 2 of economic and monetary union been such a hot topic in the saloon bar. But they are now. It is scarcely possible to buy a beer these days without being asked for an opinion on nominal and real convergence, or, more generally, on whether monetary union is a threat to the Royal Family and the Union Jack. I suppose that the Prime Minister, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Portillo deserve some credit for having excited interest in such an important, though admittedly abstruse, problem.
Unfortunately, the Red Book contains only a limited amount of the information which is sought by thinkers in the saloon bar. It deals with only two of the criteria which Article 103 of the treaty states are necessary,
"to ensure closer co-ordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of the economic performances of the Member States";
1448
namely, it deals with the maximum deficit and debt ratios demanded by Article 104c—and, even then, it deals with those two only in passing and, as I shall illustrate in a moment, imperfectly.
In part, the limited consideration of convergence criteria in this ersatz report is understandable. The Red Book is designed as a budgetary document, attuned to the British financial year and to British accounting standards. As I have complained already, it is not a convergence report and, to the extent that it tries to be one, the job is ill done.
For example, while the Red Book works on financial years, convergence criteria are defined in the treaty in calendar years. So despite the recalculation of the deficit GDP ratio and the government debt GDP ratio in terms recognised by the European system of accounts, the figures presented in the Red Book do not correspond to the convergence criteria that are demanded. That information for 1992 and 1993 only was contained in a CSO press release last week. I suppose that even this Government were too embarrassed to pretend that a press release is a report.
Careful reading between the Red Book lines produces some rather surprising snippets of information. For example, it is revealed that without any explanation whatsoever the Government have changed the fundamental objectives of their fiscal policy. In last year's Red Book, paragraph 2.08 stated that:
"The objective of the Government's fiscal policy is to bring the PSBR back towards balance over the medium term, and in particular to ensure that when the economy is on trend the public sector borrows no more than is required to finance its net capital spending".
This year, in paragraph 2.09 of the Red Book, we read:
"The Government's fiscal objective is to bring the PSBR back to balance over the medium term".
And that is all. There is no mention any more of financing capital spending by the public sector, which was previously a fundamental objective of fiscal policy. Where has it gone? And this is all the more surprising because Article 104c of the treaty requires that in considering the deficit convergence criteria,
"the Commission shall also take into account whether the government deficit exceeds Government investment expenditure".
In other words, the treaty expresses exactly the same concerns as are contained in last year's fiscal policy objective but are not in this year's.
This requires some explanation. Why have the Government changed the declared objective of fiscal policy? Why has the reference to public sector investment been dropped? These are important questions. But I have to admit they are still not the questions which are causing the stir in the saloon bar. What is exercising the public is, to put the matter simply: what is the point of all this; what do the Government believe that the convergence criteria are for?
Up to a few months ago we thought we knew the answer. The convergence criteria, as explained to this House on 24th February last year by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, (at col. 772) are the vital components of Stage 2 of the process which is designed to achieve

1449
monetary union. That is what the convergence criteria are for. But now we have Mr. Portillo telling us that monetary union would,
"mean giving up the government of the UK. No British government can give up the government of the UK. That's impossible".
The point has been reinforced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has declared:
"I don't want to see a single currency, period".
That seems clear enough—no single currency. But then why are we bothering with convergence criteria, since monetary union is what convergence criteria are for?
But then along comes the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He tells us that, in effect, Mr. Portillo does not have the faintest idea of what he is talking about and that:
"the idea that [a single currency] is in itself some threat to the nation state is wrong".
Moreover, he says:
"You cannot negotiate an opt-out and then suddenly decide that you did not want to join in any circumstances. That is inconsistent … How could the government that took Maastricht through Parliament say, 'Actually, we never wanted to join anyway'? It would make us look ridiculous".
Those are Mr. Clarke's words, not mine. Accordingly, he says, Britain "will certainly play a constructive part" in the preparations for monetary union. So there we are; the convergence criteria have a point after all. They are part of the constructive preparation for monetary union.
But then, just as the Chancellor has cleared things up, we have the Prime Minister assuming his now traditional role of spreading confusion where once clarity reigned. In his recent address to an organisation—which has for its title an oxymoron; namely, Conservative Way Forward—the Prime Minister first declared:
"We cannot accept that sterling should be part of a single currency in '96 or '97".
That was intriguing. To begin with, nobody has ever proposed that there should be a single currency in 1996, nobody at all. So the first part of the Prime Minister's declaration is, to say the least, a little odd. Whatever did he have in mind? Probably we shall never know.
Turning to the substance of the matter, the Prime Minister went on to tell us that there will be no single currency in 1997 because economic conditions will not be right:
"And, by right economic conditions, the Government does not only mean the Maastricht criteria — Ken Clarke will go into further detail on this".
So let us go back to the Chancellor for further detail. The Chancellor said:
"by the date from which a single currency could first be introduced"—
he realises that it is 1997 and not 1996, as the Prime Minister seems to think—
"only Britain, Germany and Luxembourg seem likely to satisfy the Maastricht criteria".
As to the extra conditions of which the Prime Minister spoke, they include:
"trade balances, the integration of markets, the development of unit labour costs, productivity growth and relative flexibility in labour markets".
1450
That is clear enough too. Clearly, the Chancellor is talking about real convergence. I am delighted to hear that he has caught up with Labour Party thinking, which was arguing well before the Inter-Governmental Conference at Maastricht that real convergence is a necessary condition for successful monetary union.
But what is unclear is whether the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are saying that the British economy is not ready for monetary union because it has failed in real convergence, productivity growth is too low in Britain or the British trade balance is too weak—or whether they are saying that the economies of the other states which have also achieved nominal convergence are not ready for monetary union because they have not achieved real convergence.
The second position does not seem to be credible. All things considered, it seems obvious that the real economies of Germany and Luxembourg are stronger than Britain's real economy. The only sense that can be made of the Chancellor's argument is that it is the Government's opinion that, although nominal convergence has been achieved, the real state of the British economy is too weak for monetary union. Why cannot they say so clearly? Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that that is exactly what the Chancellor meant.
That raises a further problem. Granted that a monetary union of just Britain, Luxembourg and Germany would look rather silly in 1997, what of 1998 and 1999? If the convergence criteria, nominal and real, are satisfied by a substantial group of countries which decide to form a monetary union and both nominal and real convergence criteria are satisfied by the UK economy, will Britain join the monetary union? I should be grateful if the noble Lord will answer that straightforward question, although I must say that I do not hold out any great hope of an unambiguous answer.
If the Government would not join when real and nominal convergence had both been achieved, what other criteria would the Government be applying to the choice to stay out? In a debate on convergence criteria surely we should know the actual criteria that the Government have in mind.
It is precisely the lack of clarity that is causing all the confusion and preventing the serious debate which the Chancellor called for in his 9th February speech. We are continually told that decisions can only be made three or four years hence. That is fine. But what are the convergence criteria that the Government are proposing on which that decision should be made? Surely the British people and the British Parliament deserve to know. If the Government are incapable of making clear those criteria through their own confusion and divisions, then no constructive debate can take place. Without a constructive debate, Britain's approach to the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference will be forged from the dogma, xenophobia and downright irrationality which have had the Prime Minister on the run for the past year or so. That will be a grave disservice to the future of our country and to the future of Europe.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I shall not delay your Lordships for many minutes. I admire the

1451
speech that has just been delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. But, as he himself confessed, he was an optimist in feeling that there was likely to be any serious reply from the Government in this very curious debate.
As has been said, this is the second annual debate under Section 5 of the 1993 European Communities (Amendment) Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, it is an opportunity for the Government to treat your Lordships' House more sensibly than they did last year. The Minister who opened the debate signally failed to do so.
The real purpose of the debate is for the Government to make an annual report in relation to the convergence criteria under the Maastricht Treaty. Instead, the Government dodge that important issue. They bury themselves and the House beneath the verbiage of the three general chapters of the Budget Red Book and a bland sentence in Chapter 1. This ought to have been a serious debate, which would respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on the economic aspects of the European Union, instead of which the Government have converted it into a minimalist account of their own Budget proposals.
A year ago the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, from the Government Benches, with all the authority that he brings to bear on these matters, made the modest and sensible suggestion that there should be a two- or three-page summary of the state of the financial relationships between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Government simply refuse to do that. It is as though they are still sulking over an amendment to the Maastricht Act which they never wanted in the first place. They try to palm off Parliament with a few pages of the Red Book and a Motion which, to be polite about it, is very ambiguously worded and could literally be taken to imply some approval for the Government's national budgetary policies.
If the Government had been prepared to provide what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, sought—a short, clear report on Britain's progress in achieving the Maastricht convergence criteria—it could have been the basis for a useful annual debate on the very important problems of moving toward economic and monetary union. There is a reason why the Government do not remotely attempt to do that. All that could be said in favour of the Minister's speech this evening is that it was just a little fuller and longer than the speech which was made in another place last night when introducing this Motion. The reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, set out in detail—and I shall not attempt to repeat it—is because the Government are so deeply divided over these issues that they again and again fail to do their duty to the nation by giving the kind of clear lead that the British people need in terms of Britain's role in the European Union.
We are an insular nation. For special geographical and historical reasons, it is difficult for us to make the imaginative leap to being full members of a European Union. It is the betrayal by this Government of the long-term interests of the British people in terms of the role that they should be playing in leadership in the European Union that is our major complaint. As it is,
1452
the real debate on these important issues will take place tomorrow in another place on a Motion from the official Opposition and next Wednesday in your Lordships' House, when my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead will propose a Motion that the Government should take a positive role of leadership in the approach to the Intergovernmental Conference. Rather than waste more time on this rather demeaning non-debate, I am prepared to wait until next Wednesday.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, we are indeed fortunate to have on our Benches such an eminent economist as my noble friend Lord Eatwell. However, it is not economists who keep the economy going, it is the industrial manager who pays the wages at the end of the week, the bank at the end of the month, the shareholders at the end of the year and the Inland Revenue most of the time. What is his or her view of this Motion? In answering that question perhaps I can fill in some of the detail my noble friend Lord Eatwell said had been omitted from the Red Book.
Industrial managers are interested in the practical aspect and their first concern must be the differences within the Government over Europe. That is because those differences are having an impact on the relationships laboriously and patiently built up since 1992, when Europe became a single market. There was a time when business relationships depended mainly on price. With the single market, business has become more competitive and, with competition, additional factors have become more and more important. Those relationships now depend on quality, reliability, co-operation in product development and, most importantly, co-operation in cutting costs and prices.
Many of those relationships are working successfully, and that is one reason why our export performance is better, as the Minister reminded us. However, the conflict over Europe within the Government is casting a shadow over those relationships and creating a feeling of uncertainty. The single market is the bedrock of those arrangements and talk of upsetting it is fatal to long-term alliances. There is no doubt that companies on the Continent are looking to replace their alliances with British firms. I hope the Minister understands that and understands how delicate those arrangements are, how easy they are to destroy and how difficult they are to rebuild. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when all the wrangling will stop.
Thanks to the hard work of building up those relationships, and helped by devaluation when coming out of the ERM, our exports are doing well. Indeed, we should compliment the DTI on the efforts it makes to encourage exports. But we are still heading for a current deficit of approximately £9 billion, the major part of which is in manufactured goods. Managers know that that can only be rectified by investment, training and innovation and good management practices. Sadly, Table 6A.3 shows that the budget for those activities in the DTI is going down after this current year. The spending on export credits is going up. I believe that

1453
that emphasis is wrong because there is still a lot more work to be done in improving the competitiveness of British industry, and that must come first.
The way the DTI spends its budget and the source of its money is confusing. For example, large sums are spent on grants for inward investment. Indeed, the Government trumpet those investments as an accolade from overseas companies for the Government's policies. It is part of the DTI's programme of spending to encourage that, and quite rightly too. But people in industry know why many companies invest here. They have been bought with large grants, the excellence of British workers and the fact that English is the European language that most business people from Asia can cope with best. Also, much of that inward investment is due to the hard work of many local development companies such as the Northern Development Corporation, which must have one of the best track records in Europe. Incidentally, many of them operate under a Labour administration. However, it is unclear whether the source of the money is the European Union, the DTI or the local authority.
Certainly those grants have helped to bring jobs, new technology, new standards and new ways of working which have been of great advantage to the competitiveness of British industry. But managers know that there is a downside. It is that we are helping those overseas companies to achieve their ambitions and strategy to become global players based on their strong home market. We should not forget that, in doing that, we may be denying valuable assistance to some UK companies which in turn could become global players.
I am not being critical; I am being realistic. The true measure of the success of the investment is the amount by which industry improves its performance. In the past 12 months we in this country have cut our unit labour costs by 1.5 per cent., which is quite a good result. Knowing that noble Lords opposite have an interest in the Social Chapter, I looked up the figure in Germany. In that country, with the help of the Social Chapter, they have over the past 12 months reduced their unit labour costs by 6 per cent.
DTI grants are a complex matter made yet more complicated by the tax regime, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the area of British corporate research and product development. Sadly, some 40 per cent. of that is now conducted abroad—and that after the Lords' Science and Technology Committee warned that the Inland Revenue should be careful not inadvertently to create incentives to place research and product development outside the UK. One of our major engineering companies recently located a product development project in Germany where there is government funding, and that in association with BMW. They also recently purchased a major US engineering company because that company obtains US government funding for product development. No wonder managers are confused.
For managers, the single most important factor in the DTI budget is the encouragement to invest. Investment in the last quarter was disappointing. The most recent figures look a little better, but not much. The DTI must
1454
spend time, money and effort on encouraging this. Investment in new plant and machinery is critical, and the single most important area for that is information technology.
I wish to make one final point. The collapse of Barings reminds industrial managers how they are controlled by the financial markets. Trading in financial markets, which produces very little, vastly overwhelms the trade in real goods and services. It is said that the total annual production of this country in goods and services is traded in just three days on the financial markets in London. Is that not a case of the tail wagging the dog? The Government see effective regulation as essential in achieving a level playing field. They may see it as a football pitch; the industrial manager sees it as a battlefield full of mines and hidden tank traps.
6 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the approach to this debate adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. It is quite clear that the debates which are to take place in another place tomorrow, and the debate to take place in your Lordships' House on 8th March, will be devoted to questions of considerable principle. They will involve, I hope, an unambiguous declaration as to precisely what the Government's policies are towards the Inter-Governmental Conference in 1996 and what proposals they intend to bring forward.
I propose to confine myself to the somewhat mundane task of dealing with the Motion on the Order Paper. It is unexciting and does not give me even a frisson of either amusement or despair. It merely asks us to approve,
"for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96, as updated".
We can soon do that. We can look first at the provisions with which we are supposed to comply and the response to them.
Section 5 of the Act reads:
"Before submitting the information required in implementing Article 103(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, Her Majesty's Government shall report to Parliament for its approval an assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals set out in Article 2, which report shall form the basis of any submission to the Council and Commission in pursuit of their responsibilities under Articles 103 and 104c."
Perhaps we should look at Article 2. I am sorry to be a little prosaic but, after all, the documents themselves should be referred to. I refer to an unauthorised copy of the treaty obtainable for £18.91, or 24 ecu. It is not authorised by the Commission but is reputed to be authentic. But the Government do not believe in issuing copies of the Treaty. Article 2 states:
"The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of

1455
employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States".
My noble friend Lord Eatwell was perfectly correct in what he said. The Government in simply producing Chapters 4, 5 and 6 and appendices, as updated, as an authentic response to the information that is supposed to be given have been perfectly correct. But, of course, the document that has been produced does not contain any of the vital information that is required in the event of any policy of economic cohesion being followed in respect of member states.
The Central Statistical Office produced a news release on 21st February that gives part of the information. It is even more up to date than the Red Book. It gives the cental government financial deficit as a percentage of GDP and central government gross debt at nominal value. This is good information, but I am a little mystified by what follows. It says that the estimates are based upon the European system of integrated accounts (ESA). This is somewhat new to me. The expression is referred to in the protocol which deals with excessive deficits.
Being a curious person in these matters, I tried to find out about the European system of integrated accounts. I have done so because the Commission, on receiving information from various states, including ourselves, as required by the articles concerned, ought to make comparisons among the figures submitted by member states. A European system of integrated accounts will enable the Commission to make that comparison. In the report that it is required to make to the Council of Ministers under the Treaty of Maastricht, it ought to be able to state those figures. I have made a diligent search. There is no record in the Library of the European system of integrated accounts. Nobody has ever heard of it. I made further inquiries of those whose business is closely associated with European affairs and could find not a word about it. There is no book or pamphlet upon it, nor does it appear on any computer.
In the absence of a European system of integrated accounts, to which our submissions are required to conform, I just wonder how the Commission can possibly arrive at any conclusions to forward to the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers is entrusted with the task of disciplining member states if they diverge too much from the targets set out in the protocol. It is required to make an appraisal, examine the accounts and ponder over them. It can even issue warnings to member states when they fall short on what the Council thinks they ought to be doing. By qualified majority, the Council can decide whether to admonish a member state and require it to conform to the categories. It can also fine a member state by qualified majority. In the absence of a European system of integrated accounts, how can the Commission be expected to make any valid judgment?
I do not wish to denigrate the abilities of members of the Commission. I have been carefully through the list of the members. Three of them have qualifications that border upon a knowledge of accountancy. Therefore, one will tend to trust them on such matters. I have also examined details of members of the Council. I ask
1456
myself who really is qualified to assess the reports that the Council receives. Who in the Council of Ministers, within the limited time at their disposal prior to passing round the port and cigars, is able to make some assessment of these matters? I do not speak insultingly. As Mark Anthony would say, they are all honourable men.
All of this paraphernalia of the reports is not for the purpose of our being able to make fundamental judgments of principle, which in another place will be made tomorrow and in your Lordships' House on 8th March. It is for the purpose of leading up to economic and monetary union and disciplining people into various stages of some kind of recognisable cohesion. If we are to have economic cohesion, let us by all means have it; but let us define what we want.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, came very nearly to it. Perhaps on 8th March he will expand on it with even greater precision. But, quite clearly, any assessment that does not deal with the prospect of unemployment is quite worthless. Unless economic cohesion makes some endeavour to eliminate the scourge of waste and misery, and even crime, then social cohesion is not worth looking at. The fact is that in Europe the record so far has not been particularly good—far worse than in Japan and the United States.
The other aspect of our affairs that needs some attention is our adverse balance of payments. I see from correspondence in the press, sometimes under the pen of the Foreign Secretary, that he appears to be satisfied with our balance of payments vis-à-vis in particular the EEC. He mentions record exports. There is one thing the Government never do. They never mention record imports. They have never recognised in the past 10 years that we have a trade deficit in total of some £70 billion, a very large proportion of it in Europe.
The progress towards the elimination over the medium and long-term of our trade deficit is also a matter of some importance. No economic assessment of the country is worth the paper that it is written on unless there is an assessment of investment that actually takes place within the United Kingdom by United Kingdom firms. There is Japanese investment in the United Kingdom and American investment in the United Kingdom. United Kingdom finance houses invest in America and Japan. But there is one place they do not invest in—the United Kingdom. Those are economic factors that have to be taken into account.
I have detained your Lordships for far too long, but I am bound to say that the Government on their own say-so certainly have not complied with the treaty. I have a certain sympathy for them. I am known to be somewhat mildly critical of certain aspects of the treaty, and indeed debated it when it was passed. I may be forgiven perhaps for holding true to my original beliefs that go back a long, long way and do not change because of any tactical political considerations. I hope therefore that your Lordships will forgive me for not going further on to matters of greater controversy. But I look forward to the time, either tomorrow in another place or on Wednesday 8th March in this place, when both parties can make absolutely clear and unequivocal statements as to whether and under what circumstances they are in

1457
favour of economic and monetary union and a single currency. If they can reply to that without hedging, without any ifs and buts, then the whole of the country will be very satisfied with them.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should start by apologising both to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who felt that the debate was something of a waste of time, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who felt that the debate lacked excitement and then proceeded to give us a little excitement over the 13 or 14 minutes of his very interesting speech. I feel that there is some contradiction between their desires, but I hope that he provided some amusement—if our function is to provide amusement—to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. He certainly raised issues of considerable interest for the House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, so helpfully pointed out, the Motion asks us to approve the Government's assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position for the purposes of Section 5. Section 5 is about the basis of material to be submitted to the Commission under the multilateral surveillance and excessive deficits procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said that he required a more exciting Motion. No doubt he will get a more exciting Motion tomorrow week and no doubt the noble Lord will be taking part in the debate. I can only say how sorry I am that it will not be my privilege either to open or to wind up for Her Majesty's Government on that occasion, but I am sure that my noble friend Lady Chalker is greatly looking forward to doing so. I am sure she will welcome the noble Lord's speech.
It follows, therefore, that the Motion is not about the principle of submitting information to the Commission; nor is it about the question of Brussels' sphere of influence, or the rights and wrongs of a single currency—though I shall have a word or two to say about that in due course—and the United Kingdom's participation in such an arrangement. The real subject matter of the Motion before us is the assessment of economic and budgetary prospects set out in the FSBR. That is what I set out to explain in my introductory remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was somewhat coy about giving quotations from his speech of last year when, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, he made some fairly gloomy and doomy predictions about the level of unemployment, the balance of trade, and so on. We had no mention of that this afternoon and no welcome for the very dramatically improved employment statistics that we have seen over the year or for the various measures introduced by my right honourable friend in the Budget which are designed to reduce long-term unemployment. We heard a great deal about what was being said in the saloon bar. The noble Lord has obviously moved up from the public bar. I dare say that this represents the degree of social mobility that we have seen under the years of Conservative Government. We heard a great deal about oxymorons allegedly uttered by my right honourable friend the
1458
Prime Minister. We then had what I thought was the best oxymoron of all—when the noble Lord talked about Labour Party thinking.
I should like to address the first and principal point raised by the noble Lord about the Red Book not being a satisfactory vehicle for the Section 5 report and his suggestion that we should produce a separate report. I do not believe there is a need for that. It would simply result in unnecessary duplication. It is the appropriate vehicle for a Section 5 report as it contains all the relevant information. Perhaps I may give one example. The noble Lord mentioned environmental considerations as referred to in Article 2. I can give an assurance that the Government recognise that environmental considerations need to be taken into account when shaping economic policy. Indeed, the Government are committed to using economic instruments to address environmental objectives where they are appropriate. A good example of that is the use of different rates of excise duty applied to leaded and unleaded petrol in successive Budgets. As the noble Lord will know, if I may give another example, the November Budget proposed a new landfill tax.
I should also like to say a few words about convergence—an issue which the noble Lord accused me of ducking in my opening speech; a charge which I would certainly regret. Thanks to the prudent policies of this Government the Budget deficit is now falling rapidly. We expect it to be below 3 per cent. by 1996. Our inflation, our interest rates and our general government debt burden are comfortably within the reference limits set out in the treaty and associated protocols. We have a strong interest in the economic stability and prosperity of our main trading partners. We therefore support policies for convergence on both low inflation and sound public finances.
The noble Lord moved on to ask whether we would give a categoric answer—yes or no—to the question "Shall we join the EMU and, if so, when shall we join it?" The noble Lord knows quite well what the answer is. No one need concern himself with this vital question at the moment. It is one very much for the future and one which in due course Parliament will have an opportunity to consider.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I do not want to have the noble Lord waste his own and the House's time by answering a question I did not ask. The question I asked was not whether we would enter a monetary union—I said that leaving that decision to later on was just fine and eminently sensible—but: what are the criteria that will be applied; how will the decision be made; and on what basis will it be made?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord's argument is specious nonsense. If one is defining the criteria precisely in the manner which the noble Lord wishes, then there is no need for the opt-out or opt-in negotiated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister some time ago. Obviously, these matters have to be judged in the context of the time when the decision has to be taken. We do not know in what context we shall be taking that decision. Therefore, to ask the question now would be to ask the wrong question.

1459
I wish briefly to touch on one or two points raised by other noble Lords. The noble Lords, Lord Haskel and Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to the trade deficit. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, referred to it a great deal in his speech last year, but he did not do so this year because he knows full well that the figures have and are improving quite considerably.
Perhaps I may make one or two points. We saw the first current account surplus since the first quarter of 1987 in the third quarter of last year. There was a current account surplus of about £0.8 billion. There was an improvement in both visible and invisible monthly balances. Perhaps I may now look to the future. The CBI monthly survey for February shows that export prospects are particularly encouraging with an expected export orders balance at the highest level ever recorded. Therefore, I hope that both noble Lords will accept that things have improved quite dramatically since last year.
I touch on another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, when he referred to inward investment. He was quite right to give a number of reasons why we have been so fortunate in receiving such a large share of inward investment from both the United States and Japan. The noble Lord gave a number of reasons for that and I agree with many of them. Particularly, I join with him in paying tribute to the workforce in this country.
I should like to add something which is important, but which the noble Lord did not add. The level of non-wage labour costs in this country is considerably lower than the levels of our European counterparts. That is very much the Government's doing and we have to thank them for that. One of the reasons why Japanese or American firms come here is not only because of the standard of our workforce but also because that workforce, while very often taking home as much as their German or French counterparts, costs the employer considerably less.
The noble Lords, Lord Haskel, and Lord Bruce of Donington, said that there has been insufficient investment. I can assure the noble Lords that since 1980 investment in the UK has been, on average, higher than among our European colleagues. That came after two decades where we were consistently low. Obviously there may be a long way to go, but we are catching up.
I believe that the Government have set out a clear framework for achieving their objectives of sustained growth and higher living standards based on sound public finances and permanently low inflation. It is a strategy which has already yielded significant rewards in 1993–94 in the shape of a strong and broadly-based recovery, falling unemployment and an inflation performance better than this country has seen for a generation. The action taken by my right honourable friend in his Budget reaffirms the Government's commitment to this strategy and sets us on course for sustained growth for many years to come. It is a highly promising outlook and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Coal Enterprise
6.23 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley Lord Mason of Barnsley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for the future of British Coal Enterprise.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that it is the will of the whole House and of all the political parties in this House, that there should be a continuation of the activities of British Coal Enterprise. Therefore, this is not a party political issue. The House will remember the interventions made by the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, during the course of the Coal Industry Bill, and the helpful interventions from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who sent a note giving his continuing support to British Coal Enterprise. That was backed by a colleague of his, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who, having worked in the Durham coalfield for some years, said, "I know the value of British Coal Enterprise".
Everyone who is conversant with the positive operations of BCE, especially those who reside in or even frequent coalfield communities, is aware of the splendid efforts they have made in the past 10 years to minimise the hardship in the wake of the pit closures.
Since British Coal Enterprise was established in 1984 it has carried out its mandate with vigour and great success. It was founded to provide practical and effective help to individuals and businesses in coalfield regions in order to stimulate job creation and economic regeneration. This organisation, which operates with the minimum of red tape and working in partnership with other like-minded organisations, has assisted in the creation of over 100,000 jobs in the past 10 years. Within that total, over 50,000 former British Coal mineworkers have been resettled into new employment.
In just 12 months from October 1993 to October 1994, British Coal Enterprise business loans helped to create 4,400 new jobs in 567 companies and over 14,000 miners were resettled under the Job and Career Change Scheme. It has invested more than £40 million in over 1.3 million square feet of workspace accommodation in our coalfield areas. Two-thirds of start-up businesses launched with British Coal Enterprise finance are still trading after five years, which is nearly twice the national average of start-ups. Only recently (last November) BCE launched a new enterprise fund to bridge the gap for coalfield-based companies wanting to expand. That was in response to findings by the Confederation of British Industry which revealed that small and medium-sized companies were falling into an investment trap because they could not tap reliable and accessible funding for expansion. This enterprise fund can now provide packaged finance of up to £1 million for projects that in turn will create permanent new jobs in coalfield areas.
I believe that British Coal Enterprise has proved to be highly successful and especially in cost-effective job creation. The Government, and particularly the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment, must surely have appreciated all the endeavours of British Coal Enterprise in job creation

1461
and in retraining programmes. Indeed, British Coal Enterprise is a major ally of these departments in the Government's regional activities. In that grand strategy it has built up a remarkably close co-operative relationship with regional government departments, with local authorities and with British Coal. In addition, it has built a marvellous bridge between British Coal Enterprise and the officials of the European Regional Development Fund—pleasingly, an excellent example of how European finance can be used in the most positive sense to aid our ailing coalfield regions.
So it is evident—and I emphasise this—that the regeneration of our coalfield communities is possible with the continuing aid, enterprise and specialist knowledge of the British Coal Enterprise coalfield teams. It is now a major bulwark in creating new enterprises and jobs. It is now too important and experienced as a national organisation to be kept in suspense about its longer-term future, especially as it has gained the undoubted respect of all those organisations which too are working desperately hard to bring new life and hope to our coalmining areas.
I believe that there will be a need for this drive for regeneration to continue for another 10 years and also at its present level. The drive by British Coal Enterprise in our coalfield communities is to establish more small and medium-sized businesses. A main reason is that collieries were located where the coal was and pit villages grew up around them. The colliery and its ancillary activities were the principal source of employment. Even today, the tradition in mining villages is mainly of working for an employer rather than being a self-employed entrepreneur. It is this particular need to continue to develop the enterprise culture and to assist in the creation of small businesses that distinguishes the high unemployment areas of the coalfields from the high unemployment areas in our large towns and cities.
Therefore, the role of British Coal Enterprise in stimulating economic regeneration by helping fledgeling companies is needed just as much today as when it was created 10 years ago. In this regard, BCE has assisted in the formation and growth of over 100 enterprise agencies in the coalfields, and has worked with and assisted the training and enterprise councils and now the growing networks of Business Links. I am pleased to inform the House that Barnsley was one of the first towns to have a Business Link to complement the activities of our very successful Business and Innovation Centre. Thanks to BCE investment, we now have three centres, in which there are 30 firms producing high-tech and innovative products—high-tech industries sprouting in a dying coalfield area. The TEC network and the Business Links have an enormous job to do in encouraging the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises, and BCE's 10 years of experience can assist them in their endeavours.
British Coal Enterprise's expertise has been recognised internationally. The Overseas Development Agency is making use of the skills that BCE has developed in identifying viable business projects. British Coal Enterprise has been contracted by the ODA to
1462
appraise bids by British businesses looking to invest in South Africa. British Coal Enterprise is also working on a prestigious project in Poland, looking to replicate BCE's experience in encouraging economic regeneration in two regions of that country.
Of the many suggestions that were made in the course of our debates about the future of British Coal Enterprise during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill, what comes to the fore is the idea of what might be called a "stand alone agency"—perhaps under a sponsorship umbrella provided by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment. There is already a very good co-operative working relationship, so why not on a national scale, working with the TECs and Business Links, covering training, job creation and the launching of small businesses? Or could not BCE, which, as we recognise is a subsidiary of the British Coal Corporation, become a company limited by guarantee, perhaps along the lines of the TECs and the Business Links and with directors drawn from the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, Business in the Community, local authorities and so on? That type of organisation would attract European money. The European Regional Development Fund's view is that the growth of small and medium enterprises should be vigorously pursued in the attack on regional unemployment. There are many initiatives in support of which Europe would match pound for pound with us.
There is obviously and quite distinctly a future for some years ahead for a British Coal Enterprise-type organisation, but it needs resources and an assurance of some stability. I hope that the Government can announce that they will continue financial support so that the chief executive, Phil Andrew, and his team can continue the excellent work of economic regeneration of the pit villages in all our coalfields.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, and to support his words of support for British Coal Enterprise. I can think of no one more suited than the noble Lord to have tabled this Unstarred Question. The noble Lord was a miner for many years and represented a mining constituency for many more years. Among other prestigious offices of state, he was Minister of Power at a time when I had much to do with him at the National Coal Board. What the noble Lord says on this issue, as on any connected with the coal industry, has to be taken seriously.
This subject was well aired during our debates on the Coal Industry Bill. The noble Lord referred to the amendment introduced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, not only very movingly, but also very effectively. It was my impression from the interventions on that occasion of noble Lords of all parties and the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that there was wholehearted support for the continuance of the work of British Coal Enterprise and an appreciation of what it had achieved.
There are two overriding reasons why the organisation should be maintained for many years ahead. First, there is the work it has achieved in the coalfield areas. As we have been reminded, BCE was

1463
set up in 1984. Since that date, it has created no fewer than 120,000 job opportunities. That in no way offsets the much greater number of mineworkers who are no longer at work but it goes a long way towards doing so. It is a remarkable achievement. It has been done, as the noble Lord pointed out, in close association with other organisations such as local authorities and TECs. It has been a model of its kind. The noble Lord is right in saying that although the coal industry has now been privatised—let us hope that there will be no further reduction in the now much attenuated coal industry—nonetheless there is much more work to be done in finding work for ex-miners. The noble Lord suggested a continuance period of at least 10 years. I fully concur with that. On those grounds alone, there is a very good reason for continuing BCE's work. It is unfinished work.
However, there are wider grounds for its continuance. British Coal Enterprise has created a new form of initiative for dealing with unemployment. It has created new jobs at a much lower cost than most other initiatives. So far as one can tell, BCE has created new jobs at a cost of something like £2,000 each compared with about £5,000 in other cases. It has done that through a combination of business funding, managed workspace and outplacement. It has made a unique contribution to sustained job creation at a time when unemployment remains one of the major problems facing us.
Thus, what is at issue is not simply continuing with British Coal Enterprise as a means of finding alternative jobs for displaced mineworkers, but, more importantly, for the model it has developed as an all-embracing regeneration vehicle in areas of unemployment. It is a model that is eminently transferable anywhere else in the country. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, pointed out, there has been wide interest overseas—in the countries of eastern Europe, in South Africa and elsewhere.
So it is very proper that we should be asking questions tonight about the future of the organisation. In our debates on the Coal Industry Bill, we were told that BCE would continue for an interim period. We are now coming to the end of a financial year. So what do the Government mean by an interim period? Does that include the next financial year, which is due to begin shortly, or the year after that as well? Perhaps we can have some definition of the phrase. Presumably, in the "interim period"—whatever its length—the present level of funding would be continued.
A more important question is: what about BCE's long-term future? Are the Government now not convinced that it is an organisation which on specific and more general grounds, should be continued? To dispose of it, dismember it, or let it be absorbed elsewhere would be something for which I do not think that any of us could easily forgive the Government. A very successful initiative has been taken. With little effort, the Government could enable it to continue. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, explained how that could be done. It could be converted into a company limited by guarantee, as are TECs and other similar organisations. It could be vested as a capital asset with the value of
1464
the work space it has created. I believe that that amounts to some £40 million. With that capital backing, it could easily raise the money necessary to continue to run its affairs. That would be £40 million very well employed and preferable to the alternative, which I presume would be disposing of the asset, selling it off or breaking it up and losing the whole initiative.
I hope that the Minister will tell us, first, of what the interim period consists and that the present level of funding will continue throughout that period, and secondly, that the Government have reached firm conclusions about how a magnificent initiative may be continued into the distant future.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, there will be disagreements during our discussions on this Question but there will be complete agreement on one aspect; that is, everyone acknowledges that British Coal Enterprise has achieved considerable success in meeting its objectives. It is not necessary for me to repeat the figures relating to that success. They have been stated many times in both Houses and we have heard them, very properly, this evening from my noble friend Lord Mason and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. When I said "everyone", that includes all the Ministers—and I look across the Chamber—who have been associated with the scheme.
In such circumstances, some would ask why there should be any change at all. The Government will say that change is necessary because of the privatisation of the British Coal Corporation. In itself that need not mean that there should be any fundamental change, but I suspect that the Government will make it a reason for a substantial change. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that aspect.
For the record, I hope that the Minister will confirm that the present arrangements will continue until March 1996, the date on which BCC will cease to exist. That date has been mentioned by Ministers on a number of occasions. If it is correct, will the Minister say whether the normal funding will apply for that period?
I believe that BCE has been successful largely because it is related specifically to the coal industry and coalfield areas. I say that because there is talk now that grants available under BCE may be subsumed under schemes not related especially to coalfield areas. As your Lordships will know, there are many agencies for job creation, agencies established by local authorities, by government departments, by voluntary bodies, by quangos and by others. If the work of BCE is transferred to those bodies, not only will there be a dispersal of the money but there will also be a widening of the objectives, which will inevitably affect the present aims of BCE.
BCE's funding comes principally from British Coal and hence, in effect, from the Government. If there is the kind of change which I have just mentioned, it would be completely unrealistic for the Government to say to any organisation that it supports, "Here is the grant but x pounds must be given to help create jobs in an area where pits have been closed". Whatever form

1465
the new structure may take, I hope that there will be no reduction in the overall grant. The closure of pits has accelerated in the past two years or so. Not only are thousands more former miners unemployed, but they are younger than ever before. They are men in their 20s, 30s and 40s who have a lifetime's work ahead of them. Older men have been out of the pits for a considerable time.
I recall an ominous response to me from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, during the debates on the Coal Industry Bill last year. I asked what would happen to capital receipts. The noble Lord said that he could not resist a smile for two reasons: first, because he did not know the answer to the question; but also,
"because I suspect that the heavy hand of the Treasury will do its work in this respect and it may be difficult to ring-fence or earmark specific receipts for specific areas".
I take that as a fairly strong hint as to what will happen or as to what certainly may happen.
If there are significant changes in the work of BCE, it will be a field day for the Treasury. BCE as we now know it will disappear. I should like to see any change kept to a minimum. Two months ago the Northern Development Company gave evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee. I need hardly say that the Northern region has been badly hit by pit closures and still has the highest rate of unemployment on mainland Britain. The Northern Development Company is unique in that it is a body formed by the northern region's local authorities, the northern TUC and the northern CBI. As such, it commands widespread respect in the regions.
In its evidence to the Select Committee it pays tribute to the work done by BCE, and in its summary the first point that it makes is:
"The key issue in regional policy is consistency".
Among other matters, that means that there should be little or no change affecting BCE. I quote again the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, during our debates on the Coal Industry Bill, who said:
"the regeneration of the coalfield areas is an avowed objective of government regional policy".
Those two quotations hang very closely together.
We have been told on a number of occasions that the Government are considering very carefully the future of BCE and that discussions are currently taking place. Will the Minister tell us who is being consulted? The views of many people and organisations should be sought if the consultations are to be genuine and effective. Therefore, it is important that the Minister should tell us this evening who is involved in those discussions.
Will the Minister bear in mind that this is not a party issue? I believe that that was one of the first points made by my noble friend Lord Mason. Support for the continuation of BCE crosses all parties and non-party people and organisations. Therefore, it is of the utmost significance that there should be full consultation. Employers, employees, local authorities and others all have their contributions to make to those discussions.
The main purpose of BCE is to assist former miners to find employment, and that includes helping former miners to be placed on suitable training courses. The
1466
Government constantly remind us of the importance of training and retraining. We heard that again in the Chamber today at Question Time. Therefore, I hope that they will acknowledge that function of BCE and thereby ensure that it will continue to fulfil that objective.
No one is better than the miner at adapting to new work. I believe that that is recognised generally. When I was a Member of another place, nothing gave me more satisfaction than hearing from employers time and time again in the new town situated in my former constituency how well former miners had adapted to their new work. Needless to say, training was crucial in the change and I suspect that the Government have underrated the role which BCE has played in that aspect of the work.
The Minister may know that I frequently raise the problem of long-term unemployment in the House. Any unemployment is terrible: but long-term unemployment is literally disastrous in its effect on families. I was, therefore, deeply concerned to learn of figures produced from a study by the Coalfield Communities Campaign recently which showed that 46 per cent. of redundant miners were still unemployed a year after the October 1992 pit closures.
Further evidence from Sheffield Hallam University shows that unemployment in former mining towns and villages is more than 26 per cent. compared to 15 per cent. nationally, and, indeed, is well over 30 per cent. in some communities. I do not know whether those figures are correct, but they are important. I suspect that they are accurate; but, if not, I should welcome the Minister's comments in his response.
The Government frequently talk about value for money. Let the Minister say tonight that they recognise that BCE has given superb value for money. It is a comparatively small amount of money. In 1993–94 it was a subsidy of £22 million and was given at a time when the Government have received many millions from the sale of the coal industry and when they have much more to come from the sale of British Coal land and other assets.
The Government would have the satisfaction of knowing that mining communities have overwhelming sympathy and support from the people of this country. How vividly we remember the marches and demonstrations by thousands of people, many in areas where people had never even seen a pit, when the President of the Board of Trade announced those massive pit closures.
The Government have in this matter a golden opportunity to express their appreciation of the massive contribution that the miners have made over the years to the economy of the country. I hope that they will grasp that opportunity with both hands.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, I should like to support the case put so forcefully by my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley for the retention of British Coal Enterprise. In some respects, like other speakers, I am surprised that it is necessary to raise the issue again with the

1467
Government. One would have thought that it would have been in their best interests to have cleared up the matter many months ago.
As far as I understand it, it is not for want of trying. The Coal Industry Bill was before both Houses of Parliament for many months and, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mason, questions about the future of British Coal Enterprise were posed time and time again. The coal industry is in private hands, the Coal Authority has been set up and British Coal's subsidiary, Coal Products, has been sold to the company management, yet the one organisation established by the industry to help to create jobs and viable enterprises in the devastated former coalfield areas appears—that is, unless the Minister surprises us tonight—to have no future.
My mind goes back to the establishment of British Steel Industries, an organisation that some would say was the model for BCE. British Steel Industries was established when the bulk of the steel industry was in public ownership and was formed to deal with the rundown and modernisation of that industry in the 1970s. I well remember some of the former chairmen of British Steel Industries; for example, Sir Charles Villiers, who brought great flair to the organisation because of his background as an industrialist and a merchant banker.
After the stock market flotation of British Steel, British Steel Industries was continued by the new British Steel Corporation. As far as I know, after many years of successful operation, it still continues. But the imperative for creating jobs and viable businesses in areas where basic industries like steel and coal have been run down rapidly is exactly the same. If it was right to set up British Steel Industries and continue it from the 1970s right through to the present day, why is it necessary to have so much doubt about the future of British Coal Enterprise? I hope that the Minister will comment on how it was possible to continue the job creating agency in one privatised industry but dither so long about whether it is possible to ensure the future of BCE.
The impressive record to date of British Coal Enterprise has been described most fully by my noble friends Lord Mason and Lord Dormand and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. There is no need for me at this hour to repeat all the facts that have been laid before the House. However, I have some personal experience of the operations of British Coal Enterprise and have seen for myself its activities in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. I very much admire BCE's achievements. I am the Chairman of the Chesterfield Area Regeneration Team, which operates under the acronym "Chart '99". It is a job that I undertake on a voluntary basis. Chart '99 is a joint private sector and public sector partnership. BCE is a member of that body and an important component of it. Chart '99 is charged with the task of helping to co-ordinate the economic reconstruction of north-eastern Derbyshire, where all the pits were closed following the announcement of the President of the Board of Trade in October 1992 and the White Paper which followed. Indeed, as a result of government policy, there is no pit left in Derbyshire now.
1468
However, it is no good harping on about the past; we have to face up to the position which exists at present. We in north-east Derbyshire have been successful in our bid through the single regeneration budget and in getting money from the European Union for flexible business support measures. We have established a company limited by guarantee through which all the monies are put and properly audited—the sort of solution recommended by my noble friends. I want to assure the Minister that we receive tremendous support from the government office in the East Midlands and from Mr. Mark Lanyon, the regional director and his staff.
However, I must say to the Minister that this is not the time to weaken the links in our organisations not only in north-east Derbyshire but elsewhere in the country. If BCE does not have a sound and secure future it will weaken and undermine our efforts and, indeed, all the efforts that are being made to bring about hope in the former coalfield community.
Therefore, in my judgment, British Coal Enterprise has a job to do for many years and deserves a clear and unqualified vote of confidence from the Government. I hope that the Minster will take the opportunity to say firmly and unequivocally that BCE has a very secure future.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend, Lord Mason of Barnsley, for tabling the Unstarred Question. I also congratulate him on the cogent way that he put the relevant points. Noble Lords are indebted to my noble friend, to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and to my noble friends Lord Dormand of Easington and Lord Varley for the points that they raised. They are all experienced in the area. Indeed, two of them were former Secretaries of State, one was the head of what was then the National Coal Board and another the Member of Parliament for Easington, in Durham, which is very much part of the mining world. I am afraid the only ignorant and inexperienced person taking part in the debate is me, but I shall do the best I can.
The main factual points have been made and there is no need for me to go over them again. All I wish to do is to underline some of the points of principle. In particular, I wish to emphasise what my noble friend Lord Varley said. I, too, am puzzled as to why we have to raise this matter. We debated it fully when we were discussing the coal privatisation Bill. An overwhelming case was made then for a continuation of British Coal Enterprise and also for an early decision and a considerable commitment. I find it odd that my noble friend Lord Mason is put to the trouble of having to raise this matter again when this is Government business and the Government ought by now to have made an announcement saying, "Yes, we are going to continue it on this basis and for this period of time".
Enterprises like British Coal Enterprise make perfectly good economic sense. We know there has to be industrial change. We may disagree about some aspects of it but we know if our economy is to be dynamic things have to change. But what is also clear is that we do not want people thrown on the scrap heap. If people have to change, we want them re-employed. If

1469
one big business—in this case coal—goes into decline, we want other businesses to start up. In this case what we have is a model of its kind. What we are talking about—I again echo the words of my noble friend Lord Varley—is a partnership between private enterprise and public money. I have believed in that almost all my life as an economist. I cannot remember the first time I ever thought about it, but I am certainly talking about 30 years ago. However, when one mentions that now it is called "new Labour"; but I have to say that as far as I am concerned it is very "old Labour" indeed. It is also common sense.
The other point I should like to make on this subject is that we should not be ideological in this respect; we should be pragmatic. We should ask what will be effective. I emphasise how much better it is for us to invest public money in enterprises of this kind—and also to preserve communities rather than to cause them to break up—than to pay out vast amounts of social security benefit. I think my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington said there would be antipathy from the Treasury, or he felt there was a Treasury angle to this. That puzzles me because the Treasury, certainly in my day, used to consist of fairly sensible people. I should have thought the Treasury would realise that it would be much better—certainly in the long run, but perhaps even in the short run—even in terms of public expenditure to put money into this kind of area rather than all the time just pay out, willy-nilly, social security benefits which are, in the end, nothing more than sticking plaster. They do not solve any problems; they just help people to get along.
The point about British Coal Enterprise is that it actually solves problems. That is well established. It has a proven record of success. We are not talking about something airy-fairy that we have never tried. This is something that we know we can do, and it works. I should add, too, that this kind of thing, as has been mentioned, is regarded as a model abroad. Our colleagues in the Union are learning from it, but it is also the approach that they themselves would use. They would certainly rather create jobs and create enterprise than pay out social security benefits. Again, they do that not on an ideological basis but because it works. I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that this is about as inexpensive a method of job creation as any that we know.
Wearing my economist's hat, I strongly believe that one should always take a hard-headed approach to topics of this kind. I do not believe in pouring out public money solely because the miners are deserving. I am not saying they are not deserving but one can take a hard-headed approach to this. What we need to do is to look at the costs and the benefits to determine whether there is a positive net gain. In this case it is clear. If the costs and benefits are calculated correctly in terms of the jobs created, the communities saved and the savings of social security benefits, I am quite clear that there is a net benefit. I am quite clear, again, that this cannot just be left to the market. The central point is the need for the kind of sophisticated joint approach that we have had up to now.
1470
I conclude with a simple request. I have to tell the Minister that I was certainly under the impression, both when we did the coal Bill and subsequently, that we were going to get an announcement. I have to say in all honesty—I was responsible for certain aspects of that matter from these Benches—that I would have expected a statement by now. I find it hard to imagine why we have not had one. I cannot think of any benefit to the Government from not making a statement. I can see enormous benefits to the coalfield communities from making a statement. To be perfectly honest, even if it were to be a negative statement I think many of us would rather have that than leave the thing hanging around. I implore the Minister to make an announcement now although I am not convinced that he is about to get up and say, "Yes, I can tell you it will last for 10 years". But the messages he must take back are, first of all, the messages of support. I am sure that if we were dealing with this matter in what is called "prime time" there would be other speakers, all of whom would support what has been said already. The Minister must take back the message that our desire is to have from the Government an early and full statement of support for British Coal Enterprise, support for the funding and support for a considerable period of time.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, for tabling this important Question about the future of British Coal Enterprise which touches on matters about which he has such great knowledge and concern. I am also grateful to the noble Lords who have brought with them their great expertise and experience and contributed to today's worthwhile and wide-ranging debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, modestly claimed that he was not as well informed as some of the other contributors to the debate. But I must begin by putting on record something which is obvious—I am probably the only non-participant in the coal privatisation debates in this House who is taking part in the debate today. As a northerner, and proud of it, I am obviously aware of the problems in the coalfields and of the sterling work that has been done in trying to make things better. Indeed, I did some of my political training in the area where the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, comes from. I do not suppose he voted for me but it would not have made any difference even if he had.
I wish to start by commending, as all other noble Lords have done, the work of British Coal Enterprise. Its efforts are well known and recognised and, as a number of noble Lords have said, not only in this country but also abroad. With the leave of the House, I do not propose to enter a debate about its achievements during the past 10 years other than to emphasise that there can be no doubt about the importance of British Coal Enterprise's contribution to economic regeneration in the coalfield communities and to the generation of work for those affected by the changes which have been taking place there. I must also record satisfaction that it has been perceived as doing such valuable work.

1471
The Government and British Coal have been exploring the future options for British Coal Enterprise for some considerable time. No final decisions have yet been taken. But obviously in the context of the privatisation of British Coal there is inevitably going to he some change, and we must be clear about that. However, equally, we must take forward the work that has been achieved and use the expertise that has been acquired.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for reminding the House that during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994 the Government indicated that British Coal Enterprise would be retained in its existing form throughout the transitional and immediate post-privatisation period. We have honoured that commitment and we also said in the summer that we hoped we would come forward with firm proposals by the end of the year. We do not feel we have yet reached that position.
However, as the House is already aware, funding has been agreed for British Coal Enterprise's job placement and training activities until March 1996. This should enable British Coal Enterprise to undertake the bulk of the remaining resettlement work for former British Coal workers. This service gives former miners and other British Coal employees access to a wide range of assistance, including career counselling, interview techniques and advice on retraining, pensions and financial advice. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, pointed out, unemployment is a scourge and long-term unemployment is the worst form of that scourge. We are all agreed that the work of British Coal Enterprise has been directed significantly at that particular problem. For the men and women affected by the contraction of the coal industry that work is vital for their future prospects. It is because the Government recognise the importance of that work that they have supplied the necessary funding.
In addition, the Government have now agreed to provide additional funds for BCE's workspace and venture capital activities to allow them to continue, again until the next financial year. That is a course of action which has been recommended by Mr. Neil Clarke, chairman of British Coal. It provides a further period for British Coal to identify future strategies for meeting the real needs of the coalfield communities over the longer term and avoids the risk of premature withdrawal from this important work.
There has been a tendency in our debate to present the future of British Coal Enterprise as a stark choice between, on the one hand, substantial on-going government support for self-standing British Coal Enterprise or, on the other, the break up and run-down of activities. That is an over-simplification of a complex issue. There is a wide range of possibilities which need consideration. These include various forms of partnership with other regeneration bodies at national or local level. Such options need thorough consideration before any firm decisions are taken. A continuation of funding into the next financial year provides an opportunity for this work to be undertaken properly.
1472
The comments of some noble Lords indicate that it is their view that the Government should accept full responsibility for the continuation of British Coal Enterprise in its present size and form. That option may appear to have some attractions but it is based on a misunderstanding. A significant part of the work of British Coal Enterprise is time limited. It is, of course, difficult to say precisely when the work of resettling and training former British Coal workers will have been completed. However, it is unlikely that there will be a significant amount of that work beyond March 1996. Needless to say, the resettlement skills developed by British Coal Enterprise may be applicable elsewhere. That possibility must be examined. But, inevitably, in a different context the nature of the work would change at least to some extent. Furthermore, job creation techniques, which achieved such success over the last decade, may not be the most appropriate for the next 10 years.
To give one example, British Coal Enterprise has built a substantial amount of managed workspace for businesses willing to operate in the coalfield areas. Demand for such workspace may not remain constant for the next 10 years. Clearly, therefore, we would not want to spend public funds on building further new space for it then to stand empty.
The nature of regeneration policy itself is evolving. We have seen the creation of the single regeneration budget. Does a centrally funded coalfield-wide regeneration body fit well with the current approach to regeneration, with its emphasis on local partnerships and a demarcation between fundholders and service providers? Furthermore, we must ensure that whatever takes place in the future is a responsible use of public money, where that is involved, and represents value to the taxpayer. And let us not forget that overall net assistance to British Coal Enterprise amounts to some £167 million-worth of public money. This all reinforces the need for a full and considered review of all the options before final decisions are taken.
Since the summer, British Coal has commissioned an independent consultant to advise, whose findings were received at the end of last year and have been made available to the Government. We have also discussed the future with British Coal and British Coal Enterprise. In addition, we have received a number of inquiries from the public and private sectors.
With the leave of the House, I should like to conclude this debate with an assurance on the part of Her Majesty's Government that we shall do all we can, as quickly as possible, to reach firm decisions, after consultation with British Coal and British Coal Enterprise itself, on the most suitable future for the enterprise. We shall then also consult more widely. We hope that we shall have identified and implemented the appropriate measures by the end of the next financial year. I hope that that answers the point of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
I am sure that the House understands that the Government acknowledge the important role played by British Coal Enterprise over the past decade in assisting regeneration of coalfield areas and helping those affected by the great changes that have taken place

1473
there. However, as I hope I have made clear, the future is not a simple choice between maintaining British Coal Enterprise as it is or running it down.
We must explore fully the relationship between British Coal Enterprise and other regeneration bodies in both the private and the public sectors. We must examine the scope for constructive partnership between them so that the regeneration work can be taken forward in a concerted, purposeful and cost-effective way.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. Before he concludes his speech, perhaps he can clarify a point which I raised. He mentioned the date of 1996. Will he say whether funding is to continue until March 1996, and whether it will be at the same level as in the past? I may have misunderstood him, but it is important that the matter is clarified.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my understanding is that the present funding is to be continued until the end of March 1996.
1474
We shall ensure that the strategy for the future is consistent with our current approach to regeneration policy in general.
The issues are complex. We must resist the temptation to jump to hasty and ill-founded conclusions. The issue is far too important for that. This evening's debate has been useful in highlighting a number of important points that will be the core issues under consideration as the review continues. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it is in the best interests of those in the coalfield communities, the employees of British Coal Enterprise and those who depend on it for their jobs, as well as for the country at large, that we get the answer right. We must not allow our own understandable impatience to prejudice the outcome.

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  ODA Aid to Poorest Countries
  ODA Aid to Poorest Countries
  Immigration Acts: Information to Detainees
  Immigration Acts: Information to Detainees
  Prisoners' Personal Files
  Prisoners' Personal Files
  Prisoners: Denial of Access to Television
  Prisoners: Denial of Access to Television
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Northern Ireland: Future Government
  Northern Ireland: Future Government
  European Commission: Delegated Powers of Implementation
  European Commission: Delegated Powers of Implementation
  Bethnal Green City Challenge: Grant
  Bethnal Green City Challenge: Grant