Sitting of 10 January 1995

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

    Unemployment
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the official numbers of (a) men and (b) women who were unemployed in the Greater London area as of 1 January 1995.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): The latest available figures show that, in November 1994, seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment in London stood at 307,800 for men and 106,800 for women. In each case, this represents a reduction of about 10 per cent. on a year ago.
    Mr. Cox: Whatever the Minister may say, is he aware that Greater London has one of the highest unemployment rates of any region in the United Kingdom and that vast numbers of people are seeking the few jobs that exist? Exactly what are Government policies for Greater London to create meaningful employment, in view of the countless thousands of jobs that have been lost year by year since 1979?
    Mr. Oppenheim: What the hon. Gentleman does not say is that many jobs in London were also lost in the
    2
    1970s. I think we all accept that unemployment in London is too high, as it is elsewhere in most parts of the developed western world. The only way to cure that is to improve the competitiveness and productivity of our economy, as we are doing, to produce more high-quality, better-paid jobs for our people.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend think that unemployment in Greater London would increase or be reduced if we adopted the social chapter, a national minimum wage or even clause IV, which seems to have some residual popularity in the Labour party?
    Mr. Oppenheim: Almost every survey from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund shows that a minimum wage has an adverse effect on job creation. If the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) is serious about that policy, I challenge her to tell the House at what level she would set a minimum wage and what she would do about the problem of differentials.
    Mr. Chidgey: Will the Minister confirm that surveys have shown that more than 80 per cent. of participants in workstart pilot schemes in London and elsewhere are likely to be offered permanent jobs? Does he agree that that is clear and concrete evidence of the need urgently to establish a working benefits transfer programme across the nation to get the long-term unemployed back into work?
    Mr. Oppenheim: One of the good features of what is happening in London is that the number of very long-term unemployed people has fallen by about one half since 1987. There are a number of reasons for that, but one of the main ones is the effect of the very well-targeted Government schemes to help the very long-term unemployed, who have particular problems, to get back into work.
    Mr. Waller: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of young people possess qualifications at the conclusion of youth training.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): Seventy-two per cent. of young people completing youth training gain a qualification or credit towards one.
    Mr. Waller: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging information. There is great variety in the level of qualifications that young people may obtain. Is my hon. Friend able to give more detailed data about the quality and level of qualifications that young people participating in youth training schemes can obtain?
    Mr. Paice: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is substantial evidence that the level of qualifications being achieved through youth training is increasing year by year. A greater proportion are achieving national vocational qualifications, NVQs, at levels 2, 3 and 4. In addition, I assure my hon. Friend that when modern apprenticeships are fully up and running, they will lead to another substantial jump in the levels achieved.
    Mr. Gerrard: I am sure that we would all welcome an increase in the number of people obtaining qualifications. However, in his answer the Minister did not quote the figures. One of the stated aims of youth training is to enable young people to obtain NVQs at level 2 or above. How many are attaining level 2 and how many are getting above that level?
    Mr. Paice: I do not have the precise figure, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman something much more significant: more than 50 per cent. of all those leaving youth training, at any time after starting it, obtain jobs. That is the major importance of youth training. Of those who complete the training, 67 per cent. obtain jobs. That is a clear indication that youth training works for the vast majority of young people, as shown by surveys of them.

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he expects the jobseeker's allowance will improve the support that the Government provide for unemployed people.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Portillo): The jobseeker's agreement will reflect the responsibilities of the Employment Service and of the person seeking work so as to focus efforts and incentives on getting back to work.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the question of limiting contributory benefits to six months is extremely important, and that the public want to know how both parties stand on it? Will he also confirm that, when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was asked about it three times on this morning's "Today" programme, she declined to say what her policy was?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thought it an extraordinary performance. The Opposition have based their criticism of the Jobseekers Bill on the
    4
    substitution of a six-month contributory period for a 12-month period, but if that is indeed the basis of their attack, surely they should be in a position to say that they would reverse the position if their party were in power. Three times the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) refused the opportunity to say that that was the case; three times I thought I heard a cock crow. It was just like yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition was bleating about the privatisation of railways. He would not say that he would renationalise them.
    Mr. Frank Field: Can the Secretary of State tell us how many people who pay for their national insurance benefits will be pushed on to means-tested benefits as a result of the Bill?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman knows that we must use our resources as best we can to focus benefit on those who need it most. He is one of the people who have made that point most consistently over the years. We need to focus the money that we have on helping those who are in most need, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us this afternoon.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: In view of the answer that he has just given, will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that as he seeks to simplify an individually tailored job search, he and his Department will not lose sight of the vital principle of continuing to provide the most where the need is greatest?
    Mr. Portillo: That should be an important principle and, indeed, I believe that hon. Members in all parties now agree on it. In future, we need to be able to provide a welfare state that we can afford and be proud of. That means that we must take care that the amount by which welfare state spending rises does not outstrip the economy's ability to pay. We shall have to make important choices, and direct benefits towards those who need them most. That is why it is so disappointing that the Commission on Social Justice, having agreed with the general proposition, has come up with proposals to raise public spending by £7 billion. That is no way forward for the welfare state, or for the Labour party.

    Training
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department is spending on training for work in 1994–95; and what the level of planned spending is in 1995–96 in today's prices.
    Mr. Portillo: The figures are £693 million this year, and £560 million next year in 1994–95 prices.
    Mr. Hughes: How does the Secretary of State justify cutting the training for work budget, when he knows very well that there is a skill shortage and business people are crying out for skilled workers? What does he say to the people in my area—more than 1,000—who will lose out because of his cuts?
    Mr. Portillo: I do not believe that people in the hon. Gentleman's area will lose out. I am making better use of public money, and the number of people who will obtain jobs from training for work will increase. It is estimated that 100,000 will obtain jobs this year, 104,000 next year and 116,000 the year after. I am providing a new range of opportunities for the long-term

    5
    unemployed. Training is not the only thing: jobs matter more to the long-term unemployed than training for the sake of training. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman should not forget that the amount of Government spending on training will always be dwarfed—and rightly so—by the £20 billion that industry spends on it.
    Mr. Barron: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, because of cuts in the training budget, training and enterprise councils and training providers do not know where they stand and that, consequently, employers cannot plan for the future? Is it not clear that our successful companies and successful competitive countries have built their economic efficiency by having minimum standards in training? Why do not the Government accept that the market alone cannot build economic efficiency and that they must take action to ensure that minimum standards are in place throughout the British economy? Why do we have a new study today saying that we are in a position of having to train people for the sake of it? Why do not the Government train people for jobs and train the economy to utilise those people?
    Mr. Portillo: It is rather silly to say that people do not know where they stand, when I have just given the figures and when I gave the figures at the time of the Budget. People know exactly where they stand. Before the Budget, they already knew that we had announced a £325 million programme to improve the competitiveness of this country under the competitiveness White Paper. At that time, one of the things that we introduced was the modern apprenticeship scheme, precisely to ensure that people could acquire the skills, under the training of an employer, that employers needed.
    The whole focus of the Government's policy is to ensure that employees' skills are the skills that business needs. The only people who can tell us what business needs are business people. That is why the main emphasis on training in the British economy will always be provided by industry and not by the Government. What the Government spend, however, must be spent well, and we will have more jobs for less money. The hon. Gentleman should be happy about that.

    Part-time Workers
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to grant rights to part-time workers in line with those enjoyed by full-time workers; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): My right hon. Friend announced on 20 December 1994 that, having carefully considered the position following the House of Lords judgment, the Government have decided to remove all hours of work thresholds from employment protection legislation. Appropriate regulations will shortly be laid before Parliament under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Minister now admit that that welcome change is long overdue and that it is only the first victory in Opposition Members' fight to guarantee minimum standards for people at work? Will she take this opportunity to congratulate the Equal Opportunities
    6
    Commission on bringing and winning this case and will she reassure the House that the Government have no intention of undermining or abolishing the commission for doing such a good job?
    Miss Widdecombe: There will be no victory whatever for part-time workers if, as a result of the ruling and of our implementation of it, part-time job opportunities decrease. That will be a loss for part-time workers. I hope that the hon. Lady will be as loud in her welcome for the measure if it proves to have that effect, because the electorate will then be able to understand exactly what they are in for if there is ever a Labour Government—which is unlikely.
    The Government have never had any plans to abolish the Equal Opportunities Commission. I gather that that is just another Labour party scare story and it goes to prove what I have long suspected: new Labour is simply a few superficial new statements and all the old immorality and scaring of the vulnerable.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that many mothers with school-age children greatly welcome part-time work? It enables them to work, to contribute to their household budget and to look after their children, which many of us think is a good idea. It also helps our manufacturing industry to produce more goods to sell as exports and in the home market.
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. It is precisely because Britain has a flexible labour market that it enjoys nearly one third of all part-time jobs in Europe. The vast majority of those jobs are of benefit to women. We know that 85 per cent. of people who work part time do not do so because they cannot find a full-time job. It is, therefore, our policies that have liberated women to enable them to combine work and family life and the Labour party's policies that would make it impossible for women to make that choice. Perhaps women will note that.
    Mr. McCartney: The Minister should be at the Dispatch Box apologising for another defeat in the United Kingdom courts. It is only the British Government who oppose decent minimum standards in the workplace. Employers and employees accept the need for those standards and it is only the Minister and her right hon. and hon. Friends who do not.
    Since the Government have accepted the House of Lords decision, will the Government be organising a national campaign among employers to distribute material and information packages to part-time workers to advise them of their rights in the workplace so that they can take advantage of the House of Lords ruling? What does the Minister say to the 3.7 million part-time women workers in this country who earn less than the Council of Europe decency threshold? Does she not believe that they are entitled to decent pay for a decent day's work?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I should apologise. The only apologies due are from the Labour party, for its total disregard for the creation of work opportunities, for its total disregard for the expansion of opportunities for women and for its total disregard for the effects of the flexibility of our labour market on the percentage of our work force. Will the Labour party congratulate us on the fact that

    7
    we have the third highest percentage of the work force in work? Will it congratulate us on having among the largest numbers of part-time opportunities and on the narrowing of the gap between the pay of women and men? Will the Labour party congratulate us on all that and apologise for its own stale, useless policies?
    Mr. Couchman: Has my hon. Friend's Department yet had time to research the number of opportunities for part-time work that may be lost as a result of this decision from Europe? Has she had time to consult the leaders of those sections of commerce and industry that have particularly high numbers of part-time workers, such as in shops and in the hotel and catering trade, in which I recently had an interest?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend has raised an extremely important point. We are cognisant of the likely adverse effects of this judgment. That is why we have made it clear that we will monitor those effects carefully; if we believe that such adverse effects are clearly discernible and are upheld, we will consider again whether we have objective justification for our previous policy.
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research his Department has commissioned about the consequences for British part-time workers of EU equality legislation.
    Miss Widdecombe: There is already a substantial body of international evidence that more regulated economies are less successful in creating job opportunities.
    Ms Quin: I, too, welcome the Government's climbdown on part-time workers. In light of the information that the Minister has just provided, will she tell me why Denmark and Holland both have a higher proportion of part-time workers than we have, yet they have higher levels of employment protection and accept the social chapter?
    Hon. Members: Answer that one.
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I will.
    Across Europe as a whole, there is a clear correlation between regulation and part-time job opportunities: the southern member states have high regulation and the least number of part-time jobs; Denmark and Britain, which have the most liberal regimes for part-time workers, have the highest. If the hon. Lady had done her homework, she would know that in Holland that is a result of the fact that the benefits system allows benefits to be claimed, particularly in respect of invalidity, when part-time work is undertaken. Regulation of the labour market right across Europe, as has been acknowledged by a study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has an adverse impact on jobs, not a favourable one.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I very much regret the action that the Government have been forced to take and recognise what my hon. Friend the Minister has said in that regulation is the enemy of jobs, both part time and full time. Is my hon. Friend aware that a company in the manufacturing sector in my constituency which employs 150 people told me only this week that, as a result of the imposition of EC regulations, its costs
    8
    have increased by £33,000 a year, thus making it much more difficult to compete in export markets? Is my hon. Friend continuing to give evidence to the deregulation unit to ensure that that sort of nonsensical and unnecessary regulation does not happen?
    Miss Widdecombe: I can also give clear confirmation that, wherever possible, we shall resist any unnecessary imposition of social legislation coming from Europe. Indeed, it is precisely because we are doing so that unemployment is falling faster in Britain than in other EC countries. It is precisely because we are resisting that we have such a buoyant economy and, in light of the period that we have been through, British businesses and workers should now think very carefully before consigning their future to the all-embracing social chapter policies proposed by the Opposition.

    Modern Apprenticeship Scheme
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people per year are expected to gain an NVQ3 qualification through the new modern apprenticeship scheme.
    Mr. Paice: If employers respond as we expect, around 70,000 young people each year in England will gain a national vocational qualification level 3 or higher through modern apprenticeships and accelerated modern apprenticeships.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that modern apprenticeship schemes are just what many bright young people and, indeed, employers need today? Will he commend the training and enterprise councils that have made progress in that direction with such success and will he redouble his efforts to bring together employers and TECs in areas where progress has not been made so that the success can be consolidated?
    Mr. Paice: Yes, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend speaks from a position of great advantage because HAWTEC, the TEC in his area, not only was one of the first to receive a three-year licence but is one of those closely involved in the development of a prototype modern apprenticeship in retail management. That is a great step forward and an example that should be followed by all TECs. We are doing everything we can to ensure that the prototypes will be increased by 42 extra sectors this autumn and that there will be plenty of opportunities for everyone who wishes to follow a modern apprenticeship in the future.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the Minister realise that south London has experienced not only the bankruptcy of skill centres but the insolvency of its training and enterprise council and cuts? What effect will that have on young people's training and what example are the Government setting to those young people in how they run their affairs?
    Mr. Paice: The decision to bring in the receivers to the South Thames TEC was regrettable, but necessary to protect taxpayers and trainees. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we have already given a commitment that we shall do everything that we can to ensure that training programmes are not interrupted and that training providers are guaranteed funding for the

    9
    next three months for programmes that they have already contracted. We are discussing with local authorities and others how the provision of training in that area will continue after 1 April. The hon. Gentleman should not expect any diminution in the training effort in the South Thames area, in any other part of London or in the country as a whole.

    Statutory Minimum Wage
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what independent research he has commissioned into the impact within the EC on employment from a statutory minimum wage.
    Mr. Oppenheim: There is substantial evidence from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other sources that minimum wages have destroyed jobs in Europe.
    Mr. Madden: As the Secretary of State likes to pose as a Tory thinker who never misses an opportunity to attack the statutory minimum wage and its impact on employment, is it not extraordinary that lie is so reluctant to commission an independent study so that we can test that argument objectively? Could it be that he is anxious to ensure that facts do not spoil his pseudo-intellectual political rant?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I could point the hon. Gentleman to any number of independent studies, ranging from that of the International Monetary Fund to the European Commission's White Paper on competitiveness, which point to the minimum wage as a destroyer of jobs in Europe. However, we do not have to look to independent surveys; we have only to look at the facts. Youth unemployment in France is twice that of the United Kingdom and in Spain youth unemployment is three times our level. Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants for Britain?
    Mr. Ottaway: It is not so much the existence of the minimum wage that destroys jobs, but the level at which it is set. Is not the problem with the Opposition's proposals that they always bounce round a figure that is far too high?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right. I find it absolutely astonishing that the Opposition spokeswoman can come to the House proposing a policy of a minimum wage without telling the House the level at which it would be introduced and what the Opposition would do about differentials. Until she is able to do that, the minimum wage policy will be nothing more than a cynical ploy designed to trick the less well-off into believing that there is some easy, pat way to raise living standards with no cost to the economy. There is not.
    Ms Harman: Why has the Secretary of State for Employment ducked out of answering the question asked today by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) about the minimum wage? Is it because he was overruled by the Cabinet when it decided to keep the agricultural wages board? Does not that reluctant decision by the Government vindicate what Labour has said all
    10
    along about the minimum wage—that it protects good employers from being undercut by the bad, that it ensures fairness at work and that it does not cost jobs?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The only person who is ducking questions is the hon. Lady. She had a perfect opportunity just now to tell the House the level at which she would introduce the minimum wage and what she would do about the differentials. The House should not take my word for the problems that the minimum wage would cause. It should take the words of Lord Healey. who said recently:
    "don't kid yourselves. The minimum wage is something on which unions will build differentials … therefore, the minimum wage becomes a floor on which to build a new tower."
    Lord Healey said that two months ago. He can see sense; why cannot the hon. Lady?
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend try some independent research by agreeing with the unions to halve the rate of pay for 16-year-olds in a Government Department—perhaps his own—to see whether, as the pay is halved from £90, the number of 16-year-olds employed doubles, or increases even further?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I am not sure that that is necessarily a course that we would like to follow. I say to my hon. Friend and to Opposition Members that, of course, all of us, on both sides of the House, would like people, especially at the low end, to be better paid. The question is how to achieve that. We say that we should invest in education, invest in skills and make people more productive so that we can afford to pay them more in a sustainable way. The Opposition say that we should pay them more regardless of productivity. That would result in low pay being replaced by no pay.

    Long-term Unemployment
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline his proposals to assist long-term unemployed people.
    Mr. Portillo: We are pursuing a number of programmes that make it more worth while for people who have been unemployed for a long time to take a job without fear of being worse off and we are providing employers with financial incentives to give such people jobs.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is the Secretary of State aware that in an area such as Easter Ross in the Scottish highlands, an area of concern to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), where there is not much market access to a diversity of jobs because of the concentration of dependence on oil and oil-related industries, long-term unemployment is now very deep rooted? Many people there are finding it impossible to be competitive in the labour market or to enjoy access to the labour market. How can the Secretary of State believe that in that increasingly hopeless situation for many people, the jobseeker's allowance will be of any benefit?
    Mr. Portillo: The position is not, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, increasingly hopeless. Even in his own constituency, unemployment has come down by 10 per cent. since December 1992. That underlines the point that jobs will be created in a sustained period of recovery;

    11
    that involves the Government pursuing policies of low inflation, controlling their spending and controlling their borrowing.
    I have been concentrating on helping people over what I call the job hump—helping them to see that when they go into a job after a long period of being unemployed, they will be better off. That is why, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget that people's housing benefit payments will be sustained for four weeks when they take a job and that is why we made it more attractive to employers to take on people who are long-term unemployed by giving them a one-year holiday on their national insurance contributions if they take on people who have been out of a job for two years or more.
    Mr. Forman: Has my right hon. Friend assessed the difference between the proportion of long-term unemployed at the end of the recent recession, from which we have now emerged, and the proportion of long-term unemployed at the end of the recession in the early 1980s? Can any lessons be drawn from those two experiences?
    Mr. Portillo: Figures obviously change from time to time and I am slightly cautious about drawing too much of a lesson from the figures to which my hon. Friend refers. I draw a lesson from the fact that long-term unemployment in this country is about 35 per cent. of the total and that the average for Europe is about 42 per cent. of the total. I therefore believe that, as in the other things that we have been discussing today, greater labour-market flexibility and active measures taken by the Employment Service directed at the long-term unemployed not only help to bring down unemployment generally, but ensure that long-term unemployment is a lesser proportion of the total unemployment in this country than elsewhere.

    Full-time Workers
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the change in the number of full-time workers in employment from February 1993 to the present.
    Mr. Oppenheim: The number of full-time workers in Great Britain rose by 29,000 between the winter 1992 and summer 1994 labour force surveys.
    Mr. Hain: Can the Minister confirm that according to the labour force survey and other statistics provided by his Department, the fall in full-time unemployment—admirable of course—between March 1993 and September 1994 of 200,000 was matched by a rise in full-time employment of just 30,000? In other words, 170,000 full-time workers have disappeared from the dole queues into the twilight world of, at best, full-time work, or casual or part-time work; or just as likely on to income support and sickness benefit? Why does not he admit that the Government's employment policy is a total fraud?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I have to say that I am with the Trades Union Congress on this. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are two different measures of unemployment and employment. One is the claimant count, the other is the International Labour Organisation international standard labour force survey, which the
    12
    TUC said recently was "wholly reliable". If there were some great fiddling of the figures, one would think that the labour force survey total would differ significantly from the claimant count total. But the figures are almost exactly the same, which blows a huge hole in the Opposition's argument that the claimant figures are a fiddle.

    Equal Opportunities Commission
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
    Miss Widdecombe: As I said earlier when the question was somewhat pre-empted, the Government have no plans to seek changes to the legislation which defines the Equal Opportunities Commission's responsibilities and duties.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister congratulate the Equal Opportunities Commission on its support of part-time workers and of minimum standards? Will he comment on the leaked memo which implies that the Equal Opportunities Commission is a rent-a-quote organisation and that it could be merged with other equality agencies? Does not she realise that if that downgrading were to happen, the Minister and the Government would be seen as being malicious and spiteful towards an independent organisation which supports Labour's minimum wage and Labour's fight for decent standards for all workers?
    Miss Widdecombe: Having made it very clear that those changes are not going to take place, I do not think that it is a question of whether the Government are malicious and spiteful, but that there is rather a lot of malice and spite in deliberately trying to muddy waters which have been made quite clear—there are no such changes. If the hon. Lady relied on statements, questions and good homework, instead of merely on leaked, stolen documents, she might do rather better.
    Mr. John Townend: Will my hon. Friend consider that if we really are the Government of deregulation, it is about time that we abolished the Equal Opportunities Commission? It has done any work which was necessary; it is now a waste of taxpayers' money.
    Miss Widdecombe: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier. We have no plans to change the terms on which the EOC carries out its statutory responsibilities. Despite some of the actions of the EOC and some of its rulings, it is still a fact that the United Kingdom is the only European Union country which has a lower unemployment rate for women than for men.
    That is a solid achievement and is worth all the rhetoric in the world about minimum wages and good standards. The real standard that matters is opportunity. We are the Government of opportunity for women; the Labour party is not. All that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) could talk about on the subject of the Equal Opportunities Commission was simply a load of speculation. That means that the Labour party does not have any policies for women either.

    Unemployment
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of those currently unemployed have been out of work longer than one year.
    Miss Widdecombe: The latest available figures show that in October 1994 there were 956,475 claimants who had been unemployed for over a year. That represents a fall of 11 per cent. compared with 12 months ago.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that a good many of the long-term unemployed never intend to work again, ever? They are, in my words, layabouts—[Interruption.] Well, they work in the black economy and they draw benefit. People want to know when we are going to put a stop to that. I want to know when those long-term unemployed layabouts are going to have to do a job, day in, day out, in the community before they receive any taxpayers' money at all.
    Miss Widdecombe: The long-term unemployed who are genuinely seeking work are being helped, and will continue to be helped, by a wide range of Government initiatives including those expansions of initiatives that were announced in the Budget. For those unemployed, whether long term or short term, who are not actively seeking work, there are proposals, which will shortly be before the House, for the jobseeker's allowance which I hope will go some way towards satisfying my hon. Friend's worries.
    Mr. O'Hara: May I give the Minister a further opportunity to answer a straight question? How, on the measures that she has accepted, can she explain the difference between a drop of 200,000 in unemployed claimants and a rise of 30,000 in those employed?
    Miss Widdecombe: If only Opposition Members would learn that unemployment does not work on stock for stock; there are flows as well. If only the hon. Gentleman would learn how unemployment works, he might be able to answer his own question. One never knows.

    Training
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department is spending on training for work in 1994–95; and what the level of planned spending is in 1995–96 in today's prices.
    Mr. Paice: The figures for England were given earlier to the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Connarty: Is the Minister willing to admit that the cut which was published in his own plans of 24.5 per cent. in training for work is only part of the overall cut, between now and the end of the published plans, of 12 per cent. or £245 million in education and training in the Department of Employment's budget? Is the Minister aware of the contradiction revealed in the latest skills survey—"Skill Needs in Britain—1994"—which shows that 11 per cent. of vacancies in Britain are difficult to fill and that that figure has risen from 5 per cent. in 1992 and
    14
    6 per cent. in 1993? The contradiction is that the Government are not serving the country's employers or the country's training needs.
    Mr. Paice: This Government believe in value for money. Whatever the problem, the Opposition want to throw more money at it. The Government's policy on training is quite clear: we are looking for better, higher outputs for less money. We will be saving the taxpayer £450 million and we will be getting more people back to work. That is in the best interests of the unemployed and of the taxpayer. That is what the Government believe is right and that obviously contradicts what the Opposition think.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment in the north-west changed during the period 1979 to 1984; and by how much it changed during the period 1974 to 1979.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Between 1974 and 1979, claimant unemployment in the north-west increased at a rate of 1,175 per month, nearly double the increase over the period under this Government from 1979 to 1994.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the north-west can look forward to a future of falling unemployment under this Government's policies and that we should not cease to challenge socialist policies which saw unemployment in the north-west more than double in the four years from 1974 to 1979?
    Mr. Oppenheim: It is very good news that unemployment is now falling in the north-west. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Just as unemployment doubled under Labour in the 1970s, it would go up again if Labour was to impose its ludicrous minimum wage in respect of which the Opposition spokeswoman cannot even come to the House to tell us at what rate it would be introduced and what she would do about differentials.
    The minimum wage is a con on the less well-off to try to trick them into thinking that there is an easy, pat, quick-fix solution to low pay. There is not. The minimum wage would replace low pay with no pay.
    Mr. Flynn: Has the Minister noticed that Britain's second highest-paid civil servant, the head of the Central Statistical Office, said about the Government's employment and unemployment figures that nobody—nobody—in the country believes them? Why is that?
    Mr. Oppenheim: If the hon. Gentleman had read Mr. McLennan's remarks in full, he would have read that the gentleman in question said that he had full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the claimant count figures. The Trades Union Congress recently said exactly the same thing. I agree, though, that we would like more attention paid to the labour force survey. That is why we have increased its frequency from annually to quarterly. It is interesting that the labour force survey unemployment total is almost exactly the same as the claimant count total, which shows that there can be no fiddle in the claimant count total.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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.
    Ms Corston: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is totally unacceptable for the Government or for any individual Minister to hide behind Britain's laudable ban of the veal crate system while turning a blind eye to the annual export of hundreds of thousands of calves, knowing full well that they will spend their short lives in wooden boxes in the dark?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done more than most people in this country to try to change the laws right across Europe to deal with veal. Both he and I would like to see less trade in live animals and more in carcase form. But, as the hon. Lady will know, there is a long tradition of Agriculture Ministers having farming interests, which they rightly stand back from when they are Agriculture Ministers. What the hon. Lady did not mention was that my right hon. Friend's farm is managed on a day-to-day basis by a farm management company headed by a Labour Front-Bench spokesman in the House of Lords.
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members want to wish him and his family a very happy and prosperous new year? Is it the Conservative party that wants to put VAT on school fees, split up the United Kingdom with devolution plans, or nationalise utilities under clause IV, or is it the lot opposite, led by Bambi, with his 60 quid-a-week haircut, who sends his son to a grant-maintained school when his party want to abolish them? Is there anything more dishonourable than that? I do not think so. [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I can tell, Madam Speaker, that this is going to be an uncontroversial Session of Parliament. My hon. Friend leads us in that direction. Clearly, the policy-making activities of the principal opposition party are running into some difficulties at the moment. I do not think that many people are quite sure who these days is forming Labour policy on education, health, energy and other subjects. The closer one examines Labour policy, the more it falls apart. My hon. Friend should not object to that; he should lie back and enjoy it.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that any attempt by the rail regulator under privatisation to cut through-ticketing, with the result that people may have
    16
    to travel 50 miles to get a train ticket, would be utterly unacceptable, and will he, if necessary, intervene to stop such an attempt?
    The Prime Minister: As the Secretary of State for Transport said the other day, and as I am happy to reaffirm, we have repeatedly made clear our commitment to maintaining through-ticketing. Through-ticketing should continue to be available from a wide range of outlets, to meet passengers' needs. The regulator, like other regulators, is by law independent, but the Secretary of State has powers to give him guidance under the Railways Act 1993. The regulator is bound to take account of such guidance, but at this stage, prior to the issue of a consultation document, the question of guidance is entirely premature.
    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister has no power to prevent the regulator from introducing such an arrangement—what he has described is merely guidance—will he undertake that if the regulator makes such proposals he will direct the franchising director not to offer a franchise to any of the 25 companies unless it offers a complete through-ticket service?
    The Prime Minister: As I have told the right hon. Gentleman, I am at least as committed to through-ticketing as he is. He is trying yet again to have it both ways. The Labour party complains routinely that the Government should have more powers over the regulator, but if we had such direct powers it would complain about Government interference, as it did during the rail strike.
    Mr. Blair: I shall tell the Government what we complain of—the railway system being sold off instead of being used as a proper public service. If the Prime Minister cannot guarantee through-ticketing, and if he is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a privatisation that people do not want, when the public rightly fear that it will be used to produce the same pay excesses as exist in other privatised utilities, why does he not accept, as this country does, that our party's campaign to halt the privatisation is right, and that the railways should be retained as a proper integrated public service?
    The Prime Minister: If privatisation is as bad as the right hon. Gentleman says, why will he not commit himself to renationalisation of British Rail? After 50 years of nationalisation, is he really satisfied with the present rail service? Can he name any time at which the service was satisfactory? If not, why does he oppose changes that will make it satisfactory? The Labour party has opposed every privatisation. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman what Labour said about other privatisations. It said that British Airways would be
    "the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all".
    British Airways is the most efficient airline in the world. I have a stack of similar quotations for the right hon. Gentleman, about every privatisation. Privatisation works; we are privatising rail and there will be a better service.
    Mr. Dover: What hope can the Prime Minister give to the oppressed people of Chechnya, in view of the determination of President Dudayev and of the Chechnen people?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone doubts that a tragedy has been taking place in Chechnya in recent

    17
    weeks. Chechnya is indisputably part of the Russian Federation, and the long-standing revolt that has taken place there under local leadership has posed serious problems. I share my hon. Friend's implicit concern about the way in which the problem has been handled in recent weeks and about the bombardment that has led to so many civilian casualties. As with other allies, we have expressed our concerns directly to the Russian Government. Most recently, the Foreign Secretary saw the Russian ambassador this morning.
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beith: Under this Government, can any Cabinet Minister claim that he is responsible only for the policy of his Department and not for its operational failings, however many there are and however many have been preceded by warnings from those in a position to know that things are going wrong? Is not good government about running things properly? What will happen to Ministers who have proved not to have done that?
    The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State concerned is responsible for the policy of a Department, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear in the illustration to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Operational matters fall into a different category, as has been the case for many years. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to recent gaol escapes, and he will know that during the past 20 or 30 years there have been a large number of incidents under Governments of both major parties, and also a Government involving the Liberal party. Such incidents have occurred without making necessary the resignation of the appropriate Secretary of State.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townsend: Recalling that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself voted for the Second Reading of the War Crimes Act 1991, and noting that the funding for the special war crimes unit at New Scotland Yard is to be wound up at the end of March, will my right hon. Friend consider drawing stumps on the whole grisly business? It must be perfectly obvious that not a single person will ever be successfully prosecuted under that expensive Act.
    The Prime Minister: It was recognised from the outset that the police investigations into serious crimes which were committed a long time ago would be difficult. I understand that the police investigations will be completed by the end of March this year. The decision therefore on whether or not to prosecute will be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who will be advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I prefer to await that advice before saying more.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the matter of war crimes, we are talking about personal involvement in mass murder? As the House has repeatedly
    18
    approved the principle in the War Crimes Act, will he confirm that if—but only if—there is sufficient evidence against individuals of complicity in that murder, they will be prosecuted no matter how long they have managed to evade justice?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that was implicit in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) a moment ago, when I made clear that a decision on whether or not to prosecute will not be a political decision. The decision will be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General upon the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a full range of educational opportunity is of the utmost importance to the citizens of this country? Is not it clear from the utterances of the past few days that the old, nasty Labour party is waiting to leap out, given half a chance?
    The Prime Minister: I am not altogether sure that it has not already leapt out during the past few days. We have seen the quickest U-turn in history about a tax on school fees, the education spokesman unfortunately not being told what the education policies really are; and Opposition spokesmen in open disagreement about a graduate tax and a range of other totally and utterly vindictive education policies. Those policies will show everyone where the Labour party stands on equality of choice, opportunity and freedom.
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern that has been expressed by many fire service authorities about reductions in their expenditure, which may bring about a danger to property and to life? May I warn him of the situation in West Yorkshire? There has been a £3.2 million cut in expenditure, which could mean a reduction of 116 firefighters in West Yorkshire. Will the Prime Minister take action to ensure that we have continuity of service which will help in the protection of property and life in West Yorkshire in particular, and across the country in general?
    The Prime Minister: Of course the fire service is immensely important. Of course we will make a judgment that we believe will ensure that it can be adequately available to all people who are likely to need it. I am not immediately familiar with the particular circumstances of West Yorkshire. It would be surprising were I to be so. I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend to look particularly at that in the light of what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Mr. Kynoch: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal for a Scottish Parliament put forward by the Labour party must inevitably lead to higher taxes and

    19
    costs for businesses, particularly in Scotland? Does he further agree that if that is so, it will inevitably be the first stage on the slippery slope towards the break-up of the United Kingdom—something which the Labour party seems to be intent on achieving?
    The Prime Minister: I fully understand the many people in Scotland and, indeed, in Wales, who believe that a tax-raising assembly may be of assistance to them. I passionately believe, in their interests, that that is a mistaken judgment. I do not believe that the degree of investment that has gone into Scotland and Wales would
    20
    continue if those investing there had the unique advantage of being more highly taxed than people in other parts of the United Kingdom. I see a great danger of businesses uprooting themselves and moving away from Scotland.
    I have seen no answers yet to the West Lothian question, which the Leader of the Opposition apparently failed to understand when he was asked about it at a press conference yesterday. I have no doubt that the sort of devolution proposed by the Labour party would do immense damage, first to the people of Scotland, secondly to the people of Wales—although they would apparently have a lesser form of devolution—and above all to everyone throughout the United Kingdom.

Fisheries Council
3.30 pm
Mr. David Harris(by private notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement on the outcome of the European Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels on 22 December.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): I represented the United Kingdom at the Fisheries Council on 19, 20 and, after a break, 22 December, assisted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department, my hon. and noble Friends the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The main issue before the Council was a package of proposals designed to implement the integration of Spanish and Portuguese fishing into the common fisheries policy. The House will recall that discussions took place against the background that, under the terms of Spanish and Portuguese accession, which was supported by all parties in the House at the time, no special restrictions could apply to Spanish fishing in the so-called Irish box after 1995.
After lengthy discussions, the Council agreed that from 1 January 1996 Spanish vessels would continue to be totally excluded from the Irish sea and the Bristol channel. In addition, Spanish vessel numbers in that part of the box west of Scotland would be severely limited and, overall, the number of Spanish vessels fishing within the box could not exceed 40 at any one time. The Irish box thus continues as a special control area. The agreement does not have any effect on the existing exclusion of Spanish vessels from the North sea nor, indeed, on the principle of so-called relative stability for national quotas. Nothing in the deal that was agreed causes British fishermen to lose quota nor Spanish fishermen in total to gain any.
The Council rejected, at our insistence, the Commission's proposed over-bureaucratic effort control proposals, which had been widely criticised in the House. It was also agreed that member states would play the major role in defining how their fleets' effort should be controlled in the relevant sea areas, though with safeguards to prevent abuse. Given the position against which I had to negotiate, those agreements represented significant achievements. Nevertheless, since the Council felt unable to accept the exclusion of Spanish vessels from the celtic sea also, I decided to abstain on the final proposal, which was, therefore, adopted by qualified majority. Fisheries departments will be consulting the industry closely about the arrangements for implementing the agreement.
The Council also reached agreement on 1995 total allowable catches and quotas. The 1994 TACs for the North sea stocks jointly managed with Norway were rolled forward for three months to allow time for discussions with Norway. For the remaining stocks, the Commission proposed wide-ranging cuts in TACs. In a number of cases, it was possible for the Council to agree slightly higher TACs than the Commission had proposed. Those increases raised the value of our fleet's 1995 quotas by about £14 million at today's prices, compared with the Commission's original proposals.
22
I fully understand the anxieties being expressed in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere. He and his constituents will know the background against which the negotiations took place. I shall not try to pretend to the House that the final agreement was ideal, but we achieved most of our realistic negotiating objectives. At the beginning of the negotiations we were faced with a package which, although it might have been imposed on us, could not have been defended in the House. We achieved an outcome which, although less good than I would have wanted, is far better than many people inside or outside the industry predicted.
Mr. Harris: Does my right hon. Friend really appreciate the depth of justifiable anger felt on behalf of fishermen, especially in the south-west and in my constituency, about the way in which other member states and the Commission apparently ganged up against the United Kingdom in that final vote? Having fought so hard and so well on behalf of those fishermen, why on earth did he abstain rather than vote against this wretched package? Can he now hold out any hope of a compensatory package to those fishermen, especially one that would increase the amount of decommissioning money, because they surely deserve better than the deal that they got at the end of those Brussels talks?
Mr. Waldegrave: I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State genuinely understand the frustration and, in some cases, the anger of my hon. Friend's constituents. I think that my hon. Friend would confirm that, whatever is agreed, they are often driven by the fact that, although the agreements might be tolerable, they suspect and believe that Spanish fishermen do not keep to them, which is another matter.
I accept that this was a fine judgment. Faced with the fact that the other member states were giving us more things that we wanted right up to the end of the negotiations, especially on Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are also important in this matter, it was right to recognise the fact that we had come a very long way from the initial package. If I had voted against, it would have sent a signal that there was no point trying to provide reasonable benefits for the British in a negotiation of that kind because we would vote against it anyway. That was the reason why I did it. Having got the majority of what we wanted—although not all—it was right for me to take the position that I did.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Why has not the Minister admitted that the deal is a disaster for our fishing communities and represents a wholesale failure by the Government? Will he admit that he failed to meet the Government's negotiating aims, as set out by the Minister of State in October 1993, when he said that it was the Government's objective that
"Spanish and Portuguese fishing activities should be confined as closely as possible to their current pattern"
and that there should be no access to the Irish box? Will he confirm that the stocks in question are under immense pressure and that there should be less and not more fishing effort to conserve them? The fishing areas to which Spanish vessels will have new access stretch from the south-west of England right up to the north of Scotland and take in most of the Irish box. Will he acknowledge that those stocks are crucial to communities such as Newlyn and Falmouth in the south-west and to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland?

23
Cannot the Minister understand that it is no use him coming here—I address this remark to his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), too—and saying that he was outvoted? The Government have had since 1985, when the Spanish terms of accession were agreed, to secure support in Europe for a just deal. He needed only to secure the support of two other member states, including a large one such as Germany or Italy, to block that deal. While the Government may have accepted the agreement, the Labour party has not. Alongside the fishing communities, we shall campaign against it.
Mr. Waldegrave: I remind the hon. Gentleman of two matters. First, between 1974 and 1979, when he was responsible for these matters, and before the days of qualified majority voting, the Labour party achieved no change whatever in the common fisheries policy. We had to wait until my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Walker achieved improvements in 1982, so the hon. Gentleman should be a little careful. Secondly, he seems temporarily to have forgotten that he supported accession. The Labour spokesman at the time, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), said:
"The Opposition do not welcome accession blindly, ignorantly or oblivious of the difficulties and anxieties."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 883.]
They knew exactly what it meant and they supported it. The hon. Gentleman now conveniently forgets that fact in a burst of rhetoric.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that stocks are under pressure—certain stocks are—and we shall hear from Sir Crispin Tickell's panel next week on that matter. Incidentally, the panel argues strongly for the maintenance and improvement of a common fisheries policy to manage stocks properly. The original position that we faced would have been intolerable. In entering the negotiations, my hon. Friend and I set out the maximalist position. If the hon. Gentleman negotiates by setting out in public his bottom line first, that is presumably why he and his hon. Friends achieved no improvements whatever when they were negotiating.
Although less good than I would ideally have liked, the deal maintains an Irish box and discrimination against Spanish fishermen. It has not, therefore, been welcomed in Spanish fishing communities, who know that they got much less than they wanted.
Dame Peggy Fenner: My right hon. Friend will understand the concern always expressed about enforcing the rules. At the outcome of the Fisheries Council, what steps is he taking to ensure that Spanish fishermen play by the rules?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is on to the real issues, compared with the rhetoric that we heard from the Opposition Front Bench. The fact that a Commission inspectorate exists is another result of a British initiative under my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Walker. We obtained from the Commission the great improvement that the Spanish must now report back annually to the Council of Ministers to account for themselves. That will make a big difference. We must look at enforcement arrangements in Britain because another gain that we made was that coastal
24
states have prime responsibility for enforcement off their shores. We shall therefore have the duty and right to do that, and we must ensure that we do it properly.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Minister aware that his excuse to the House this afternoon for not voting against a deal which he admits is unsatisfactory will baffle fishermen in the south-west, who feel betrayed, because it has given the wrong message that the British Government do not take that issue seriously? Having said that the deal discriminates against a group of fishermen around the western and south-western coasts, does he accept that it is now time to introduce a package for a modernisation and decommissioning scheme so that we invest in that industry in order to compete against the Spanish? The Spanish Government have invested vast quantities of our money in just such a scheme in their industry.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right about decommissioning. We have a considerable package and, once we are near the end of the expenditure which we presently have in hand, we shall review it to see whether it is adequate. We shall return to that matter in due course because we have obligations to meet by the end of 1996. I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) why, although it may have been a pleasing and cheap gesture to vote against, it would not have been in the best interests of fishermen in this country if, having won considerable concessions, we still decided to play to the gallery at home without acknowledging that we had won benefits. That is not a good way of negotiating for the future and would have been shortsighted and irresponsible.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite speculation and scaremongering to the contrary, he has reinforced the position that Spanish fishing vessels will not be allowed into the vital fisheries of the North sea? Does he agree that that is yet another example of the fact that Scotland's interests are best served by being a full and equal partner in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is hugely important to the British—perhaps in particular to the Scottish, but also to the English fishing industry and that in Northern Ireland—for the North sea ban on the Spaniards to continue, and it will. We now have them excluded from the Irish sea, the North sea and the Bristol channel. There is a continuance of the Irish box. That is why so many commentators in the Spanish fishing areas, who are doubtless under the same sort of pressures as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, are saying—and I quote from one—that this was
"state terrorism against the Basque fishermen by the Spanish",
who had conceded so much to the British.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Minister confirm that Scottish fishermen's organisations have already seen notices stating that they might incur further effort limitation as a result of the package? Does not he understand the anger of hard-pressed Scottish fishermen who will have to further limit their fishing simply to allow for Spanish access? Will he at least say that there will not be any effort limitation within the 12-mile limit because the Spanish will not be given access within that limit and that, therefore, it would not make sense to have effort limitation there?
Mr. Waldegrave: I can confirm that, on the 12-mile limit, another improvement on the original CFP which was won by the Government, there is no change. There is no extra effort limitation if there is no increase in effort. That seemed to be a reasonable position for us to take, and it is a huge improvement over the original proposals, which would have tangled everybody in bureaucracy all the time irrespective of whether there was an increase in effort. The arrangements that we made whereby fishing in the Scottish part, the northern part, of the Irish box is limited to the proportion of quota that can be caught there by Spanish fishermen is a great improvement for Scotland. It is another of the benefits that we obtained in the last hour or two of the negotiations and which influenced my final decision.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend go further than the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) about the method of control? Will he make it clear that the Navy will look further at the ways in which control can be carried forward? Will he ensure that there are negotiations with local fishermen to determine methods by which that control can be carried out? Fishermen are mainly concerned that there will be cheating by the other side.
Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is one of their principal concerns. In taking forward the mechanisms of what has to be carried through, it is absolutely essential that we consult the industry closely. If necessary, we shall also look at the effort that we expend via the Royal Navy on enforcement because that is a vital part of the package.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the Minister on his ability, with his fine All Souls brain, to put the Spanish case so much better than they could when he returned from the Council. Will he will now turn that same intellectual subtlety to the problem of how Spanish vessels can be added to the already over-large fleets which are pressing on the shrinking stock in that area without some subsequent reduction in British effort?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is the only Opposition Member who has the right to say what he has been saying because he was the only Opposition Member to argue against accession, on fisheries grounds, at the time. The other Member who raised the issue at the time is now the distinguished diarist of The Times, Mr. Matthew Parris.
No increase in fishing effort is involved: there is no increase whatever in quotas. Under accession, the Spanish had the right to complete access to all the waters without discrimination. They have not got that, and it caused the Spanish newspaper El Mundo to state that
"it is a long way from the full participation in the CFP sought by the Spanish Government. In the end, a Solomon's solution has been reached, which might be acceptable if González had not 'sold' the idea of Spain's access to all the Community fisheries as something which would not be foresworn."
He has foresworn it.
26
The agreement was a compromise which was not wholly satisfactory to us. I should have liked more, but against the background, which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) knows well, it was a pretty good deal.
Mr. John Biffen: Is it not clear that the House is now beginning fully to understand the difficulties that arise when European Union decisions are resolved by majority voting? Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the intergovernmental conference in 1996 there must be a clear statement of British policy that the present scope of majority voting will not be extended?
Mr. Waldegrave: There is a paradox here, is there not? We were keen on majority voting to establish the single market, which is a huge benefit to Britain. Incidentally, it also benefits British fishing. My right hon. Friend knows much better than I do that huge amounts of the fish landed at Newlyn go to Spain. Some £100 million worth goes there at much higher prices than would be available to our fishermen if our market was enclosed.
There are two sides to the question. The single market works in favour of our fishermen, in terms of the prices that they obtain and access to markets to sell their fish. I am not saying that the common fisheries policy has not meant costs for them, but Community membership has overall benefits for them.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the Minister accept that fishermen in south-west England and Wales will greet with disbelief his claim that there will be no long-term impact on quota? If 40 Spanish vessels per day are allowed into parts of the Irish box, there will clearly be a significant decrease in stocks.
Will the Minister recognise that one of the reasons why our European partners did not support Britain was our total failure in the past to meet the requirements of our multi-annual guidance programme by cutting our own fishing effort? Will he recognise that one way in which to deal with the long-term problem is to institute an increased decommissioning programme in south-west England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. We have not yet reached the end of the decommissioning period, and we shall review it to ensure that we make the necessary progress. We have already committed considerable sums.
If we had not limited the number of ships with access to the Irish box to 40, the full 220 ships in the Spanish fleet—or whatever the figure is—could have been there. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we have made considerable gains. If we had adopted a policy of simply standing back, vetoing everything and not taking part in negotiations, our fishermen might have faced the position that I have described.
If we had started from a completely different point—if the voting system had been completely different, and if our history since 1972 had been completely different—I would doubtless have been able to come back with something else. I believe, however, that—confronted with the existing position—I secured two thirds or more of what was a rationally possible objective for any negotiation: much more than was secured by any of the

27
colleagues of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) between 1974 and 1979, when no changes whatever were made in the common fisheries policy.
Mr. Keith Mans: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the relief felt in Fleetwood at the continued exclusion of Spanish vessels from the Irish sea. Does he agree, however, that the important point is that quotas have not changed? He managed to achieve an increase in our enforcement around our coasts. That holds out the best prospect of keeping fishing effort within the stocks available round those coasts, rather than providing some vessels with specific access to particular seas.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is the point that I do not think the hon. Member for Pembroke took on board. Quotas—overall controls on the amount of fish caught—are a crucial aspect, as is making those quotas stick.
Once a common fisheries policy was established, it was at least theoretically inevitable that there would be free movement of fishing boats throughout the waters. Although we have limited that in relation to Spain, what matters is that proper quotas, properly policed, exist to protect fish stocks. We shall have to do better in future, and provide a better and better policed common fisheries policy.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the Minister accept that it is disingenuous to pretend that we shall be able to police the arrangements better than the Commission has policed them in the past? The Minister was not prepared to make a clear commitment in the House today in terms of money and resources for precisely that job. His shameful capitulation will wipe out many fishing groups—not only individual fishermen, but individual companies in the south-west—and they will be unable to accept what he has said. If they do not accept the arrangements, anarchy will follow. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to take responsibility.
Mr. Waldegrave: I hope that, in her search for soundbites and rhetoric, the hon. Lady will consider this. The Labour Government did not have to face qualified majority voting, and they got zilch: they got absolutely nothing. I think that it is irresponsible to talk as the hon. Lady did.
Apart from the rhetoric, however, the hon. Lady is on to a real point: policing is crucial. We are now talking about what will happen at the beginning of 1996, and we shall consider the resources that we have and the need for enforcement over the next 12 months.
Mr. David Porter: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that everything that he has said in his statement reinforces the view that the common fisheries policy has failed and that, instead of worrying about the position we started from, we should ditch it as soon as possible and start to regain the sovereignty of the seas?
Mr. Waldegrave: In all these issues, one of the least satisfactory things is to raise expectations that cannot be met. None of the main parties in the House—not the Labour party, of which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) is a member, nor the Liberal party—is committed to the destruction of the common fisheries
28
policy, involving, I guess, withdrawal from the European Community, although the separate party below the Gangway may be committed to that. That is not a plausible thing to offer to people. What it is plausible to offer to people is a better CFP that is better policed. If we did not have the CFP, we would have to invent co-operation with our neighbours to protect fish stocks because fish stocks do not stop at lines drawn on maps. One must protect them co-operatively and one must have co-operative policing arrangements, which are beginning to be developed under the aegis of the European Commission and under the national enforcement arrangements of the riparian states—countries that have coastal waters.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I do not know whether the Minister has read the report of the debate in the European Standing Committee where concerns were expressed about the location and the number of fisheries protection vessels. Will he introduce to the House specific proposals, because we have vague talk at the moment, on how this country will take responsibility and beef up its fisheries protection vessels? Although they do a good job, there are not enough of them. Will he consult the fisheries organisations which, as we did in Committee, expressed concerns about the location of those vessels? They do not think that they cover the fisheries properly.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member is on to the real point. We shall of course consult the industry organisations and we have been consulting them throughout. Many of their leaders were present in Brussels during the long negotiation period, and very boring it must be have been for them, too. We shall consider whether the effort expended by our admirable fisheries protection vessels is adequate. We have 12 months to do that and we shall discuss the matter both with the industry and with the Royal Navy.
Mr. John Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his success in keeping Spanish fishing boats out of the North sea is warmly welcomed by fishermen in Essex and on the east coast? Does he accept that the criticism levied by the Spanish press at their own Ministers is perhaps a better tribute to his negotiating stance than some of the comments made by Labour Members?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. One of the Spanish fishing leaders said of his Government:
"If they were going to give up like this there was no need to go to Brussels to negotiate. I thought they were going to be firm this time, that they were going to defend our fishing industry to the hilt as the President of the Government Felipe González promised, even to the extent of vetoing the enlargement of the EU. That is not what happened."
Galician fishermen spoke in exactly the same terms. They considered the outcome to be unacceptable and the discrimination against the Spanish fleet in relation to the Irish box to be intolerable. What my hon. Friend says is therefore right. Some of the perception of this matter depends on from which side of the water one looks at it.
Mr. Tony Banks: On behalf of the fishermen of Newham—[interruption.] Did the Secretary of State hear the item on the "Today" programme this morning about illegal fishing by European Union boats off the west African coast? What steps is he taking to end that practice? When does he think

29
that the fishermen of Europe will understand that, if they overfish, they will kill off not only fish stocks but their jobs as well?
Mr. Waldegrave: I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman says. At one time, I compared this matter with arguments in the wild west of America about who was going to shoot the last buffalo. There will not be any fish unless there is proper conservation of stocks. I heard the item to which the hon. Member referred and I shall discuss with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for fisheries whether the British can make some specific contribution to the issue.
Sir James Kilfedder: There is no doubt that fishermen are demoralised and angry. Will the Government therefore introduce generous decommissioning proposals?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right that we must have an adequate decommissioning programme. We have money in the budget for that. The grants are being taken up and we shall consider the matter before the end of the period because we have to meet obligations by the end of 1996. We shall reconsider the programme to see whether it needs any additions.
Mr. Gary Streeter: May I add my voice to those who are calling for much tougher monitoring of the activities of the Spanish fleet generally? May I encourage my right hon. Friend to ignore completely the comments from the Liberal Democrats, whose policy is that every decision in Europe should be made by qualified majority voting? We would have decisions such as this imposed on us week after week.
Mr. Waldegrave: It is a little rum to be criticised by Liberal Democrat spokesmen when one is outvoted on something because we know that they want to abolish the veto in the places where it remains. That seems very eccentric and my hon. Friend is on to a strong point. He is also on to a strong point, as others have been, in relation to the policing of all this and the problem of history, which is something that has had to be faced by not only our fishermen, but I think that there will be reports from Canadian and Norwegian fishing waters about the
30
behaviour of some of the Spanish trawlers. That is the real problem to add to the agreement and that is why we must look at enforcement properly.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why should the Minister expect anybody to believe that the Government can police the seas when they cannot police the prisons?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am tempted to say that the matter of fisheries protection is in the hands of the Royal Navy.
Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there was considerable relief in Bridlington that he managed to negotiate to keep the Spaniards out of the North sea? We are grateful for that. Does he also accept that the present policy has failed because we have had quotas year after year and, if the policy had succeeded, fish stocks would have been recovering? Could there be a reason other than overfishing for the declining stocks in the North sea? Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is likely that there is a connection between the enormous increase in the seal population and the reduction in the stocks of cod? Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider starting culling and putting the interests of the fishermen before those of the animal rights brigade?
Mr. Waldegrave: We have to stand on the scientific advice in these matters or we are lost. The main issues in the North sea have been overfishing—there is no question about that—and the need to keep a careful eye on the sea's pollution status, which I believe is now improving but which has probably contributed to the damage in the past. At the end of the day, we cannot get away from the fact that, as in the catastrophic situation that occurred off Newfoundland, overfishing has usually been the cause of a collapse of the fish stocks.

Prison Service
4.2 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about three recent events—the escape of three prisoners from Her Majesty's Prison Parkhurst, the disturbances at Her Majesty's Prison Everthorpe and the death of Frederick West at Her Majesty's Prison Birmingham. I propose to deal with each of those separate events in chronological order.
As the House will know, Frederick West was found hanging in his cell by prison officers at Winson Green prison in Birmingham at about 1 o'clock on the afternoon of 1 January. He was pronounced dead by the medical officer at 1.40 pm. He had been at the prison since 13 May. Throughout that time, the extent of his supervision was based on advice from two qualified psychiatrists and prison officers. He had on two occasions—13–14 May and 1–4 August—been under special observation in view of the assessed risk that he might do himself harm. Apart from those periods, he was subject to the observation appropriate to an inmate of his security category. He was seen daily by a doctor, including on the day of his death, when his behaviour did not give any cause for concern.
The inquest into Frederick West's death opened on 6 January, and it will be for the coroner to determine the cause of death. An internal Prison Service inquiry has been conducted. Its findings will be made available to the coroner.
I refer now to the disturbances at Everthorpe prison on Humberside. On the evening of 2 January, 68 prisoners on C wing refused to return to their cells after association and staff were forced to withdraw from the wing. Some prisoners broke through into the adjoining D wing. A barricade was erected to prevent staff from entering from the main prison corridor and some damage was done.
Other prisoners at the establishment played no part in the disturbances and by early morning half the prisoners on C wing had returned to their cells. Control and restraint teams were deployed shortly after 2.30 that morning to regain control, which was achieved just before 3.30 am with no injuries to staff or prisoners. Sixty-seven prisoners were transferred out of the prison during the morning of 3 January.
The prison was run as normally as possible during the day of 3 January. At about 7.30 that evening a member of staff was assaulted on B wing and prisoners on A wing indicated that they would refuse to return to their cells after evening association. For their safety, staff withdrew from A and B wings, which were then secured to prevent any possible breakout. At 1 am, control and restraint teams were deployed to regain control. B wing was secured a quarter of an hour later and A wing just over an hour later.
The member of staff who had been injured in the initial disturbance was taken to an outside hospital. He has now been discharged. There were no other staff injuries, but a number of prisoners sustained minor injuries. One hundred and twenty-four additional prisoners were transferred to other prisons, leaving 68 prisoners at Everthorpe.
The internal inquiry report has not yet been completed, but it has emerged that, while there was no single cause of the disturbances, the governor's determined efforts to
32
curb the misuse of drugs in the establishment were an important factor. Tackling the drug problem in our prisons is a difficult task, but it is something that we must do. We cannot allow prisoners to deflect us from that task. Governors will always have my full support in carrying out that vital job. When the report is available, I shall place a summary of the findings and the conclusions in the Library of the House, together with a report of the action that is being taken in response.
Two of the wings at Everthorpe are already back in use and the remaining two will be ready for occupation next Monday. The cost of repairs is estimated at £130,000.
I am sure that the House will join me in condemning the behaviour of those prisoners involved in the disturbances and in congratulating Prison Service staff on the professional way in which they brought both disturbances to a speedy conclusion. The injuries sustained by one officer are a timely reminder of the difficulties and dangers faced by prison staff as they do their jobs. I am also very grateful to the police and other emergency services for their key role in bringing those disturbances to an end.
I deal now with the most serious event—the escape from Parkhurst prison on 3 January of two category A prisoners, Rose and Williams, and one category B prisoner, Rodger. At about 6 pm on 3 January, a group of 31 prisoners—including the three who subsequently escaped—were taken to the gym. At 7 pm the group were returned to their wings. Just after 8 pm a dog patrol discovered a hole in an inner security fence and a makeshift ladder leaning against the perimeter wall beyond. The alarm was raised and emergency procedures put into operation.
Richard Tilt, the Director of Security of the Prison Service, has been carrying out an urgent inquiry and last night I received his preliminary conclusions. They indicate that the three prisoners made good their escape using a copied key to open a door and gate. They then made their way to the welding workshop, using the key to open another gate en route and two more gates in the workshop. Once they were in the workshop, a ladder was assembled and tools and other escape equipment gathered.
As the House will know, all three prisoners were recaptured on Sunday 8 January and hon. Members will wish to join me in praising the success of the police operation. In their searches, the police were greatly assisted by the public and the House will, I know, wish to pay tribute to the islanders who displayed their characteristic fortitude throughout a very difficult period.
Mr. Tilt's inquiry highlights very serious deficiencies in procedural and physical security at Parkhurst. There were serious failures at local level by both management and some individual officers in carrying out basic security procedures in accordance with the Prison Service's own written instructions. Certain specific lapses on the night in question contributed significantly both to the failure to prevent the escape and to the length of time that elapsed before its discovery. That that could happen so soon after the publication of the Woodcock report into Whitemoor and so soon after the director general gave a clear and repeated message to governors and staff that security procedures must be followed is a cause for dismay.
Mr. Tilt also draws attention to the effect on security at Parkhurst of the extensive building works that have been under way since 1990. He considers that the decision made in 1990 to continue to hold category A prisoners at

33
the prison without additional security measures was mistaken. But he also concludes that none of the causes of the escape can be directly attributed to the rebuilding programme. In his view, although the capacity of local management to ensure that correct security systems and procedures were in place and being implemented effectively was reduced, the very existence of the rebuilding programme should have emphasised the need for strict adherence to basic security procedures.
The following remedial action has already been taken or is now being taken to improve security. It includes better monitoring of the movement of prisoners, especially the high-risk category A prisoners, and better supervision of their activities, adequate training of staff in the emergency control room, the presence of a governor at all times until prisoners are locked up at the end of the day, an increased dog team, improved lighting and cameras, the replacement of all compromised locks and additional alarm systems—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. These are important matters and the House must listen to the statement by the Secretary of State. If not, I shall find it difficult to call hon. Members who are barracking from sedentary positions.
Mr. Howard: I have outlined the immediate action that has been taken at Parkhurst. As the House knows, Sir John Learmont is already reviewing physical security and security procedures throughout the Prison Service in England and Wales, and Sir John, accompanied by Sir John Woodcock, who reported on events at Whitemoor and who is acting as his assessor, will visit Parkhurst this week. I have asked them to carry out an independent assessment of events at Parkhurst. They will have available to them the report made by Mr. Tilt, which they will be able to take into account. In view of the detailed information about security at Parkhurst in Mr. Tilt's report, it would not be appropriate for me to publish it. However, the examination of it by Sir John Learmont will ensure that it is independently reviewed. Sir John Learmont and Sir John Woodcock will not be bound by it and the scope of their inquiry will not be limited in any way. It will be open to them to bring forward proposals for early action without waiting for their formal report to me. The findings of their report will be published.
A separate disciplinary investigation into events at Parkhurst will commence as soon as the relevant police inquiries are complete. Two other actions are being taken. The present governor is today being removed from his duties at Parkhurst. Pending the outcome of a disciplinary investigation and any subsequent proceedings, he will not run any other prison in the Prison Service. When he has completed any assistance that he needs to give to the various inquiries now in hand, he will take up non-operational duties elsewhere. Six members of staff, including one of governor grade, will also be temporarily transferred to duties at other prisons. Both those actions are without prejudice to the outcome of the disciplinary investigation.
I refer now to my personal responsibilities as Home Secretary. I have made it repeatedly clear that I am personally accountable to this House for the Prison Service. I also have full responsibility for all policy decisions relating to the service. In his report, Mr. Tilt has not indicated any policy decision of mine that can be held
34
to have caused in any way the breakout from Parkhurst. It will, of course, be open to Sir John Learmont to look at the issue afresh.
However, that is not the end of my responsibilities. It is also my clear duty to respond promptly to warnings about prison security. I can tell the House that I did, indeed, receive one warning about security at Parkhurst. Judge Stephen Tumim wrote to the director general on Friday 7 October to express his concern about the following aspects of security at Parkhurst: searching of cells, the metal detector portal, the operation of the X-ray machine in the gatelodge, supervision of visits and staff reluctance to confront visitors. I am placing a copy of Judge Tumim's letter in the Library of the House. Immediately on receiving that letter, I spoke to the Director General of the Prison Service and asked for a full report. I was subsequently assured by the director general on the basis of advice from the governor that all Judge Tumim's recommendations had been implemented.
It has also been suggested that I was warned of the need to install geophones. I received no such warning. At the time of the escape, geophones were in fact being installed around the perimeter fence at Parkhurst and will be in operation by April at the latest, when the relevant building work will be complete. The decision to install them was taken in April 1994. The prison service decided not to install geophones in the prison earlier because, as Ministers made clear at the time, the building work would have severely limited their effectiveness. It was the impact of those building works, which will enhance security, which dictated the timing of the installation.
Recent events are bound to have affected public confidence in the Prison Service and it will not be easy to repair the damage that they have done to its reputation. That damage can be repaired only by finding out exactly what went wrong in each of those events and taking all the action that is necessary to put things right. The inquiries that have been established and the general review of security under Sir John Learmont will identify what went wrong. I am determined to take the action that is needed to put things right and I am accountable to this House for that action.
Prisons are a vital part of any system of criminal justice. Prisoners have a right to be treated decently and we must do what we can to try to rehabilitate them. But all prisoners are in prison because a court has put them there to be punished for crimes that they have committed. That is why I want austere conditions in prisons. That is why I want privileges to be earned, not handed down as rights. That is why I want prisoners who have misbehaved to be properly disciplined for what they have done. The first duty of the Prison Service is to keep prisoners in custody. That must underline all its work. We must all learn the lessons that can be learned from those events and do everything possible to prevent them happening again.
Mr. Jack Straw: Does not the Secretary of State understand that he has just made a statement to the House that wholly fails to meet public anxieties about the lamentable sequence of events that have beset the Prison Service in the three short weeks since he last had to make a statement to the House on the state of that service? During that period, Frederick West has been found dead in Winson Green prison, there have been riots on two successive nights at Everthorpe prison and three highly dangerous prisoners have escaped from Parkhurst.

35
The seriousness of the escape from Parkhurst cannot be overstated. The public were put at enormous risk and it was with great relief that we all learnt that the men had been recaptured without injury to the public. I pay my own tribute to the police, to the prison officers and to the public on the Isle of Wight who were involved in the five days' search and above all, to the bravery of the special constable and the dog handler who arrested Williams.
I also wish to put on record our unqualified condemnation of the behaviour of the inmates who rioted at Everthorpe gaol and our tribute to the courage and tenacity of the prison staff and the police who had to deal with those two riots.
All that has come on top of the escape from Whitemoor prison last year and the catalogue of failure in the management of the Prison Service which was unearthed by the Woodcock inquiry. Does not the Home Secretary accept that he stands accused today of gross incompetence in the execution of his responsibilities, for the Prison Service, to the public and to the House?
First, does the Home Secretary accept that he personally and repeatedly failed properly to act on warnings that had been made about security problems in Parkhurst and Whitemoor by the—[Interruption.] no, no—by the board of visitors and the chief inspector of prisons? While the Home Secretary acknowledged today that the chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim, warned him in a note sent in early October of grave security problems at Parkhurst, does not he accept that, had proper action been taken on those warnings then, as Judge Tumim made plain on "The World at One" yesterday, the escapes could not have taken place?
Can the Home Secretary deny that his Department was warned for years by the board of visitors and the governor that Parkhurst required an electronic alarm system in its perimeter walls and fences which, I understand, all other high-security gaols have and that, had that system already been installed, it is highly probable that the escape would have been noticed immediately and not after a delay of two hours?
Secondly, is not it the case, as I shall demonstrate to the House, that the Secretary of State has compounded his failure to act on those warnings by a pattern of evasion and misinformation? Does he now acknowledge that he was wrong to claim, as he did in the Daily Mail last Thursday, that all Judge Tumim's recommendations on searching have been fully implemented? I note that in his statement today, all the Secretary of State said was that he had told the director general to ensure that the warnings were implemented and followed through and that he had been assured that they had. However, last Thursday the Secretary of State made categorical statements to the Daily Mail that those warnings had been acted on.
With regard to Whitemoor, does the Secretary of State now accept that what he told the House on 19 December about the contents of the 1992 and 1993 reports of the board of visitors at Whitemoor prison was demonstrably inaccurate and wrong? With regard to the 1992 report, the Secretary of State will recall that when I challenged him on whether he had followed up the warnings in the report about security, he said:
"The 1992 report made no reference to security whatsoever."
36
I have a copy of the 1992 report with me. Security is mentioned twice on page 2 alone. Even more significantly, page 32 of the report contains specific recommendations, addressed to the Secretary of State, about the need for him to ensure that the searching of all visitors to the prison was tightened. The report states:
"In our opinion, all visitors to prisons should be searched as a routine."
As a failure to search visitors properly was one of the major security lapses identified in the Woodcock report after the IRA prisoners had escaped, how on earth could the Secretary of State claim in the House on 19 December that the board of visitors report contained
"no reference to security whatsoever."—[Official Report, 19 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1403.]
when demonstrably it contained a series of recommendations about security?
As for the 1993 report, the Secretary of State again implied in his earlier response to me that the security concerns in the 1993 report were only about the amount of possessions in cells and that those concerns had been dealt with by an addendum from the board of visitors submitted to him a few months later.
I have a copy of the addendum and the 1993 report here. The report contains a catalogue of complaints about security, not just about possessions in cells. It includes a charge that prison staff were being sent out of the prison on shopping trips not just to purchase
"Cromer crabs, fresh salmon and budgie seeds"
but, most alarmingly of all, to purchase "special hobby tools". We all know to what use the hobby tools were put in the hobby room by the IRA prisoners. The addendum, which I have seen, was just two pages long, and it did not deal with the majority of those security complaints, as Mrs. Paddy Seligman, then chairman of the board of visitors who wrote those reports, has made crystal clear in a letter that she wrote to the Secretary of State a week ago.
Does not the Secretary of State recognise that, whatever his intentions may have been when he made those statements on 19 December, many right hon. and hon. Members will have been wholly misled by what he said about the contents of those reports, and that he now owes the House an apology and an explanation of his lack of candour?
Thirdly, does the Secretary of State deny that he has continued to refuse to accept proper responsibility for this saga of ineptitude? Everyone except the right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for what has occurred. This Home Secretary is the "Not me, guy" Home Secretary.
Fourthly, since the breakdown in security at Parkhurst, as Judge Tumim made clear, is at least as grave as that at Whitemoor, on any scale, why has the Secretary of State continued to refuse to establish a wholly separate and fully independent inquiry into Parkhurst, as he did within 24 hours at Whitemoor? Does not he recognise that it was wholly inappropriate to put the director of security, Mr. Richard Tilt, in charge of the investigation, as any thorough examination by Mr. Tilt would have to involve the conduct of his immediate superior, Mr. Derek Lewis, the Director General of the Prison Service, and of the Secretary of State himself? In asking Mr. Tilt to conduct the investigation, he was effectively making the Prison Service judge and jury in its own cause.

37
Will the Home Secretary acknowledge also that the Learmont inquiry, which he announced on 19 December and which we supported, was a general one into the physical security of prisons throughout the country and that it cannot be a separate, free-standing inquiry? Indeed, I note that the Secretary of State was very careful not to suggest that the Learmont inquiry into general physical security would be an independent inquiry into events and into his responsibility at Parkhurst. Instead, he has very carefully not used the words "an independent, separate inquiry", but an "independent assessment of events"—a very different kettle of fish.
Moreover, confidence in that independent assessment of events cannot but be undermined by the precipitate decision of the Secretary of State to seek out and, in effect, discipline the prison governor and six staff before a proper independent investigation has taken place. Does not the Secretary of State's refusal to set up a fully independent inquiry show that he has much to hide, and speak volumes about his own culpability?
Fifthly, does the Secretary of State accept that policy decisions made by Ministers have a direct bearing on the crisis of confidence that Judge Tumim, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, now says is overwhelming the Prison Service? Why does not he recognise that his policy of privatisation and of the market testing of the Prison Service is wholly wrong in principle and has sapped the morale of the service? As the general secretary of the Prison Governors Association said at the weekend,
"month to month changes in government policy"
are adding enormously to the burden and stress of all those involved in running the service.
Does not the Secretary of State now recognise that the so-called clear distinction that he has made between policy and operations in the Prison Service has no foundation whatever in reality and that, by maintaining that fiction, he continues only to evade his own responsibility? Did not the Director General of the Prison Service let the cat out of the bag at the Prison Service conference last year? He said that
"if it's difficult it's classified as operational."
Is not another example of the use that the Home Secretary has made of that operational device the fact that he sought to rely on the verdict of his subordinate, Mr. Richard Tilt, to escape any responsibility for the events and circumstances surrounding the Parkhurst escape?
Will the Home Secretary now accept that he must take three steps to restore confidence in the prison system? First, he must abandon market testing and privatisation of the service—that is what the former Conservative Prime Minister called for at the weekend. Secondly, he should sit down with governors and prison officers to agree a programme for restoring morale and good order in the Prison Service. Thirdly, he must face his responsibilities for the good management of the service as well as for its policy, and make himself properly answerable to the House.
Does not the whole of the Home Secretary's statement serve only to underline what everyone in the country now knows—that the conduct of his office is characterised by consistent evasion of responsibility, exceeded only by his readiness to scapegoat others? His failure properly to direct and manage the Prison Service and to keep dangerous criminals under lock and key represents a
38
failure in one of the most basic duties of any Government—to protect the safety and security of the public.
Mr. Howard: Of course, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the seriousness of the events; no one takes such matters more seriously than I do. I am also grateful to him for his tributes to the work of the police and of the Prison Service.
I shall deal with each of the hon. Gentleman's criticisms in the order in which he made them. I do not accept for one moment the allegation, in which there is no substance, that I have failed to act on security warnings. I have set out and clearly explained the action that I took when I received the warning from Judge Tumim. Furthermore, the Tilt report does not conclude that the matters identified by Judge Tumim, important though they are, were in any way related to the escape from Parkhurst. I have also explained clearly the action taken on the installation of geophones. While building work, itself related to security, is going on, it does not make sense to install geophones because they cannot work effectively in those circumstances.
It is a measure of the desperation of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that he has sought to reopen matters related to Whitemoor. I do not accept for one moment the construction that he put on the answers that I gave on that subject. Moreover, it was open to all those concerned with the board of visitors and its reports to put their concerns to Sir John Woodcock in the context of his inquiry into what happened at Whitemoor. Presumably the matters in question were put to him.
No one has suggested that Sir John's report pulled any punches, and if he had thought that there was any significance in what appeared in the reports by the board of visitors, he would have referred to them in that context in his report, but there is no such reference.
Of course, I intend to ask Sir John Woodcock and Sir John Learmont to inquire fully into what happened at Parkhurst, and theirs will be a fully independent inquiry. Nothing will be ruled out of their purview, and they will not be constrained in any way. They are clearly entitled to consider to what extent, if any, questions of policy contributed to what happened at Parkhurst, and they are free to come to any conclusion that they think appropriate and desirable. I have stated that I intend to publish the findings, and there is no question of any kind of cover-up.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman sought to blame what has happened on market testing. To suggest that market testing can in some way explain, condone or excuse the failure to count prisoners out of the gym and into the wing, to ensure that cameras are properly pointed or to make sure that the duty governor is on duty at the relevant time, is to demean our proceedings. The hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of that suggestion, and withdraw it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I want a brisk exchange of questions and answers. A lot of hon. Members want to get in, and we have other business to conduct today.
Mr. Barry Field: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for keeping me informed of events as they unfolded on the Isle of Wight within hours of the breakout occurring? Will he confirm to the House and reassure the people of the Isle of Wight that when he

39
receives the full report, the safety of the people on the island will be paramount in his mind? Will he join me in congratulating Colin Jones, who spotted the prisoners on the run, and the chief constable and his men on the successful recapture? Does he consider that closed visits at prisons would obviate the necessity of searching visitors?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend look again at the fact that the British Medical Association refused to allow doctors to perform internal searches of prisoners, as they might prevent highly dangerous drugs from getting into prisons and compromising security? Does he agree that to call for his resignation every time a villain manages to perpetrate a crime against law and order is a villain's charter, and that it is those on the Opposition Front Bench who are the real enemies of law and order?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a close interest in security matters in relation to prisons in his constituency on the Isle of Wight since he was elected to the House. I can certainly assure him that the safety of the islanders will be paramount in my mind when it comes to addressing the conclusions of the various reports. My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to those who played a part in bringing those who escaped from Parkhurst back into custody.
I can tell my hon. Friend specifically that I have asked Sir John Learmont to look into the possibility of introducing closed visits as a matter of urgency. No stone will be left unturned in restoring security to our prisons.
Mr. A. J. Beith: When did the director general assure the Home Secretary that all Judge Tumim's recommendations relating to security at Parkhurst had been implemented, and was that true? Does the Home Secretary at least concede that the policy of delegating the operation of prisons to the director general has not worked? Does not he ask himself why he must stand at the Dispatch Box displaying dismay and producing more rhetoric? There has been a great deal of policy and many innovations, but there is no proper control of security at the prisons. Is not that something for which he must take responsibility?
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman has distinguished himself in the past few days by popping up on just about every television programme acting as the mouthpiece of John Bartell. When he has a bit more experience in those matters, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that parroting the allegations made by Mr. Bartell is not a responsible way of addressing the issues involved.
I shall deal with both the right hon. Gentleman's questions in turn. I was given the assurances from the director general to which I referred within days of receiving the information from Judge Tumim. I looked at the matter, and I asked for those assurances. I raised questions on the assurances, and I was given them on the basis of what the director general had been told by the governor. Mr. Tilt is at present addressing in detail the question of the extent to which all those matters had in fact been implemented.
With regard to operational policy, there has always been a division between policy matters and operational matters. That has existed not only since the introduction of agencies—it has been recognised for years, and indeed
40
for generations. I really do not see—the right hon. Gentleman ought to reflect on this—how, whatever structure or framework is in place, one can avoid a sensible distinction between policy and operational matters.
Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what happened at Everthorpe was provoked by a deliberate crackdown by the governor, under the instructions of my right hon. and learned Friend and his Department, on many abuses within the prison, which related not only to drugs but to prisoners barricading themselves into their cells and not being properly supervised? Would not it be a sad day if a Home Secretary of any party was forced to resign from office because prisoners rioted in the way that we saw at Everthorpe in response to a proper crackdown prompted by public concern about the conditions in our gaols?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I note that the hon. Member for Blackburn also agrees. We do not yet know the full range of causes of events at Everthorpe, but it is reasonably clear that the crackdown on drugs was a prominent one. It is absolutely essential that that policy continues to be implemented. The misuse of drugs in our prisons is a disgrace. Effective action has to be taken to deal with it. Governors who take that action deserve not only my full support but the support of everyone in the House.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As the Home Secretary says that he is accountable to the House of Commons only for policy matters and has carefully defined as not policy matters the lamentable series of events that he has described today, and as the arrogant and incompetent Mr. Derek Lewis, whom no fish and chip shop or whelk stall would accept behind its counter, has proclaimed on the radio the success of his regime, blamed everyone else in sight and found a scapegoat in the governor of Parkhurst, who is accountable to the House of Commons for the events that the Home Secretary has described? Where does the buck stop?
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman has rather uncharacteristically misunderstood the position. I am accountable to Parliament for the Prison Service. I am accountable to Parliament for all matters that are relevant to the Prison Service. I am responsible to Parliament for policy. The director general, according to the framework document, is responsible for operational matters. That is the distinction, but I am accountable to Parliament for the Prison Service generally. Since the director general became head of the agency, a great deal of progress has been made, not least in reducing the number of escapes, which has fallen by about a third during his period of office. That is an important matter to be taken into account. The Prison Service is clearly going through a difficult time. The director general is the best person to take it through that difficult time.
Dame Angela Rumbold: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, as someone who has had responsibility for prisons in the past, I understand the difficulties and problems that arise from that responsibility? Along with a substantial number of people outside the House as well as people on the Benches here, I urge him to continue his policies in the most resolute way. It is absolutely essential for the security and safety of both the prisoners and the general public that we

41
have a Home Secretary who believes that he must pursue the policies that he is pursuing as firmly as my right hon. and learned Friend has shown that he is determined to do.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, far from accepting the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that we should stop pursuing the policy of privatisation in our prisons, particularly in prisons that hold convicted prisoners, we should accelerate that policy? It is one of the ways forward in ensuring that greater responsibility is accepted by all those who run the prisons and are accountable for them.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her remarks. I believe that the policies that we are pursuing are in the interests of the country as a whole. I have no intention of being deflected from them. The private sector clearly has a role in operating our prisons. The indications so far are that it can bring new ideas and greater cost-effectiveness to bear in the provision of prison services. I shall continue to proceed in a measured and responsible way.
Mr. David Trimble: Judge Stephen Tumim's letter of December, which identified problems at Parkhurst, referred to one general problem—a staff reluctance to confront prisoners. Does the Home Secretary agree that such reluctance is particularly dangerous when it is manifested not by the prison officers on the wings, but by the management within prisons? Does he accept that the problem is not confined to Parkhurst but extends elsewhere? Will he consult the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who has responsibility for prisons in Northern Ireland? A similar if not more dangerous position prevails in prisons in Northern Ireland and it should be dealt with. Does he agree that the police on the Isle of Wight were greatly assisted by their ability to publish photographs and names of wanted men without being accused of collusion?
Mr. Howard: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. He is right to identify a refusal to confront prisoners as a problem of enormous seriousness, whether it occurs in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. It is certainly a problem that must be tackled. I am sure that I can learn lessons from what happens in Northern Ireland and perhaps the reverse can happen. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. and learned Friend disregard the personal abuse and party political claptrap of the Opposition? Is not it clear that the fault lay much lower down the line and that my right hon. and learned Friend has reacted vigorously and speedily to deal with that? The statement that he has made today has demonstrated that he is properly accountable to Parliament. Will the Learmont inquiry or possibly some other inquiry deal with the escape from Littlehey prison in my constituency, which is normally a very efficient and well-run prison, or will some other inquiry have to be set up? Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it rather odd that one of the prisoners who escaped was due for release in April? Does he agree that it is disturbing that one of the other prisoners who
42
escaped was a psychopathic rapist sentenced to life imprisonment whom, curiously, the Parole Board released after only a limited time?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. There will be an internal inquiry into the escape from Littlehey, but if any lessons of general application to prison security can be learned from that escape, they will come within the remit of General Sir John Learmont's inquiry. I know that he will be interested in them. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the oddity of someone whose release is almost imminent nevertheless escaping. These things happen in the Prison Service. I have a great deal of sympathy with the last point that my hon. Friend made about the circumstances in which parole was granted to one of the other prisoners who escaped.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Home Secretary saying that if the geophones had been fitted, they would have been rendered useless by the building works? Is that his argument?
Mr. Howard: I do not claim any personal expertise in such matters. I am advised that geophones cannot be installed when extensive building works are under way because they do not work effectively in those circumstances. [Interruption.] That is partly because they are constantly set off by the building works and partly—to deal with the night time point, which I understand—because the building works tend to damage the geophones regularly in a way that impairs their effectiveness. It was on the basis of—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman is really interested in the matter and looks into it in detail, he will find that the decision to go ahead with the installation of geophones was taken in the first financial year for which I had any responsibility. So, I have no reason to give the hon. Gentleman anything other than the reason why the Prison Service did not install geophones while the building work was being carried out, which was that it acted on advice that they would not be effective while the work was under way.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: No fair-minded or reasonable person could think that the matters that my right hon. and learned Friend explained today are a reason for resignation. It is a fact, however, that the Director General of the Prison Service has presided over a regime so lax that, in recent months, he was prepared to sanction a convicted rapist taking part in the London marathon. In recent days, a prisoner has written to me from a prison in Devon—a convicted rapist, serving a six-year sentence—complaining about the fact that he has not had enough home visits. It is that degree of laxity that is upsetting the public. That laxity is ultimately the responsibility of the person in charge of operations, Derek Lewis. How much worse have matters got to get before, at the very least, he considers his position or has it considered for him?
Mr. Howard: I dealt with that question in my answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I have taken action to deal with one of the matters that my hon. Friend mentioned—the extent to which home leave and temporary release were being granted excessively and without adequate regard to the

43
need to protect the public. New guidance has been issued to deal with that matter and it is having a significant effect.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: In view of the concern about security at Parkhurst, will the Secretary of State tell the House what correspondence about geophones has taken place since 1988, between the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and Home Office Ministers? Does he accept that he and the other Ministers are responsible for the fact that they were not installed prior to April 1994?
Mr. Howard: For the reason that I have already given, I do not accept that. It is perfectly true that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) corresponded with my predecessors about that very matter. He drew to their attention the advantages that geophones offer. That matter was consistently considered and the conclusion to which I referred was reached—that, in view of the building works that were taking place, it would not have been sensible to install geophones. The key moment when building works will be complete will be April 1995 and it is expected that geophones will then be operational, their installation having been completed by that date.
Mr. Michael Alison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that most improvements in operational performance, for example, in health or hospital care, or rail and air travel, have followed regrettable breakdowns in operational service? With regard to the public interest, the key issue is the positive response that is made to remedial measures following breakdowns. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore accept congratulations, at least from Conservative Members, on the completely assiduous and open way in which he has kept the House informed about all the operational breakdowns and the concentrated and energetic way in which he is making certain that long-term remedies and improvements are put in hand?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. There is much truth in what he said, and the Prison Service ought to look upon this train of extremely unhappy events as an opportunity for it to reform and improve itself, to ensure that they are not repeated.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Home Secretary recall that, just before the Christmas recess, he used as his excuse the fact that previous Home Secretaries had experienced prison breakouts, so those were not a reason for his resignation? Does not he realise that none of the reputations of those Home Secretaries was anywhere near as tarnished as his, and that there will be no confidence in wide-ranging matters of law and order as long as he is so desperate to cling to office?
Mr. Howard: The people will view the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and its importance in helping the police, helping them bring criminals to justice, helping to convict people who are guilty of crimes and giving courts the powers to pass appropriate sentences, in rather a different light from the way in which the hon. Gentleman views it.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that I wrote to him on
44
2 January, after the second riot at Everthorpe, to suggest that he should oblige prisoners who have rioted and done damage to remain in their cells until they have repaired them? I see no reason why the taxpayer should do that for them. I was therefore pleased to receive an assurance that prison labour has been used to restore much of the damage. Does he accept, however, that I shall be very angry indeed— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I should be jolly cross if any of the 67 or the 124 prisoners who are to be transferred were sent to gaols such as mine in Lancaster, which is very well run and has a good governor and wardens and prisoners who co-operate, as that would be wholly unfair.
Mr. Howard: The last thing that I would want to do is to make my hon. Friend cross or angry. I assure her that any prisoner who can be found to be responsible for taking part in the disturbances at Everthorpe will be subjected to disciplinary action and possibly to prosecution. I hope that that meets the essential concern that lay behind her intervention.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State says that he is responsible only for policy. After the Strangeways riots four and a half years ago, the Woolf inquiry report made recommendations that most hon. Members on both sides of the House thought would transform the Prison Service. The Government and the then Home Secretary made a strong commitment to implementing Woolf. Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman became Home Secretary, the Woolf recommendations have been assiduously buried. That is policy, that is his responsibility and that is why we have the present crisis and why he should resign.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. If one studies some of the key objectives of the Woolf report, one finds that Lord Woolf attached great importance to reducing overcrowding. At the beginning of 1988, more than 5,000 prisoners were held three to a cell built for one, but now none is. In his report, Lord Woolf attached great importance to increasing the amount of purposeful activity in which prisoners engaged outside their cells. Such activity has increased by 12 per cent. during the past year. I do not think that Lord Woolf wanted his objectives to be achieved at the expense of prison security and the protection of the public and it is my job to ensure that the latter receive the priority that they deserve.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any evidence that the Prison Officers Association has been urging or instructing its members at Parkhurst not to co-operate with the police inquiry, or any other inquiry, into the escapes? If he has such evidence, what does he intend to do with it?
Mr. Howard: I have evidence that members of the Prison Officers Association were instructed not to co-operate with the police inquiry and that they did not do so. I am passing that evidence to Sir John Learmont and to the disciplinary investigation.
Mr. Tom Cox: Is not it a fact that the Home Secretary has made repeated comments about boards of visitors at Whitemoor and Parkhurst? Their annual reports were an expression of deep concern about security and many other aspects of the day-to-day running of prisons. What credibility does he give to the annual reports

45
produced by those boards, in view of the countless hours that many of their members give during their day-to-day involvement in overseeing what is happening in prisons? Can they have any confidence that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ever considers the work that they put in and looks at their annual reports?
Mr. Howard: I take those reports and the work done by boards of visitors very seriously. I spoke to the chairman of the board of visitors at Parkhurst this morning to congratulate and thank him and his board on the work that they have been doing, which is enormously appreciated. We are all in their debt as they work long hours on an entirely voluntary basis and perform an extremely useful task.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend is comforted today by the support from the Conservative Benches for the tough measures that he has announced and taken, contrary to the ridiculous press stories that we have been reading over the past few weeks about falling support on Conservative Benches. Will he ask those conducting market testing to explain why, since 1979, the prison population has gone up by 15 per cent., yet the number of prison officers has risen by 70 per cent? Is not it right for taxpayers to ask whether they are getting a good deal?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. The figures that he cited are important when considering the allegations constantly made about the effect of the increase in the prison population on conditions in prisons. They are telling figures. Even since 1989, the prison population has increased by about 1,000, yet the number of prison officers has increased by about 4,000. Those important facts are relevant to this debate and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to them.
Mr. John Battle: Does the Home Secretary know that, after a tragically high number of suicides in Armley prison in my constituency, his Department issued new and full guidelines to monitor potential suicides? Given that another prisoner committed suicide in Armley prison on new year's eve, will he explain what has happened to those guidelines? Were they temporary? Are they long forgotten? They seem to be proving ineffectual in the whole system.
Mr. Howard: The guidelines are certainly in place, but I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman on the case to which he has drawn attention. It is a matter of great regret that last year saw an increase in the number of suicides in prisons. The number of suicides is greatly to be regretted. On the whole, our record is significantly better than that of most other countries, but that gives no cause for comfort and we take the problem seriously.
Mr. Richard Alexander: We have heard much this afternoon about inquiries, but is not it time that we took Judge Tumim's advice and had a wide-ranging inquiry into how prisons are run? Are not drug dealing and bullying rife in virtually all prisons? While I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's concern to stamp them out, we need more than concern: we must take a fresh
46
look at the problem. I do not ask my right hon. and learned Friend to take the words of Mr. Bartell as gospel, but, in taking that fresh look, will he take account of the views of prison officers who are operating prisons on the ground?
Mr. Howard: I take into account all relevant views and test them against the facts, which is the sensible way to approach matters. My hon. Friend is right to express concern about the misuse of drugs in prisons. One of the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which came into force yesterday, enables the random testing of drugs in prisons for the first time. I hope that a random testing programme will be implemented in prisons over the next few months.
A wide-ranging general inquiry is exactly what I asked Sir John Learmont to carry out in the aftermath of Whitemoor. It is principally into issues of prison security, but I have had a preliminary discussion with Sir John, who clearly takes the view that in order properly to address issues of prison security, he must look far and wide across the Prison Service at how it is organised, and I have not sought to discourage him in that approach.
Mr. Derek Enright: The Home Secretary admitted that last October Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons warned him of serious deficiencies in security at Parkhurst. Why, then, did he go on television and radio so regularly and deny that he had been given such warnings?
Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is completely inaccurate and misinformed.
Mr. Enright: I saw you.
Mr. Howard: I have never denied that I received warnings from Judge Tumim. Indeed, I have always totally accepted that I received the warning from Judge Tumim. I have told the House today what action that I took on that warning. The hon. Gentleman can see for himself the terms in which the warning was issued because I have put Judge Tumim's letter in the Library. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's recollection is false.
Mr. Douglas French: In respect of my constituent, Mr. Fred West, does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that an internally generated inquiry and report are likely to conclude that surveillance arrangements were adequate? Do not the facts speak for themselves? Did not Mr. West's son warn some weeks earlier that his father might commit suicide? Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore ensure that the prison officers directly responsible are held accountable for what must surely have been negligence?
Mr. Howard: The evidence that we have so far, based on the internal inquiry, does not justify my hon. Friend's conclusion. However, all those matters will be looked at afresh and fully at the inquest, which will, of course, be held in public. All my hon. Friend's understandable concerns about what happened can then be explored, investigated and thoroughly assessed in that forum, which is the appropriate one.
Madam Speaker: We shall now move on.

Orders of the Day

  Jobseekers Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, hon. Members will observe that a money resolution is applicable to the Bill. They will recall that, under the Sessional Order passed on 19 December, the Question on the money resolution must be put forthwith immediately after Second Reading. In those circumstances, I am prepared to allow hon. Members to refer to the content of the money resolution if they so wish during the Second Reading debate.
  5.6 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill provides for the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance, providing a single allowance to replace unemployment benefit and income support for unemployed people. The legislation before the House will improve incentives to work, remove barriers that discourage people from leaving benefit, and focus the efforts of jobseekers on looking for work.
  We shall also focus the benefit on those who need it most. Those who have worked and made contributions will be entitled to benefit, regardless of their means, for six months. Two thirds of those who are unemployed leave benefit within six months. Those who are still unemployed after six months and those who do not qualify for contributory benefit or who have dependants will be eligible for the benefit on an income-related basis for as long as they need it without a time limit.
  The Labour party's main attack on the Bill has been that the contributory benefit should be available for 12 months. But on this morning's "Today" programme, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was asked three times to say that a Labour Government would extend it to 12 months. Three times she dodged and ducked the question. She criticises and carps but will not say that she would do any different, were she in Government. That is not principled opposition but mere. whining on the sidelines of politics.
  This Second Reading debate provides an opportunity for the House to consider both the Bill and its context. The context is that, since December 1992, unemployment in Britain has fallen markedly. It is down by 500,000 to less than 2.5 million. The fall has been sharper in Britain than in any other major European Union country.
  Mr. John Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no intention of introducing a new measure of employment, as suggested by Mr. Philip Bassett in The Times? Has he any idea where those stories have come from?
  Mr. Portillo: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that I have no intention of introducing any new measure of employment as was proposed in The Times. My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. A fax has come into my possession which was sent by Mr. Philip Bassett to Mr.
  48
  Ed Milliband. It contains the draft of an article alleging that the Government were thinking of introducing a new measure of employment, and it was sent to Mr. Milliband to be cleared and vetted. Mr. Ed Milliband is the research assistant of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman).
  It is perfectly clear that Mr. Philip Bassett of The Times is in the habit of taking stories suggested to him by the Opposition and submitting them to the Opposition for vetting before they are published in The Times. Not surprisingly, in his fax Mr. Philip Bassett says:
  "I'd be grateful if you could of course keep it under your hat."
  Mr. Frank Field: How did the Minister get the fax?
  Mr. Portillo: I got it because it was inadvertently sent by Mr. Philip Bassett not to the fax number of Mr. Ed Milliband, but to that of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim).
  Ms Harriet Harman: Before the Secretary of State goes any further down this disgraceful line of argument—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members are interested in the facts I will put them to the Employment Secretary and he can confirm them. He should apologise to Philip Bassett because there was no question of him sending that material for me to approve it, vet it or check it. I ask the Minister to accept my assurance on that. Mr. Bassett simply sent it to me because it was an exclusive and he asked me to comment on it for the following day's paper. The Secretary of State is clearly so desperate that he is clutching at straws. Why does not he address the real issue of the unemployment that he has created? He is a disgrace. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It is time that the House settled down.
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady doth protest too much. The fax states:
  "Ed—This is a copy of what I've written so far, though I may fiddle about with it later. But it will be something like this. It mostly looks at the position, rather than the politics."
  The Times does not fax copy in advance for me to comment on, but apparently it does so for the Labour party.
  It is time to return to the serious subject of unemployment because 2.5 million people without work is far too many. The Government never forget that unemployment is a waste. Worse than that, it is a cause of great unhappiness and difficulty. Therefore, reducing unemployment is a high priority for the Government.
  Ms Angela Eagle: The Secretary of State says that unemployment is a waste. In that case why does he think that it is sensible to penalise the unemployed by cutting their benefit? A quarter of a million people will be worse off as result of the cuts, but they are only the victims of the economic cycle. It is not their fault that they are out of work but the fault of economic forces and the Government's incompetence.
  Mr. Portillo: A large number of people will be better off because in future they will get the back-to-work bonus. People will benefit from the £10 allowance that will be available to couples before any benefit is deducted in

  49
  respect of their earnings. We are prepared to change the welfare system so as to update it. The hon. Lady's party is afraid to change anything or to admit to any policy.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Will the Minister comment on the Bill's provision which would mean that if a newly unemployed person took part-time work benefit would be deducted pound for pound if that person earned more than £5 a week? Will he contrast that with the case of Mr. Bryan Townsend, the chairman of Midlands Electricity? He gave up the job and got a pension of about £2,000 a week. He then went back to the job part time and he gets £165,000 a year for that on top of his pension. Does not the right hon. Gentleman see a contradiction in the way in which the Government whom he represents treat people who already have money compared with those who have nothing?
  Mr. Portillo: The Government will treat everybody equally. We are concerned to see that people make their way back into work, possibly by climbing the ladder of part-time work. That is why the Bill introduces a back-to-work bonus which will encourage people to build up a credit of the benefit that is deducted from them when they take part-time work. They will be able to have a lump sum of up to £1,000 when they leave benefit to go into full-time work. The hon. Gentleman should support that by voting for the Bill.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: We are concerned about the unemployed and welcome the fact that in the past two years unemployment has been decreasing. Four years ago the Select Committee on Social Services drew attention to the place of carers and the concept of care for them. As one who has been aware of their problems over the years, will the Minister take the opportunity, through the Bill, to examine the case of carers who have been penalised after having to leave work to look after their parents and others, because when a carer's parents die the carer is not entitled to unemployment benefit? Will the Minister look at the scheme to see how such people could be looked after?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point for which there is much sympathy in the House. I do not want to attempt an off-the-cuff answer. In Committee hon. Members will want to look at that matter. In respect of sanctions, the position of carers will be different from that of other people. They will be in the protected group, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that assurance, although I know that it does not go as far as he would like me to go.
  Higher public spending is not the answer because we cannot spend our way out of unemployment. Higher taxes or borrowing and higher interest rates and inflation would result and those would destroy jobs. The Labour party has to learn that real demand in the economy cannot be increased by increasing public spending. However, it can be done as the Government are doing it—by providing the conditions for sustained recovery.
  Underlying the Bill is the recognition that in itself economic growth is not enough. The feature of European unemployment over recent decades is that it has risen from one recession to the next. Even in periods of recovery the totals have not fallen very far. We must sort out the structural problems that impede job creation or diminish the incentives for unemployed people to take work.
  50
  I want to secure through the Bill and other measures economic growth that brings more jobs and lower unemployment, not economic growth that improves life only for those who have work but does nothing for those who do not. We have to make it as easy as we can for one person to offer work to another. Recently that has meant resisting a number of proposals from Brussels which were fully supported by Walworth road. Those proposals would have made it more expensive to employ people and would have imposed on employers liabilities and obligations that would be bound to make them wary of taking on new people.
  Another part of what we have to do is to examine incentives. Most people without a job want more than anything else to be able to work. The Bill is designed with those people in mind and they have nothing to fear from it.
  Ms Harman: How does it help people and give them an incentive to get back to work if, when they lose their jobs, the Government cut the help with mortgage interest payments?
  Mr. Portillo: I had hoped that the hon. Lady was rising to say what policy she intended to reverse. My colleagues and I in the Government are addressing a problem on which there is meant to be agreement across the House. How do we find a benefit system that the country can afford—a system that is equitable?
  The hon. Lady speaks of relief for mortgage interest payers. She knows that such relief is not universal today, and that it is not applicable to people who receive unemployment benefit. It is available only to those in receipt of income support. In future, people can make their mortgages secure by taking out insurance which is available in the private sector. The hon. Lady, however, would rather struggle on with a state system which is inadequate, and which is misleading people into believing that their mortgages are protected rather than placing any reliance on the private sector.
  Why, when people are able to protect their mortgages with insurance, should the taxpayer of all people be responsible for insuring those mortgages? Has the hon. Lady no concept of individual responsibility—of the fact that, if someone can afford to take out a mortgage, that person should also consider how to protect the payments? The hon. Lady believes in the Commission on Social Justice and in the new welfare state; why will she not admit that, in one corner of the welfare state, there is an opportunity for individuals to take some responsibility? Why will she not admit that the taxpayer should not be the first port of call? The hon. Lady is, as ever, silent.
  Over the years leading up to the Bill, we have examined a range of policies to see how they affect motivation, and how they have helped or hindered people in their quest for independence and the ability to provide for themselves. We reformed income-related benefits and introduced family credit: our objective was to ensure that more people would be better off in work than receiving out-of-work benefits, and that those with families would be encouraged to take and keep jobs.
  We have recently introduced, or announced, further changes to ease the way back to work. It is now possible, on family credit, to spend up to £40 a week on child care without affecting entitlement to benefit. We have also looked hard at the help that we can give people to help them over the "job hump"—the difficulties that they face

  51
  when they find a job after being out of work for a long time. We have introduced the jobfinder's grant, which puts cash in people's hands to help them with bus fares, clothing or the tools that they need for the new job.
  We have adjusted the benefit system to ease the transition into work. People who find a job after a long period of unemployment will receive the same amount of housing benefit for the first four weeks of work as they received when they were out of work. We are also tackling employer discrimination against the long-term unemployed. We have experimented with workstart—payments to employers who take on the long-term unemployed to encourage them to give those people a chance to prove themselves. The Bill extends that idea by waiving for one year the national insurance contributions that employers would have to pay on newly recruited employees who had been out of work for two years or more.
  Sir Ralph Howell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Portillo: Yes, but I shall then need to make progress.
  Sir Ralph Howell: Given the success of workstart, under which the state saves at least £30 a week for every person who is employed, why has the system not been made universal?
  Mr. Portillo: Let me explain an important difference to my hon. Friend. With workstart, we are giving long-term unemployed people who would otherwise face discrimination a chance to prove themselves in the world of employment. I do not believe that spending public money creates more jobs; it cannot do so, because that money is raised from taxes that other people pay. I do believe, however, that we can help to provide opportunities for people who have been out of the labour market for some time—people whom employers would otherwise not be willing to consider. That is good for those people, and good for the performance of the labour market; but I do not draw the conclusion that we can endlessly spend money and make the state the employer of last resort. I shall explain that more fully later.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell; Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Portillo: Yes, but this will be the last time.
  Mr. Campbell: Is it true that a bonus will be given to people who work in careers and dole offices as an incentive to remove claimants from the dole queues?
  Mr. Portillo: I am pleased to have the opportunity to say that that is not so, although it has been alleged that there will be a target for sanctions.
  The Bill introduces a further incentive to help people into jobs—the back-to-work bonus. Income-related benefits are paid to unemployed people to help them when they have insufficient income. Naturally, if they secure part-time work, the money that they earn reduces their need: that must be reflected in the payment of less benefit.
  Part-time work, however, is sought by some as an effective ladder leading back to full-time work, and is valuable in maintaining morale while that search goes on.
  52
  We should therefore encourage people on benefit to take part-time jobs if they are more readily available than full-time jobs. The back-to-work bonus will allow people to build up a credit equal to half what they lose in benefit, and to receive a lump sum of up to £1,000 when benefit is replaced by a full-time job.
  Having taken those and other steps to help people back into work, and to ensure that they can be confident of being better off when they are in work, we must now examine the conditions of entitlement to benefit. Let us be clear about the principles. Benefits are paid to help people to deal with contingencies that prevent them from providing for themselves—retirement, disability, sickness or involuntary unemployment.
  Since the original introduction of unemployment insurance, it has always been understood that benefit is payable only to people who want to work but cannot. It was presumed that such people would be seeking work, and would take it if it became available. Beveridge was concerned by the effect of the availability of a cash benefit on people's self-reliance, and it was explicit in his report that benefits for unemployed people should be paid only to those who were seeking work. That report stated:
  "The correlative of the State's undertaking to ensure adequate benefit for unavoidable interruption of earnings, however long, is enforcement of the citizen's obligation to seek and accept all reasonable opportunities of work, to co-operate in measures designed to save him from habituation to idleness, and to take all proper measures to be well."
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State also tell the House that, although Beveridge carefully laid down those safeguards for public money, he added that claimants who fulfilled the conditions would receive benefit until they obtained jobs?
  Mr. Portillo: Income-related benefit is available for as long as people need it.
  Mr. Field: The Secretary of State is wrong. Beveridge laid down that unemployed people would be able to draw national insurance benefit until they found jobs, provided that they fulfilled the conditions that the right hon. Gentleman has just read out.
  Mr. Portillo: I am not aware that that has ever been accepted. Certainly it has not been accepted in the living memory of any Opposition Member. National insurance benefits for unemployed people have been time-limited for as long as any Opposition Member can remember. I admit that the time limits have changed from time to time, but the benefits have not been in perpetuity during the lifetimes of Opposition Members.
  The principles that I have read out remain good and valid today. No one has a God-given right to decide to be idle and to live off others, and there is no novelty in saying that today. The taxpayer has every right to expect those seeking work to do so with vigour, and to demonstrate their desire to work by taking actions that are likely to improve their ability to find and hold down jobs—attending courses, undergoing training or actually working in programmes of activity financed by the Government.
  To describe that as "workfare" strikes me as loose talk. To me, "workfare" means that the state will be the employer of last resort, committing itself to provide work for any who are without it. That implies a bigger role for the state than I am willing to contemplate. I do not shy

  53
  away from saying that financial provision is there for those who need it because they cannot support themselves, but they must be able to demonstrate that by their willingness to work. That can include being required to take work that is offered to them on penalty of losing their benefit; if that spells workfare to some, so be it.
  I aim to see the world as it really is. Much of what we have already done sets out to tackle the practical disincentives to taking a job which real people face. That is realism. We must also be realistic, however, about the ways in which the system can be abused and no good is done to anyone by ignoring that problem.
  The Bill makes explicit much that has until now been implicit. It re-establishes clear principles, in particular the clear conditionality of benefit that was there at the creation of the welfare state. At the heart of the Bill is the proposed jobseeker's agreement, under which the jobseeker will make a commitment to pursue actions that will be most likely to lead to a job. The Employment Service will provide the opportunities that will be of benefit to the jobseeker.
  The jobseeker's allowance will provide a better service for unemployed people. There will be, as far as possible, a single set of rules and a single claim form. It will, generally, be delivered from one office—the local job centre.
  Mr. Donald Dewar rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because he is so distinguished, but I must make progress.
  Mr. Dewar: I positively melt, but I shall recover. My question to the right hon. Gentleman is short. He said that the jobseeker's agreement is the core of the Bill and obviously, therefore, it is an important change. Will he please explain to me precisely how the new powers in relation to agreements, duties and obligations of both the applicant and the Employment Service have changed the existing position?
  Mr. Portillo: The most important change is that the signature on a jobseeker's agreement will be necessary for the triggering of a claim. The claim will not be valid without there being a jobseeker's agreement. I think that I have answered the hon. Gentleman directly. That is an important change. No claim will exist until a jobseeker's agreement has been signed.
  The Employment Service has developed a range of active employment measures that experience has shown—
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Sign here.
  Mr. Portillo: People have been signing on for as long as any hon. Member can remember. They will sign a jobseeker's agreement. They will commit themselves to a programme of activity and the Employment Service is giving to them the range of opportunities that is available. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can object to any of that.
  The Employment Service has developed a range of active employment measures which experience has shown can dramatically improve a person's chances of getting a job. Last month, the service helped 174,000 people—a new record—to get into jobs. It assesses people's needs at restart interviews—nearly 4 million each year. People may then be referred to job clubs, where nearly half are successful at finding work, or to the job interview
  54
  guarantee scheme, where again nearly half find a job. The job plan workshop scheme and new restart courses have enabled more than 90 per cent. of attendees completing the course to apply for a job, employment, training programme or other sort of help. Of course, there are also the training programmes provided through the training and enterprise councils, including programmes tailored for people with disabilities or other special needs.
  Many of those programmes have been tried first on a pilot basis to ensure that we maximise their effectiveness before they are used to help people on a national scale. We want to have the flexibility to try new ideas with pilot schemes. The Bill has, therefore, a carefully defined power to run local pilot schemes, but it rules out piloting any trial schemes that would involve reduced rates of benefit.
  With the very substantial improvement that the Employment Service has made in the help that it can offer, we are in a better position than ever to tailor effective assistance to each person's need. 'The Employment Service has a track record of service and of success in helping people into work.
  The vast majority of people will, therefore, accept the jobseeker's agreement as a fair and just agreement, but the Bill provides a back-up power. It enables the Employment Service to issue a direction to a person to undertake activity that reflects the person's needs and abilities. That will be necessary only if the jobseeker refuses to do reasonable things aimed at him becoming more employable and sanctions would follow only if the direction were ignored.
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No. I must make progress.
  Of course, directions and sanctions must be reasonably applied. Jobseekers must not be subject to arbitrary demands and there must be safeguards. There will be. Decisions on sanctions will be subject to independent adjudication and to the same appeals structure as we have today.
  Some people who lose their benefit because of sanctions will be able to claim hardship payments. Vulnerable groups such as the ill, pregnant women, people with children or people with caring responsibilities will be protected. Healthy, childless people will have no access to hardship payments if they fail the basic conditions of entitlement and they will have no access to hardship payments for two weeks if they break rules once on benefit.
  The economy is generating jobs and we are making sure that unemployed people get the chance to take them. We are willing to make changes to our system of provision because the welfare state must be kept up to date. The Labour party claims to be concerned with reform and with the critical question of affordability. The welfare state costs every working person in this country £15 each working day. Yet the Commission on Social Justice proposes additional expenditure of £7 billion a year, which would require higher taxes and would destroy jobs. Conservative Members understand that the business of government requires decisions and requires choices. The hon. Member for Peckham complains about the Bill, but her refusal to commit her party to reverse it shows that Labour is not serious but vague, vacuous and dishonest.

  55
  The Government have three main aims in the Bill—to help people into jobs, to deliver a better service to people while they are unemployed and to achieve better value for the taxpayer. It is part of our policy to encourage jobs through economic policy and through labour market reforms. The Bill is about jobs, about supporting people while they look for work, about encouraging them to compete for jobs and about helping them into jobs. For all those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.35 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: The Bill demonstrates just how out of touch the Government have become with the concerns and interests of ordinary British families. Insecurity among the work force is increasingly recognised as a central economic and social problem. Even the deputy chairman of the Tory party, John Maples, admitted in his secret memorandum that people feel insecure at work. They feel constantly under threat of losing their jobs and believe that the Government are doing nothing to help them, yet the Government have not listened and will not learn.
  Despite the somewhat warmer words of the Secretary of State for Employment—I thought at one point that he was on the brink of a U-turn—we must focus on the Bill's provisions because, of course, the Bill will not help to reduce unemployment or to put people back to work. It will make people who are out of work, and even people who are in work, feel more insecure and more fearful.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: If the hon. Lady feels strongly that the Bill is wrong, why will not she commit herself to reversing it if the Labour party come to power?
  Ms Harman: Our particular concern is the deepening of the poverty trap and the cut in the period of non-means-tested unemployment benefit from 12 to six months. I shall not anticipate the contents of our election manifesto in some two and a half years. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we shall introduce a comprehensive range of measures that will deal with the problem of the poverty trap and will allow people to move from welfare to work and to undo the damage that has been done. The Bill does damage and deepens the poverty trap. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the deepening poverty trap, like Labour Members, his response should be to vote with us against the Bill tonight.
  Unemployment is not, as the Government so often imply, a problem of a minority of lazy people refusing to work. It is a major problem. The Department of Employment's own figures show that nearly 11 million people—40 per cent. of the work force—have been out of work at some point in the past five years. Many of the remaining 60 per cent. who have been continuously in work live in households with people who have been unemployed. The families who have not been affected in some way by unemployment, which has swept through this country, are a rapidly diminishing minority. That is why the Government's attack on the unemployed in the Bill is of concern to people far beyond those currently on the dole.
  56
  For once, the Secretary of State for Employment has restrained himself from delivering his usual tirade about how excellently the economy is doing and how excellent the employment prospects of people are. Perhaps at last he recognises how abysmal the Government's record is.
  I remind the House of what the Secretary of State failed to report as the background to the Bill. Britain has lost 40 per cent. of its manufacturing employment over the past 15 years and we are the only one of the top seven industrialised nations that has seen no rise in employment since 1979. The United States has seen a rise of 21 per cent., Japan a rise of 18 per cent. and Germany a rise of 8 per cent. The Government's record on employment creation is 17th out of 21 countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That is a record of which the Government should be ashamed.
  Unemployment is still almost 1 million higher than it has ever been under any post-war Labour Government. Unemployment among the unskilled is still rising while the Government are still cutting training for the unemployed. Long-term unemployment remains at almost 1 million—39 per cent. of all those unemployed. Our record on long-term unemployment is the second worst among the G7 countries. The number of very long-term unemployed—over two years—is still nearly 500,000; that is more than 100,000 higher than it was two years ago.
  That is the real background to today's debate, not the fairyland that is so often painted by Ministers. The truth is that the Government have failed on unemployment and, as a result, we have a work force who are fearful and insecure. It is against that background that the Government propose the jobseeker's allowance.
  The Secretary of State said that the heart of the Bill is the jobseeker's agreement. Of course it is not, and he does not believe that. The central measure in the Bill is to cut the entitlement to unemployment benefit from 12 to six months. That did not warrant much of a mention in the Secretary of State's speech, but it is clear that that measure will have the harshest and most dangerous impact.
  Ms Liz Lynne: Is the Labour party prepared to reverse that—yes or no?
  Ms Harman: The hon. Lady failed to listen to my previous response. I have said clearly that I will not anticipate measure by measure what will be in our manifesto in two and a half years, and the hon. Lady would not expect me to do so. I hope that she will vote with us tonight, because I can assure her that we will have a comprehensive welfare-to-work programme, and we will vote against the deepening of the poverty trap that will occur as a result of the Bill.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith rose—
  Ms Harman: I shall give way in due course.
  That cut in entitlement will make thousands of people much worse off. [Interruption.] I have answered the question twice. Hon. Members who are interrupting from a sedentary position about our manifesto promises should reflect on whether they have kept any of the promises contained in their manifesto. One thing that will be different in our manifesto is that we will keep our

  57
  promises. Perhaps Conservative Members will pipe down about manifestos for a few moments and reflect on their own betrayal.
  Ms Eagle: My hon. Friend has seen the Conservative party's manifesto from the last election. Is there any reference to halving the amount of contributory benefits for the victims of the recession? Is that in the manifesto on which the Conservative party won the election?
  Ms Harman: Of course the Government did not put in their manifesto that they would cut unemployment benefit or that they would increase national insurance contributions. In fact, quite the opposite: the Government promised that they would not cut benefits and help for the unemployed and that they would not increase national insurance contributions. The Bill does precisely those two things.
  Mr. Portillo: I am a reasonable man. I understand that the Opposition cannot be expected to tell us every jot of what will be in their manifesto. Manifestos are published close to elections. However, the hon. Lady is launching an attack on the Bill. She said that her central onslaught is on the reduction of the contributory principle from 12 to six months. She said that that is at the heart of the Bill. She said that it is iniquitous and that she hates it. Therefore, she must be able to say that she would reverse it, otherwise she does not have a leg to stand on. That is the fact—she does not have a leg to stand on.
  Ms Harman: It is interesting that the Secretary of State is spending less and less time trying to justify his proposals, because he obviously does not believe in them, and is spending more and more time asking us what we intend to do when we form a Government. He will find out what we intend to do. He will see our comprehensive welfare-to-work proposal in our manifesto. He will then be watching us from the Opposition Benches as we implement programmes that end the poverty traps that he has created.
  Make no mistake, this cut in entitlement will make much worse off the thousands of people facing the very real money worries that come with unemployment. The Government have admitted—and their own figures show—that at any one time 90,000 people will lose entitlement to benefit altogether because they are not entitled to means-tested jobseeker's allowance. That is not necessarily because those people are well off or can afford the cut in income; they may be disqualified from benefit because they have a partner in work on a low income or because they have savings or redundancy payments just above the £8,000 limit.
  Let us look at the example of an unemployed man with a wife who works more than the 24-hour threshold or who has just received a redundancy payment over the £8,000 limit. Under the old system, during the first 12 months of unemployment, based on national insurance contributions, he would have received £2,300. Now, despite the increase in national insurance contributions, that figure will be cut to under £1,200—a cut of £1,100. That is a serious and shameful cut.
  The pernicious nature of the Bill is not confined to the proposal to means-test after six months instead of 12.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Those are precisely the circumstances in which
  58
  those with mortgages who find themselves unemployed do not at present receive any help. That is the system that the hon. Lady wishes to maintain. Why?
  Ms Harman: We are saying that the Government are putting up national insurance contributions—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but people think that this is a serious matter. The Government are putting up national insurance contributions, they are cutting unemployment benefit and, at the same time, introducing new measures to cut the help to home owners who become unemployed. We think that that is wrong.
  Our objection to the Bill is not confined to the proposal to means-test after six months. Entirely characteristically, the Government have used the Bill to smuggle in a raft of other measures that will hit hardest those who can least afford it. The Bill will cut the level of benefits paid to young people. In addition to cutting the length of time for which young people can claim, the level of contributory benefit that young people receive will be cut by one fifth. For a young unemployed person out of work for 12 months, the benefit will be cut by at least £500 over that year, even where he or she is still entitled to means-tested benefits.
  The Bill will cut the benefits of those with partners who are unemployed. The current rules provide for contributory payments for dependants, but the new rules will mean that from day one payments for dependants will be means-tested. For example, under the current system, a man with a non-working wife who has savings or redundancy payments just over the limit receives £3,822 in the first 12 months of unemployment. As a result of the earlier switch to means testing and the new rules on dependants, that will be cut to £1,200—a reduction of over £2,500—despite the fact that national insurance contributions will have gone up.
  What it all adds up to is that, at any one time, 250,000 people will have their benefit reduced or cut altogether. That is what the Bill is about. In addition to the cults in benefit, unemployed home owners will face the extra problem of mounting debt from mortgage interest payments. It is clear to everyone that the Bill will inflict misery on many unemployed people, but what justification has the Employment Secretary offered? He has effectively offered three justifications, all of which turn out to be bogus.
  The first justification, which reflects the true nature of the Employment Secretary, is that benefits need to be made less generous to persuade the unemployed to get out and find work. He believes that the unemployed are a feckless group who refuse to look for work. He said:
  "Too broad a benefit system can undermine the morale of those who receive help."
  The past 15 years are a testament to the failure of that strategy. The Government have consistently cut benefits since 1979, but unemployment is now more than double the 1979 level. If cutting benefits put people back into work, we would have full employment by now. Evidence from abroad also shows that there is no simple equation that proves that cutting benefits means that people find work. It does not work like that.
  The vast majority of the unemployed are not out of work because they are work-shy. They are out of work for three reasons: jobs are not available; they cannot earn

  59
  enough to make it worth moving from benefit into employment; or they lack the skills for existing vacancies. That is the true position.
  Mr. John Sykes rose—
  Ms Harman: I shall not allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. He is clearly going to ask about our manifesto, which I shall tell him about in two and a half years' time. I shall instead read what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—
  Mr. Sykes rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way.
  Ms Harman: The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said:
  "If we are to reduce dependence, what really matters is the availability and accessibility of adequately paid jobs."
  The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) tried to intervene earlier and I shall now accept his intervention if he will indicate to me in advance that he intends to apologise to his constituents for the fact that in the past five years unemployment in his constituency has risen by 137 per cent. If he does not intend to take the opportunity to apologise afforded by my allowing him to intervene, I shall not give way. Will he apologise to his constituents for his broken manifesto promises?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I have no intention of apologising. The hon. Lady attacked the Government because she believes that they are cutting benefits, but at the same time she says that there is a 50:50 chance that a Labour Government would accept that. I am not asking her to explain, but will she say whether she believes that social security spending is too high or too low?
  Ms Harman: That is a very easy question to answer: social security spending on unemployment is far too high. The Government have pushed it up, not by making benefits more generous but by making more people unemployed. The Government's failure to understand that the difficulties with public finances have been created by their economic failure means that they cannot hope to solve the problem.
  Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Lady gives way?
  Ms Harman: No.
  Far from helping people back to work, the jobseeker's allowance, by increasing means testing, will force people out of work and on to benefits. It will exacerbate the deep poverty traps in the benefit system, especially for the wives of men who become unemployed. Unemployed people cannot claim income support if their partners are working more than the hours threshold. That means that many families will be better off if, when the husband loses his job, the wife gives up hers and the whole family go on to benefits.
  At one level, the Government have recognised the problem by increasing the hours threshold from 16 to 24, which is welcome, and by introducing the back-to-work bonus, which is unobjectionable. However, while taking that action, which is designed to get some people out of the poverty trap, they are at the same time putting more
  60
  people into the poverty trap. Under the current system, those who work part time or for low pay and whose husbands become unemployed are able to work for 12 months without any fear that their continuing to work will make their families worse off. When that period is reduced to six months, many people will find that they, too, have to give up their job because, if they carrying on working, the whole family will be worse off.
  Many families who might have escaped the poverty trap over a 12-month period because the unemployed husband was able to find work in that time will now hit the poverty trap at six months. Simply by reducing the length of time during which one can claim non-means-tested benefit, the Government are ensuring that the number of people forced to give up employment and go on to benefit will increase. Therefore, instead of helping the unemployed to move from welfare to work, the jobseeker's allowance will shift people from work to welfare. In defence of his proposal, the Employment Secretary does not argue that that is not the case but simply mutters, "Will you reverse it?" Our answer is my explanation why we shall vote against the Bill tonight.
  The second justification is that the measure will supposedly target benefit on those who most need help. Although it is clear to everyone—the Government have admitted it—that 250,000 unemployed people will lose out under the Bill, it is not clear to anyone who precisely will be the beneficiaries of the supposed targeting. Where are they?
  The third justification is that benefits need to be cut because too much is spent on the welfare state. Perhaps I could explain to the former Chief Secretary that the reason why public spending has increased, and indeed why it increased while he was Chief Secretary, and that taxes have gone up, also while he was at the Treasury, is not that the lives of the unemployed are being made more comfortable but that there are so many more of them. Two and a half million people have been forced into dependency on benefits. It is the Government's failure on unemployment and on law and order which has driven up public spending. Instead of dealing with such problems, they are, as usual, making the unemployed pay for their—the Government's—failures.
  The jobseeker's allowance is another example of broken Tory promises. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, during the election the Tories promised not to increase national insurance contributions, but within a year they had done exactly that. They are now cutting the amount of money that people get in return for their national insurance contributions. No one voted for this cut—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has not read or not understood the Bill if he believes that it is not about cuts. The Employment Secretary himself justifies the Bill on the basis that it will cut public spending.
  No one voted for this cut in benefits, just as no one voted for the increase in national insurance contributions. This cut was not in the Tory manifesto, nor were the other tax increases and cuts in provision. It is no wonder that John Maples found that people no longer placed any trust in the Government. People pay more, but they get less. The central elements of the jobseeker's allowance are the hallmark of the Conservative approach to unemployment over the past 15 years—socially unjust, economically flawed and politically duplicitous.

  61
  Although the major portion of the Bill reflects the same old dogma of the past 15 years, other measures in it mark a belated admission by the Government that their employment policy has not worked. It was when dealing with those aspects of the Bill that the Secretary of State for Employment sounded most uncomfortable. In particular, the Government have at last recognised that long-term unemployment is not a problem that will be solved by the market; it needs particular action by, and particular attention from, Government. The Government have at last responded to Labour's suggestion that they should offer special incentives for employers to take on the long-term unemployed.
  The problem is that, although the Government have accepted the principle, their measures are wholly inadequate. The national insurance holiday for employers who take on those who have been unemployed for two years or more will offer employers just £6 a week. Employers have already made it clear that that is simply not enough and that it does not offer an incentive.
  What is more, the national insurance holiday will not be introduced until April 1996. Why should the two-year unemployed have to wait to become unemployed for three and a half years before they get this measly incentive? The message is clear. People will have to wait until April 1996 for the meagre and inadequate incentives to employers to take on the long-term unemployed. When it comes to helping the long-term unemployed, the Secretary of State does so with reluctance and delay. Cuts can be brought in straight away, but incentives, even small ones, take that much longer. The truth is that, whatever the window dressing in the Bill, it is about cutting benefits and making people more insecure about the prospect of unemployment.
  Although the Tories think that grinding people down with fear and poverty makes them work harder, we take a different view. We believe that Britain can succeed only with an employment policy that attacks unemployment rather than the unemployed, and that aims to make our work force, on whom our economic prosperity relies, confident and secure, and not fearful and insecure.
  There are immediate measures that the Government could and should have included in the Bill to ensure that people get back to work immediately and to modernise our infrastructure. Why do the Government still refuse to begin the phased release of the £5 billion of capital receipts? Why do they not take action to ensure that public-private projects are turned from announcements into action?
  There is also a package of measures that the Government could and should have put into the Bill to deal with the particular problem of long-term unemployment. The long-term unemployed are, of course, not a single homogeneous group. There are young people, for example, who have never worked and who need the opportunity to get further qualifications. There are people who have worked all their lives, but have been made redundant in declining industries and need retraining. We propose a £75 a week tax rebate for employers who take on the two-year unemployed. That proposal, backed up by the minimum wage, would ensure that everyone who reached two years of unemployment was given the chance of work.
  I now come to the minimum wage. It is intriguing that the Secretary of State for Employment has remained curiously silent about the minimum wage, although he is,
  62
  supposedly, the cutting-edge, leading ideologue of the Tory party against the minimum wage. He did not say anything about it in employment questions and he did not even mention it in his speech. Could it be that he dare not mention the minimum wage because of his embarrassment at the fact that the Government, having carried out consultation about minimum wages in farming, decided to keep the agricultural wages board because there was general agreement, which the Cabinet was forced to accept, that it was fair, that it did not cost jobs and that employers and employees wanted it?
  Mr. Portillo rose—
  Ms Harman: Perhaps the Secretary of State will answer the question when he intervenes. Does he agree with keeping the minimum wage for agriculture? Let us hear the answer to that question.
  Mr. Portillo: I am part of the Government decision to maintain the agricultural wages board. I have, however, a question for the hon. Lady. At what level will Labour set the minimum wage?
  Ms Harman: We are not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am about to answer the question, despite the fact that the answer given by the Secretary of State clearly shows all of us that he does not support the decision to keep the agricultural wages board. Despite the fact that he is Secretary of State for Employment, the Government have overruled him. They have been forced to accept our arguments on the minimum wage. I am confident that we shall now hear a great deal less about the minimum wage from the Secretary of State.
  We will not set the level of the minimum wage two and a half years before the next election. What we will do is to make it clear that we will introduce a minimum wage, as the rest of Europe and America have, because it is fair, because it protects good employers and because, of course, it does not cost jobs.
  Savings in benefits from our programme of a £75 incentive to employers would mean that, although in the first year it would cost £100 million, it would actually save money in the second year. Given that the Government have accepted the principle of tax rebates to get the long-term unemployed back to work, it seems that the most plausible reason for their failure to do anything worth while for the long-term unemployed is the opposition of the Secretary of State for Employment, whose support for the national insurance contributions holiday is lukewarm, to put it mildly.
  Unemployment is not only a terrible experience for those who are out of work; it hangs like a cloud over those who are in work, creating a sense of insecurity among people at work. Increasingly, that is recognised by everyone except the Government. Insecurity is not just bad for those who experience it; it is bad for our economy. Is the Secretary of State shaking his head? We know that he is concerned to see the issue raised in opinion poll after opinion poll. We know that he is concerned that everyone, from the Trades Union Congress to the Confederation of British Industry, mentions that insecurity at work is a real problem. Of course, he does not want to do anything about it because he does not believe that the Government have any role in the labour market. All the evidence shows that an insecure work force are not as productive as a confident, secure and well-motivated work force. Our

  63
  more successful companies know that and our international competitors, whose economies are doing better than ours, know that, too.
  Security is also about people having the skills required in today's world of work. That means that people in work and people out of work need proper training. The Secretary of State talked in employment questions about training in work. British businesses do not invest as much in training as our international competitors. In France, three quarters of all employers invest more than 2 per cent. of their payroll costs in training. In the United Kingdom, only one third of employers do so. That is why other countries have a more competitive work force and a more productive economy. That is why we believe that, as part of tackling unemployment, the Government must take action to ensure that all businesses make a fair contribution towards training all the people in their work force.
  It is scandalous that, when skill shortages are increasing and unskilled unemployment is rising, the Government are cutting the training budget. The Secretary of State claims to believe in high skills, yet he is cutting the training budget by 12 per cent. over the next three years. Indeed, according to the Government's own figures, they are now spending barely half as much on training for each unemployed person as Labour was in 1979. Contrary to Tory philosophy, we believe that the Government have an important role to play in helping the unemployed back to work, and the Bill does not do that; in ensuring that people have the skills they need, and the Government are not doing that; and in promoting the security and confidence of people at work. That is certainly not happening.
  Last Friday, from the pulpit of Liverpool cathedral, the Secretary of State for Employment—
  Mr. Barry Porter: Oh, God.
  Ms Harman: I shall not comment on that. Last Friday, from the pulpit of Liverpool cathedral, the Secretary of State gave the nation a sermon and, with messianic fervour, he made some promises. He promised fairness, he promised tolerance, he promised liberty and he promised to restore the British people's dignity and self-respect. He promised not only economic prosperity but spiritual prosperity. He talked of his vision of a sense of national well-being in a contented nation. Then, he stepped out of the pulpit, into the Department of Employment, and he has brought to the House a Bill that will make the unemployed worse off. No wonder the British people feel that they cannot trust this Government and that they cannot believe anything that the Government say. The gap between the rhetoric and the reality is nowhere more stark than in the Bill and we will vote against it.
  6.9 pm
  Sir Ralph Howell: I welcome those parts of the Jobseekers Bill which will help to simplify the benefits system. That desperately needs doing and I am sure that the Bill will be successful in that direction. I hope very much that the Bill will make it easier for people to move from unemployment into work. That is also a very worthy part of the Bill. While most people recognise that most of the unemployed desperately want to work, a large section of people are claiming benefit and
  64
  working in the black economy. The Bill will be successful, to a limited degree, in helping to solve that problem.
  However, I am very disappointed that a great opportunity totally to reform the welfare state has been wasted. We have made a thorough mess of the welfare state—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—all of us, including the Opposition. The Opposition are more responsible for that than anybody else. We have failed to put the Beveridge report into operation. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was wrong when he said in his intervention that Beveridge said that benefits should go on indefinitely. He did not. Beveridge said that after three months or six months unemployment benefit would cease and work would be offered. That is exactly what should happen.
  I am also very disappointed to hear the Secretary of State say that he is opposed to the state being an employer of last resort. The state is the provider of last resort. As the provider of last resort, we are spending well over £20 billion, perhaps as much as £30 billion, on supporting the unemployed on the condition that they do nothing whatever to help society generally. It is time that we thought this thing through. We should go back hundreds of years to 1601, when it was the duty of the local authorities to find work for everyone in their locality. In 1911, Keir Hardie introduced a Bill—the last sensible Bill to have been introduced by the Labour party—to offer and establish the right to work. Heaven help those who did not take the opportunity to work given in Keir Hardie's Bill.
  What sense can there be in spending £20 billion or £30 billion while getting nothing whatever in return, while seeing the country become scruffier and scruffier because we cannot afford to paint schools and so on and while being less and less able to afford carers when their services could be used to keep elderly people in their own homes much longer than is otherwise possible? We should re-think the whole matter. The Bill damns itself in as much as we will save only £200 or £300 million here or there, which is negligible and within the margin of error. That means that we will do very little, even in solving the problem of fraud. All in all, we should raise our sights considerably.
  I shall refer to the workstart programmes and the North Norfolk action pilot scheme, which the Department of Employment has declared to be highly successful. We have been piloting workstart for—I believe—18 months. Why on earth do not we make it universal? Every person who took part in workstart saved the taxpayer £30 a week. I simply cannot understand what is causing the blockage. The North Norfolk action pilot scheme was expected to cost the taxpayer another £750,000 to put 100 people to work for 18 months—costing the Government £5,000 a year more for each participant. But, in fact, the scheme proved to be successful because of the number of people who were called in for interview and who then disappeared from the unemployment register because it became a little too hot for them when they were offered work.
  We will never solve the problem of fraudulent claims until we have a proper work test and we shall have a proper work test only when work is offered. Then, we could save millions of pounds and have a much tidier and better country than we have at the present time.

  65
  Part of our problem is that we have such a weak Opposition. Why are the Opposition so silent on subjects such as how much we spend on unemployment? When he was Chief Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me that the cost of unemployment was £13.2 billion. That was in 1992–93. For the year 1993–94, according to the Department, that figure has risen to £14.3 billion—an increase of 8 per cent.—while unemployment was either falling or static and while inflation was just over 2 per cent. So, we have an ever-rising bill.
  However, that is not the true cost of unemployment. The predecessor of the former Secretary of State declared that the cost of each unemployed person in the country was £9,000 a year, which, taken altogether, is somewhere in the region of £25 billion to £30 billion. The time has come for an independent inquiry to find out exactly how much unemployment costs and whether we could do something better than spend all that money, which is a total waste and gets us nowhere.
  I have no time for those people who are claiming unemployment benefit who should not be claiming it; those people who work in the black economy. The black economy, as we all know, is huge. But, there is something off about insisting that people go on writing letters and re-writing their curriculum vitae month after month and so on when we all know that we are providing no work for them and that there will be no further work as a result of insisting on those practices. That seems like forcing people to play bagatelle on a board which does not have any holes and it is rather a cruel exercise. I urge the Secretary of State to do what he can to adjust the Bill as soon as possible and to bring in measures which will offer work. The time has come when we should seriously consider introducing a Bill on the right to work.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Greville Janner: It is always a privilege to participate in a debate with the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell). He can be relied upon to produce a pungent, independent and articulate approach. What astonishes me so often, knowing his approach, his background and his party, is how often I agree with what he says and how often his colleagues disagree with him.
  I want to begin with the right to work. I have always believed that people are entitled to work. In a decent country, a person is entitled to a home, a good place to live, food, clothing, education and health.
  Mr. Streeter: Entitled?
  Mr. Janner: Yes, entitled.
  Mr. Streeter: By whom?
  Mr. Janner: By a decent, civilised society and that is why I am in politics. We should try to provide in society the right for people to work. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North is correct. He was also correct to use the word "cruelty" in respect of the effect of unemployment on people's lives.
  It is cruel to say to people, "We will give you training for work" when there is no work for them to do when that training is finished. It is cruel to say, "You have paid your taxes and national insurance; you have contributed so that
  66
  you may get unemployment benefit" when the length of time when people will receive that benefit is to be cut in half.
  Mr. Sykes: The hon. and learned Gentleman obviously feels very passionately about his subject. I appreciate and applaud that. However, if he believes that all those things are cruel, why does he want to vote for the social chapter which will destroy jobs throughout the country?
  Mr. Janner: Because it will not destroy jobs; because it has not destroyed jobs in Europe; because disabled people have a right to decent treatment; because people have a right to minimum holidays and because this is the only uncivilised part of the European Community which refuses to recognise those basic decent rights for which we stand in this place. That is why.
  I am looking forward to a Labour Government so that we may join Europe in the social chapter and ensure that the rights of our people—of the disabled, women and people who do not have a right to minimum holidays—
  Mr. Sykes: Wake up.
  Mr. Janner: If I were to wake up and find that, I would do so with joy because we should be serving our people in this country. We do not have much time to do that.
  The Secretary of State said that there is no God-given right to be idle and to live off others. Indeed. No Opposition Member would wish anyone to be voluntarily idle, to be lazy or scroungers and not to work and to live off others. However, from my very long experience, I know that the vast majority of unemployed people are desperate for work. The vast majority of the unemployed are anxious to work. They may have got themselves off the register because they are sick of looking. They may have left the register because of the way in which it is organised, but, in my view and in that of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, they have a right to work.
  Our job, whether it is on the Employment Select Committee where we work together, whether it is in this House or in our constituencies, should be to find more work for people. I examined the Bill to discover whether it would create jobs. If any part of it would create jobs, I would support it, but I discovered that it does not do that.
  The Bill will not produce more jobs. To have a Jobseekers Bill without producing more jobs is a contradiction in terms. It is like the old story of military intelligence. If one wants a jobseeker's allowance, one must provide jobs so that the people who are seeking jobs can find them.
  When the Bill was published, I read its name because Governments of all parties organise names so that Bills and Acts will smell right to the public. Unemployment benefit is a benefit that people have earned through their work. A jobseeker's allowance is what the Government will allow people to have. There is a difference in terminology as there is in the smell of it.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, North was right. It is very expensive in terms of human cruelty and suffering to keep people out of work. It is also very expensive in terms of money. A person in work has the opportunity to serve and the chance to earn a living, to pay taxes and national insurance and to contribute towards others who cannot work, perhaps because they are disabled. Many people cannot work through no fault of their own.

  67
  As the hon. Member for Norfolk, North said, we must see how we can help find more jobs. We must make work available.
  As a lawyer, I examined the Bill to see how the Government define job seeking. It is very interesting because the Government do not do that. The Bill states that
  "For the purposes of this Act, 'available for employment' and 'actively seeking employment' have such meaning as may be prescribed";
  not such meaning as the Government now give them, but as they may prescribe in regulations, just as people will get such money as the Government may allow. Regulations are not primary legislation. The Bill will become an enabling statute. This horrendous rubbish continues:
  "Regulations may prescribe circumstances"—
  they do not have to, they may—
  "in which, for the purposes of this Act—".
  Now, for your pre-dinner enjoyment Mr. Deputy Speaker, please listen and see whether you can understand this:

  "(a) a person who is not available for employment is to be treated as available for employment;

  (b) a person who is available for employment is to be treated as not available for employment;

  (c) a person who is not actively seeking employment is to be treated as actively seeking employment; or

  (d) a person who is actively seeking employment is to be treated as not actively seeking employment."

  In other words, the Government can do whatever they like. They can make regulations as they see fit which will no doubt be passed at midnight and even the Government rebels will join them. The Government can prescribe.
  We do not know what the Government are going to do, but we do know that what they do will not be fair. They will not make it fair for young people. Why should the Government always make life worse for young people who do not have jobs? Why should the unfairness be loaded on people who leave school or universities who cannot get jobs? Why should the burden of the jobseeker's allowance be placed on 18 to 24-year-olds? Why should it be placed on unemployed people whose partners do not work? Why should this Government of all Governments place the burden on people with £8,000 or more in savings, which they may have as redundancy pay, so that they will, at best, have their income halved? Why place burdens on those people?
  The Bill does not add jobs or give incentives to jobs. It does not create work. It does not even create incentives to work. It reduces the amount of money that the state will pay in benefits, but it does not reduce that amount in the one way acceptable to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North and myself which is reducing it by having people at work so that they do not have to receive the benefit and so they are paying taxes and national insurance. That is the way to reduce the burden. It should not be reduced by making life harder for the unemployed.
  I listened to the enchanting and typical intervention earlier by that somewhat eccentric and delightful hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). He was talking about scroungers. I have a feeling that that is the bedrock of Tory policy. They believe that everyone who does not have a job is a scrounger. They should go out and look at what is happening.
  68

  I want to cite a few examples from my constituency which I have served for so long. Male unemployment in my constituency today is 17.4 per cent. Yes, it has gone down and I am delighted about that, but still nearly one in five of males who want a job, even on the Government's method of assessing the figure, cannot get one.
  On the great estates in my constituency, unemployment is much higher. Names that mean much in Leicester—for example, Beaumont-Leys, Braunstone, New Parks, Mowmacre, Stocking Farm—have 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. unemployment, I am told, because unemployment is in patches; it does not stretch. Saying that unemployment is 17.4 per cent. is like the doctor hurrying into the ward and asking the sister, "What is the average temperature of all the patients?"
  The average unemployment among men is 17.4 per cent. and of women it is only 6.1 per cent. I wonder why. The answer, of course, is that they work part-time. If they are not employed, they go off the register; they are not unemployed. Even then, the level is higher than the national average. The national average of male unemployment is 11.1 per cent. One in 10 men are looking for jobs. They are not paying taxes or national insurance, and they are entitled to benefits. Female unemployment in Leicester, West is 6.1 per cent. and the national average is 4.8 per cent. There are women on the register who want work but cannot get it.
  It is a rotten system and it will not be made fairer by the Bill. The Bill will not do much to help. It does one thing, perhaps: it shows some co-operation between two Departments, and that I welcome. I have always believed that Departments should work closely together and that if a decision by any Department creates unemployment, that Department should consult the Employment Secretary of the day. I am in favour of one-stop benefits—I hope that the system works. Those who are in schemes believe that it will not work, but I hope that it does, because that would reduce the burden. Otherwise, what a mess.
  I conclude with a quotation from a book called "A Time To Serve" by Rev. Dr. John E. Brown who, happily, is the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). That book, which has just been produced, and which I strongly recommend because the writer is a distinguished cleric who has no doubt made speeches and sermons from Liverpool cathedral—I suggest that the Minister reads it—states:
  "Lord you must have made a mistake in your calculations."—
  I was wondering whether he had the Government in mind—

  "There is a big mistake somewhere.

  The hours are too short,

  The days are too short,

  Our lives are too short …

  we must not lose time,

  waste time,

  kill time,

  For time is a gift that you give us,

  But a perishable gift,

  A gift that does not keep."

  Unemployed people find that time passes with immeasurable slowness. They have the same short time on this earth as we have. We should work to see that they have work. The Bill will not add to that possibility, and it should be rejected for that reason.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. John Sykes: The year 1995 marks two special dates for me: one celebrates the founding of our family business 150 years ago and the other marks the 700th anniversary of Scarborough returning a Member of Parliament to Westminster, although not the same one. Of course, there has been a labour market in Scarborough and Whitby for much longer than that, and it has thrived without employment directives from Brussels. My experience of the labour market is limited to the practical day-to-day difficulties of running a company involved in manufacturing, retailing and agricultural property.
  The Bill deals with the labour market. We in our business know the value of a flexible labour market, to which the Tory reforms of the past 15 years have made positive contributions—reforms that have benefited companies and employees alike. I talk with business colleagues who also value the Government's approach, some of whom have charge of their European subsidiaries in Europe. What began two years ago as a trickle of rumours across the English channel has now become a hard fact. Companies in Europe are now deliberately pursuing policies designed to minimise the employment of labour. All the passion exhibited by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) will not alter that single hard fact, for it is manufacturers and companies in Europe—not he or the Governments of Europe—who provide jobs.
  The Economist tells us that, despite a sharp increase in overall confidence in Europe, businesses throughout Europe expect to cut their work forces in the years that lie ahead, with one singular and significant exception. That significant exception is the first choice for Japanese and American firms when establishing a presence in Europe. That significant exception has one of the lowest unemployment figures in Europe and one of the best strike records since the 1890s. It is, of course, the significant country of Great Britain.
  What is the other significant difference between Great Britain and the others? It is the absence of the social chapter and the existence instead of a flexible labour market. The Jobseekers Bill will continue and amplify that difference. It is part of the process of reform that is enabling the country to compete.
  The Bill also deals with the provision of welfare. Sadly, Britain's welfare state remains a gold-mine for those who wish to take unfair advantage of it. One of the most unpleasant manifestations of that is the emergence of so-called badly run Department of Social Security hostels in seaside resorts. Young unemployed people migrate from towns and cities and claim a variety of benefits in an altogether more congenial town. Some come in search of work; others have no intention of lifting a finger.
  It has become clear from experience that the work-shy can easily meet current conditions for receiving benefit by adhering to the letter of the law while taking parallel action designed to ensure that they never get a job. The sight of such able-bodied youths lounging on street corners, always with sufficient money for booze and fags, and, in some cases, drugs, is a slap in the face for the decent, hard-working majority.
  In my factory, where take-home pay is up to about £300 a week, we have no trouble finding good, well-motivated workers, but it is frustrating to find new recruits who are playing the present system for all it is worth. One
  70
  22-year-old lasted three days with us, and he left saying that benefits of £160 a week were worth more to him. Presumably, he preferred to stay home watching videos. [Interruption.] Two others arrived on a Monday. [Interruption.] I regret to tell Opposition Members that I can speak from my experience of employing people. I expect that Opposition Members' experience of employing people extends no further than the research assistants who dominate the Palace of Westminster. I am talking about practical experience.
  Two other people arrived on a Monday. [Interruption.] They took an hour off on Tuesday—we thought to sign off the dole. They did not come back until Wednesday, and then did so only to tell us that they found factory work tiring and to ask whether we would please sack them to make it easier for them to claim their dole. We refused to oblige, of course.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sykes: I will give way in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman can bear to control himself.
  We refused to oblige, of course, but the men left and, as far as we know, had no trouble slipping back on to the dole.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman referred to his former employee aged 22, who left saying that he could gain more money if he was claiming benefit. What wage was the hon. Gentleman paying that young man?
  Mr. Sykes: The hon. Member was not listening to what I was saying. It is always a pleasure to encounter the soft red underbelly of the socialist party from time to time. I was saying that the gentleman concerned received sufficient benefit to make it not worth his while to work. He preferred to stay at home watching videos. [Interruption.] I am afraid that, with the best will in the world, the hon. Gentleman must accept that there are such people. I am relating my direct experience to the House.
  The Bill will make such young men start from their armchairs, if they are tuned into the parliamentary channel this evening, because they will be required to be available for any work that they can reasonably be expected to do. Others will be required to improve their employability. That is another aspect to which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) must turn his mind if he has not already done so.
  Those young men will have to take steps, if appropriate, to present themselves acceptably to employers. Perhaps that will herald, at last, the last of the Mohicans. If they cannot be persuaded voluntarily to remove the rings from their noses the Bill will lead them—by their noses, as it were—into workfare projects, under which they will be obliged to put something back into the community.
  The idea of workfare has widespread support in the country, and in many ways the Bill's mention of workfare is one of its most exciting aspects. I urge the Government to ensure that whatever scheme is chosen they make simplicity their byword, because an expensive and bureaucratic system will strangle workfare at birth.
  For scroungers and for the feckless, the indolent and the work-shy—[interruption]—there is no good news in the Bill. They may even, rightly, face disqualification

  71
  from benefit. However, if Britain's welfare system has been a gold-mine for those who wish to take unfair advantage of it—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
  Mr. Sykes:—it is and will remain a blessed—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should pay a little more attention to the occupant of the Chair.
  I recognise that hon. Members have not had the chance to use their voices much during the recess, but I should be grateful if they would reserve their comments until they have the Floor.
  Mr. Sykes: I assure Opposition Members that I shall listen to them in silence.
  If Britain's welfare state has been a gold-mine for those who wish to take unfair advantage of it, it is and will remain a blessed relief to those who genuinely need it. Elements in the Bill will be especially welcome to such people.
  Near my home in Scarborough lives a hard-working family, all of whom are in work except the head of the household, who is 50 years old and desperate for a job. The tragedy is that he is almost always told, "Sorry, we are looking for someone younger." In my business experience I find older people reliable, skilled and experienced—I can even extend that description to the hon. Member for Workington.
  My neighbour and many like him, who constitute the long-term unemployed, will be helped back to work by provisions and incentives such as a national insurance holiday for companies that give a job to someone who has been on the unemployed list for more than two years.
  In Scarborough and Whitby we have our own powerhouse of a micro-economy. A wide range of dynamic companies have established themselves on the coast, providing jobs and prosperity. That is what counts. However, when most of my parliamentary colleagues think of Scarborough and Whitby they think of it as a nice place to go on holiday or to retire to. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington is welcome any time.
  Many part-time jobs have been created in tourism and nursing, which suits many of the families living in Scarborough and Whitby, who value the flexibility afforded by part-time work. There is especially good news in the parts of the Bill that help people who wish to engage in part-time work. A claimant's partner will be able to work for up to 24 hours per week without the claimant being disqualified from benefit. The measures that encourage people to leave benefit by taking part-time work as a prelude to full-time work will also prove helpful, as will many other measures in the Bill.
  It is almost three years since I became a Member of Parliament—
  Mr. Janner: Too long.
  Mr. Sykes: It may be too long for the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I expect to be here for an awful lot longer than he will be.
  It is almost three years since I became a Member of Parliament, and in that time the Government have taken many important steps forward—the Trade Union Reform
  72
  and Employment Rights Act 1993, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, and now the Jobseekers Bill. All are entirely consistent with the Government's overall strategy of sustaining and building on our achievements during the 1980s.
  British business is now well equipped, with startling advantages in its ability to compete with the world. Opposition Members must not forget that it is the rest of the world with which we are competing. That is nothing to do with post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory or symbiotic relationships of one kind or another; it is straightforward common sense.
  The closing years of the 20th century will magnify continental Europe's failure to create the right conditions for jobs. Its minimum wages, massive welfare systems, extreme employment protection laws, parental leave directives, works councils, directives on part-time work, working hours restrictions and social chapter are all profoundly misguided. Curse Europe's efforts to impose such conditions on the English.
  I finish by reminding the House about my friends who run subsidiary companies in other European countries. One told me before Christmas that he could not afford to take on anyone else in Europe because of the cost of employing people. But I have saved the best example until last. A large company in my constituency has decided not to build a new factory in France, because of the cost of employing people there, and instead has doubled its production in Scarborough. Those are the hard facts, and in the end it is the hard facts that count. That is why hon. Members should vote for the Bill.
  6.44 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: I welcome one or two features of the Bill, and I shall come to those later. I had been hoping for some positive measures, as had unemployed people throughout the country and many other hon. Members, but unfortunately the Bill is a sad disappointment to us all.
  I had thought that the Secretary of State for Social Security had had a change of heart, especially when I read the speech that he delivered in Northern Ireland a few weeks ago, in which he seemed to take into account the problems of the low-paid and the unemployed, but after his speech yesterday I realised that that was a fallacy and that there had been no change of heart. I did not even expect a change of heart from the Secretary of State for Employment.
  There is no denying that new legislation is needed, but the Bill represents a missed opportunity. The benefits system is too complex and it has too many poverty traps. The Secretary of State for Social Security admitted in the White Paper that the overwhelming majority of people make every effort to find work at the earliest opportunity, so why are these draconian measures needed? The Bill's aim was supposed to be to get people back to work; instead, it will do nothing but save the Treasury money.
  Let us look at some of the specifics—for instance, the measures affecting 18 to 25-year-olds, who now get less income support than anyone else. I have never thought that that was fair, but instead of taking the opportunity to change it the Government have extended the disadvantage. When the jobseeker's allowance is introduced people under 25 who have paid national insurance contributions will still get less—£9.55 less, to

  73
  be precise—than everyone else. How are young people supposed to manage on less than anyone else? Do food, clothes and rent cost them less? Of course not; the proposal is totally unfair.
  Cutting entitlement to the contributory benefit that is now called unemployment benefit from 12 months to six months will make thousands of people with savings ineligible for benefit. Liberal Democrats say that we will reverse that, and I should like to hear a similar guarantee from the Labour party. People who oppose the Government cutting the time from 12 months to six months should say what they would do if they ever took office.
  I asked the Secretary of State for Employment how much it would cost to implement the jobseeker's agreement, and I received a written answer saying that the subject was still under consideration. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman, or whichever of his colleagues is to reply, to give me an answer to that question. We need to know. I know that the jobseeker's agreement is an extension of restart, but so much more weight will be put on the interviews. How much will it cost to train the interviewers? At present many people who go for restart interviews are humiliated and demoralised, and we do not want that to happen with the jobseeker's agreement. The Secretary of State said that the subject was still under consideration, but we need to know those figures now.
  If the Secretary of State for Social Security thinks that people are really trying to find work, and the Secretary of State for Employment agrees with him, why is the Bill necessary? Why not concentrate on the long-term unemployed, and on providing proper training packages for people?
  Will the training necessary for the jobseeker's agreement to work be available? For example, if an unemployed person gives the Government the guarantee that he or she will seek work, and the interviewer says that the person needs training to find a job, will the Government commit themselves to providing the training for which a need has been identified? I doubt it very much, because the training budget has been reduced from £1 billion to £782 million in the past five years. I should like some reassurance from the Secretary of State that training will be available if an unemployed person is identified as needing it.
  At present, a person is allowed to study for 21 hours a week before losing benefit. The Bill provided a great opportunity for the Government to change that, and to make sure that people could study for longer, but the limit will remain at 21 hours. The Government talk about education and training. If they really believed in a properly educated and trained work force, they would ensure that people could study for longer than 21 hours.
  Let us look at the problems that disabled people will face. With the new medical test for incapacity benefit, a lot of people will lose that benefit.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I was much impressed by the hon. Lady's argument about extending the hours of study before a person loses benefit, but how much longer than 21 hours should the limit be? She cannot just leave it there.
  Ms Lynne: It is obvious that someone who is studying will have better job opportunities after he has qualifications, so it is short-sighted to restrict the study
  74
  time to 21 hours. I will not say what the limit should be for everybody, but a person who is studying should be available for work at the same time. If a job opportunity comes up and he takes that job, he will of course cease his studies. The 21-hour limit is not feasible.
  If disabled people lose entitlement to incapacity benefit, they may try to get the jobseeker's allowance. A jobseeker's agreement will then be drawn up, but what will happen if that disabled person cannot meet its conditions? Will he then be denied the jobseeker's allowance? I should like an assurance that disabled people will not fall through the gap between two benefits.
  There are some good points in the Bill. The back-to-work bonus is welcome as far as it goes—it does not go far enough—as it gives people an incentive to return to work. I also welcome the jobseeker's grant and the year's national insurance holiday for an employer who takes on someone who has been unemployed for two years.
  I also welcome workstart, which the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) mentioned. I do not see why the Government cannot extend the pilot schemes across the country. Indeed, they could go further and introduce a proper benefits transfer scheme under which benefits could be given to employers who take on someone who has been unemployed for more than two years. That would get people back into work, and I am sure that that is what all hon. Members want.
  We need comprehensive reform, not the piecemeal approach of the Bill. Instead of merging unemployment benefit and income support, the Government should merge family credit and income support. That would get people out of the poverty trap and create a new low-income benefit so that people would not lose benefit pound-for-pound when they get back into work. There would be a real incentive, and it would end the situation where the partner of a person who loses his job is sometimes better off going on the dole.
  The Bill is punitive. It proposes some good measures, but the vast majority of it is punitive. It will not achieve the real objective, which is supposed to be to get people back to work. I am desperately afraid that some of the people who cannot meet their commitments under the jobseeker's agreement for whatever reason may be forced into starvation—I know that that sounds dramatic—and some could be forced into crime.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, in his address in Liverpool cathedral last week, said how struck he had been—particularly since he went to the Department of Employment—by the need for public debate on ethical issues. I welcome that invitation. My right hon. Friend is a person of high seriousness, and he is regarded by many people as the standard-bearer for the Conservativism of the future. I hold him personally in the warmest regard, but I differ profoundly from him as to the course that the Conservative party should take. The Bill crystallises our differences.
  Why have my right hon. Friends—I am not sure how many have been closely involved—introduced the Bill? They have not done it to achieve substantial savings in public expenditure. I do not doubt that the preliminaries to the Bill go back to 1993, when my right hon. Friend

  75
  was Chief Secretary. There was at that time a fiscal crisis, and no doubt my right hon. Friend took the view that a fundamental review of unemployment benefit and income support might yield substantial savings.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security rightly insists that we attend to a problem that we must address on both sides of the Chamber. That is that the growth of social security expenditure is at least as fast as the growth of the economy. I would put it to my right hon. Friends that the policies to create more jobs that they are pursuing are very much the best way to tackle the problem.
  Meantime, we have found that any savings that the fundamental review may yield from benefits will not be large. The Bill states that savings on benefit costs of £410 million in 1996–1998 will be offset by an increase in administrative expenditure of £280 million in three years.
  Much as I welcome the closer integration of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service in their practical operations, I do not think that that is the reason why the legislation has been brought in. I doubt whether primary legislation is needed to achieve much that can usefully be done, and the purpose of the Bill goes way beyond making the services more user-friendly.
  My right hon. Friend rightly insists that a condition for the receipt of benefit should be that claimants must be available for work and be actively seeking work. That has not been in dispute, as he suggested, since the time of Beveridge.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: It might be as well—as Beveridge is so misquoted in the House—to recall that, when the actively seeking work principle was dropped in the 1930s, he said:
  "May it never rise again from its dishonoured grave".
  Mr. Howarth: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but—as my right hon. Friend explained earlier—Beveridge certainly expected the exercise of active personal responsibility on the part of unemployed people.
  The White Paper acknowledges that the overwhelming majority of people who become unemployed make every effort to find work at the earliest opportunity. That is the positive recognition which ought to animate policy. If we take care of the jobs, jobseekers will in the main take care of themselves.
  The White Paper claims that the policy is designed to improve incentives, but I find that the Government's policy is contradictory in that regard. I welcome the concessions on earnings and hours of work on the part of partners before loss of benefit, the relaxation of the rules for trying a new job experimentally, the bonus to encourage people to progress through part-time work to full-time work, the improved transition to in-work benefits and the jobfinder's grant. Those measures complement other sensible initiatives on child care and nursery education. I also welcome the alteration of the rules governing employers' national insurance contributions for those who employ low-paid workers and people who have been unemployed for two years.
  76
  The Bill, however, moves in the opposite direction in an important sense. It serves to intensify the disincentive for work and saving by switching people on to means-tested benefits and into the poverty trap six months earlier than in the existing system. That seems perverse.
  The true explanation of why the Government are introducing the legislation is to be found in paragraph 2.7 of the White Paper. It says:
  "Changes are needed to make clear to unemployed people the link between their receipt of benefit and the obligations that places upon them."
  The purpose of the Bill is to establish an emphasis. It is to assert a set of values and a view of human nature, society and the role of the state.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was candid in a carefully considered speech to the Conservative political centre in October 1993 when he sought to rehabilitate stigma from its decline at the hands of political correctness and argued that we needed in our public philosophy a renewed emphasis on right and wrong and on personal responsibility. In an address to Church at Work a month earlier, he said:
  "too broad a benefit system can undermine the morale of those who receive help … By its choices, a government demonstrates its philosophy and shows its moral fibre."
  The argument about the effect of poor relief on the morale of recipients goes back at least as far as the debates on the 1834 Poor Law. On that occasion it was not the Tories but the Benthamites who argued that dependence on poor relief should be a "less eligible" and desirable condition and who required that paupers should be distinguished from the rest of society. It was Disraeli, the young future leader of the Tory party, who said of the new 1834 Poor Law that it was
  "both a moral crime and a political blunder."
  Decisions on welfare are—or ought to be—among the most difficult that Governments have to take. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State observes from time to time, they involve issues of moral hazard. I put it to him that they do so not only for the poor but for the powerful and affluent. If Ministers are sometimes uncertain what to do—in all humility, how can they not be?—they should take a risk in the direction of generosity. It may be argued that that way lies fiscal perdition, but I would say that to be generous in this respect is a proper use of our money, which Ministers raise in taxes and hold in trust on behalf of us all. It is perfectly proper and also prudent to do so. We need to consider carefully whether targeting, taken over the life cycle, will save public expenditure.
  The circumstances in which my right hon. Friends make those decisions are of giddying economic and cultural change. Employers are stripping out surplus labour and skills and keeping only the core. They call in outworkers as and when they need them. The cost of supporting spare capacity increasingly falls on households instead of shareholders. Those changes are, no doubt, exhilarating for the strong and ambitious. They are frightening for the less capable and the less fortunate.
  Of course, my right hon. Friends are right to embrace change. There is no prosperous future for us in refusing to face the future. So the Government drive forward. Sometimes, even to their most affectionate supporters, they are reminiscent of Bakunin's chariot of revolution, rolling and gnashing its teeth as it rolls. My right hon. Friends vigorously dismantle the old and throw out historical lumber. Deregulation, flexibility, free trade,

  77
  contracting out, opting out and targeting are our nostrums. Radicalism is our watchword. In their eagerness for change, I trust that my right hon. Friends will not forget that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure that the victims of change are not destitute.
  In Liverpool, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took to task some churchmen who had been, he suggested, seduced from individualism into collectivism. I observe to my right hon. Friend that the Church has always usefully reminded us that we are members one of another.
  The dismantling of an old order is not the creation of a new one. As the old dies, the new struggles to be born. As Gramsci noted, in the interval morbid symptoms appear. They include systemically higher unemployment, and casualisation and insecurity extended across society. People are rendered derelict because their obsolete skills, or their lack of skills, mean that they cannot find employment. Inequality widens and the poorest households become poorer.
  We are elected to Parliament and we serve in government with a responsibility to take care of our society. I do not believe that market forces are an invisible hand that of itself will create a worthwhile pattern out of all this. Adam Smith was a moral philosopher as well as an economist and he insisted on the need for what he called sympathy.
  The Bill widens inequality and deepens impoverishment. It would reduce benefits paid to people unemployed over a year by between 20 and 70 per cent. The changes that it seeks to introduce in the benefits system would be prejudicial to families. That seems an aberration for the Conservative party. The changes would be particularly prejudicial to young families. Under the present system of income support, if both partners are below the age of 25, they receive a lower rate of benefit. Under the new arrangements, that will also apply to recipients of contributory benefit. I have never understood the rationale behind the lower rate of income support for 24-year-olds. If people are 24, their household costs are not thereby less than if they are 25. We need to think carefully about the effect of the changes on children. Poverty is most concentrated in families with children.
  I have to say with sadness that I find the Government's policy too harsh. I also find it improvident. The traumas of poverty carry dire long-term consequences both for society and for the Exchequer. Those who are stigmatised and alienated from our society into the workhouse, so to speak—one might say that workwise is our modern workhouse—feel less sense of obligation to society. It is as well that we should consider at least the correlation between lawlessness and unemployment.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I have followed my hon. Friend's philosophical discourse with some interest. It has been intellectually stimulating. He seems to suggest that we should show more generosity. We all agree with that. Is not the dilemma that he has to face, and everyone regardless of party has to face, that by being generous and increasing the unit costs of labour, our industry would become less competitive than it otherwise would be and could not sell its products? That would cause more people to come out of work. That generosity would then increase and keep the circle going. There is the dilemma.
  78
  While any Tory of the old school—I hope that I can include both of us in that—would like to be as generous as possible, there is a practical difficulty. Unless someone can square that circle, there is no real or obvious answer.
  Mr. Howarth: I was talking about the benefits system, not the minimum wage, although I would willingly discuss that with my hon. Friend. I suggest that if he has a moment, he should go to the Library and look at the research on that subject by Professor Card of Princeton university.
  I wonder how people on income support can manage decently to feed their families and heat their homes. Under the proposals in the Bill, we would require some people on benefit to live in yet deeper penury. As matters stand already, if people, in the opinion of an Employment Service official, leave a job voluntarily or for reasons of misconduct, they are liable to a deduction from their income support of up to 40 per cent. That may last for up to 26 weeks.
  For single people under 25, income support after a 40 per cent. deduction is £21.70 a week. I ask my hon. Friends to imagine what it must be like to try to live on £21.70 a week. In Liverpool, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, towards the end of his address, that among other things,
  "Britain stands for … the freedom of the citizen … to offer his labour and to withdraw it."
  I wonder whether he overlooked that feature of the benefits system when he used those words.
  As it is, we are increasing the use of sanctions. Between April and September 1994, 40,000 people suffered sanctions of up to 40 per cent. for refusing to attend or complete a compulsory programme. That was an increase of two and a half times over the previous year. Disqualifications on the ground that claimants are not actively seeking work have trebled since 1990–91.
  As my right hon. Friend knows, I am concerned about older claimants. It is a remarkable fact that 59 per cent. of people now aged between 55 and 64 are not in employment. That compares with 8 per cent. in 1977 and it is stark evidence of the insecurity and, in all too many cases, the impoverishment caused by technological change and the impact of a global, competitive labour market.
  Under our present rules, which will be perpetuated through this measure, people under the age of 60 will have to seek work actively if they are to receive benefit. As my right hon. Friend told me when I put this consideration to him on a previous occasion, we must not give up on them, but I fear that, for that age group, the requirement actively to seek work will be a humiliating ritual associated with benefit dependency, rather than a functional feature of the labour market. It is as if one of us were to go into the pulpit and tell those older people, "Seek, even though ye shall not find."
  We are introducing a further severity. If a single person, who is in good health, declines to conform with a jobseeker's direction, and if he does not agree with or accept the say-so of an Employment Service official, as my right hon. Friend explained when he opened the debate, he or she will not receive benefit for a fortnight and will have no means of subsistence. Paragraph 4.40 of the White Paper makes it clear that such people would not

  79
  even be eligible for a loan from the social fund. I was interested in that aspect in relation to what my right hon. Friend said in Liverpool:
  "We must face the new moral and spiritual challenge of living in less adverse times".
  I am not sure that that particular circumstance was what he had in mind.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) rightly drew attention to the possible predicament of about 200,000 people who are eligible for invalidity benefit, for whom there is no work, and whose disability may not be severe enough to qualify them for the new, more stringently assessed, incapacity benefit, but who may find themselves unable to satisfy the availability and actively seeking work requirements to qualify for the jobseeker's allowance.
  On a previous occasion, my right hon. Friend observed that it is the responsibility of the state to provide a comprehensive safety net for the needy. I very much hope that the interests of that group will be carefully safeguarded.
  I am dismayed by the authoritarianism of the Bill. I am perplexed that it should be so. In Liverpool, my right hon. Friend said:
  "The first duty of government … is to create conditions in which people can become what they want to become".
  This legislation is not consistent with that attractive spirit.
  Last summer, about three times the number of people were required to go on compulsory courses than on vocational training after restart interviews. The Government's plans suggest that, in replacing job plan workshops with workwise and 1–2–1, they anticipate that about twice the number of 18 to 24-year-olds will go on compulsory courses. Perhaps that is our variant of workfare, which has its supporters among Opposition as well as Conservative Members. Enthusiasts for that system should realise that we need to be very self-aware as we explore those policies, to be sure that it is not a tendency to indulge the authoritarian personality that is tempting us forward, and that we are genuinely trying to find practical ways in which to help unemployed people.
  The jobseeker's direction is the most authoritarian feature of the policy. It goes well beyond the existing official recommendation and provides that the state should be able to lay down detailed requirements of behaviour for our citizens. It provides vague, but extensive, discretionary powers for officials to require their fellow citizens to undertake activities that seem appropriate to them and to alter their personal ways and style. In Liverpool, my right hon. Friend said that
  "over-zealous intervention by the state undermines
  personal responsibility".
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, as a society, structural, long-term unemployment is one of the problems that we face? Countries that try to tackle that problem all end up with some element of compulsion. For example, Sweden is the most liberal regime and it is no doubt one of which he might approve, but after a year it requires an unemployed
  80
  person to take work. Most countries do so, but that is an element of what he is criticising. Surely an element of compulsion is necessary and has to be part of any scheme.
  Mr. Howarth: I am not arguing against the condition about availability and actively seeking work. I have deep doubts about the wisdom of allowing the Employment Service to exercise dictatorial powers over unemployed people. I find that profoundly illiberal.
  In Liverpool, my right hon. Friend observed how much better the democratic state is than the authoritarian variety—certainly, it at least allows us to question the policies.
  I am confused by the Government's moral position. The centrepiece of the policy is the jobseeker's agreement—an undertaking whereby the unemployed person commits himself to be available, to seek work actively and to comply with requirements stipulated in return for benefit—the jobseeker's allowance.
  The Conservative party has always attached importance to contract as a principle that marshals and orders the energies of free enterprise. It is in the nature of a true agreement, however, that it is made freely and not under duress, such as the loss of benefit.
  The Government should also abide by their pre-existing contract. Unemployment benefit is an entitlement based on national insurance contributions, which lasts for 12 months. We are going to substitute for that the contributory jobseeker's allowance, which will be available for six months only. We are taking out the adult dependant's allowance. Similarly, we have been reducing contributory benefits for the long-term sick and disabled. Those cuts for the unemployed and for disabled people come in the wake of a 10 per cent. increase in employees' national insurance contributions.
  My right hon. Friends insist that one should not have something for nothing, but nor should one have nothing for something. What is the Government's view of the contributory principle? Is it simply to be an illusion—a device for rationing benefit—or is it still to be a bargain between the Government, employers and our citizens for the provision of social insurance?
  My right hon. Friends speak moralistically about the "job-shy", but if they rewrite the national insurance contract in their favour, they will undermine their moral claim on the unemployed.
  None of us condones abuse of the benefits system. Nor should we condone abuse of the sanctions system. I commend my hon. Friends to read the latest annual report of the chief adjudication officer. He found that 39 per cent. of Employment Service adjudications in 1993–94 were unsatisfactory and that in no less than 92 per cent. of appeal decisions a claimant disputed the suspension of benefit. He therefore recommended that there should be an
  "investigation of the reasons for the continuing poor standard."
  That report should be read in conjunction with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report issued in October, "Benefit of the Doubt", which describes how, in 1993–94, 180,000 people whose benefit was suspended erroneously had to subsist on reduced income support payments or even none. Many had to do so for months on end while waiting for their case to be heard.

  81
  Those failures in administration and justice are the real scandal. They dwarf the scandal of abuse by fraudulent claimants of benefit. I worry that present policy may make the position worse. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just left the Chamber because, in response to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), he said that the Employment Service had not been incentivised to disqualify more claimants. The Employment Service agreement seems to show that a target is set of 135,000 challenges to claimants on the basis that they are not making themselves available for or actively seeking work. I am struck by the confidence of my right hon. Friends, therefore, in systematically encouraging the service to challenge more benefits, given the background of miscarriages of justice described by the chief adjudication officer.
  My right hon. Friends' confidence in the capacity of the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency for wise administration is great. Clause 28 of the Jobseekers Bill establishes new offences. It says that a person is guilty of an offence if he
  "refuses or neglects to answer any question or to furnish any information … under this Act.
  Regulations under this Act may provide for contravention of, or failure to comply with, any of their provisions to be an offence.
  A person guilty of an offence under … any regulations made under this Act, shall be liable … to a fine".
  Are the unemployed to be treated as criminals? They are our fellow human beings and should be able to count on our sympathy and support. What will it do to the morale of our society to proceed in this way? We must base our policy on a belief in human worth and good will. If we do not, we shall provoke a cynicism and demoralisation that will be truly ruinous.
  What will it do to the public service ethos, to create arbitrary powers, systematically encourage officials to disqualify from benefit, sanction claimants even more severely than at present and criminalise them? Why should we do that? Is it to achieve candle-end economies for the Treasury—candle ends that might provide light and even some warmth in the households of the poor? Is it to appease the consciences of the affluent so that they can feel more comfortable, believing that those who are poor are feckless and fiddling the system? Are the poor so undeserving that they deserve this?
  We need to deconstruct some of the Orwellian language in the Bill, such as "jobseeker's agreement" and "motivation courses". How can we compulsorily motivate someone? I am sure that those who work in the Employment Service are decent people—some will no doubt wish to minimise the harsher effects of the policy—but observation of history and human nature suggests to me that if people in their official capacity are given the power to control and punish their fellow citizens, in less than five minutes some of them start to abuse that power. It is fatuous to suppose that there is something so redeemingly British about our officials that it will not occur here.
  The moral energy of Margaret Thatcher's Conservatism lay in her commitment to freedom and responsibility. The history of this Parliament is, perhaps most importantly, that of resistance to arbitrary power. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke to Church at Work, he was dismissive of
  "high generosity with other people's money"
  and
  82
  "collectivised charity".
  He said:
  "High taxes erode personal values."
  But do low taxes enhance personal values? How much could the good Samaritan, my right hon. Friend's moral hero, achieve of himself and alone? The state is an agent and Ministers are trustees of a collective purpose on the part of us all to further certain things—a purpose that kindliness makes us share but mere individualism prevents us fulfilling. Do my right hon. Friends reject the view of lain McLeod, in another address to the Conservative political centre, that it is the task of a Tory to heal and unify?
  The labour market is changing fast. There are few fixities in our national life, but one is the British sense of fairness. My right hon. Friend, like Saint-Just, desires only to act with due rigour and promote virtue. We are not, thank goodness, a nation of puritans or of rednecks. There is no constituency in this country for a kind of country-cousin Gingrichism. Republican virtue is alien to the Tory tradition. In 1945, voters ignored heroic leadership and were mindful of what they took to be the indifference of Conservative politicians in the 1930s to poverty and social injustice. After 1945, the Conservative party learnt the lesson. That precedent contains a warning for the party to which my right hon. Friend and I both belong.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: No one would object to the measure that we are debating today if the country were in a position of full employment. But we are not in a position of full employment, so the task that we set ourselves in this debate is to try to understand the extent to which the Bill helps us to move back to a position of full employability.
  Not for the first time, two Conservative Back Benchers have helped us to understand the failures of a measure before us to live up to the objective of full employability. This is not the first time that I have heard that elucidation from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and my hon. Friend—if I may call him that—the Member for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell). They have both underlined important points which I merely wish to underscore.
  Above all, I want to emphasise a point made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North about what unemployment does to people. He did not present it in a fairytale way as though there were only one type of unemployed person, but stressed the image of unemployed people who are nearly broken by the experience of unemployment and who, in a market economy, feel a lack of worth because they cannot contribute fully to the society in which they live. As he said, the picture is more complicated than that. But whatever I go on to say, we must never lose that image from our debates. All of us, especially those with industrial constituencies, see many people in our surgeries who say that they are playing the system. Although their mouths smile, their watery, wintry eyes tell a different tale about what unemployment does to them. It is extremely important to keep that image before us.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked what moral lessons we could draw from the Bill. I thought it extraordinary that a Secretary of State who had just

  83
  journeyed to Liverpool to talk from one of the most prestigious pulpits in that city should have scored a first in this House by introducing a measure concerning the unemployed. He told us that, ever since measures were first introduced here, conditions were attached to benefits. That is true, but it is only one of the issues about which we should remind ourselves at this time.
  There have been many measures against unemployment, whether from Lloyd George and Churchill in the last Liberal Government, Chamberlain in the inter-war period, the coalition Government or from the Governments who followed in the post-war years. But before tonight no Minister has spoken about such a measure without relating it to the moral framework within which the Secretary of State thinks individuals should operate and the moral framework within which society operates.
  It is no longer good enough to think that people outside believe that mention of incentive and the market system means that one has conducted an appraisal of moral systems and how they affect individuals and build up to affect the quality and tone of the society in which we work.
  For a long time, it has seemed that the Government are brain dead when it comes to looking at the moral and physical impacts of their measures on the wider society. I shall recall just three. Millions of our constituents were taught by the poll tax that it pays to break the law. They were given individual tuition in the Thatcher seminars that one could get away with breaking the law and there were no penalties. Millions learnt that lesson, and they store it in their hearts and act on it. Before then, they were proud never to be lawbreakers. The Government pushed them into that position.
  Just before the Christmas recess, an answer was sneaked out about the Child Support Agency. A third of a million people in the country were told, "Well done, lads, for breaking the law and for putting your two fingers up to the Government. Well done for saying that you will not abide by what we enact as the law of this country. We are calling the troops off. The dogs are off you. Don't worry, we will not seriously pursue you for maintenance."
  What sort of lesson is that for the single mums who have been deserted, or for all the fathers who protest because they think that the agency has acted arbitrarily or is asking for too much money from them? What does it mean to them to see the Government reward people who hold two fingers up to the House? The Bill tells the country that it is all right to tear up contracts, because the measures that we pass are contracts with our constituents. When we pass national insurance measures and instruments we levy taxes on people and the agreement is that when they need it, they will get benefit. Now it is being said, "Never mind about that, lads and lasses. We are tearing up that agreement because we are the Government and we can do such things." The Bill may well get its Second Reading, but what will that teach the outside world about honour or about giving one's word or a commitment?
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Surely the contract on national insurance is that the money which is taken under the national insurance heading goes into a fund and is used
  84
  only for specified purposes such as the provision of unemployment benefit and pensions. Can the hon. Gentleman point to one penny in that fund which has not been used for those purposes? Will he please acknowledge that the fund is used fully for those purposes and that when it is inadequate we use a Treasury supplement? Therefore, we have surely kept our side of the contract.
  Mr. Field: I almost despair. The Minister is very able. Often, when that is said in the House, it is said condescendingly, but I do not mean it in that way at all. She knows perfectly well that that is a mind-boggling way of describing what we mean by legal contracts between Governments and those who are governed. We are not saying to people that should the national insurance fund fall into deficit, we may have to increase national insurance charges to meet the bill. What is on offer is the tearing up of a contract that is understood.
  Successive Government measures have taught people to encourage the worst side of human nature, and that has the most profound effect on our society. The Bill does that in a further way because it increases the number of people who will be dependent on means-tested benefit. The Secretary of State's answer at Question Time was revealing. I asked him how many people, who thought that they had paid contributions to cover them should they become unemployed, would be pushed on to means-tested benefit now that he is tearing up the contract. He did not know.
  The reason that the Bolsheviks so hated the novel "Doctor Zhivago" was that Lara was killed by them and they were so inefficient at going about their killing that they did not even know in which death camp they had done it. The Bill will push a whole army of new people on to means-tested benefits and the Secretary of State who is responsible for the measure does not even know how many will be pushed into that form of dependency.
  What means-tested benefits are doing to the moral fibre of this country is important, and it registers in the country even if perhaps it does not register as fully as it should in the House. The problem is no longer marginal. Nearly 10 million households—I am not double counting—depend on one or other of the major means-tested benefits. That is almost half the country; when their dependants are added, it means that some 25 million people, almost half the population, have their standard of living determined to some extent, if not totally, by means-tested assistance. The Bill will increase that number.
  When David Piachaud and I coined the phrase in the early 1970s about the poverty trap, I thought of it in a sort of passive way. I thought that people would be on benefit and would find it difficult to disentangle themselves. I now realise how simple that was and how much more complicated life is. Over the period since then, there has been a change in attitudes in respect of honesty, and it extends from the boardroom to the benefit office. Large numbers of people are denied the possibility of full-time, reasonably paid jobs and are offered only part-time jobs. They continue to draw benefits and work on the side. The evil of means-tested assistance is that it is spreading to those other groups who have learned under this Government how to break the law and that it pays to do so. Many people know that the way to survive is to do that.

  85
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, North was right when he said that some people were abusing the benefit system and that we should take specific measures against them. My charge against this measure, as against practically all the Government's measures in this field, is that it roughs up all claimants and assumes that they all cheat the taxpayer. The Government lack the courage or the willpower to target measures at those constituents with whom I strongly disagree because they commit fraud against fellow taxpayers. But the Government's measures do not do that.
  There are general charges to be made against the Government, but there are also important lessons to be learned for the Opposition from this and similar debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was right to say that, at this stage of a Parliament, we would not give details about what would be in our election manifesto. But the lesson that I draw from a stewardship of Tory Governments that has pushed half the population on to means-tested welfare is that disengagement from that will take a long time. We must first be clear about how it is to be done, and it will then take many Parliaments to achieve it.
  None the less, it is crucial that Ministers in a Labour Government do not give the sort of response that we have heard from Ministers in this Government, who have always adopted the "short fix" approach. They tend to say, "It looks good now; never mind the long-term consequences." That has led to the society that we now have.
  There has been a dispute across the Floor of the House about what Beveridge did or did not say. Beveridge said that a back-up training or work scheme could not be administered at a time of mass unemployment; in those circumstances, control collapsed. Given that—despite what the Government have done to the figures—mass unemployment still exists, it seems proper to give those of our constituents who want to work the right to a job guarantee.
  There is no need for compulsion: so many people want jobs that we shall never have to compel them to take what job opportunities exist. If we seriously believe what Conservative Members have said today—if we hate unemployment because it destroys self-worth—we shall judge the Bill a wretched little measure that will do little to deal with fraud, which is in any event a minor problem compared with mass unemployment, and even less to give our constituents who have waited long and hard in the queues for work a chance to add positively to a society to which, unbelievably, many are still proud to belong.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whose views I usually respect. I must, however, disagree with one thing that he has said this evening. He seemed to be saying that it was not possible for Governments to change, clarify or refine policies in mid-term; that could be done only if the change was set out in a manifesto and received the mandate of the population at a general election. Surely Governments must reserve the right during a five-year term to take the steps that they consider necessary to improve systems, focus resources and so forth.
  86
  Unusually, hon. Members have said a good deal about "morality" today. I believe that the nation's moral framework still stems from our Christian faith; I am proud to consider myself a committed Christian and I should be delighted to make a few comments about morality.
  One reason why the nation's moral fabric is now in disarray is the diminution of our Christian faith since the second world war. If we are to establish a more coherent moral framework, we need to deal with the root problem—the issue of faith. Morality, however, is not just about being nice to people or spending more on welfare; it is not necessarily about acting collectively. There is another side to the morality coin. Morality is also about personal responsibility, about accounting for our lives, about commitment to family and other responsibilities and about not running away from those responsibilities. It is about taking responsibility for our own lives, and not living entirely as we wish.
  Of course there is a societal element in morality, but it cannot be discussed only in those terms; individual responsibility is a huge factor. Although I do not agree with every word of it, I find just as much moral content in the contract that is now being discussed in America as in the report on social justice.
  All sorts of people become unemployed. Some are genuine, good and decent people who are desperate to find work and ashamed that they do not have it; they hate the idea that they may have to take money from the state. We all know people in that category. But there are also people who are lazy—who prefer idleness to industry. Beveridge, of whom we have heard much this evening, recognised that. There are also those who are dishonest and will skilfully exploit any benefit system to their advantage: even as we speak, many hundreds—if not thousands—are involving themselves in the black economy while drawing benefit. Ideally, wise people would assess each individual on the basis of his needs and motivation and decide his benefit accordingly, but that is not possible in 1995. Hundreds of thousands rely on benefits and we therefore need a system to assess all those people, to draw lines in the sand and to create thresholds if the benefits are to be delivered.
  Apparently, some Conservative Members believe that all those who are out of work are layabouts. That is far from the truth. Many of my relatives and long-standing friends in Plymouth have been out of work at times, and have been desperately keen to find work. In the 1980s we heard much from Conservative Members about opportunity and choice, but alongside those two fine words we should place the word "encouragement". We must find ways to encourage those who want to find work and improve their lives to escape and stand on their own two feet.
  Ms Eagle: Many would agree with the hon. Gentleman's view that people should be encouraged to take jobs; indeed, I do not think that anyone would disagree. But how does he think that draconian benefit sanctions, which the Bill increases, encourage people to do anything? Do they not simply humiliate people?
  Mr. Streeter: The hon. Lady does not address the real point. We need to approach the benefit system with both carrot and stick. The jobseeker's allowance is an incentive: it gives people a clear sense of what is expected from them and a clearly defined route through the benefit system, and tells them what they can and cannot achieve.

  87
  It gives them the encouragement of which I speak. However, we also need an arrangement that cracks down on those who wish to defraud the system. Opposition Members may think that Conservative Members believe that all unemployed people are layabouts, but we do not. Does the hon. Lady believe that all those people are good, honest and decent, and that they lie awake at night saluting the Union Jack and believing in the common good?
  Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that I do not believe that.
  Mr. Streeter: So far this evening, I have not heard any Opposition Member—with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Birkenhead—suggest that there are people who defraud and exploit the benefit system, and have no intention of finding work. We must have a system to deal with those people. I wish that it were otherwise, but we live in the real world. We need systems that include targets, incentives and thresholds, and I believe that the Bill is a step in the right direction.
  First, the Bill seeks to target help on those who really need it. There are people out there in the real world for whom we should do much more than we do. However, there are people for whom we do too much and who lean on the state when they should be standing on their own two feet. [Interruption.] Yes, both sorts of people are out there. Opposition Members agree that there are people for whom we should do more, but as soon as Conservative Members suggest that there are people—perhaps only two—who lean on the state when they should stand on their own two feet, Opposition Members say, "Oh, no. That is not acceptable as a thesis." One must see both sides of the coin to discuss this issue properly. That is what the Bill seeks to do—to target and to focus.
  The Bill does not, of course, solve all the problems of targeting, but it is a step in the right direction. It is good that each claimant, who after all receives money from everyone else in the nation, should enter into a bargain with the taxpayer and should clearly understand what is required of him or her. Earlier, much mockery was made of the fact that people would have to sign an agreement. It is important, however, that they should have to sign up for a package of measures and rights. It means that they are personally engaged in the process, as they should be.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: A constituent of mine is 23 years of age, has worked for the past seven years and has paid class I national insurance contributions. He has recently been made redundant. In an agreement with the Government, he made those contributions on the basis that, if he were made redundant, he would receive a level of benefit for 12 months. He now finds that he will receive that benefit not for 12 months but for six months and that, because he is under 25, the benefit will be further reduced, despite family and other commitments. Is not that a moral breach of an agreement with an individual who has made those contributions since he left school and who, through no fault of his own, has been made redundant in the past few weeks?
  Mr. Streeter: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me and all hon. Members in hoping that, as unemployment continues to fall, his constituent will find a job. Two thirds of unemployed people find jobs within
  88
  the first six months of unemployment. We all know that the contributory scheme is not an investment programme. Through that scheme, we pay today for other people. We do not save for ourselves and for the future.
  The second reason why I support the jobseeker's allowance involves the issue of simplicity. It is important to make the benefit system as simple as possible. I welcome the fact that we are merging income support with unemployment benefit and that we have one system, with, I hope, one centre dealing with benefit claims in most cases. That is far better than traipsing from one location to another and filling in other sets of forms. It is important to simplify the benefit system.
  Thirdly, I welcome the measure because it gives increased accountability. The provisions state:
  "As under the existing scheme, in order to receive jobseeker's allowance, benefit claimants will have to be available for, and actively seeking, work. The test will be extended to ensure that people who take steps deliberately which undermine their prospects of finding work will be penalised."
  I wish that there were not people who took steps deliberately to exclude themselves from work, but all hon. Members know that those people exist. We must make them more accountable to the system.
  I also welcome the back-to-work bonus, which is part of this important package of measures. I believe in the concept of stepping stones and of helping people out of unemployment and full-scale benefit dependency and into part-time work to give them a sense of self-esteem. We should also help them go from part-time work to full-time work if that is what they seek. We must take one step at a time. The jobseeker's allowance will help that process.
  A young lady works for my wife and me at our home just outside Plymouth. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) will laugh and scoff because that young lady helps my wife with the horses that she owns and enjoys. I am sure that Opposition Members will not accept that it is right and decent for anyone to own horses. In their view, that is a pursuit of the aristocracy.
  The young lady, a single parent, was unemployed for several years. She put a card in a local shop asking if anyone would employ her to work with horses. She was desperate to return to such employment. The months went past and no one employed her. My wife saw the card, made contact, had an interview and took her on 12 months ago on a small part-time basis. That small part-time job, however, has developed into a larger part-time job, which will, I hope, one day be a full-time job. It has helped the young lady to get back on her feet and to buy more for her children this Christmas. The benefit system, including family credit, has helped to support that family. We need that sort of system. It works in practice. Opposition Members may scoff at part-time work, but it is an important way back into work and an important stepping stone.
  Of course there are people who want only a part-time job. I understand that 85 per cent. of people in part-time work want to work only part-time. Why? Perhaps it suits their family circumstances. Perhaps they feel that they want to spend some part of the day with their young pre-school children. Part-time work is important. How foolish it is for Opposition Members to wish to load burdens onto employers to ensure—it seems almost their wish—that they will cease to employ as many part-time people. How foolish it is to load on employers of such

  89
  workers all the employment rights that normally apply to full-time workers. What will be the result of that? Only a reduction in the number of part-time jobs available.
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise the non-sequitur of which the Government are constantly and reprehensibly guilty—the fact that many people want part-time work does not imply that they do not want full-time work? For them, part-time work is no good.
  Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman will join me again in rejoicing over the fact that employment is falling so rapidly. Both full-time and part-time jobs are being created. I wish Opposition Members would stop criticising part-time jobs. As I said earlier, they are an important stepping stone into full-time work for people who want it. Some people may want part-time jobs perhaps as a second job for the household or to help them support their family.
  The arguments on the minimum wage sound compassionate and excellent in theory. I have no doubt, however, that to impose a minimum wage of £4 a week on a guest house owner in, for example, Newquay for his receptionists, chamber maids and other employees—
  Miss Widdecombe: £4 an hour.
  Mr. Streeter: £4 a week is what some Opposition Members deserve. Imposing a minimum wage of £4 an hour can have only one result: employers will take on fewer employees. The idea of a minimum wage sounds excellent and compassionate in theory, but in reality it is cruel and callous.
  Earlier in the debate, in an exchange between the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and myself, I expressed the view that Opposition Members did not know what it was like to be employers and did not understand how the employment system worked. She says that she has employed people. I am grateful that she acknowledges that fact. I ask her to answer this question. Has she ever had to put her house up as collateral on a business loan? Has she ever lain awake at night worrying about how she will pay the wages that week for her part-time and full-time employees? Has she ever woken up at 5 o'clock in the morning in a cold sweat, worried about where the next order will come from? Until she can answer yes to those questions, she is not qualified to talk about what small businesses, companies and businesses go through in employing people.
  The hon. Member for Wallasey scoffed at the fact that the national insurance contribution holiday for long-term unemployed people is only £6 a week. For many small businesses, £6 a week per employee is a significant sum and could mean the difference between taking a person on or not taking him on. Until she has experienced the workplace and been an employer in that business sense, she will have no understanding of that matter.
  The Bill has my support. It is an important step in the right direction, but the most important thing that we can do for unemployed people is to create real jobs for them. These measures can be of benefit only within a dynamic economic framework and where there is economic growth. Therefore, is not it good news that we live at a time when there is sustainable economic growth with low inflation and low interest rates and when all the businesses
  90
  that I visit regularly in my constituency are talking about growth, growing order books, increasing exports and taking on new staff?
  The most important thing that any Government can do for their citizens is to provide the economic framework in which jobs are created so that people can find remunerative work which enables them to provide for themselves and their family and to stand on their own two feet. That is the framework in which we are now living. The jobseeker's allowance is worthy of our support. ft is a further step towards targeting help to those who really need it and I hope that the House will support it.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Keith Hill: We have heard the Secretary of State for Employment claim that the Jobseekers Bill is about more jobs, benefit reform and better services for the unemployed. In reality, it is about the opposite of all those things. It is about job losses, greater dependency, an absolute loss of income for many unemployed people and fewer rights for them all. Far from creating more jobs, the Jobseekers Bill will force more people, especially women, out of work. They will be the partners of unemployed people who, under the present unemployment benefit, which is not means tested, may remain in full or part-time employment for the full 12 months of the benefit. That will change with the shrinking of the contributions-based jobseeker's allowance to six months and the loss of the adult dependency allowance and associated benefits.
  On the Government's own figures at least 150,000 unemployed people will be obliged to switch over to the means-tested jobseeker's allowance in its first full year of operation. Their partners will follow them into unemployment as the clawbacks on family income under the means-tested jobseeker's allowance make work financially pointless for them. The inevitable consequence of the jobseeker's allowance will be a massive switch out of jobs and into dependency.
  The Government proclaim the advantages of the Jobseekers Bill in terms of benefit reform and it is true that there will be some simplification of the procedures. However, what sort of benefit reform means forcing thousands of our citizens into benefit dependency and the loss or reduction of benefit for thousands more? What logic is it that penalises in particular the 18 to 24-year-olds who have paid national insurance contributions and who receive the same rate of unemployment benefit as all other age groups at present, but who will under the jobseeker's allowance find their benefit cut by 20 per cent? How can it be justified that those who have worked longest and saved the most should suffer most under the jobseeker's allowance?
  Anyone who has been a conscientious, hardworking employee all his life but who experiences the catastrophe of unemployment had better beware. If one's savings and redundancy payments amount to more than £8,000—a modest amount at the end of a working life—the unemployment benefit that might be received under the current system will be reduced by half under the jobseeker's allowance. If one claims for a dependent relative, it will be cut by 70 per cent., leaving the princely benefit of £23 a week. In total, nearly one in three male claimants with working partners will lose all entitlement

  91
  to benefit at six months and nearly two out of three female claimants will lose out entirely after six months instead of 12.
  Already in our society there is a pervasive anxiety about the threat of unemployment. That is understandable. What family has not been touched by it to some degree? At least those in work used to be able to reassure themselves that what they had paid for by way of national insurance contributions they would, in some measure, get back. They could also feel that their contributions justified their entitlement to benefit. It was a source of self-respect for the out of work which the Government are now undermining by their shrinking of the contributions-based benefit. The new and arbitrary powers of benefit sanctions conferred on minor officials in the Employment Service compounds this loss of respect by a further loss of rights for the unemployed.
  The truth is that if one is out of a job, the Jobseekers Bill means a loss of income and a loss of rights. Those two losses mirror the political purposes of the Bill. It is a device to slash public spending regardless of the social cost. It is born out of the continuing Tory conviction that the unemployed have brought it on themselves. What will happen to the £270 million saved by the Bill? Will it be used to help unemployed people? Will it be used for more or better training? The idea is laughable. We all know that it will be put into a pot for electoral bribes later.
  The Jobseekers Bill is dressed up as an attack on the work-shy. Yes, authentically work-shy there may be. The White Paper says:
  "Experience shows … that a small minority seek to abuse the benefit system."
  "Experience" is all very well, but who are those people and how many of them are there? The sparsity of the evidence is matched only by an excess of rhetoric such as we have heard in the Chamber tonight.
  This year the Secretary of State for Employment—we all know about his vast experience in these matters—instructed the jobcentres to challenge 135,000 claimants about the genuineness of their search for jobs. He wants to take them off benefit. Last year his predecessor set the target at 69,000. Are we to understand that the number of the feckless unemployed has doubled in the past 12 months? It does not matter that every serious study of the unemployed shows that the overwhelming majority hate being out of work and are desperate for jobs. In Tory dogma, if one is unemployed, it is a personal failure and the workshy and the job hungry are all tarred with the same brush. If the Minister disagrees she should listen to the logic of my next observation.
  Some of us, perhaps even the Minister, would say that if a person had been in regular employment for all or most of the two years or more before losing a job, it would create a reasonable presumption that such a person was committed to work. After all, what normal person, having worked consistently, would forfeit a regular pay packet to luxuriate on unemployment benefit of £45 or £46 a week, even for 12 months? Yet, such individuals who are out of work through no fault of their own will, under the jobseeker's allowance, pay the penalty for being unemployed by seeing the time in which they are entitled to benefit halved. Under the guise of tackling the work-shy, the Government are penalising the job hungry. The Government's message to the unemployed is that it
  92
  is their fault that they are out of work; the Government intend to take them by the scruff of the neck and rub their noses in it.
  Mr. Heald: The basis of the hon. Gentleman's speech seems to be that these measures will not work, but I can recall that on previous occasions when the Government made suggestions to help the long-term unemployed back to work, the Opposition said exactly the same thing. How does he therefore explain the fact that 250,000 people have gone back to work in the past nine months?
  Mr. Hill: I doubt very much that many of them were the long-term unemployed. It does not seem likely that compulsion and coercion are the way to get the long-term unemployed in particular back to work, although compulsion and coercion are the ethos of the measure that we are debating.
  The Bill gives significant new powers to Employment Service officials to withhold benefit payments if claimants are judged not to be available for work or actively seeking work. In future, benefits may be stopped if claimants are deemed not to be taking steps
  "to present themselves acceptably to employers",
  to quote the White Paper. There is enormous scope for the use and abuse of arbitrary judgment in that phrase alone.
  Still more threateningly, benefits may now be stopped for up to half a year if a person is considered to have left a job without good cause. The White Paper promised that the legal concepts involved in determining "good cause" would be defined more clearly by legislation. We now know, however, that the definitions do not appear in the Bill but are to be published subsequently in the form of regulations. It appears that a great deal is to emerge in regulations although this is a matter of human and legal rights.
  The proposal means that the most permissive and possibly dangerous element of personal interpretation by minor officials will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is a deeply worrying development and has been made worse—
  Miss Widdecombe: What was that?
  Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend said that it would not be subject to proper scrutiny. We shall not be able to change it—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. This is not the occasion for cosy chats.
  Mr. Hill: It is a deeply worrying development which has been made worse by the additional anxiety that front-line jobcentre officials may in future be able to impose benefit sanctions without external adjudication. The fundamental importance of that safeguard is demonstrated by the fact that, in 1993, 44 per cent. of those appealing to the independent adjudication service had their benefits reinstated after they had been stopped by Employment Service staff. That safeguard is not in the Bill, but the Secretary of State for Employment reassured the House today that an independent adjudication procedure will remain in place. It is an essential concession and I invite the Secretary of State or the Minister of State to confirm that the procedure will now be inserted formally into the Bill.

  93
  Nevertheless, considerably wider powers for benefit sanctions will appear on the statute book. That is why the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, which represents many of the staff at the Benefits Agency and jobcentres, was absolutely right to warn that such staff will be seen increasingly not as the helpers but as the "policers" of the unemployed.
  We can draw no conclusion other than that this measure will add to a climate of coercion and compulsion in the benefit system. It will force many people on to worthless training schemes or into low-paid, temporary or part-time jobs which will be useless for their long-term employment needs. If one asks what the jobseeker's allowance offers unemployed people, the answer is less chance of getting benefit and more chance of losing it.
  The Bill will do nothing for the vast majority of unemployed people who sincerely want a job, but it will ensure that losing one's job will be a more painful experience than ever before. That is why the House should reject this mean-spirited and vindictive measure.
  8.14 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: This has been a debate of considerable passion, but I was somewhat disappointed to hear the angry words of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill). For him to describe the Bill as "mean-spirited" and "useless" strikes me as if he has overlooked the main issue, which is that the Bill will give the unemployed every possible opportunity to get back into work. It is the reverse of what the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  When passions are running high, it is important to take a step back. While we care deeply about the plight of the unemployed, we do not help if we blind ourselves to reality and clear thinking. It is important to take an almost lateral view of the topic and look at it from the point of view of the unemployed person who is trying to get back into work and from that of the employer who wants to take him into his employ, whether part time or full time, or to undergo training.
  I heartily welcome the Bill. Social security costs are escalating and if we do not take firm control now, whichever party happens to be in power in the next century will have a huge problem to solve and the entire community will be shouldering an unbearable cost.
  We should examine with a clear mind ways to ensure fair play for all. A minority must not be allowed to take taxpayers for a ride. We have a black economy, and people are in fact stealing when they claim social security while at the same time earning cash in hand. That is to be condemned.
  Mr. Flynn: Has the hon. Lady read the book written by the hon. Member presently in conversation with Madam Deputy Speaker? It is called "The Age of Entitlement" and contains a chapter entitled "The Demographic Myth" in which the hon. Gentleman says that the Government have exaggerated the number of elderly people in the next century because they wish to distort policies, as they are doing now? The book was written by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts).
  Lady Olga Maitland: Although I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), it does not necessarily mean that I have to concur with all his comments. I regret to say that I have not read his memorable book, but I shall.
  94
  The Bill aims not only to ensure fairness for the taxpayer, who has a responsibility to support those in need, but to encourage those who are out of work to get back into work. It aims to shift the reluctant, which is not always easy. I have talked to them. I can think of one young man who came to my surgery saying that he was a bartender. I said, "If you are not prepared to take work as a bartender, why don't you think of something else to do?" "Oh," he said, "I only want to be a bartender." More than that, he said, "I want to be a bartender only in a particular type of bar." That told me that he did not want to get back to work at all. When I pressed him on the point, he said that he was quite happy to live on a minimal amount because it came from the Government and required him to do nothing. That is unacceptable. It is absolutely right and appropriate that we should create a climate in which people who are young and able-bodied do not sit around because it suits them.
  I find it rather depressing that we are now in a new climate in which people are polarised. There are those who are keen to work, who are part of the engine of this country and who are driving it along. We see that tremendous initiative and enterprise in all age groups. There is another, much smaller group—a very unattractive group—who are almost the professional unemployed. They take part in demonstrations, it does not seem to matter which. We saw them demonstrating outside Parliament against the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. We now see demonstrations about animal welfare taking place on the south coast. There is a group of people in that crowd who should be asked clearly and persistently, "What are you doing to try to get back to work? Are you actively seeking a job? Are you genuinely available for work?" I think that there are some who do not fit that category.
  The wider picture is that there is undoubtedly positive movement in the job market today. As has been said earlier, the number of jobless has fallen by 45,800 since October. The figure has fallen by almost half a million since December 1992. More than that, in my constituency, the unemployment figure is now down by 3 per cent. and is only just above the level of the late 1980s.
  Ms Eagle: The hon. Lady has just mentioned the unemployment figures in her constituency. Does she know how many vacancies there are in her constituency in comparison with the number of people who are searching for them?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I shall come to that point later in my address. I can only say that the number of vacancies is rising excitingly.
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady referred to the jobless in her constituency. Does she accept that in the past five years, unemployment has risen by a staggering 164 per cent?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I will not agree to the figure of 164 per cent., but I agree that there has been a rise in unemployment. The truth is that today, unemployment is down. More than that, I draw the attention of the House to a reply that I received from the Minister of State, Department of Employment. She tells me that the Employment Service has placed almost 2 million people in jobs in the past year, which is 16 per cent. more than in the previous year. That has to be a triumph and one on which we can build.

  95
  It is not just a matter of us getting more people back into work, although we must continue to strive to do so. We must also show considerable imagination. I congratulate the Government on having, to date, 15 different schemes and initiatives to help people back into work.
  Dr. Robert Spink: There are 23 schemes.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I stand corrected. I understand that there are 23 different schemes, which is even better than I had expected. The schemes build on the £600 million package of work incentives which were announced last November.
  I give the House a taste of the initiatives that have been put into motion. There is the travel-to-interview scheme whereby unemployed people can no longer say that they cannot go for an interview because they cannot afford the fare. That particularly applies when the interview is outside their home area.
  I especially appreciate the job search seminars which offer coaching to unemployed people to help them develop their job-hunting techniques and interview skills. That is extremely important. Often people who are not very articulate do not know how to present themselves when they go out into the job market. Some of them barely have a clear idea of exactly what they can do and what they want to do. No employer will take on an applicant who turns up with a muddled approach and, perhaps, an untidy and messy appearance. If such applicants only had a bit of forethought, training and assistance, they could give a much better justification of their real skills.
  I have great praise for the system of job clubs all over the country. I have seen them being effective in helping very demoralised people in inner-city areas, such as Tower Hamlets and Haringey. In my constituency as well, people get tremendous moral support from coming together, talking to other people in the same plight and getting one-to-one advice and support in their job applications.
  I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell) for his work over a long period in encouraging workfare or, as it is known in this country, the workstart pilot schemes. I very much hope that one day I shall be able to visit one of the pilot schemes—I understand that all four of them are up in Norfolk—which are well worth seeing. The Secretary of State for Employment would be well advised to think carefully about how these schemes can be developed. Helping the long-term unemployed into work can only benefit everyone in society, not just the individuals concerned.
  Mr. O'Hara: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's eulogy about efforts to put people back into work in her constituency. I happen to have some statistics here; one must put the matter into context. Unemployment in the hon. Lady's constituency has gone down by 19 per cent. in the past year, but by only 1 per cent. in the past three years. Indeed, in 1989–90, unemployment went up by 148 per cent.
  Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Gentleman still overlooks the fact that unemployment is down; he is
  96
  juggling with statistics. For the man who has managed to get a job, that job means a tremendous amount. The truth is that the Labour party would almost die rather than admit that schemes operated by the Government are a success.
  I pay tribute to another Government scheme—the jobfinder's grant—under which up to £200 is provided to an applicant for tools for his trade. I understand from my local jobcentres that that could have quite a significant effect on those who are in manual work, whether painters and decorators or carpenters, and who have felt that a lack of capital support for buying essential tools has kept them out of the job market when they could easily be back in it.
  We must, of course, understand the mood and morale of someone who is without a job. I have seen such people being deeply demoralised, especially those who, as has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, have worked for 20 or 25 years and who suddenly, in mid-life, are cut off in their prime. I have felt deeply when I have talked through those problems with people who have come to see me. I understand their feelings and I can feel their shock.
  There is, however, another group whom we must take into account. We must teach them how to be more flexible in their approach to finding new work and how to be more imaginative. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) asked earlier how we could teach people initiative and enterprise. I believe that we can by raising people's confidence, self-esteem and self-worth, and by giving them the feeling that they count for something and that they are important. It is amazing how, once that framework is in their minds, they can leap over a mountain that they had not believed they could leap over. All that could be done is being done through the framework provided in the Jobseekers Bill. I find that the problems of apathy are very serious, especially among the young.
  I shall digress for a moment on the subject of the young. The time has come when we should try to create a climate in which we educate the young not to start families until they know that they are on a job ladder. It is staggering to read cases, such as that recently reported in the newspapers of a young girl who had her first baby while she was aged 14, who is now aged 16 and is expecting her third child, while her partner—they are not married—is only 19. How could they possibly have thought that they were ready to support a family when there was no job on hand? They were clearly burdened with their domestic problems and it somehow escaped them that they would have a moral obligation, if they were to have a family, to ensure that they would be able to provide for their children. That is known as moral responsibility.
  It would be a great help if, in bringing up young people through the education system, they were taught to understand that having children is an obligation of responsibility, which means ensuring that they accept training and, by the same token, ensure that they embark on a career and have a job structure before they start with the expenses of having children. Indeed, it denies children security if their parents willy-nilly bring them into the world without any thought or planning.
  It is very important to recognise those people who have been caught in the benefit trap, who want to get out and want to get back to work. The Bill will do just that. The Bill especially delights me—it is a relief—because

  97
  through it the triplicate form-filling, the complicated administration of seeking support and getting back to work will come to an end and we shall be able to replace the out-of-date, confusing two-benefit system. That is right. It is long overdue. Undoubtedly, the measures in the Bill will be easier to understand and will streamline administration, which in turn will mean better targeting and improved services for the jobless. In the end, the individuals who are seeking help will feel that one-to-one relationship, which we want to build, so that they have a sense of commitment not only to agreeing to look for work but to those to whom they will be answerable.
  I welcome the suggestion that people should sign an agreement demonstrating their commitment to returning to work. That is very important. It is very easy for people to slide into a benefits syndrome without realising that it takes two to tango—the providers of the benefit and the recipients. It takes two to recognise that they have a job to work together to get that unemployed person back into the work force. Signing an agreement emphasises that commitment. It would be of great benefit to build on the programme, which the Government have already started, of working out a planned job search and helping unemployed people with the whole mechanics of looking for work. Making the process more formal and more structured can only be to everyone's benefit.
  I also welcome the stick and carrot approach. On the one hand, we have the stick, the commitment and the sanctions as they are applied, and on the other we have the carrot, the tax-free, back-to-work bonus, which will undoubtedly encourage people to leave the benefits system in the long term, particularly those who have been working part-time. The stepping stone of part-time work is an essential part of building up self-confidence, about which we should not in any way be embarrassed or shy. Staff in my local jobcentre are confident that the back-to-work bonus will take off and will work. They are, after all, the people at the coal face and can speak with authority.
  We were talking earlier about the opportunities of getting people back into work. The good news is that there are more opportunities today than there have been in the past few years. Certainly in my constituency there are more jobs now in the retail trade; in shops. There are more jobs in clerical work. There are also more jobs in the building trade, which is very significant, although, admittedly, those jobs command slightly lower wages than they did in the past.
  One word of advice that I would give to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that although it is all very well getting the training schemes well established, as we have, we nonetheless need to match them with more work experience. That applies especially to school leavers who, at the moment, in some schools, are put on a two-week job opportunity or work experience scheme, which can work very well. Sadly, not enough schools are pushing that scheme hard enough. To give young people that first taste of the real world of work is an enormous help, not only in training, but because an employer can see that they have had some experience of an office environment.
  I am disappointed that the Labour party is still absolutely dedicated to the idea of a minimum wage. It strikes me that that is a windmill which we will have to knock to the ground. Labour Members are raising people's expectations falsely and they are doing no favours to the 2 million people who will undoubtedly lose
  98
  jobs as a result of a minimum wage. I find it strange that even Labour Members have admitted that there are flaws in their own scheme. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), when he was interviewed by Brian Walden on London Weekend Television, said:
  "I knew the consequences were that there would be some shake-out, any silly fool knew that".
  It would be wise if the Labour Government took heed of their own errors in the past. It should be remembered that every Labour Government for more than 60 years have presided over an increase in unemployment.
  I trust now that Labour Members will support the Bill and realise, in their anxiety to get people back to work, that the Bill is undoubtedly the best possible chance for all people who are fearful, afraid, need help and need support. We have now got it for them.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The Secretary of State referred in his speech to the living memory of hon. Members in the House. He may well have been thinking of the strange anniversary, on the seventh day of this month, which marked exactly 60 years since the Unemployment Assistance Board came into being. That board originated from a decision made by Ramsay MacDonald's Government of 1931 to limit the duration of unemployment benefit to six months. It is interesting to think that that system may well be coming back, because then many of the benefits were paid by local authorities.
  That Government also introduced a system decreeing that unemployed people would have to undergo a means test. That may not be in the memory of many hon. Members, but it is certainly in the memory of my family, as my father was one of the people in that period who underwent that means test, having suffered from a war injury which meant that he never worked again. I remember how embittered he was throughout the rest of his life because, a short while after that means test, the War Department decided to change his pension from an amount which was attributed to his war wound—he was shot—to an amount which was aggravated by his war wound.
  The bitterness felt by that generation is about to be reproduced. The Government at the time decided to nationalise the means testing of the unemployed. The Unemployment Assistance Board, which was invented by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Neville Chamberlain—who had his problems later on—applied itself to its task with such enthusiasm that, in the first month of its operation, it brought this country closer to revolt than at any time this century. Hundreds of thousands of families found their incomes savagely reduced. Hon. Members of all parties and from all parts of the country protested loudly.
  After only four weeks of the new scheme, the Minister of Labour rose in the House to announce a standstill. The cuts made to that point were cancelled and arrears were paid. Until new regulations could be introduced, the Unemployment Assistance Board was to pay each unemployed person the amount payable under existing regulations or what that person received previously from the local authority. There was rejoicing in the valleys

  99
  because the valleys of south Wales were among the most generous and fair in respect of the amounts they paid in benefits.
  Those events are worth recalling because the Government are embarking on a repetition of the actions of their predecessors. Once again, in April 1996, the duration of unemployment benefit is to be cut to six months. That is an exact replica of the earlier system. Benefit rates are to be cut and, once again, there will be a big increase in the number of unemployed people who are subjected to means testing.
  We heard the myth from Conservative Members tonight. We heard it principally from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who has just spoken, and from the Secretary of State, when he spoke on Radio 4 the other day. It was difficult to find any room for thought between the Secretary of State's populist rants. Conservative Members continue to talk about taxpayers' money and about a contract.
  When the jobseeker's scheme was originally introduced, the Government said that the reason for it was that unemployment benefit was not much different from income support. They are absolutely right about that. The fact that an insured benefit has decreased to the level of the safety net has not occurred by magic.
  What has happened is an extraordinary story. The main thrust behind Beveridge was not simply the fairness of a national insurance scheme. He was interested in the efficiency of such a scheme. As Beveridge pointed out at the time, a multiplicity of private insurance companies collected a few pence every week for all kinds of insurance benefit. Fifty per cent. of the premiums paid were dissipated or wasted. The scheme was very clumsy.
  That is precisely what is happening now as the Government are trying to force people into highly inefficient private pensions and private benefits in respect of which there are two major problems: first, the schemes pay poor benefits, and 4 million people in personal pensions will curse this Government when they reach old age because they have been forced into such schemes; and, secondly, the people whom the Government are telling to take out schemes to insure their mortgages and to protect themselves from unemployment are the very people who cannot afford the premiums because they are at high risk.
  Let us consider what has happened to unemployment benefit over a period when premiums have risen by 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. There has been a huge increase in premiums. However, while there should have been an increase in the rate of unemployment benefit in comparison to the rate in 1979, there has been a decrease for a family of 41 per cent., if we consider the figures in line with prices, and of 56 per cent., if we consider the figures in line with earnings—which is the best line to take.
  The Government have taken an insured benefit; they have jacked up the premiums by a huge percentage, but they have cut the amount received by 50 per cent. When the Secretary of State was speaking this evening, I was speaking on the telephone, in a routine call, to a young man in my constituency. That young man was in despair. He had been through the system. He had been on the schemes and had done what the Government had told him to do. He tried to do a training course, but met obstacle
  100
  after obstacle. The latest obstacle related to a job as a professional driver in respect of which he faced an insurmountable premium for that scheme. He is one of the many people who have been through the whole gamut of lost opportunity and who have faced all those blank walls. Nothing in the Bill will help that young man.
  The Bill is so mean that even the much-vaunted back-to-work bonus, which in principle is not a bad idea and has some merit, is to be affected. On 12 December, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the temporary hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), admitted that the Government were going to claw back money from the back-to-work bonus scheme. They are going to make a profit from it. They cannot keep their greedy little hands off it.
  The whole point of the wretched scheme is to try to claw back money from the worst-off and to cheat them on national insurance to build up the bribe that the Government hope to offer in the next general election. Everyone knows what is happening. The Government have advertised the bribe so often that it will not work. They should learn that lesson.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's comments about the back-to-work bonus. Given that at the moment, over and above the disregard, we take away pound for pound and that, in future, we are going to give back 50 per cent. of the remaining earnings up to a maximum of £1,000, how are we profiteering from the back-to-work bonus?
  Mr. Flynn: If the Minister reads Hansard of 12 December, she will see that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security admitted that the change would produce savings for the Government. He said:
  "Further information is currently being collected to allow this to be assessed."—[Official Report, 12 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 535–56.]
  The Minister will have to ask her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary how that is to be achieved, because that is what he said.
  The Government are treating the whole business as an attempt to disguise a cut in benefits and as a way to force the unemployed into the ritual humiliation described by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). I crossed swords with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon about the 1920s and Beveridge, but I discovered later in his speech that he knew precisely what the effects of the actively seeking employment test and the other tests were.
  Beveridge said that the actively seeking work rule in the 1920s was a humiliating and futile experience. When it was used, unemployed people in south Wales could not receive benefits unless they proved that they had actively been seeking work. Unemployed people from Rhondd Fach had to cross the valley to the Rhondd Fawr and the unemployed from the Rhondd Fawr had to cross the valley to the Rhondd Fach. That simply used up shoe leather. However, they had to get a stamp. A member of the Labour Ministry at the time disguised himself as an

  101
  unemployed person and wrote a book on the subject called "The Myth of the Scrounger" in which he made the point that the only people who—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is becoming difficult to hear the hon. Member because of other people's muttered interventions.
  Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The reason for the muttered interventions is that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) spoke for 25 minutes, keeping both Opposition and Conservative Members from taking part in the debate. She has now left the Chamber before my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has finished his speech, contrary to normal practice.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware.
  Hon. Members: Yes, but it is a courtesy.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I can deal only with matters of order.
  Mr. Flynn: When that rule was changed, Beveridge said that it would never rise again from its dishonoured grave because of its futility and cruelty to the unemployed. As we have heard, seek and ye shall not find. That is precisely the theme of the Bill. Its title is meaningless in terms of its purpose. It is about a cut in unemployment benefit, and a vicious, thoroughly unjustified one. It is a breach of faith to millions of people, wrapped up and disguised in a confidence trick.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I shall make a short contribution as I know that hon. Members are extremely keen to speak. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.
  I am proud to represent Ribble Valley, which has the lowest unemployment in Great Britain, but that does not mean that I am complacent. Just before Christmas, one of the factories in the village in which I live closed, making more than 100 people unemployed. Just before Christmas is never a good time to do such a thing, but it made the misery even more unbearable for families in the village. Although the vast majority will find jobs in 1995, some people may not. I must be extremely conscious that for each unemployed person in a constituency, irrespective of the level of unemployment, it is a personal tragedy for them and for their families.
  I am also conscious of the point made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) about people who are getting on in years becoming unemployed; it becomes increasingly difficult for them to find work. We must direct more attention to people in their mid-50s who are looking for work. We have an aging population, and we must pay far more attention to the quality of people in their 50s who are looking for work. They still have a massive amount to contribute.
  The jobseeker's allowance is a welcome simplification of the system. There was reference to the benefit reducing from 12 months to six months. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and others questioned whether Labour Members would reverse that position if they regained office. We simply could not obtain an answer from Labour Members. It is as though they are afraid to
  102
  make any commitment until just before the election, when they will pounce on the electorate and say, "This is what we are going to do." It is as though they are afraid chat any of their policies could possibly be costed between now and the next general election.
  Opposition Members have suffered greatly in the past. We know that their figures did not add up, and I suspect that they will not add up in future. Opposition Members have decided to hide their commitments until the very last moment. They will have an opportunity toward the end of the debate to consider one of their famous U-turns and say whether they would reverse the legislation which I hope will be passed tonight.
  The contract is important. It is between those who are employed and those who are unemployed, as well as many others. One side will contribute through their taxes to ensure that those who are unemployed are given opportunities to make a real contribution. It is important to have a job, just for the sake of self-worth and to give people a purpose to life and self-respect. Like most hon. Members, I believe that the vast majority of people want to work. We must give them that opportunity. We must give them a hand, not just a handout, because the latter does not give an unemployed person a more realistic chance of a job.
  We have gone through a deep recession. People who survived the previous recession untouched have been hit by the next one. Businesses have gone through a particularly bad time. We have a record number of self-employed and small business people. They have made a real commitment. Many of them have their houses tied up in their businesses. If their businesses fail, they will risk losing their houses as well. Some of those people have suffered greatly. They work all the hours that God sends. They must consider how much it costs to employ people and how they will find the money to pay the wages bill at the end of the week or at the end of the month. They are our entrepreneurs. We must do as much as we possibly can to give them incentives to start and to give those who have started the opportunity to grow and to take on other unemployed people. It is our duty to ensure that those conditions exist.
  It is not an easy option to start a business these days; it is a big risk. It is difficult to obtain capital in the first place. Woe betide businesses if they make a profit, because many Opposition Members think that that, is wrong and that those businesses should be taxed. Making a profit is a disincentive for Opposition Members. I hope that all hon. Members give credit to small businesses and the people who work hard and make their contribution. Conservative Members talk about ensuring that we will give every business man a chance. Opposition Members and others scoff, but we must ensure that such people are given a chance.
  Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. They talk about giving people the opportunity for work and, in the same breath, they talk about the minimum wage, which will make more than 1 million people unemployed. They talk about limiting the working week and about piling social costs on to employers—all with good intentions, no doubt—but I hope that people will remember that each of those on-costs has a cost itself. It is a cost like a tax; it takes away opportunities for business people to invest and it takes away the incentive for them to put in greater hours and to take greater risks.

  103
  Opposition Members rush like lemmings to sign up to anything that comes out of Europe, backing any socialist claptrap that emerges from the cauldron which boils in Brussels. They have been to the socialist mountain top and they want to jump off and to take opportunity and hope with them. We must ensure that they do not have the chance to do that. The one great difference between socialists and Conservatives is that socialists talk about caring, yet all the policies that they want to introduce fly in the face of it. We Conservatives must get on with caring. We must deliver the goods, just as we have done over the past 15 years.
  I was proud to serve on the Standing Committee that considered the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill last year. It was an excellent start. We must ensure that the deregulation initiative has another thrust this year to ensure that the on-costs on businesses are stripped away so that business is given even more opportunity to invest and grow.
  Given all the initiatives about which we have talked, opportunities for employment will grow in 1995. There was a fantastic start throughout 1994, and we must ensure that it continues. It is said that two thirds of those who become unemployed find work in the next six months. We must ensure that many more do so in 1995.
  The one great thing that is always hidden when monthly unemployment statistics are produced and it is said that unemployment has fallen by 43,000 or 50,000 is the massive flow of people throughout the system who have either gone into or come out of employment. The days when one went into a job at 16 and stayed there for the rest of one's natural working life have gone. There is far more flexibility within the work force. We must recognise that. There are more opportunities to take not just one career but more than one career.
  I applaud the work of the employment services. Last year, I visited the employment services in Clitheroe and in Preston. They are doing tremendous work to help people into employment. The contract between those who are seeking work and the Government is right. It will ensure that those who are unemployed receive exactly the right help that they will need to go into employment as soon as possible.
  Like many other people, I also believe that—even if we put the question of fraud on one side—when people are simply not interested in finding work and just want to live off the state, we must clamp down as much as we can, because what those people do costs the country a great deal of money. It is also a massive disincentive and a slap in the face for all the people who get up early in the morning and go out and do a day's work—especially those who work at a job in which they have no great interest, yet who want to do that work for reasons of self-respect. We must ensure that others do not ride on their backs.
  The many Government schemes already in operation to help people get back to work have already been mentioned. They exemplify what we must do. We must try to provide help for the people who need such help to get into work. With the jobseeker's allowance, people will get that help, and we shall ensure that the contract signed between the unemployed and the Government is fulfilled, so as to help everybody and to give everybody a better chance in 1996 when the proposals come into effect.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I remember listening with incredulity when, in the 1993 Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the jobseeker's allowance as a measure to help the unemployed gain employment. It was a similar experience listening to the Secretary of State today. The Bill is not about helping the unemployed to gain jobs but about helping the unemployed to lose benefit, helping their partners to lose their jobs and helping the unemployed to lose the meagre rights and choices on training and employment that they already have.
  The underlying economic rationale of the Bill, apart from public expenditure cuts to pay for next year's tax bribes, is to force the unemployed into ever-lower paid employment. And the Bill is shot through with the nasty social authoritarianism of the new Tory right, as typified by the two Secretaries of State who have been jostling for the lead role in introducing it.
  The main mechanism to help the unemployed to lose their benefits is, of course, the six-month cut-off point; 30 per cent. of men and 57 per cent. of women will lose all right to benefit after six months because they will not qualify for the income-related allowance. The system is even worse for certain groups of people, such as the young. If a young person has a partner or is married, only 40 per cent. of the benefit that would have been paid under the old system in a year will be paid. Someone older who has received redundancy money and who has a dependent partner will receive only 30 per cent. of what would have been paid under the old system.
  Things are no better for someone with a married partner. The increase in means-testing will drive many partners of unemployed people out of jobs. It will not be worth their while to work because if they do their partners will not be able to claim benefit. Again, women will probably be more adversely affected. What is more, like many people who cease to qualify for the jobseeker's allowance after six months, the people driven out of work in that way will not figure in the unemployment statistics, because there will be no reason for them to sign on.
  Unemployed people are not only being cheated of unemployment benefit. It is worse than that; many of them will be denied jobseeker's allowance, too. One of the most alarming parts of the Bill appears in clauses 15 and 16, which describe how all sorts of new ways will be devised to deprive unemployed people of their legitimate benefit entitlements.
  The first such concern is the length of time for which people may be denied jobseeker's allowance. Clause 15 twice mentions a period of between one and 26 weeks. We have also been told that hardship payments will be denied to many people who are disqualified, although I do not believe that that is mentioned in the Bill.
  The second concern is about who will make the decisions. On the first day of this year The Observer contained an article about a leaked document from the Department of Employment suggesting that many decisions would be made by front-line Employment Service staff rather than being referred to an adjudication officer. I hope that the Minister will touch on that question in winding up. Given the number of wrong decisions now made, the proposal causes serious worry.

  105
  The third big area for concern is the increase in the number of reasons for imposing benefit penalties. The jobseeker's direction is the most notorious of those, and the aspect that has had most publicity is the idea that someone may be disqualified because of a jobseeker's direction relating to his or her appearance or behaviour. That is a good example of the social authoritarianism that I mentioned earlier.
  There are many other reasons why people may be disqualified, some of which build on things that are already happening. People are already losing benefit if they refuse to go on certain courses, and that trend will be increased and intensified by the Bill. If people were being sent on real training courses it might not be so bad, but the training budget for next year is being cut by 20 per cent. and many of the courses that people will be forced to follow, on pain of losing benefit, are not genuine training courses.
  The other big turn of the screw will be forcing people to take undesirable and unacceptable employment. Not many people lose benefit on the grounds of refusing employment, but the Bill explicitly states that many people will now lose benefit or incur penalties if they refuse to take a particular job. That is one of the underlying reasons behind the Bill. There are a number of undesirable jobs which people rightly do not want because of their appalling wages or conditions, but people will be forced into those jobs. As more people are driven into low-paid employment, the larger pool of people in low-paid employment will drive low wages even lower. That is the economic thinking behind the Bill.
  I shall touch on other aspects of the Bill more briefly than I wanted to because other Members want to speak. One thing that has concerned me following constituency casework is the way in which people are unjustly disqualified from benefit because of alleged misconduct on leaving a job, and that will get worse following the Bill. At least a person has six months' disqualification followed by six months' unemployment benefit at the moment, but it appears in the Bill that that person will now get six months' disqualification followed by no benefit at all. There are appalling problems in the Employment Service in relation to that measure.
  Recently I attended a social security appeal tribunal with one of my constituents almost one year after he had lost his job. He had had a six-month disqualification, and his appeal was at last heard 11 months after he lost his job. As happens in the majority of cases, it was discovered that he should not have had his benefit disqualified, and he got it back 11 months after losing his job. The Minister should look at that, and also at the good report from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux about the matter which came out last month.
  Another area to which I wish to refer is the tightening of the availability for work rules. Clause 6—I do not have the time to go into it in detail, but the matter was dealt with well by my hon. and learned Friend for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)—suggests that the rules will become even tighter. At the moment, we are told that there is a target of 135,000 people having their benefit stopped this year for not actively seeking work.
  Another constituent of mine recently had his benefit stopped, despite the fact that he was studying for only five hours a week. There is a technical rule which has been pushed through that someone who is paying more than £100 for fees—even if he is studying for only five hours
  106
  a week—will have his benefit stopped. Fortunately for my constituent, his fees were being paid through a bursary and I managed to challenge that ruling. But that is happening already, and clause 6 suggests that it will intensify. It is alarming that clause 6 states that "availability for employment" and "actively seeking employment"
  "have such meaning as may be prescribed."
  We can only worry and wonder about what those meanings might be.
  We need positive action from the Government to tackle the problems which the unemployed face. A minimum wage is a key demand, and others include a supply of appropriate jobs, high-quality training, the abolition of the 21-hour rule and reform of the earnings disregard regulations which hold a lot people out of employment. In the Bill, the higher disregard for the long-term unemployed is being abolished. We also need the preservation of the social insurance principle.
  The Government are running out of steam when it comes to doing anything positive for the unemployed, but, unfortunately, they are not running out of steam when it comes to attacking the unemployed and driving the wages of people lower and lower. I hope that this will be one of the last bankrupt Acts of this bankrupt Government, who cannot go too soon.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) reflected some of the differences which we have seen all too often during past weeks in the Labour party. He said that having a jobseeker's direction on an issue such as appearance was ludicrous. I think that that was the word the hon. Gentleman used. Other Labour Members have said the same thing.
  Yet who was it—only few months ago—who said of the jobseeker's direction:
  "If it is simply a matter of dress, deportment and drawing up a good curriculum vitae, or trying to motivate people, no one could object."—[Official Report, 24 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 635]?
  Yes, it was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). So again we see that the Labour party simply cannot agree on these issues. We have heard today in The Guardian about the differences over Europe. We have heard about the differences over clause IV and on education. On employment, we have heard the same story again today.
  Britain has been able to deal more effectively with unemployment than other European countries because of the regime that the Conservative Government have put in place. Speaker after speaker has criticised the measures in the Bill and assumed that they will not work. However, the evidence is that the measures that the Government have put in place are working.
  When I was elected in 1992 my constituency had higher unemployment than it does now. The same is true of the constituencies of most hon. Members. I can see Members on the Opposition Benches of which exactly the same is true. In my constituency unemployment has fallen by 1,000 in the past year alone. When we consider why that is and compare ourselves with our partners in Europe, the answer is clear. We have a competitive economy. We have a spirit of entrepreneurship. We have the lowest business taxes in Europe, the lowest on-costs, one of the

  107
  lowest levels of Government borrowing, low inflation and a good quality work force who have been highly trained as a result of the activities of the Government.
  We often hear from Opposition Members about structural unemployment, but Britain is the only country in Europe which is successfully tackling that problem. Twenty million people across Europe are unemployed, but in Britain, uniquely, unemployment is falling. We have one of the highest levels of labour participation.
  When we deal with an issue such as jobseeking and the unemployed, we have to recognise that people have responsibilities and duties as well as rights. I mentioned the hon. Member for Garscadden a moment ago. Let us have a little wisdom from him on this subject, too. He said on 22 October 1992, two years ago:
  "I'm certainly not afraid to say we should go and look at the argument that there are responsibilities and duties, as well as rights, for those who are on benefit".
  I see that he agrees today that that is right.
  Can we seriously argue that people have responsibilities and duties if we do nothing about it when people breach them? There must be some sanctions as well as incentives. I argue that the sanctions proposed in the Bill are the minimum required to enforce the rights and obligations that are imposed by the Bill.
  First, the test of availability for work will be that people should actively seek work. That will be extended to ensure that people who take steps which deliberately undermine their prospects of finding work will be penalised. I should have thought that people who do not actively seek work should face a penalty. That is the basic contract between the taxpayer and the person involved. The person should be available for work full time for a minimum of 40 hours. If people expect to receive benefit full time, they should be prepared to work full time.
  If Opposition Members criticise and say that it is wrong that people should be deprived of benefit if they are not making the effort that the Government require through jobcentres, what are they saying? They are saying that if people do not fulfil their obligations and duties, nothing should happen and people should be allowed to continue merrily without facing any sanction. That cannot be right.
  Similarly with the jobseeker's direction, if the contract between the jobseeker and the Department, along with advice and guidance and the element of compulsion, does not succeed in helping the person back into work, why should there not be a direction to give that person the help and encouragement that is needed to get back into work?
  Let us consider the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) employed. He described a situation in which many elderly people have been out of work for extended periods and said that one cannot force them to look for work. He is saying that, if one is elderly, one can be written off and that one need not be required to look for work. He was being ageist. Opposition Members may laugh, but older claimants should be encouraged. They should have the same opportunities and should be dealt with in the same way as any other claimant, on a level playing field.
  When I recently visited my jobcentre—it is one of the new integrated centres, in which the advice and benefit services are provided in one place—it was pointed out that the centre actively encourages employers to consider
  108
  older applicants and that, if the latter do not receive the encouragement that the Government believe to be vital, we are doing neither them nor the taxpayer justice.
  If the Government are prepared to make the effort through the jobcentres, elderly claimants should not say that they are not prepared to make the effort to find work because they believe that it is hopeless. It is wrong for hon. Members to argue that, unfortunately, it is impossible to find work if one is elderly. We often hear such arguments about education from Opposition Members. They say that in inner city areas the situation is hopeless, one cannot expect to achieve much and that there is no point making comparisons or publishing tables as the children will never succeed. They are using exactly the same argument for the elderly.
  The Government, through the encouragement that they are giving jobseekers in the Bill, are attacking some of the main issues. I confess that I am an adviser to the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services, which deals with the private recruitment industry. Its members have frequently pointed out to me that jobseekers are concerned that they do not receive adequate encouragement to take jobs and that it is easier for them to be dependent, even though they may not receive as much benefit, than to take a job. Some of the measures in the Bill will tackle that head on. For example, the back-to-work bonus available under the scheme will encourage people to leave benefit by taking part-time work as a stepping stone to full-time work.
  Mr. Roy Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that the package contains a range of incentives for all unemployed people to get back into employment and that it gives them a chance that the Opposition would deny? It extends the challenge and the chance to seek employment, which many people would not get under the present system. The Opposition are trying to sabotage people's efforts to gain employment. They are hurting the unemployed by resisting these measures.
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Not only will the Bill simplify the benefits system, but, as he said, it will provide the unemployed with the opportunity to get back into work.
  The back-to-work bonus scheme is one of the methods being used. In addition, let us not forget the employment-on-trial scheme, which will enable the claimant to take a job after three months of unemployment, without incurring any penalty if he voluntarily decides that the job is not for him within a period not exceeding four weeks. Many unemployed people facing the difficult decision to try a different area of endeavour will welcome that opportunity.
  Much has been made of the fact that couples and individual spouses will have no opportunities under the jobseeker's allowance. But a strength of the new system is that the period in which a partner is allowed to work will be increased to 24 hours without loss of entitlement to benefit. The Bill will therefore make a considerable contribution to getting unemployed people back to work.
  My constituency suffered the difficulties of cuts in the defence industry, as did some other constituencies. In Hertfordshire, a task force approach was taken, with the county council, the TEC, the local authorities, business clubs and so on working together to try to promote employment. That approach has succeeded and, now that

  109
  the business side is right, we need employees to get back to work with proper training so that Hertfordshire can continue to succeed as it has over so many years. Since I became a Member of Parliament, unemployment in my constituency has fallen and I believe that it will fall faster as a result of this measure.
  9.22 pm
  Ms Angela Eagle: Even the Bill's name is flawed. The switch from unemployment benefit to jobseeker's allowance is a cruel joke at a time of mass unemployment. It is Orwellian wordplay of the highest order. Unemployment benefit is compensation for being unemployed, paid for by national insurance contributions. The jobseeker's allowance is allowed to failed jobseekers who are encouraged to blame themselves for the position in which they find themselves.
  Other aspects of the Bill are equally Orwellian and sinister. There is an authoritarian behavioural requirement for jobseekers, the exact details of which are not in the Bill but will be put before us in regulations at a later date. The compulsory jobseeker's agreement is a new twist in benefit sanction and is illiberal in what is meant to be a democratic state. In that respect, I associate myself almost entirely with the arguments put forward in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who uttered many warnings to which his party should listen.
  We have no information on the meaning of the "jobseeker's direction" or on what will be required of people unfortunate enough to be out of work. Will they be expected to cut their hair, lose weight or change the colour of their skin? After all, discrimination exists in the job market and we need reassurance from the Government about what people will be put through in order to keep the increasingly meagre benefits allowed by the Bill.
  My objection to the Bill is that it is written and designed as if to deal with the most incorrigible recalcitrants who will never have work. Those regulations are then applied to everybody, regardless of their circumstances. The Bill assumes that unemployment benefit claimants, who are the victims of the Government's economic incompetence, are all lazy, work-shy shirkers who need to be forced into a job. The reality is very different. The vast majority of unemployed people are desperate to work and their mental health suffers on the dole. The benefits on which they live are now so low that they live on or below the poverty line. The Bill will worsen that—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have had occasion before, although the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was not present, to deal with sedentary interventions.
  Ms Eagle: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell) pointed out, the Bill has a massive hole in it. The Government abdicate their responsibility to create jobs for jobseekers and make a virtue out of it. They do not recognise the duty accepted by all previous post-war Governments to maintain a stable and high level of employment. On the contrary, they reward highly paid managers of privatised utilities for destroying a massive number of jobs.
  110
  In my constituency in Merseyside, 82,410 people are currently unemployed and there are 5,186 job vacancies. That means that 16 people are chasing each job. In my constituency there are 3,882 unemployed people and 157 vacancies, which means that 25 people are chasing each job.
  I object to the Bill because it blames the 24 out of 25 people in Wallasey who are unsuccessful in obtaining those jobs. It punishes them for not succeeding, but as the simple application of logic makes obvious, only one out of the 25 can succeed in filling the vacancy. A better CV, a haircut or even gleaming teeth will not help the other 24 people to succeed.
  The Bill is introduced at a time when structural changes in the labour market are obvious. There is casualisation, segmentation, further deregulation and reductions in pay, all of which create instability. People move in and out of employment and are sometimes stuck in unemployment and are punished for it.
  The Bill contains no analysis of the reasons for unemployment and makes no attempt to meet the needs of the unemployed. It contains very large sticks with which to beat them. That is why it is so objectionable and why we should return to a system in which the unemployed are accorded fairness, dignity and rights. They should not be treated in this authoritarian and obnoxious way by a Government who have long ceased to care for their plight.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The one thing that I can say about the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) is that, in his own way, he is quite engaging. His one characteristic in common, I think, with most hon. Members is that he does not take himself very seriously. If he is trying to argue that duties and responsibilities are never honoured unless there is a directly threatening sanction, he has a very miserable view of the human species which few of his hon. Friends would share.
  I shall start with a complaint, although I do not want to make too much of it, and a rather remarkable circumstance. I picked up the Bill when it was first published and saw that it was presented—it says so on the back—by the Secretary of State for Social Security. The right hon. Gentleman is around the House. We saw him in the building and he even appeared briefly in the debate. However, he decided not to appear at the Dispatch Box, which I find a little puzzling.
  One of my ingenious colleagues has suggested that the right hon. Gentleman is taking part in a job share: he is in ideological communion with the Secretary of State for Employment. They will do the job turn about, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, because they are intellectually indistinguishable. That is not entirely satisfactory. If this measure is important and a great Government showpiece it is somewhat discourteous to the House for the Secretary of State not to appear. I hope that I have put that in reasonable terms.
  The Bill is depressing at a superficial level that is nevertheless worth mentioning. It is evidence of the depressing fashion for remote government. One can read the text with care and learn not a lot. Almost everything in the Bill is to be prescribed and will be done by regulations at a future and indeterminate date. Its

  111
  corpulent linguistic patterns are a delight to the insider. No doubt it is draftsman's padding of which he or she is proud, but it does not help the general public who may want to look at the measure. The simplest concept becomes complex. As something of a barrack-room lawyer in my own right, I ought to take great delight in, for example, clause 9(4), which deals with income and capital. It states:
  "Circumstances may be prescribed in which—

  (a) a person is treated as possessing capital or income which he does not possess;

  (b) capital or income which a person does possess is to be disregarded;

  (c) income is to be treated as capital;

  (d) capital is to be treated as income."

  There are acres, stricken page after stricken page, of similar verbiage.
  We have been led through something of a moral maze today. I genuinely enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who pushed the boat out even further than he usually does in defining his distinctive position. I was intrigued to hear, from Conservative Members, Disraeli and Gramsci working in harness—even if it was in a good cause. It might be stretching it to say that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) entertained us for 24 minutes—she is not the most sympathetic figure on the Conservative Benches—but I look forward to the fulfilment of her very precise prediction that, under a Labour Government, she would find it necessary to knock down windmills. That will do very little for property values in Norfolk.
  Then there was the Secretary of State. I had no idea that he had such a touching faith in—despite an incomplete knowledge of—the works of the late Lord Beveridge; I shall certainly remember that.
  One stark fact, however, stands out from this interesting debate. The Bill is essentially about cutting public expenditure, reducing entitlement and undermining rights, and that is the essence of our objection to it. The core of the Bill is the cut from 12 to six months, about which the Secretary of State said very little. I can understand that—he wanted to concentrate on other matters, no doubt for good tactical reasons—but the cut is serious, in that it is unquestionably an attack on the contributory principle.
  The Minister of State came to the Dispatch Box full of vim and vigour, but her intervention bore all the marks of the product of much time spent working on a bad case. It seemed that she had come up with something that she thought might just stand up, but it clearly did not.
  People talk about the contract between Government and governed. We have heard a good deal about a speech that was made in Liverpool cathedral. Religious venues currently have a strange attraction for Conservative Front Benchers. The right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley)—not in his local cathedral, but addressing the Birmingham diocesan conference—recently discovered that there was a strong case for a minimum wage, in that he at least accepted that the principal cause—or, rather, economic cause; I must be precise—of social instability and marriage breakdown was the low wage paid to unskilled manual workers. That at least opened a chink for common sense.
  112
  If we believe, as these gentlemen do, in the contract between Government and governed, this exercise in Treasury expediency has a hollow, mean and unpleasant ring. Let me give an example of what I mean. One of the virtues seen by those with tidy minds in the Departments of Employment and of Social Security is harmonisation of benefit structures. When it comes to the treatment of those under 25 and over 25 respectively, their logic seems to suggest the importation of rules that are currently part of the income support structure to the new contributory jobseeker's allowance. If that had been applied to the coming year—it will come into effect in the year after that, but the pattern will be similar—a 24-year-old who had made exactly the same contributions as a man of 25 living at the other end of the street would receive £9.70 a week less than that man during the six-month period that is allowed.
  I find that extraordinary. The Government's explanation is that someone of 24 earns less, expects less and therefore deserves less; but, as everyone knows, people of 24 eat as much and dress as expensively as older people, and the bills are every bit as big.
  There is an interesting omission in the litany that is advanced to defend that proposal. We hear nothing about the "back to basics" philosophy. In the days before "back to basics" had a bad name, there was an additional argument: people would be persuaded, forced, encouraged, stimulated or motivated—all those nice euphemisms—to stay at home. That was the reason for such a substantial reduction.
  I enjoyed the exchanges between the right hon. Member for St. Albans and the Select Committee on Social Security on 26 January, when the right hon. Gentleman was questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy). On the split between 24 and 25-year-olds, he said that the rules were
  "the same for everybody in the sense that everybody under 25 will be treated the same and everybody over 25 will be treated the same."
  As an attempt at a reasonable defence, it is very sub Lewis Carroll but definitely in that league.
  As I have explained, an income support rule on the 24 and 25-year-olds split has been imported into the contributory jobseeker's allowance. I must confess that I discovered that quite late in my exploration into these matters, but clause 1(4) contains an innocent looking provision on waiting days. A waiting-days concept will be introduced into the means-tested jobseeker's allowance. That concept was previously used only for unemployment benefit—the equivalent of the contributory jobseeker's allowance. I presume that the result of that will be that under part II of the Bill everyone who receives the contributory jobseeker's allowance will have to wait for a prescribed number of days before the benefit comes into effect; they will not receive it from the date of application, as they do now with the contributory benefit, which is being replaced.
  It sounds complicated. It is a lovely proposal from the Treasury's point of view because it will save £40 million, as I heard in an answer to a parliamentary question. The proposal is the mirror image of what has been done with the 24–25 split. I deduce from that—I do not see any other deduction that I can make—that harmonisation is being pursued not in the interests of clients, justice or any other concept but simply to achieve the cheapest option. That

  113
  is harmonisation at the lowest common denominator. It tells us a great deal about the way in which the Government work and what they are trying to achieve.
  We are told that the jobseeker's allowance will produce savings of £140 million in the first year and £270 million thereafter. It will be expensive to introduce. I say to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who waxed eloquent about the difficulty of getting a figure on the matter, that the financial memorandum printed at the front of the Bill states that the figure is £280 million over three years. We are told that there may even be 3,000, if not redundancies, at least redeployments in the Department of Employment. There is a great deal of disorganisation and a great deal of administrative expense. A fair degree of injustice and very minor savings will occur, even if one takes it from a Treasury viewpoint.
  I ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to cast his mind back to the exchanges in the Select Committee on Social Security, this time with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who asked who would pay. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "It is savings, so no one will be paying it."
  It is some sort of magic, painless, bloodless performance where savings are made for the Treasury and can be clawed out of the Budget, but no one pays. When rightly pressed by the chairman, the right hon. Gentleman was driven from that position. He said that
  "Those who least the need help of the taxpayer"
  will pay. We are talking about not a targeted benefit but a contributory benefit. It is not a relevant argument but it provides an interesting insight into the Secretary of State's view of the contributory principle that he pretends to defend. Almost 250,000 people will face the bill. They will be without the contributory jobseeker's allowance after six months at a cost of £180 million in 1997–98. Many will find themselves without an adult dependency increase. Again parliamentary answers tell us that no fewer than 5,000 will be forced on to means-tested benefits at any one time as a result. Spouses will have to give up work, very often to protect the husband's benefit. Of course, a large number of people will find that thrift has been punished because they have more than £3,000 in savings or perhaps £8,000 in savings, which takes them out of the jobseeker's system. After six months they will find that they are either bereft of benefit, forced on to means-tested benefits or left dependent on some other member of their family.
  There is a massive inconsistency in" the Government's position and it is illustrated by the facts. This is a serious argument. The Government rail, in my view quite rightly, about the difficulties of means-tested benefit. At the same time, they deliberately introduce measures that force many people on to means-tested benefits. That happens under other legislation as well as the Jobseekers Bill. For example, under the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994, 90,000 people in the first year and 190,000 in the second year will be forced on to means-tested benefits or on to the dole queues. The Government may make bigger and better savings, but there will be even greater misery, frustration and depression for the people who do not necessarily deserve that fate but who become the casualties of this sort of legislation. It will not do and the House should not vote for it.
  There is another side to the argument. We are told that there is a stick and a carrot—that the Bill will help workseekers and encourage the work-shy. All that is
  114
  contained in a rather nice little blue pamphlet. It is a sort of canvassers' aide memoire which was distributed at the Conservative party conference. I suspect that the phrase "encourage the work-shy" is a euphemism.
  Some have argued that all this talk is simply gesture politics, posturing and playing to the Conservative party gallery. They say that it is tough talking but that nothing will really change. We will have to wait and see. I have said repeatedly that I fear that there is a strong hidden agenda. To be fair to Ministers, it is not hidden very thoroughly or consistently. A Conservative party brief produced for this debate includes a section entitled:
  "Tougher sanctions on the Work-Shy."
  It was interesting at Question Time this afternoon that, when faced with the neanderthal views—I use that phrase advisedly—of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), did not repudiate them but hurried to tell the hon. Gentleman that she hoped that the Jobseekers Bill would go at least some way towards allaying his fears. I do not want to live in a Britain where the fears, delusions and prejudices of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield are pandered to. In fairness to the Conservative party, I am sure that on the boat out I will find not only the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon but many others as well, and quite right, too.
  There are some good things in the Bill. There is the back-to-work bonus, but it does not make the transition to work any easier. It rewards those who are successful in finding work. It reinforces success but does not help those who do not have the equipment to be successful. For many of the most vulnerable it will be a case of perhaps jam tomorrow, but it is much more likely that it will be jam never.
  The national insurance holiday for those who have been unemployed for two years is a peelie-wally little attempt to deal with a real problem. It is worth about £6 a week. That is the incentive. Surely the Government who invented the national lottery can do better than that.
  The jobfinder's grant, the extension of family credit on a test basis, and the job trial extension are not in the Bill and will have to be considered on another occasion.
  I know that I am running into the Minister's time and I make no apology for that given what happened earlier in terms of the allocation of time and the agreement reached behind the Chair. I believe that I am within my rights.
  One of the favourite examples of self-deception and delusion that afflicts Conservative Ministers is that they carry with them the support of a large number of outside bodies with expertise. However, even they cannot imagine that that is true in this instance.
  Carers' organisations are very worried about the lack of a right to the jobseeker's allowance for those who cease caring, perhaps because of the death of the person cared for. There were sympathetic noises from the Secretary of State for Employment, but I assure him that we shall return to the issue in Committee. I hope that his sympathy will extend to practical help when we get there.
  The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Disablement Income Group and the coalition of young people on social security have condemned the Bill. Almost everyone involved has said that it will not do and that it is inappropriate.

  115
  I remember the speeches, which have been referred to, made by the Secretary of State for Employment. I remember his speech about the need to restore deference in our society so that everyone knows his appointed place and keeps to it. However, the other side of deference is stigma. My worry is that, whatever the intention of some people in the Conservative party, the end product will be an extension of stigma, with all its disastrous consequences for the unfortunate in society. Those who have suffered misfortune, which may be economic or health related, will find themselves in the dock, stigmatised as economic failures and seen by many less tolerant people as social outcasts. That should not be the House's intention. The Bill is not merely about Treasury expedience; it is a social philosophy that still has about it the smell of less eligibility, which is why we shall vote against it tonight.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made a valiant effort to sit on both sides of the fence. He wondered whether the Bill was tough or whether it was merely talk that would change nothing. He spoke of hidden agendas and ended with a fantastic peroration on the principles of stigma, which had nothing to do with the Bill. The mealy-mouthed concession in his closing remarks was that there were some good things in it, such as the back-to-work bonus.
  I suppose that we should be grateful that the hon. Member for Garscadden was not quite as bizarre as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who saw something sinister in the back-to-work bonus because it might save money in persuading people to go back to work.
  Let us deal with the fundamental principles behind the Bill.
  Mr. Flynn rose—
  Mr. Evans: I shall not give way, as I have very little time.
  The first principle of the Bill is to improve the operation of the job market, but we heard nothing about that from the Opposition parties. Secondly, when it came to improving the service to the unemployed by means of a uniform streamlined service, they grudgingly conceded that there might be something somewhere in the Bill that would achieve that end, but they based their miserable attack on the premise that anything involving streamlining was harmonisation on the worst possible basis.
  The third principle is to improve value for the taxpayer, but that did not receive a single word of support from the Opposition, who ridiculed the considerable savings and treated them lightly. The smokescreen of an attack offered by the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms Harman) and for Garscadden was focused on the reduction of the period of receipt of contributory benefit from 12 to six months. It was spoken of as if it were a breach of faith or a breach of a private contract, which is absolutely absurd.
  The contribution system of national insurance has always been a scheme regulated by statute, the terms of benefits of which have been altered over the years
  116
  by successive Governments—including Labour Governments—as circumstances have changed. That must be so, because the basis of the scheme involves a number of parties: it involves those who draw from the system from a given moment in time and those who contribute to it for the greater part of their working lives. Parliament is the guarantor that the scheme is operated fairly. The National Insurance Act 1946 introduced a 30-week period plus additional days if the number of contributions was more than 26. The National Insurance Act 1966, introduced by the Labour Government, introduced the period of 12 months, with an earnings supplement for up to 156 days.
  The most startling reason for the change, which the Opposition have completely ignored in this debate, is the fact that the national insurance scheme depends on the number of those paying in and the number of those paying out roughly balancing. We know full well that, with the increased proportion of the aged in the population, there must be an adjustment, which will be the matter of a separate Bill on pensions.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said in an intervention that, somehow or other, there was a breach because nobody had been given notice of the change. This is not a proposal to come into force immediately, even if the House passes the Bill tomorrow. The proposal will not come into force until April 1996. Notice has been given. Nobody believes that even a private contractual arrangement cannot be altered when notice has been given. My hon. Friend the Minister of State rightly pointed out that the fundamental purpose of the national insurance scheme is that it is earmarked taxation. The promise is that the purposes for which the money is spent are those for which it is raised.
  The savings involved are not trivial; this aspect of the Bill will save £180 million. The interesting challenge which, I have no doubt, will resound around the country over the next month and the next year, and when the next general election comes, is the question that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) wholly failed to answer: if the Government's proposals are wrong, will the Labour party promise to reverse them? It is a simple question. Either this is a matter of principle, which is how it has been argued, or it is a minor, contingent matter depending on transient economic circumstances. Labour will not answer; it does not wish to answer because it wants the bills never to come in and it wants the country never to be aware of the costs. The hon. Member for Peckham asked—
  Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Evans: No. I shall finish shortly. The hon. Member for Peckham asked where the winners, as opposed to the losers, would be under the Bill. I emphasise—[Laughter.] The cackling and the frivolity ignore the fact that the back-to-work bonus will benefit about 150,000 people. The employment-on-trial provisions will benefit about 200,000 people and the national insurance contributions holiday is expected to benefit about 120,000 people. The hon. Member for Garscadden mocked the fact that—
  Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Evans: I shall not give way because the Opposition pressurised me on time.

  117
  The hon. Member for Garscadden mocked and said that a £6 a week concession was meaningless to a small employer. That is not the case, as was shown by my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald). They have pointed out that there are very real incentives in the proposals. One should, perhaps, ask a further question, which was originally put by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough. How many of those who are seeking jobs—
  Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Evans: No. I shall not give way. I have been pressurised on time unfairly and I propose to continue.
  How many of those about whom there has been a great deal of talk have put their houses up on a bank guarantee? How many of the people of whom the Opposition spoke appreciate the difficulties of running small businesses, of maintaining solvency and of being able to provide the jobs that will promote prosperity?
  The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) talked in the most classic, old-fashioned, socialist way about everyone having a right to work, and about everyone being entitled to a good place to live and a good education. All highly desirable, no doubt, but there was not the beginning of an understanding that such matters have to be paid for. There was not the beginning of an understanding that it is the members of the population who work who have to provide the earnings on which such standards can be maintained.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Evans: No. I have been cheated out of my starting time and I shall not give way.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that it is a tradition of the House that Ministers give way at least once in their speeches and that if—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It is not possible for the Chair to rule on a point of order when what the hon. Member has to say cannot be heard.
  Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you confirm that it is a tradition of the House that Ministers give way at least once during their winding-up speeches and that, if they do not, it tempts the House to behave in an unruly way and to consider—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a not a point of order for the Chair. The House has become unruly in the past few minutes of this debate and it must now settle down.
  Mr. Evans: It is also the tradition of the House that the Opposition give the Minister a chance to speak. I was short-circuited. The point which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West was making totally failed to deal with the question that all those excellent matters of which he spoke have to be paid for.
  118
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said that the only point of the Bill that she could see was that it would save money for the Treasury. That is not in itself a matter to be spoken of with such levity. May I give her—
  Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a genuine point of order.
  Mr. Flynn: It is a genuine point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you remind the Minister, who is making his first, and possibly his last, Front-Bench speech—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a not a point of order at all.
  Mr. Evans: I was about to assist the hon. Member for Rochdale on the specific matters which she put to me. On the question of training, 225,000 long-term adult places for training are expected next year and the Government have given their guarantee of providing training for all 16 to 17-year-olds. I give the assurance that the disabled will not fall—
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Evans: To expect me to give way in the last four minutes of my speech is unrealistic. I am trying to answer serious points made by the Liberal Democrats. I am amused that the Labour party apparently does not think that the Liberal Democrats are worth replying to. I am very interested to hear that, but never mind. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate at this late hour to intervene, but the House must now settle down and give the Minister the opportunity to reply.
  Mr. Evans: I shall give way happily to the hon. Member for Peckham if she will answer the question which she has totally failed to answer at any stage of this debate: will she permit a future Labour Government, if ever such a Government should exist, to reduce and reverse what this Government are proposing in the Bill? That question will haunt her. Somehow, when it comes to a comment which the House may think would address the most material question, intervention comes there none.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), for Scarborough and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made the most important point that there must be a fair reciprocity of interests, a balance of interests between the taxpayer and the claimant. The talk by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) of a climate of coercion and compulsion is exactly the kind of grotesque exaggeration which has so harmed British politics in recent years. [Interruption.] It goes down in history—rather like privatising the national health service—as a load of fabricated nonsense.
  One of the fundamental mechanics of the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North in particular explained and defended, is that there should be a jobseeker's agreement. The purpose of that agreement is to assist the jobseeker. It is based on the present back-to-work plan. It is designed to spell out and set out the steps that the jobseeker will take, to which he agrees.

  119
  It is right that the individual jobseeker should be invited not only to discuss those terms with the person at the employment office but to agree them.
  I am very concerned about the attack on the next stage of the mechanics of the Bill—the question of the direction. I can give the assurance that the direction will be subject to the ordinary process of adjudication, so the more fanciful fears expressed by some Opposition Members are wholly without foundation. The point is that a direction and some degree of compulsion are necessary to strike a fair balance between the taxpayer and the claimants. The work-shy are an unknown quantity, but they are thought to be one in six claimants.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 269.

  Division No. 32]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ailken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Coe, Sebastian

  Alexander, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Congdon, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Conway, Derek

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Arbuthnot James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Ashby, David

  Couchman, James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cran, James

  Atkins, Robert

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

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Baldry, Tony

  Day, Stephen

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Devlin, Tim

  Bates, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Beggs, Roy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dover, Den

  Bendall, Vivian

  Duncan, Alan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dunn, Bob

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Booth, Hartley

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boswell, Tim

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evennett, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Faber, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Eric

  Butcher, John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butler, Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Butterfill, John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  French, Douglas

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Cash, William

  Gale, Roger

  Churchill, Mr

  Gallie, Phil

  Clappison, James

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  120

  Garnier, Edward

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gill, Christopher

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Malone, Gerald

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mans, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marland, Paul

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Grant Sir A (Cambs SW)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mates, Michael

  Griffiths. Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mills, Iain

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert Sir Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hendry, Charles

  Norris, Steve

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Horam, John

  Page, Richard

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patrick, Sir Irvine

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hunt. Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pickles, Eric

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Riddick, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robathan, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'dn S)

  Knapman, Roger

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

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

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knox, Sir David

  Sackville, Tom

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sims, Roger

  Lidington, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maclean, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Madel, Sir David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  121

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Viggers, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Stephen, Michael

  Walden, George

  Stern, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stewart, Allan

  Waller, Gary

  Streeter, Gary

  Ward, John

  Sumberg David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sykes, John

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Whitney, Ray

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thomason, Roy

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilshire, David

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wood, Timothy

  Tracey, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Trend, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clelland, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coffey, Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Alton, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Corbett, Robin

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Corston, Jean

  Ashton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Banks, Tony (Newharn NW)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barnes, Harry

  Dafis, Cynog

  Barron, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Battle, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bell, Stuart

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

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Denham, John

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dewar, Donald

  Benton, Joe

  Dixon, Don

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobson, Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Betts, Clive

  Dowd, Jim

  Blunkett, David

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Boateng, Paul

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Boyes, Roland

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bradley, Keith

  Eastham, Ken

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Enright, Derek

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

  Etherington, Bill

  Burden, Richard

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Byers, Stephen

  Fatchett, Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Foulkes, George

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fraser, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Fyfe, Maria

  Chidgey, David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Galloway, George

  Church, Judith

  Gapes, Mike

  Clapham, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  122

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mahon, Alice

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gordon, Mildred

  Marek, Dr John

  Graham, Thomas

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Martlew, Eric

  Grocott, Bruce

  Maxton, John

  Gunnell, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Hall, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Hanson, David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hardy, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Milburn, Alan

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Miller, Andrew

  Henderson, Doug

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Heppell, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Home Robertson, John

  Mudie, George

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Murphy, Paul

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hoyle, Doug

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ingram, Adam

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Randal, Stuart

  Jowell, Tessa

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Redmond, Martin

  Keen, Alan

  Reid, Dr John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Rendel, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Terry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Ruddock, Joan

  Litherland, Robert

  Salmond, Alex

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Loyden, Eddie

  Simpson, Alan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Snape, Peter

  McFall, John

  Soley, Clive

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  MacShane, Denis

  Stevenson, George

  McWilliam, John

  Stott, Roger

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Maddock, Diana

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  123

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wilson, Brian

  Tyler, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Wray, Jimmy

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Walley, Joan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watson, Mike

  Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Welsh, Andrew

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  JOBSEEKERS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Jobseekers Bill it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State—

  (a) for making payments by way of the jobseeker's allowance and the back to work bonus;

  (b) for making grants in connection with resettlement places;

  (c) in respect of any other expenditure incurred by him under or by virtue of the Act;

  (2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and

  (3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of—

  (a) sums estimated by the Secretary of State to balance payments made by him by way of contribution-based jobseeker's allowance;

  (b) sums estimated by the Secretary of State to balance sums recovered by him in connection with payments made by way of income-based jobseeker's allowance;

  124

  (c) sums recovered by the Secretary of State by way of repayment of grants for resettlement places—[Mr. Wood.]

  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Disabled People
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Six and a half million disabled persons and their carers in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are looking to us to introduce legislation that will outlaw the discrimination that they have suffered for far too long—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quietly and will those remaining please stay in their seats?
  Mr. Clarke: I am privileged to present a petition that has been signed by 32,000 people, and the number is still growing. It demands that the House introduces positive measures to remove discrimination—measures that will be seen as tangible, enforceable and fair. In so doing, we will restore the confidence that disabled people once had in the House. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be delighted to present that petition, which reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Residents from throughout Great Britain
  Sheweth.
  That the overwhelming support for a Disabled Persons' Civil Bill in both Houses of Parliament should lead to urgent and meaningful legislation in this session.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Prime Minister and his Government not to impede a measure which has already been implemented in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray &tc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Social Fund
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Hon. Members are not leaving, are they?—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?
  Mr. Barron: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I applied to the Speaker's Office to bring up the treatment of one of my constituents, Mr. Michael Pitson, and the local social fund and how it operates within the Rotherham area.
  It is one of Parliament's great strengths that we are able to use the Adjournment procedure to highlight individual cases and I hope that that never stops. We represent millions of people and we should be able to raise individual cases here when we believe that an injustice has been done.
  Mr. Michael Pitson is a married man with two young children who lives in Maltby—a village in my constituency. He worked at Silverwood colliery in October 1992, when the President of the Board of Trade made an announcement about the future of the British coal industry. It is ironic that Silverwood colliery was not on the original hit list of coal mines at that time, although it subsequently closed. Like many others, Mr. Pitson had joined the coal industry thinking that he had a secure future. That was not to be.
  Following the closure of Silverwood colliery, Mr. Pitson decided to change his career and applied to train as a nurse in the mental health field. He passed the entrance examination in December 1992 to commence a three-year course leading to a higher national diploma in nursing—mental health branch. Mr. Pitson wrote to many colleges and, after an interview, was accepted at Humberside college of health.
  Mr. Pitson came to my constituency surgery last April and explained in detail his problems finding accommodation for himself and his family. Initially, I asked him to put the matter in writing as I wanted to consider his problem. He wrote to me and said:
  "On being accepted by Humberside College of Health I went to the council office in Hull to inquire about a council house in or near the Hull area. The spokesperson for the council told me that because I would have student status I was not eligible for a council house in the Hull area.
  After this I went to Grimsby council to apply for a house on that side of the Humber and travel to the hospital over the bridge. No luck here! To be eligible for a council house in Grimsby you had to have lived in Grimsby for one year or more.
  Having looked at the council map I noticed two councils that border the Hull area. Holderness is only two miles from De La Pole Hospital"—
  where Mr. Pitson had been accepted to take a course.
  "They told me that if the course had been inside their border, they would have offered me and my family a council house but because it was two miles outside their area, they said, 'Sorry can't help'.
  The other bordering council was Beverley, who said if I wish to return to Beverley and were of pensionable age, no problem, but at a mere 26 and with a family they said, 'Sorry, nothing to offer'.
  126
  So having tried all the councils I approached several private rental agencies. All had the same answers to my inquiries—as I was only a student nurse and currently unemployed they were unwilling to take me on their books. I have also had my name on the home swap list, but to the present I have had no inquiries."
  Mr. Pitson wrote to the Department of the Environment and the Prime Minister. He received a letter from the Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside telling him about the "Homeswap" scheme and giving him a list of other agencies to which he could talk. At the beginning of July, he thought that he had made a breakthrough. He wrote to me and said:
  "I am writing to thank you for all your help in trying to find me and my family a home in Hull, so I can take up my nursing course. But like me your efforts seem to be hitting a brick wall.
  So as a last effort before giving up I tried ringing around all the estate agents in the Hull area. Then to my surprise I came across an estate agent who not only rented the type of home I was looking for but they were also willing to accept me. The houses they were offering all had a monthly rent of £350. As I am eligible for rent rebate I approached Hull council who said once I had moved in, there would be no problem with claiming housing benefit to the full amount. Hooray, victory at last!"
  Mr. Pitson went on:
  "Not so, the estate agent said to secure any property they would need 1 month's rent plus £100 administration fee before I could move in. So not giving up I went back to the Social Security office to see if I could have the first month's rent in advance. They said `No', I was not eligible for housing benefit until I had moved in, and I could not move in because I have not got the £450 needed. So after getting so close the brick wall strikes again."
  I then wrote a letter to the Benefits Agency in July. I said:
  "I have been corresponding on Mr. Pitson's behalf about the possibility of him getting housing on Humberside where he had been offered a course in a higher education diploma in nursing starting in March of next year. I have enclosed a copy of a recent letter from the college. I also enclose for your information a copy of a letter I received a few weeks ago from Mr. Pitson saying that our attempts over the last few months to find housing for him and his family on Humberside had shown some fruit, but were eventually dashed because of the need to have a month's rent paid in advance.
  I would like to know if there is any possibility of Mr. Pitson being assisted in moving house and if a payment for rent in advance could be secured from Social Security.
  Throughout the months that I have been dealing with Michael Pitson, he has shown nothing but a determination to get on in his life both for his own sake and that of his family. It appears that he now has a good opportunity to move into higher education and at some stage, hopefully in the not too distant future, to move off benefit dependency. I would hope that all people concerned will assist in any way that they can to make this happen."
  The reply from the local benefits agency stated that it had no record of a budget loan claim, but that he had been sent the requisite forms. The letter also stated:
  "A claim for rent in advance is generally considered to be of medium priority. At present we are only able to make loans of high priority items. However until we know the full circumstances we are unable to consider whether in Mr. Pitson's case the loan could be considered as high priority."
  His application for a loan was made in August for advance rent and a bond and it was subsequently rejected.
  Mr. Pitson waited for my return from holiday before asking me about what to do next. Unfortunately, the wait meant that he was outside the 28 days allowed for appeal. I wrote to the local office and to their credit the staff there accepted the reason for Mr. Pitson's delay and allowed

  127
  the appeal to go ahead. Mr. Pitson was interviewed again on 23 September and in his review the report officer stated:
  "Directive 8 is satisfied for a loan but a bond is excluded under Direction 12/0, and rent in advance is of insufficient priority … for a loan to be offered. Also, by refusing the bond there is no need of the rent in advance. Therefore, it is a nil award."
  That is typical civil service speak. He is told that because he could not have a bond anyway, there was no sense in offering the loan. I told Mr. Pitson that if he could get the rent in advance I would write to the person with the house and try to get him to accept that Mr. Pitson was a responsible person and should not need a bond. The report also stated:
  "the district loans budget could only constantly sustain payments for essential household items as the budget is under pressure due to the number of claims. The state of the district budget is 47.39 per cent. remaining for 51.78 per cent. of the financial year."
  An appeal was lodged against that decision and it was sent for independent review. The review agreed that the social fund officer had made the right decision and that it should stand. It appears that the directions that cover only three items under the discretionary directive fund exclude everything but a loan—if it has the right priority. Direction 29 states that a community care grant cannot be made for housing costs other than minor repairs.
  Because Mr. Pitson had applied for one month's rent and bond money to help him rent a private home for himself and his family, it was considered that the provisions of direction 29 prevented an award of a community care grant. Direction 12 states that a budgeting loan may not be awarded in respect of rent in advance where the landlord is not a local authority. The officer stated:
  "I consider that the provisions of Direction 12 prevent an award by way of a budget loan for the bond money. Direction 23 states that a crisis loan may not be awarded in respect of an advance … where the landlord is not the local authority."
  The officer went on to consider the provision of direction 23 in relation to an award for a crisis loan, which again was not for this purpose. He stated:
  "There are two types of social fund loan, a crisis loan and a budgeting loan. I do not consider that Mr. Pitson qualifies for a crisis loan as the expense must be to assist Mr. Pitson in an emergency or a consequence of a disaster. Budgeting loans are intended to help the applicant."
  One of the criteria is that applicants must be in receipt of income support for 26 weeks. Mr. Pitson fulfilled that criterion, and consequently could have received a budget loan; but he was not considered to be a sufficiently high priority.
  The inspector stated:
  "To decide the priority of this application I have in particular considered the nature, extent and urgency of the need. I have also considered the guidance on priority issued by the Area SFO"—
  the area social fund officer—
  "and the state of the district loans budget.
  In his guidance dated the 1 April 1994, the Area SFO said that the district loans budget could only consistently sustain applications considered to be of a high priority."
  The inspector then mentioned percentages.
  I looked at the guidelines relating to discretionary social fund criteria for community care grant, crisis loans and budget loans. The area SFO, who is normally the
  128
  manager of the local benefits agency, issues guidance each year for SFOs who administer the fund at the desk, as it were. The area SFO tells SFOs:
  "You are reminded that while Section 140(5) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 requires you to take account of this guidance it is only one of the factors to be considered by you in reaching a decision.
  Whilst SFOs are required to have regard to the following guidance, it is not binding on them and is only one of the factors which they should consider in reaching their decision. It cannot be expected to cover every situation that will arise in deciding the overall priority of an application. SFOs must, using their discretion, consider every application on its merits, and have particular regard to the individual circumstances of the application, and the need for the item or service. SFOs should consider raising the level of priority where needs of the applicant and the circumstances warrant it."
  That clearly was not done in this case.
  The guidance goes on to discuss crisis loans. Of course, the SFOs must grant such loans only when they deem the applicant to be experiencing a crisis.
  In April last year, the area social fund officer—the district manager of the scheme—signed guidance on priority levels. That was a clear recognition of the position, and effectively an instruction to local social fund officers. The guidance that he signed stated:
  "I consider that currently, for grants, payment of high priorities can be consistently sustained from the budget without exceeding it."
  If that was the guidance at the beginning of the financial year when the budget was known, what happens to medium and low-priority applications? Clearly, they fail. It is a mockery for the Government to lay down guidelines for high, medium and low priorities if the budget does not meet medium and low priorities, and as a consequence any application in those categories fails.
  I asked Rotherham metropolitan borough council's social policy unit how many people in the borough were living below the poverty line and might need assistance from the discretionary social fund. The unit wrote to me as follows:
  "The most recent statistics available (November 1994) show that a total of 38,370 people are currently in receipt of Income Support in the Rother and Dearne area. The comparative figure for the same month in 1993 shows a total of 37,165—indicating an upward trend of over 3 per cent. This figure, of course, only shows the number of Income Support 'cases' and therefore does not cover the total number of people in each case who are living at this level (ie partner of Income Support claimants, children etc). It is also very difficult to ascertain the total number of people living below the poverty line as not everyone claims their entitlement to Income Support and are, therefore, not shown in the statistics above (for example pensioners who only live on their retirement pension)."
  The unit also supplied me with information on the number of successful applications made to the fund between April and November last year. In August, when Mr. Pitson applied, 1,998 applications were made. August was the only month between April and November when the figure fell below 2,000. Such a figure is clearly not adequate for the needs of the district.
  Figures calculated from the 1991 census show how Rotherham has high levels of deprivation in many economic sectors. The social policy unit states that unemployment is defined more widely in the census than in the official Department of Employment figures and that it includes all people seeking work, whether registered or not.
  Unemployment in Rotherham has increased since April 1991, in particular as a result of pit closures and restructuring in the iron and steel industries. The national

  129
  England and Wales unemployment figure was 9.17 per cent. The shaded areas on the map that I hold in front of me shows the communities with more than 18 per cent. unemployment in the borough. Average unemployment in the borough in 1991 was 11.9 per cent. Maltby, the village in which my constituent lives, is in one of the shaded areas and suffers from that high unemployment.
  The social policy unit's study also showed that, out of 56,802 children in the district, 12,151 were living in non-earning households. It said:
  "The national average is 17.35 per cent, the shaded areas in the map"—
  which include Maltby—
  "indicate the enumeration districts in which the percentage of children in non-earning households is at least 34.7 per cent. of children in all households."
  That is nearly twice the national average. Children living in and around the village are disadvantaged compared with other people.
  The Government have a duty to assist people like Michael Pitson to get on in life and to make a career change from an industry that will not have the sort of jobs that it had in the past. His treatment at the hands of many institutions, controlled directly and indirectly from central Government, was the opposite of the assistance that Michael Pitson should have had. We have debated the Second Reading of the Jobseekers Bill. Michael Pitson applied for an allowance to seek work and it failed. He was not of a high enough priority. He and his family should have been of a high enough priority. He said that he wanted
  "to move out of an area like mine with such high levels of deprivation and unemployment, to have this career change and to get back into average work again."
  Places like Rotherham, which suffer this level of deprivation, should have social funds that are adequate and will meet not just high priorities, in terms of their discretion, but medium and low priorities. I urge the Minister to look at the operation of the social fund in Rotherham to ensure that it adequately meets the needs of people so that people like Michael Pitson and his family can receive the assistance that they should receive from the Government.
  10.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans):-The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has presented classically a constituent case. I agree that it is a matter of great importance to the House that Members of Parliament should have the opportunity to pursue individual cases. He has developed his argument to solve the issue of the social fund in the Rotherham region.
  I begin by dealing briefly with Mr. Pitson's case. It is important that we should understand precisely what lessons can be learnt from this matter. The hon. Member for Rother Valley, with the usual courtesy, approached my officials and various inquiries and discussions have taken place behind the scenes. I am happy to be able to tell the House that it looks as though a loan will be made from an access fund by the regional health authority, which will meet the initial housing cost that Mr. Pitson needs. That is an important matter and it was a surprise to the hon. Gentleman and myself as a letter was posted at the end of last week over the holiday period.
  Mr. Barron: Does the Minister accept that if I had not telephoned the people at the college early last week to tell them about this Adjournment debate, they would not have known about Mr. Pitson's housing problem and he would not have known that the college had a fund—even the college was surprised—to help people with families? We are still left with the problem that Mr. Pitson does not have a home to move into. I hope that the Minister will address that.
  Mr. Evans: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is yes. The hon. Gentleman has pursued his constituent's interests with energy and I understand that it is as a result of his approach to the relevant college that an access fund loan is now available.
  There is still the problem of finding private rented accommodation, but it looks as if the problem of the initial cost of a fee plus some form of rent in advance can be met, as it is intended that it should be by the system, through an access fund loan.
  Happily, the purpose of all this is to enable Mr. Pitson to attend a three-year full-time nursing course at Humberside college, beginning in April this year. The hon. Gentleman might like to consider with his constituent, who has been awarded a bursary at a higher level than the present income support level, whether he is entitled to any of the in-work benefits such as housing benefit or possibly family credit. We do not have enough information and a proper application must be made. It may be that more can be done.
  Let us suppose that an access fund loan had not been available. It does not necessarily follow that nothing could have been done for Mr. Pitson. At the discretion of a local authority, if it deems it reasonable, housing benefit may be payable on two separate dwellings where one of the partners is away on a training course.
  I must be careful about my comments on the operation of the social fund as it applied to Mr. Pitson because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the decision-making and the review of decision-making is an independent process. I endorse entirely the account of the facts given by the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I can explain what appears to have happened. The first decision of the social fund officer on 15 August 1994 was that a community care grant was not possible because direction 4 was not satisfied. The second decision was that a budgeting loan for a rent bond, deposit or administrative fee—however it is dressed up by the prospective landlord—was refused as that is a specifically excluded item under direction 12(O). As the hon. Gentleman said, the request for rent in advance was refused on priority grounds. As the hon. Gentleman explained, the social fund inspector upheld that subsequently.
  Since it is an independent process I cannot comment on the particular case. However, perhaps I can explain to the hon. Gentleman and the House the Government's thinking behind the scheme and the directions as they are drawn. The issue of deposits and whether there should be provision for them is a very old and difficult one. Direction 12(O) came into being deliberately to exclude them because the previous scheme had escalated dramatically. Between 1981 and 1986 the sums involved increased from £18,000 to £3 million as the number of cases increased from 750 to 33,000. In 1987–88 the sums involved had reached £10 million.

  131
  There is no easy answer to the problem. If one does not pay, the poor applicant who wants the home cannot jump the hurdle. If one does pay, human nature is such that every private landlord in every circumstance will demand such a deposit. [Interruption.] The difficulty is that if a contract is to be entered into freely it is a matter of bargain between the parties. If one of the parties is paid a blank cheque by the taxpayer, there is an inevitable tendency for the other to take advantage of it.
  The Department of the Environment is examining a pilot scheme to help with deposits run in conjunction with the Notting Hill housing trust. The Government's general thinking on this matter is that direction 12(O) represents a sensible policy.
  The case for rent in advance failed on grounds of low priority. I must say that I find it difficult to comment on this aspect. The hon. Gentleman explained the facts of his constituent's case—I have no doubt that the House was sympathetic to Mr. Pitson—but we do not know about any other claims that were made or the context in which the priority was established.
  In 1993–94, the social fund made 21,600 rent-in-advance loans worth nearly £3 million. I heard what the hon. Gentleman told the House about the sums available under the fund and how the fund operates in his constituency. I should be able to comfort him to the extent that the local guidance to which he referred as an instruction is not, in fact, an instruction.
  132
  The Government's view of the social fund is that it is generally working well, focusing resources on those most in need of help and making the most effective use of the available resources to help large numbers of people. Since the scheme began, nearly 1.7 million non-repayable grants have been awarded and more than 8.5 million interest-free loans. Last year, the fund helped 5 per cent. more people than in the financial year ending in 1993. Our commitment to this important aspect of provision is clear. We have given more money to the fund every year and that was also the case in 1994–95, even with fierce competition for public funds.
  The social fund's gross budget now stands at more than £50 million higher than two years ago. As recently as November, the loans budget was increased by £13 million, a 5 per cent. increase on the allocation announced at the beginning of this financial year. I should explain that Rother Valley had its portion of that. It was made possible by the improved performance of the Benefits Agency in recovering loan repayments, in part due to the new computer system introduced last year. Recycling money in the form of recoverable loans is a successful and effective way to use public funds as it increases the amount of help available. The proportion recovered is substantial and the money can be used again and again.
  The Government will continue to keep the operation of the fund under close scrutiny and we shall make improvements to ensure that the considerable help provided by the social fund goes to our most vulnerable citizens.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in which non-EU countries legal aid is available to British citizens.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not maintain complete and up to date details of legal aid schemes in other countries. Many countries provide help to foreign nationals under the terms of their legal aid schemes.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in which EU countries British citizens are eligible for legal aid on a similar basis to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Legal aid is available to British citizens in each EU country under the terms of that country's legal aid scheme.

  Breast Implants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to publicise the extension by the relevant court in the United States of the deadline to register potential claims arising from breast implants.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor does not involve himself in individual cases—except in his judicial capacity—and consequently his Department has no involvement with this litigation. I understand, however, that the Law Society intends to publish details of the extension before the end of the month.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Brendan Smyth
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what requests he has received from the Attorney-General of the Irish Republic or his officials asking to disclose to any third party the statement of facts in the Brendan Smyth case; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what confidentiality agreement exists between his Office and his counterpart in the Irish Republic; when the agreement was first made; when it is reviewed; and to what material the agreement is applied;

  (3) when the statement of facts in the Brendan Smyth case was passed to the appropriate authorities in the Irish Republic; to whom it was passed; and if any conditions were imposed then or subsequently on the disclosure of the statement of facts to any third party;
  2
  (4) if he is willing for the statement of facts and other documents he supplied to the authorities in the Irish Republic concerning the extradition of Brendan Smyth to be passed to members of the Dail legislation and security committee.

  The Attorney-General
  A statement of the facts in the Brendan Smyth case was supplied to the Irish Attorney-General on 4 May 1993. In all cases where they are required, such statements are provided on a confidential basis for the limited purpose of allowing the Irish Attorney-General to decide whether to allow the warrants for the arrest of the person concerned to be backed for execution in the Republic. No specific conditions have been imposed in this case.

  On 22 December 1994, officials in the Irish Attorney-General's Office contacted my office asking my attitude to the possible release of this statement by the Irish Attorney-General to the Select Committee of the Dail on Legislation and Security.

  My view is that it is a matter for the Irish Attorney-General to judge whether it is appropriate to supply a copy of the statement to that Committee in this case. Full statements are provided on the basis and for the purpose stated above and it would in general be prejudicial to the administration of justice if they were to become public. The anonymity of the injured parties named in this statement has until now been maintained. There is an ongoing investigation in respect of further alleged offences and it is important that any subsequent trial should be fair.

  I understand that the Irish Attorney-General has declined to disclose the statement to the Committee.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Services (Bad Practice)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for the future on identifying examples of had practice in the delivery of public services.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  When public services are not delivered satisfactorily, this needs to be identified and—more important—put right to ensure good quality service. There is already a range of mechanisms in place for doing this, including inspectorates in many public services, the National Audit Office, the Audit Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. By requiring the setting of standards and the publishing of performance information against them, the citizens charter plays a major role in this process.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on Internet and the documents which he intends to be made available on Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server "open.gov.UK" or any specific departmental server.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Cambridge
  3
  (Mrs. Campbell) on 1 December, Official Report, column 816.

  The Office of Public Services and Science has been, and will continue to be, at the forefront of Departments making information available over the Internet. The machinery of government division, the citizens charter unit and the office of science and technology have material accessible on the CCTA government information service, as do CCTA and HMSO. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I shall continue to make available the text of ministerial speeches.

  The CCTA—the Government centre for information systems—has my full support for its plans to expand the use and accessibility of Internet services, including the G-NET internet access service, which I announced at the emerging technology conference last week. This service makes Internet access, including G-MAIL electronic mail, available to every Government telephone network user at rates which will have the minimum impact on running costs. We are using the economies of scale which the GTN affords to maximise the ease with which government officials can get access to the Internet.

  Information Technology Security
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on future responsibility for advising Government Departments on information technology security.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Two UK authorities advise Departments and agencies on information technology security. The Security Service, as part of its general protective security role, is responsible for non-technical aspects of IT security policy and standards, primarily in the physical and personnel security areas. Responsibility for the technical aspects of IT security policy and standards, which focus on IT hardware, software and communications, rests with the communications-electronics security group of the Government communications headquarters.

  The CCTA—the Government centre for information systems—also provides security advice and guidance, which is based on the security policy and standards set by the two UK IT authorities. The CCTA integrates such security policy into its wider responsibility for the production of policy and best practice for information systems and IT.

  Malaria Vaccine
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what funds the Medical Research Council is making available for research into malaria vaccine.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The funding of research into malaria vaccine will depend, as with other research areas, on the quality of the research proposals that the Medical Research Council receives. In the last financial year, 1993–94, the MRC's expenditure for research into malaria was £4.4 million. Included in this figure was £1.6 million, which was specifically spent on malaria vaccine research. The MRC is always willing to consider soundly based proposals in competition with other applications for support.
  4

  Science Engineering and Technology Week
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what level of support he is proposing for next year's science engineering and technology week—SET 95.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The office of science and technology has allocated a total of £195,000 in support of the 1995 national week of science, engineering and technology. Over and above this, colleagues and officials will be making strong personal contributions to the success of the week. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has written to the chairmen of leading companies to encourage participation in the week. I have written to every member of Parliament on similar lines, and have been very gratified by the huge response from them and other Ministers.

  Electronic Mail
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  In my speech to the emerging technology showcase on 4 January, I announced the launch of the G-MAIL electronic mail service via the Internet.

  By exploiting the economies of scale afforded by the Government telephone network and the joint academic network, G-MAIL will allow electronic communications leading to clear efficiency benefits and reduced paper handling and waiting times.

  It is my intention to take advantage of these facilities as soon as practicable. G-MAIL will complement the existing use of electronic mail made by my office via connections to the internal OPSS electronic mail network, facilitating electronic communication within my Department.

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to make available the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in electronic format.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  HMSO has plans to publish the complete statute law of Great Britain, in collaboration with the Statutory Publications Office, in various electronic formats, probably next year.

  Meanwhile, HMSO is arranging to publish summary details of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 via Internet this month.

  Secondments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the amount of secondment and other interaction at all levels between the research councils, industry and Government.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As set out in the 1993 White Paper, "Realising Our Potential", each of the research councils, has set in place a mechanism to increase the level of senior staff exchange and secondment between research councils, industry and Government. To date, 83 people have been, or are, on secondment from the research councils to industry and the Government: 51 people have been, or are on secondment into the research councils.

  Science Research Councils
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what the director general of the Science Research Councils has done to achieve each of the objectives as listed on pages 19 and 20 of the Cm 2250 "Realising our Potential";

  (2) what is the age of the present director general of the Science Research Councils; and when he is due to retire;

  (3) whether the post of director general of the Science Research Councils is classified full time or part time;

  (4) what has been the average hours per week actually worked by the current director general of the Science Research Councils since his appointment in January 1994;

  (5) on what basis the element, of the director general of the Science Research Councils' remuneration which is performance related will be calculated.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since taking up his appointment on 1 January 1994, the director general of Research Councils has: advised on the allocation of the 1994–95 science budget, which introduced new "Realising Our Potential" awards and industrial co-operative awards in science and engineering studentships as instruments for getting the academic research community better connected with their industrial users; taken part in the selection procedures for the chief executives of the new research councils and advised on the appointment of chairmen and members; agreed a set of 1994–95 work objectives for the chief executives of the new research councils; overseen the negotiations on the large hadron collider project at CERN, whose outcome was an agreement to proceed on the basis of a realistic, fair and sustainable financial framework; brought forward proposals for handling large international subscriptions within the science budget as a whole; overseen a review which resulted in agreement on the independent future status and operation of the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories; overseen the consultation and advised on the reform of postgraduate education and training supported by the research councils, with the consequent proposal to pilot a number of self-standing research master's courses; advised on the issue of a policy statement which confirmed that the scientific assessment of applications for research council grants would continue to be made by peer reviewers who are expert and acknowledged as such by their peers; conducted an in-depth review of the programmes of the six research councils which, in addition to regular exchanges with the chairmen and chief executives of the research councils, has entailed some 20 visits to universities and research council institutes and centres, over 70 presentations and discussions with some 260 scientists and users of their scientific output and which will inform the director general's advice to me on the allocation of the 1995–96 science budget; advised on the health and funding needs of the science base, so contributing to the recent public expenditure surrey settlement which I secured; and taken part, as a member, in the work of the Higher Education Funding Councils for England and for Wales, the science and engineering base co-ordinating committee, the technology foresight steering group and the governing body of the European Union joint research centre.

  Sir John Cadogan was appointed to the post of director general of Research Councils in January 1994 for a three-year period in the first instance. He is aged 64. The
  6
  post is full-time. The performance-related element of Sir John Cadogan's pay will be determined by the extent to which he has met the objectives of the post.

TREASURY

  Welsh Whisky
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to introduce legislative changes in anticipation of the distillation of Welsh whisky in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs and Excise does not propose to introduce any legislative changes in anticipation of the distillation of Welsh whisky in Wales.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the duration of the trips undertaken by Ministers in his Department which were referred to in his answer of 2 November,Official Report column 1215 and on which they were accompanied by their spouses and paid for at public expense.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is as follows:

  Informal ECONFIN 7–9 April 1994 (3 days)

  G7 Summit 8–10 July 1994 (3 days)

  Informal ECOFIN 9–11 September 1994 (3 days)

  Bank of England Trade Weights
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing the combined trade weights used in the Bank of England sterling index for EEC currencies and non-EEC currencies together with the average weighted average rate of exchange in each case for each year and each quarter since 1975.

  Mr. Nelson
  The composition of the exchange rate index is described in the November 1988 issue of the Bank of England quarterly bulletin, a copy of which can be found in the Library. Table 7.1A of "Financial Statistics" provides monthly data on ERI rates. This is available on the Central Statistical Office's database, which can be accessed through the Library.

  Personal Equity Plan Holdings
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how personal equity plan holdings and investments have expanded in each year since the introduction of personal equity plans; how personal equity plan holdings are classified in official returns on share ownerships; and what percentage of personal shareholdings he estimates are held in the form of personal equity plans.

  Sir George Young
  The value of funds held in personal equity plans is shown in the table. This information is derived from returns made by PEP managers.

  As at

  Value of funds £ million General

  Single company

  Total

  December 1987

  440

  —

  440

  December 1988

  720

  —

  720

  April 1990

  2,600

  —

  2600

  April 1991

  4,520

  —

  4,520

  7

  As at

  Value of funds £ million General

  Single company

  Total

  April 1992

  6,700

  270

  6,970

  April 1993

  11,100

  790

  11,890

  April 1994

  18,500

  1,300

  19,800

  In the national accounts, PEPs are classified as part of personal sector holdings of United Kingdom company securities. At the end of 1993, the share register survey, run by the Central Statistical Office, estimated the value of ordinary shares of UK-listed companies held by individuals, including those held in PEPs, at £141 billion. In addition, personal sector holdings of unit trust units were estimated to be £42 billion.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of income tax revenue was paid by the top(a) 1 per cent. (b) 5 per cent. and (c) 10 per cent. of earners in each year from 1978–79; and what are his future projections.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is given in the table. Estimates for 1993–94 onwards are based on projections from the 1992–93 survey of personal incomes.

  Shares of total income tax liability1

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  1978–79

  11

  24

  35

  1979–80

  10

  23

  34

  1980–81

  11

  24

  35

  1981–82

  11

  25

  35

  1982–83

  12

  25

  36

  1983–84

  11

  25

  36

  1984–85

  12

  26

  38

  1985–86

  13

  27

  38

  1986–87

  14

  29

  39

  1987–88

  15

  30

  41

  1988–89

  15

  31

  42

  1989–90

  15

  31

  42

  1990–91

  15

  32

  42

  1991–92

  16

  33

  43

  1992–93

  16

  33

  44

  1993–942

  16

  33

  44

  1994–952

  16

  33

  44

  1995–962

  15

  32

  44

  1 For years up to and including 1989–90 married couples are counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation in 1990–91 husbands and wives are counted separately.

  2 Provisional.

  Share Options (Tax)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make profits on company directors' share options taxable.

  1989–90 outturn £ million

  1990–91 outturn £ million

  1991–92 outturn £ million

  1992–93 outturn £ million

  1993–94 outturn £ million

  1994–95 estimated outturn £ million

  cash

  10,900

  12,200

  13,600

  14,600

  14,600

  15,000

  real

  13,400

  13,800

  14,600

  15,000

  14,600

  14,700

  8
  Sir George Young
  Gains realised on the exercise of company directors' share options are already chargeable to income tax, unless the options were granted under a scheme approved by the Inland Revenue. Gains realised on the subsequent sale of shares acquired under option are chargeable to capital gains tax in the normal way, whether the option scheme is approved or not.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the visible balance of trade of Italy and the United Kingdom for each of the most recent three quarters and the corresponding balance in 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  Balance of trade data for Italy can be found in the OECD publication, "Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade." UK trade data can be found on the Central Statistical Office's database, which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate which local authority expenditure counted against the public expenditure syndicate control total and the PSBR in 1979; and what changes have subsequently been made to those definitions.

  Mr. Aitken
  The public expenditure planning total used in 1979 included the expenditure of local authorities, excluding debt interest. The present equivalent, the public expenditure control total, also includes local authority expenditure but including debt interest payments. The present control total, unlike the planning total in 1979, measures local authority expenditure net of VAT refunds and includes the capital value of certain leases. Between 1989 and 1991, the public expenditure survey was conducted using the new planning total, which included central Government support for local authorities rather than local authorities' expenditure.

  The definitions of the public expenditure planning and control total and the public sector borrowing requirement are independent. The definitional changes in the public expenditure planning and control total have no implications for the PSBR.

  Local authorities are part of the public sector; their expenditure is thus a determinant of the PSBR. This was equally so in 1979.

  Government Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the cost of Government administration for each of the past 10 years, in cash and real terms, inclusive of the latest outturn estimate for 1994–95.

  Sir George Young
  Running costs in cash and real terms, at 1993–94 prices, of civilian departments for 1989–90 to 1994–95 are set out in the table.
  9
  The split between administrative costs and programme spending modifies over time; so information for the years prior to 1989–90 could be obtained only on a basis consistent with these figures only at disproportionate cost.

  Anti-avoidance Rules
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from registered housing associations regarding the impact of his new anti-avoidance rules on costs and rents.

  Sir George Young
  A number of representations have been received about the implications of the Chancellor's proposal. None so far have quantified the potential impact on borrowing costs or rent levels.

  Growth Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average rate of economic growth of the EEC Six since 1979 and the average in 1964 to 1973.

  Mr. Nelson
  The average GDP growth of the six EEC members over the two periods was as follows:

  Annual percentage growth rates

  1964–1973

  1979–1993

  Belgium

  4.7

  1.8

  Germany

  4.2

  2.0

  France

  5.1

  1.8

  Italy

  5.1

  2.0

  Luxembourg

  4.0

  3.0

  Netherlands

  4.9

  1.8

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, column 593, what was the value of the total contract award to Price Waterhouse and Touche Ross.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 19 December 1994]: The combined value of the two contracts is between £300,000 and £400,000. To give a more precise answer would breach commercial confidentiality.

  Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive a report from the retail prices index advisory committee.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 December 1994, c.788]: I have decided to accept all the recommendations made by the committee in its report, Cm 2717 and Cm 2716, on the treatment in the RPI of owner-occupiers' housing costs and cars respectively. The reports were presented to the House and published on 15 December 1994. The Central Statistical Office will implement the changes in the RPI for February 1995.

  Profit-related Pay Scheme
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the number of companies currently using the profit-related pay scheme and on the safeguards for employees who do not wish to join the scheme.
  10
  Sir George Young
  Registered tax relieved profit-related pay schemes may apply to both incorporated and unincorporated businesses or parts of a business. As at 30 September 1994, there were 7,773 live PRP schemes registered by the Inland Revenue. To qualify for registration, a scheme must apply to 80 per cent. of the employees within a business, or part. Subject to that requirement, it is for employers to decide the basis on which they introduce a scheme.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Holidays
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are to declare a public holiday in Northern Ireland for(a) St. Andrew's day and (b) St. Patrick's day; and what consultations have taken place with (i) the Roman Catholic church, (ii) the Presbyterian church in Ireland (iii) the Loyal Orange Institution and (iv) the Ancient Order of Hibernians.

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are no proposals to declare a public holiday in Northern Ireland for St. Andrew's day. St. Patrick's day is designated a bank holiday in Northern Ireland under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971. Under the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, a statutory bank holiday is also a public holiday. No consultations have taken place.

  Electronic Mail
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Departments have interdepartmental links which facilitate electronic mail between the various office systems using the CCITT X.400 communications standard. It is the intention to expand communications links to the wider public and private sector during 1995. The will facilitate electronic mail communications between Northern Ireland Departments and Great Britain Departments which have office systems that comply with the CCITT X.400 standard.

  School Statistics
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the enrolment at(a) Regent House grammar school, Newtownards and (b) Comber high school; how many temporary classrooms arc at each site; what was the last major capital investment at each school; what proposals there are to provide permanent accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Regent House has an enrolment of 1,620, including 175 in its preparatory department. It has 30 temporary classrooms and the last major capital investment at the school was an extension in 1976. An economic appraisal recommending a further extension and refurbishment of the existing premises has been approved for the school and the south-eastern education and library board is preparing an educational brief with a view to appointing consultants to plan the proposed works.
  11
  Comber High has an enrolment of 424. It has 15 temporary classrooms and the last major capital investment at the school was an extension in 1971. In 1991, the south-eastern board decided to plan for a new school on the existing site, but following a sharp decline in the school's enrolment the board is now reassessing the appropriate long-term enrolment for development purposes.

  Public Health, Crossmaglen
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received on radio transmission and public health in the Crossmaglen area; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  A number of representations have been made to my right hon. and learned Friend. There is, however, no evidence to suggest a decline in public health in any area of Northern Ireland attributable to radio transmissions.

  Arts Councils
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present level of co-operation between the Northern Ireland Arts Council and the equivalent bodies in(a) Scotland and (b) the Republic of Ireland; and what proposals there are to improve co-operation with these two bodies.

  Mr. Ancram
  The chairman and chief executive of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland usually meet their counterparts from the Scottish Arts Council and the other two arts councils in the United Kingdom twice a year to discuss matters of common interest. The chief executives of the arts councils in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Wales also meet annually.

  Officers of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and the Scottish Arts Council are in frequent contact and co-operate on projects which extend to both territories.

  The arts councils of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland hold annual meetings and have appointed a joint committee to explore cross-border initiatives. The two councils fund the Tyrone Guthrie centre and a European affairs officer and plan to appoint an arts co-operation officer.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made as to the additional costs which will be incurred by his Department as a result of the changes in national telephone dialling codes next year; and how much this change will cost his Department in additional expenditure.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Work has already been completed to reprogramme all the telephone switchboards in the Northern Ireland civil service to cope with the changes to the national dialling codes later this year. The cost of this work was minimal as all the private sector suppliers involved carried out the work free of charge. The only Government expenditure, therefore, was a small staffing overhead of approximately £1,500 to plan and co-ordinate the operation.
  12
  Updating stationery and reprogramming telephone and fax memories will incur minimal additional costs.

  Feed Trials
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what work, other than trials at Loughrey, is being carried out in the United Kingdom to evaluate heat-treated feed against non-heat treated feed in commercial egg layers.

  Mr. Ancram
  No work of this nature is being carried out by the Government. I am not aware of any work being carried out by other parties.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the Government's policy to give aid to avoid environmental destruction; and what help has been made in this field in the latest year for which figures are available

  Mr. Baldry
  All activities supported under the aid programme are assessed for environmental impact according to the procedures contained in the ODA's manual of environmental appraisal, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. In 1993–94, the ODA spent £147 million on bilateral projects either wholly or partly concerned with environmental protection.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom ranks among EC member states in the proportion of gross domestic product being allocated for aid.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 25 November 1994,Official Report column 426.

  Tibet
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the European Union over the grant to the Chinese Govenment-run Pa Nam rural development project in Tibet, approved by the Asian and Latin Committee of the EU on 19 October 1994.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are in touch at senior level with the European Commission about our concerns that EC assistance should be used to help only indigenous Tibetans and that the Pa Nam project is not detrimental to the fragile environment in the region. We have made clear that these issues should he addressed, if necessary by amending the financing agreement.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects funded by bilateral aid to Cambodia, including the amount of aid given to each project.
  13
  Mr. Baldry
  Current projects in Cambodia funded under the United Kingdom country programme, and under the joint funding scheme, are listed:

  Country Projects

  Project

  Allocation (£000s)

  Battambang Urban Water Project

  1,400

  Kratie Water Project

  343

  English by TV and Radio

  46

  English Language Training

  1,930

  Strengthening Health Systems Phase II

  741

  Anti Malaria Project

  1,143

  Birth Spacing Project

  250

  Essential Drugs Project

  1,000

  Programme Aid

  2,500

  British Partnership Scheme

  100

  Support for Cambodia Mine Action Centre

  1,136

  Social Marketing of Contraceptives

  150

  NGO Projects

  Agency

  Project name

  Allocation £

  ADD

  Development Programme

  302,894

  Cambodia Trust

  Prosthetics Clinic and Workshop—Kompong Som

  249,741

  Christian Outreach

  Agricultural, Business and Community Development

  336,671

  Christian Outreach

  Preventative Health Care

  288,238

  Concern

  Chuk Saw Forestry programme

  133,938

  Concern

  Primary Education Programme

  326,166

  Concern

  Primary Health Care Programme

  65,359

  Food for the Hungry

  Rural Water Supply

  91,830

  Health Unlimited

  Integrated Health Care

  236,404

  Health Unlimited

  Primary Health Care

  383,288

  Helpage

  Opthalmic Services

  177,393

  Helpage

  Resettlement and Rehabilitation Programme

  118,200

  Oxfam

  Community Development Support Programme

  15,980

  Oxfam

  Rural Development Programme

  2,894

  Oxfam

  Re-establishment of Local Support Structures

  5,389

  Southeast Asian Outreach

  Scale Project

  229,960

  World Vision

  Kompong Tralach Rural Health

  95,895

  World Vision

  Rattanak Mondol: Rural Health Project

  168,129

  Indonesia
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what was the cost of the original aid for trade element in the Cikampek-Padalarang toll road, Indonesia,(a) in cash terms and (b) as proportion of the total estimated costs; what payments were ultimately made; and what proportion of the total outturn cost they represented;

  (2) when the release of aid for trade funds for the Cikampek-Padalarang toll road, Indonesia, was agreed; and when the project was (a) commenced and (b) completed.
  14
  Mr. Baldry
  In 1988, the Government agreed to provide £16.85 million—30.1 per cent. of the officially supported package—towards the cost of constructing the Cikampek-Padalarang toll road, Indonesia. Of this, £4.7 million has been spent on surveys, detailed design and geological investigations. The remainder will he provided as a mixed credit towards the cost of construction.

  Project negotiations are continuing and are not expected to be completed until April next year. The total costs will not be known until the project has been completed. Nevertheless, the total of official support for the project will not exceed £16.85 million.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 December,Official Report, columns 373–74, if he will indicate whether the aid and trade project in Indonesia was approved alongside any other ATP projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: The Bandung TV studio project was approved in January 1986 alongside a project to supply new radio equipment for the central radio studios in Jakarta to replace equipment lost in a fire which severely disrupted national radio programmes. The ODA considered that there was a sound developmental case for the provision of aid in support of the radio studio equipment project. The two projects have been pursued separately since October 1986.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 December,Official Report, columns 373–74, if he will give the date that an appraisal was carried out on the Indonesian television studio project; and if he will publish the results of the appraisal in full.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: Consideration and approval of the project was based upon a number of reports from ODA and DTI staff and consultants following visits to Indonesia during 1985 and early 1986. In line with established policy, the ODA does not publish its projects appraisals.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 December,Official Report columns 373–74, if he will outline the main aims and objectives of the aid and trade provision project in Indonesia and indicate what factors led the ODA to consider that it might fall outside the scope of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 in the light of the High Court judgment on Pergau.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: The main aims and objectives of the project were to supply equipment to the Indonesian television authority for a new television studio complex constructed at Bandung to assist the service in producing programmes. The factors which led ODA to consider that, in the light of the court's judgment, the project fell outside the scope of the Act were concerns about the developmental soundness of the project and the weight attached to commercial and political considerations in the decision to allocate aid.
  15

  Ankara Metro Project
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the decision was taken to give support to the Ankara metro project under the aid and trade provision scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  On 10 September 1990.

  Crown Agents
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what other companies or organisations were considered when KPMG Corporate Finance was appointed to advise on the Crown Agents privatisation; what were the procedures for comparison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The competition for this contract was conducted in compliance with the European Commission directive on contracting for services under negotiated procedures. Subsequent to the notice in the supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities on 16 September, proposals were received from Coopers and Lybrand International, Ernst and Young, Samuel Montagu Company Limited and Touche Ross Corporate Finance as well as KPMG Corporate Finance.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the cost of the contract awarded to KPMG Corporate Finance to advise on the transfer of the Crown Agents to the private sector.

  Mr. Baldry
  For services currently under contract, £90,000.

  Consultants
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the outside consultants appointed by him to advise on overseas development matters in each year since 1984, the total cost in each case, the consultant contracts which are currently under way and the total cost of all current contracts.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on contracts awarded prior to 1992–93 is not centrally recorded and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For the years 1992–93 and 1993–94, I refer to my written answer to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on 2 November 1994,Official Report, column 1182.

  Good Government
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what considerations were given to the criterion of good government in decisions regarding the allocation of £34.8 million to Indonesia and £33.7 million of aid to China in 1993–94; what proportion each represents of United Kingdom bilateral aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Decisions on aid allocations to individual countries take account of a number of criteria. These include poverty, good government issues, including respect for human rights, and the commitment of the country to appropriate economic policies, and other important development objectives such as protection of 16
  the environment. The effectiveness with which United Kingdom aid is used is also an important criterion. Aid for Indonesia and China represented 2.7 per cent. and 2.6 per cent. respectively of total bilateral aid in 1993–94.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 December,Official Report, columns 773–74, on the Pergau dam, if he will set out in detail the grounds on which each of the aid and trade provision projects in (a) Turkey, (b) Botswana and (c) Indonesia raised legal difficulties following the High Court judgment.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: I refer the hon. member to the replies I gave the hon. member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) today.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 December,Official Report, columns 773–74, on the Pergau dam, if he will set out the criteria used by the ODA to determine which aid and trade provision projects did not comply with the High Court judgment on Pergau.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: The ODA, in co-operation with the National Audit Office, examined all current aid and trade provision soft loan and mixed credit projects to determine whether an appropriate test of developmental soundness was taken into account in each case, whether the projects on which payments are currently being made meet the relevant developmental test and whether the decision-making process gave sufficient prominence to developmental factors, while taking account of other factors such as political and commercial interests

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 December,Official Report, columns 773–74, on the Pergau dam, what legal advice was sought by the ODA in regard to the provision of aid and trade provision funds for the projects in (a) Turkey, (b) Botswana and (c) Indonesia.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: No legal advice was sought on the provision of aid for these projects. However, in each case legal advice was sought on the detailed terms of each of the commercial contracts and the bilateral agreements with the Governments concerned covering the provision of aid.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 December,Official Report, columns 773–74, on the Pergau dam, what were the key political and commercial consideration as taken into account prior to the approval of the ATP funds for (a) Indonesia, (b) Botswana and (c) Turkey.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: The key commercial considerations in each case were the potential loss of both the immediate and follow-on business in the sectors concerned in these countries and the surrounding regions. In the case of Botswana, the key political consideration was our wish to help Botswana as one of the front line states to reduce its dependence on South Africa. In the case of Turkey, political

  17
  considerations took account of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the previous month and Turkey's positive stance following the invasion. In the case of Indonesia, the key political considerations were Indonesia's position in the Association of South-East Asian Nations region and the need to demonstrate Britain's commitment to the country and its development through a project which was earmarked for a United Kingdom supplier.

  Botswana
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 December,Official Report, columns 373–74, if he will outline the main aims and objectives of the aid and trade provision project in Botswana and indicate what factors led the ODA to consider, following the High Court judgment, that it might fall outside the scope of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: The main aim and objective of the project was to provide Botswana with its own flight information system to ensure awareness of flights from neighbouring countries. The project was therefore consistent with our overall policy of assisting front line states to reduce their dependence on South Africa and was judged to be a cost-effective means of meeting the objective. The factors which led ODA to consider that, in the light of the court's judgment, the project fell outside the scope of the Act were concerns about the developmental soundness of the project and the weight attached to commercial and political considerations in the decision to allocate aid.

  Turkey
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 December,Official Report, columns 373–74, if he will outline the main aims and objectives of the aid and trade provision project in Turkey and indicate what factors led the ODA to consider, following the High Court judgment, that it might fall outside the scope of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: The main aims and objectives of the project are to build the first stage of the metro system in the city of Ankara to reduce chronic road congestion and pollution. The factors which led ODA to consider that, in the light of the court's judgment, the project fell outside the scope of the Act were concerns about the developmental soundness of the project and the weight attached to commercial and political considerations in the decision to allocate aid.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

  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.
  18
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

  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.

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what is the annual expenditure earmarked for the Intelligence and Security Committee;

  (2) if he expects to give oral evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee;

  (3) if senior staff below the level of director general in the security services are to be allowed to give evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee if the committee requests this;

  (4) at what time of the year he expects to receive the first report from the Intelligence and Security Committee;

  (5) if officers of the House are involved in staffing the Intelligence and Security Committee.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 21 November 1994,Official Report, column 25.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlay the decision to hold meetings of the Intelligence and Security Committee in the Cabinet Office; what consideration was given to holding them in the House; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The House has always recognised that intelligence issues cannot be dealt with in the same way as normal departmental affairs. Special arrangements have been made therefore for the committee to meet in suitable secure accommodation in the Cabinet Office, reflecting the necessary secrecy of the committee's proceedings.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy not to agree to any proposal which would extend or increase the powers of the European Parliament.

  The Prime Minister
  The treaty on European Union accorded the European Parliament new powers. We do not believe that the case has been made for an extension of these powers. The primary democratic focus in the European Union rests with national Parliaments, not the European Parliament.

  Hunting Engineering
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide a breakdown of all ongoing Government contracts with Hunting Engineering and those completed in the last two years, summarising the amounts relating to each purpose within the contracts and the total of them overall.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  19

  Voter Satisfaction Surveys
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what surveys Her Majesty's Government carried out in 1994 to assess voter satisfaction with Her Majesty's Government's policy; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will propose action to increase the numbers of people aged 16 to 20 years employed in each Department and associated agencies;

  (2) if he will give an estimate of the numbers of people available for work aged (a) 16, (b) 17, (c) 18, (d) 19 and (e) 20 years; and if he will compare their ratio to all employees with the ratio of young people employed across the public services and agencies.

  The Prime Minister
  Government Departments and agencies recruit staff on merit through fair and open competition. The details of recruitment procedures are determined by each Department or agency in the light of its own needs and circumstances.

  The Employment Department aims to integrate young people into the labour market by providing a wide range of employment and training measures and services for them. Government Departments and agencies participate fully in programmes such as youth training.

  The employment of young people in different occupations or sectors of activity is affected by recent recruitment levels and by the qualities and experience appropriate to the work.

  In particular, young people tend to group towards particular occupations, some of which may not be associated with the public sector.

  The available estimates from the labour force survey for Great Britain in summer—June to August—1994 show that there were 1,597,000 16 to 20-year-old employees in total, representing 7 per cent. of all employees. Of these 119,000 were in the public sector, representing 2 per cent. of all public sector employees. A further 507,000 16 to 20-year-olds were classified as International Labour Organisation unemployed of which 157,000 were in full-time education but actively seeking a part-time or vacation job.

  Political Resolutions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what are his political resolutions for 1995.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Queen's Speech,Official Report, 16 November 1994 columns 4–6.

  European Councils
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes he proposes to make in reporting to Parliament proceedings and debates within European Council meetings and committees; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers give Parliament an account of each meeting of the Council of Ministers. Press releases, which include details of voting, are deposited in the Library of the House. I see no reason to change these arrangements.
  20

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library his correspondence with Mr. Martin Cadman, of the Lockerbie victims' relatives association, and in particular his response to Mr. Cadman's letter of 18 December 1994, concerning Lord Parkinson's meetings on 19 September 1989 and 5 December 1989 with the relatives, and his answer of 15 December,Official Report, column 1068.

  The Prime Minister
  No, it is not my normal practice to do so.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his response to Lockerbie victim relative Rev. John Mosey's letter to him of 28 December 1994.

  The Prime Minister
  No, it is not my normal practice to do so.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if, following communications from Mr. Martin Cadman, Pamela Dix, Rev. John Mosey and Dr. Jim Swire, relatives of Lockerbie victims, he has anything to add to his oral answer to the hon. Member of Linlithgow of 15 December,Official Report, column 1068.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that the meeting between Lord Parkinson and a group of British relatives of the Lockerbie victims to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 15 December took place in December 1989, not in 1990. At that meeting, Lord Parkinson explained the Government's decision not to hold a confidential inquiry into the disaster, but said that the Lord Advocate was likely to hold a public fatal accident inquiry. I have received representations from several relatives of Lockerbie victims calling for a further inquiry. However, in view of all the investigations that have already been carried out, and the need to avoid the danger of prejudicing a criminal trial of the two accused, I do not believe such an inquiry is warranted.

  Ghazanfer Ali
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest position in the case of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali, detained in Mirpur prison in Azad Kashmir.

  The Prime Minister
  We continue to raise our concerns over the delays in the hearings of the charges facing Ghazanfer Ali. There has been no progress since my previous answer. The hearings continue to he adjourned.

  Scottish Devolution
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to conduct an analysis of the effects on the rest of the United Kingdom of devolution for Scotland as proposed in the Scotland Act 1978; and it' he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The proposals for a Scottish assembly contained within the Scotland Act 1978 were the subject of a referendum in 1979 and failed to gain the support of the electorate. The proposals of the Scotland Act 1978 no longer enjoy the support of any political party, but the inconsistencies inherent in those proposals, which were clearly highlighted over 15 years ago, remain today unanswered by the proponents of devolution.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mortgage Protection Policies
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has as to the extent to which the eligibility criteria for mortgage protection policies tend to exclude the self-employed.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  It is possible for the self-employed to safeguard themselves against sickness or disability through mortgage protection policies. The circumstances under which income replacement is payable varies between different insurers—insurers would normally require evidence that trading has permanently ceased. Insurers are considering how they can best meet the needs of the self-employed and others, consistent with sound underwriting practice, following the announcement of the proposed changes in income support for mortgage interest.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will enter into negotiations with the insurance market concerning private mortgage protection policies.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Officials have already held discussions with the Association of British Insurers about mortgage protection policies. Department of Social Security Ministers will also be meeting the ABI as part of the consultation process on the proposed changes in income support for mortgage interest payments.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Iran

  Iraq

  Jordan

  Saudi Arabia

  UAE

  Egypt

  1980–81

  0

  0

  188

  0

  0

  25

  1981–82

  0

  129

  42

  19

  0

  58

  1982–83

  0

  352

  1

  58

  96

  77

  1983–84

  0

  22

  26

  12

  0

  42

  1984–85

  0

  163

  18

  27

  0

  157

  1985–86

  0

  293

  0

  52

  1

  35

  1986–87

  20

  145

  240

  0

  0

  202

  1987–88

  0

  239

  103

  15

  33

  118

  1988–89

  0

  245

  152

  450

  0

  5

  1989–90

  0

  374

  41

  0

  188

  111

  1990–91

  2

  90

  0

  0

  0

  21

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  17

  0

  58

  1992–93

  0

  0

  14

  225

  356

  12

  1993–94

  7

  0

  0

  751

  0

  0

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made as to the additional costs which will be incurred by his Department as a result of the changes in national telephone dialling codes next year; and how much this change will costs his Department in additional expenditure.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  There will be very little additional cost to the Department arising from the national dialling code changes. Service providers such as BT and Mercury have not charged for the necessary work within telephone exchanges and the costs of consequential internal changes to stationery, fax machines and soon will be contained within existing expenditure limits. Forward planning has

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1994,Official Report, column 299, if he will name the United Kingdom company that is licensed to explore for oil and gas in the East Timor gap.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The company is Enterprise Oil plc operating through two wholly owned subsidiaries, Enterprise Oil Timor Gap (9) Ltd. and Enterprise Oil Timor Gap (14) Ltd. of Perth Australia.

  Radioactive Materials
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 253, which radioactive materials are licensed for disposal down the Dorset outfalls; in what quantities material has been passed down the Dorset by outfalls; and what monitoring is carried out and by whom of the results of such disposal adjacent to the site of the outfalls.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This is a matter for the board of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Export Credits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list export credits project business for(a) Iran, (b) Iraq, (c) Jordan, (d) Saudi Arabia, (e) the United Arab Emirates and (f) Egypt since 1980–81.

  Mr. Needham
  The value of liabilities assumed in each of the named markets over the period was as follows:

  enabled these changes to be introduced progressively thereby minimising the additional costs involved.

  The Department recommends that all telephone users plan ahead for the change in dialling codes which come into effect on 16 April 1995.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the Post Office's external finance limit for each year since 1979; and what are the projected figures for future planned years.
  23
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Post Office's actual and planned external finance limits since 1979 are as follows:

  £ Million Actual

  1979–80

  -34.0

  1980–81

  -7.7

  1981–82

  -13.4

  1982–83

  -59.7

  1983–84

  -61.5

  1984–85

  -99.5

  1985–86

  -74.7

  1986–87

  -93.1

  1987–88

  -80.0

  1988–89

  -102.0

  1989–90

  -1101.9

  1990–91

  nil

  1991–92

  -74

  1992–93

  -80

  1993–94

  -182

  Advisory Committees
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the programme of work for(a) the Advisory Committee for Arbitration Law, (b) the Aviation Committee, (c) the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property and (d) the Fuel Cell Advisory Panel.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information requested is as follows:

  a) Advisory Committee for Arbitration Law

  The current work of the advisory committee is set out in my answer to the hon. Gentleman of 27 October 1994, Official Report, column 779.

  b) Aviation Committee

  The committee meets four times a year. Each meeting focuses on the policy background of several specific subjects within the topics of the standing agenda, detailed below:

  a) The performance and competitiveness of the United Kingdom aerospace industry;

  b) A strategy for the industry;

  c) Research and technology acquisition;

  d) The launch aid scheme;

  e) Future opportunities for United Kingdom companies—including market forecasts;

  f) Support for United Kingdom aerospace exports;

  g) Collaboration policy;

  h) MOD procurement policies;

  i) Air traffic management.

  c) Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property

  The committee gives advice to my Department on issues such as the fees and implementing rules for the Community trade mark, the draft rules for the international registration of trade marks—Madrid protocol—United Kingdom Patent Office searching policy, the Commission proposal for a block exemption for patent licences, the use and exploitation of intellectual property by small firms and the proposed European directive and regulation on design protection.

  d) Fuel Cell Advisory Panel

  The FCAP advises my Department and the energy technology support unit on the management of the Department's advanced fuel cell R and D programme. It advises on the development of plans to meet the aims and objectives set by my Department for the programme, monitors progress and evaluates its effectiveness. It also advises on the merits and funding of individual project proposals.

  There is no set programme of work for the panel but it meets as necessary, abut four times a year. to undertake these functions. Technical strategies for the programme, endorsed by the panel, were
  24
  published earlier this year and are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's response to each submission from the Aviation Committee listed in his answer of 26 October,Official Report, columns 649–50.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government's response to each submission from the Aviation Committee was as follows:Control Technology Programme: It was agreed to offer financial support to this programme from the civil aircraft research and demonstration budget.
  National Strategic Technology Acquisition Plan: On 20 July 1993, the right hon. Tim Sainsbury, MP, Minister for Industry, announced that the DTI would adopt the technological priorities identified in the NSTAP. They are being used to inform DTI's work in the design of its own aerospace policies and in its discussions with the providers of other publicly funded science and technology programmes in Whitehall and Europe. DTI is working with industry, other Government Departments and the science and engineering base to identify ways of helping the aeronautics industry meet its priority needs under the Government's science, engineering and technology policy, also encompassing the European dimension, with the NSTAP priorities serving to inform the Government during discussions on the size and content of the European Union's fourth research and development framework programme.
  Technology Co-ordinators: It has been agreed that technology co-ordinators should be appointed to implement the NSTAP with the cost being shared between Government and industry.
  An Industry Strategy: The Government welcome the work done by the Society of British Aerospace Companies in developing the strategy document. It has been adopted as the basis of a dialogue between Government and the industry on the competitiveness of the sector and represents a good foundation for the stronger partnership between Government and the industry that both wish to develop.
  The Hercules Replacement: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the Government's policy to the House on 16 December 1994, Official Report column 823.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's response to each submission from the Measurement Advisory Committee listed in his answer of 2 December,Official Report, columns 936–38.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In response to the submission from the Standards, Quality and Measurement Advisory Committee of 19 February 1993, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), replied to the chairman of the SQMAC by letter on 26 March 1993. Copies of this letter were sent to all the SQMAC members who wrote to my hon. Friend on an individual basis.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade replied in a letter to the SQMAC submission of 1 June 1993, offering a meeting which was held on 13 July 1993 between the chairman and representative members of the SQMAC and the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the policies and legislation initiated over the past three years that were based on proposals from(a) the Aviation Committee, (b) the Advisory Committee for Arbitration Law, (c) the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property, (d) the Measurement

  25
  Advisory Committee and (e) the Fuel Cell Advisory Panel.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information requested is as follows:a) Aviation Committee
  My Department has adopted the technology priorities set out in the national strategic technology acquisition plan for aeronautics prepared by the committee. The Department has also agreed to support the appointment of technology co-ordinators, a mechanism to help implement NSTAP recommended by the working group which consisted of industry members nominated by the Aviation Committee and officials.
  b) Advisory Committee for Arbitration Law
  As indicated in my answer of 26 October 1994, Official Report, column 649, my Department issued a consultation document on a draft Arbitration Bill. This was based on advice from the advisory committee.
  c) Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property SACIP has provided advice to my Department on a wide range of issues and made proposals leading to the development of the Trade Marks Act, the trade marks rules, the Community trade mark regulation, draft rules for the international registration of trade marks—Madrid Protocol—the trade mark law harmonisation treaty, the draft directive on the legal protection of Biological inventions, supplementary protection certificates for pharmaceuticals, proposals for second tier protection, the draft treaty on the international registration of industrial designs, and the council regulation on counterfeiting.
  d) Measurement Advisory Committee (MAC)
  The MAC and its predecessor, the Standards, Quality and Measurement Advisory Committee, have given general advice on the size, apportionment and management of spending on the national measurement system. Its working groups have helped to produce, monitor and review 12 programmes of work within the NMS.
  e) Fuel Cell Advisory Panel
  The terms of reference for the Fuel Cell Advisory Panel do not include the development of new policy or legislative proposals.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the programme of work for the Measurement Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  A full meeting of the Measurement Advisory Committee is scheduled for 27 March 1995 and will discuss a range of issues within the advisory committee's terms of reference. A meeting of the independent members of the advisory committee will be held in September or October 1995—date to be arranged—to carry out the annual task of prioritising all of the work within the 12 national measurement system programmes.

  In addition, there is likely to be 22 meetings of the advisory committee's working groups during 1995. The working groups will review the progress of work within each of the 12 NMS programmes. Each working group is chaired by an independent member of the advisory committee.

  Economic Development
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all economic development organisations and groups in the south-west region.

  Mr. Eggar
  The best source of this information is the list used by Devon and Cornwall Business Link as a directory of organisations which provide economic and business support and advice. The Government office for Devon and Cornwall is also providing a range of services to Devon and Cornwall from temporary offices in the centre of Plymouth.
  26

  Economic organisations and groups in Devon and Cornwall

  Organisation

  Organisation

  A R Training Services

  Key Information (Devon Library)

  Action Consultants Training

  Law Society—Lawyers For Your Business

  ADAS Consultancy

  Lloyds Bank

  Agricultural Development (ADAS)

  Mid Cornwall Business Associates Ltd

  Barclays Bank

  Mid Devon District Council

  Barnstaple Chamber of Commerce

  Mid Devon Enterprise Agency

  Bowes Associates

  Midland Bank

  British Red Cross

  Ministry of Agriculture

  Business Advisory Service D and C Tec

  National Westminster Bank

  Business Enterprise Exeter

  North Cornwall District Council

  Business Information Centre

  North Cornwall Sport and Recreation Council

  CSM Associates Limited

  North Devon College Enterprise Unit

  Caradon Business Centre

  North Devon District Council

  Caradon District Council

  North Devon Enterprise Agency

  Carrick District Council

  North Devon Manufacturers Association

  Commercial Education Training (CETS)

  Payback Environmental Business Association

  Cornwall Chamber for Industry

  Penwith District Council

  Cornwall College

  PEP Business School Management Centre

  Cornwall County Council

  PEP Research and Consultancy Ltd

  Cornwall Economic Development Office

  Plymouth Area Groundwork Trust

  Cornwall Enterprise Board

  Plymouth Chamber of Commerce

  Cornwall Innovation Centre

  Plymouth College of Further Education

  Cornwall Library Service

  Plymouth Training for Commerce

  Cornwall Rural Community Council

  Red Cross

  Cornwall Tourist Board

  Restormel Borough Council

  Cornwall Trust for Nature Conservation

  Restormel Enterprise Trust

  Countryside Commission

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  Dartmouth Enterprise Group

  Royal British Legion

  Devon and Cornwall Tap

  Rural Development Commission

  Devon Co-operative Agency Ltd

  Saltash College

  Devon County Council

  South Devon Export Group

  Devon and Cornwall Development International

  South Hams Agency for Rural Enterprise

  Devon and Cornwall Training and Enterprise Council

  South Hams District Council

  Down to Earth Training

  South West Productivity

  Duchy College

  St Austell College

  East Devon District Council

  St Johns Ambulance

  East Devon Small Industries Group

  Teignbridge District Council

  English Nature

  Teignbridge Enterprise Agency

  Enterprise Plymouth Limited

  Torbay Borough Council

  Enterprise Tamar Limited

  Torbay Enterprise Agency

  European Information Centre

  Torridge District Council

  Exeter City Council

  Trevint Limited

  Exeter Enterprises Limited

  Trustee Savings Bank

  Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group

  West Cornwall Enterprise Trust

  Finatlantic

  West Country Development Company

  Focus Europe South West

  West Country Tourist Board

  Government Office for the South West

  West Devon District Council

  Incorporated Society of Advertisers

  West Penwith Council

  Kerrier District Council

  27

  Arms Sales
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many items of correspondence his Department has received from the public since 1 September on export credit cover relating to arms sales.

  Mr. Needham
  Over the period the Export Credits Guarantee Department has received approximately 2,300 items of correspondence on the subject, nearly all in leaflet form.

  Overseas Debt
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by country and for each year since 1984 the total outstanding Export Credits Guarantee Department debt owed to the United Kingdom by developing countries, excluding eastern Europe.

  UK Share of EU Countries Visible Imports (per cent. terms)

  Year

  Latest Quarter

  Corresponding Quarter of 1992

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  Q4 1993

  9.0

  7.3

  Denmark

  Q4 1992

  7.9

  1n/a

  France

  Q2 1994

  7.7

  7.6

  Germany

  Q2 1994

  6.2

  6.7

  Greece

  Q4 1993

  5.8

  5.3

  Ireland

  Q3 1993

  37.3

  43.8

  Italy

  Q2 1994

  6.2

  5.8

  Netherlands

  Q1 1994

  8.4

  8.9

  Portugal

  Q2 1994

  6.3

  6.9

  Spain

  Q2 1994

  7.8

  7.4

  Note:

  1 Denmark data for Q4 1992 is the latest available.

  Source: OECD Series A.

  Audits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take against the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales for failure to keep a proper register of individuals eligible to conduct audits; and what inquiries he intends to initiate to investiage the performance of the regulatory bodies in this respect.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Companies Act 1989 (Register of Auditors and Information about Audit Firms) Regulations 1991 require the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors, of which the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales is one, to take reasonable care to keep and maintain a register of the individuals and firms eligible for appointment as company auditor. The regulations are made pursuant to sections 35 and 36 of the Companies Act 1989.

  It has been alleged that the ICAEW may have failed to meet these requirements in its handling of one case last year. My Department has sought an explanation from the ICAEW and I will write to the hon. Member once I have considered that response and made any further inquiries which may be appropriate.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the change in(a) the average capital employed in manufacturing and (b) the capital employed in other non-North sea industrial and commercial companies between 1990 and 1993.
  28
  Mr. Needham
  To provide year-by-year figures would entail disproportionate cost. For the figures of outstanding rescheduled debt as at 31 October 1994 I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on 20 December 1994,Official Report, columns 1083–84.

  Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom share of imports into each of the other EEC countries in(a) the latest quarter for which figures are available and (b) the corresponding quarter of 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Figures on average capital employed at current replacement cost by manufacturing industrial and commercial companies are published in the Central Statistical Office "First Release", CSO(94) 205—"Profitability of UK companies: rates of return of UK industrial and commercial companies (1962–1993)". Figures on average capital employed in other non-North sea industrial and commercial companies are available by subtracting the manufacturing figures from those of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies which are also published in "First Release". A copy of "First Release" is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average annual rate of growth in manufacturing output in 1973 to 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Between 1973 and 1993 the average annual growth in manufacturing output was 0.03 per cent.

  Transport Equipment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will list in the Official Report the periods since 1964 in which output of transport equipment remained 12 per cent. below its previous peak after five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. This information is not readily available and could he produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the United Kingdom tourist areas which qualify for assisted status and the cost of that assistance to the taxpayer in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The assisted areas are defined in terms of travel-to-work areas, most of which include a range of economic activity. There is no list of tourist areas on which the cost of assistance could be assessed.

  Non-fossil Fuel Quota
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy that non-fossil fuel electricity capacity contracted delivered with a provision for annual interruptions on less than(a) 20, (b) 15 or (c) 10 occasions per annum shall count towards the non-fossil fuel quota.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government's policy is to use the non-fossil fuel obligation as an instrument to assist promising renewable electricity generation technologies to enter the commercial electricity generation market. Competition in the allocation of contracts is an essential part of this process.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the legal processes covering compensation for multiple or sequentially linked accidents on the same nuclear site.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under United Kingdom law, where third party damage or injury is caused as a result of a single nuclear occurrence at a site, compensation is payable by the site operator up to his insurance limit of £140 million. Further compensation up to an overall limit of approximately £280 million for each occurrence is payable out of money provided by Parliament. This will also cover a case where the £140 million insurance may be exhausted because there has been a previous occurrence at the same site within the same insurance cover period.

  However, following any occurrence resulting in claims on the operator's insurance, the Minister, if he thinks it proper to do so, may direct the operator to open a new cover period for that site, so that a further £140 million will be available for any subsequent incident. If claims exceed £280 million, additional compensation may be provided by Parliament to the extent that it shall determine.

  A succession of occurrences at one site, which is attributable to a particular event or to the carrying out of a particular operation, is regarded as a single occurrence for the payment of compensation. The whole of a continuing occurrence is similarly regarded as a single occurrence.

  EU Trade Deficit
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the EU's deficit in trade with the rest of the world(a) in the current year, (b) in the previous year and (c) five years ago; and what assessment he has made of these figures.
  30
  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is given in the table.

  EU(12) balance of visible trade with the rest of the world

  $ Million

  1988

  -29,541

  1992

  -67,525

  1993

  -3,967

  Source:

  Eurostat External Trade.

  My Department is continuously monitoring the UK and EU trade position with the rest of the world.

  Cable Franchises
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was paid for each of the cable franchises and local delivery licences awarded since 1983.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Precise details of how much was paid for each of the cable franchises and local delivery franchises cannot be provided other than at disproportionate cost.

  Applicants for the 126 franchises awarded under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 were charged an application fee and an annual licence fee based on a scale related to the size of the franchise. Under the Broadcasting Act 1990 franchises are awarded by competitive tender. In addition to an application fee, successful applicants make tender payments: an initial cash bid payable in the first year and indexed for inflation in each succeeding year. A percentage of qualifying revenue is also payable over the duration of the licence.

  Franchisees are also required to pay a fee for Telecommunications Act licence and an annual renewal fee. These are revised annually.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he still supports the hierarchy of waste management options including reduction, re-use, recycling, including materials recycling, composting and energy recovery, which was set out in the joint response by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment to the second report of the House of Commons Environment Select Committee published in November 1994, Cm 2696.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government's policy on a waste management hierarchy is set out in paragraphs 23.14 to 23.17 of "Sustainable Development—the UK Strategy", published in January 1994.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Telephone Calls
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how much has been spent on telephone charges for parliamentary purposes; and how many telephone calls have been made for parliamentary purposes in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Beith
  I have been asked to reply. For technical reasons it is not possible to identify the number of calls
  31
  made. However, call charges in each of the last five years for the Palace of Westminster are as follows:

  1989: £561,000

  1990: £570,000

  1991: £690,000

  1992: £599,000

  1993: £497,000

  The hon. Member will wish to note that since 1991 there has been a significant reduction in the overall cost of telephone calls due to the increased competition from telephone network companies, and to the introduction of the least cost routing system which ensures calls are directed by the cheapest means.

  Parliamentary Mail
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how much has been spent on postage charges for parliamentary purposes; and how many items have been posted for parliamentary purposes in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Beith
  I have been asked to reply. Postage charges incurred by the House of Commons for parliamentary 32
  purposes in each of the last five financial years are as follows:

  £

  1990–91

  1,262,884

  1991–92

  1,304,419

  1992–93

  1,455,913

  1993–94

  1,766,568

  1993–94 (1 April-31 October 1994)

  1,254,479

  It is not possible to provide the hon. Member with details of the number of items posted.

  Business and Technology Education Council
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to BTEC to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 20 February to Friday 24 February 1995.

EMPLOYMENT

  Industrial Disputes
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost through industrial disputes(a) in 1994 and (b) in 1979.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In the 12 months to October 1994, 403,000 days were lost to strikes in the United Kingdom. This compares with a 1979 total of 29.5 million.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what legislative action is to be taken in respect of job advertisements that discriminate on grounds of age.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government have no intention of introducing age discrimination legislation, which we believe would be ineffective and would increase the burdens imposed on employers. The Government firmly believe that the way forward is through persuasion.

  Redundancies, York
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies have been notified in York in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Latest available figures from the quarterly labour force survey show that in Yorkshire and Humberside in summer 1994 20,000 people were made redundant in the three months prior to interview. This figure is not seasonally adjusted.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research he has commissioned to establish the proportion of young people aged between 16 and 17 whose training needs are not met by current training opportunities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  The Government are currently considering this issue on a cross-Government basis.

  Baggage Handlers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the responsibilities of the Health

  Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in EU countries

  Latest month (October 1994)

  Last Year (October 1993)

  Five Years ago (October 1989)

  Belgium

  10.1

  9.7

  8.2

  Denmark

  9.8

  10.7

  7.8

  Germany1

  6.2

  6.0

  5.3

  Greece2

  —

  —

  —

  34
  and Safety Executive in relation to the transfer of baggage at airports.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for enforcing the law relating to the health and safety at work of baggage handlers.

  Employment Opportunities
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he plans to take to improve the opportunities to gain work for the long-term unemployed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy).

  Unemployment
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in Workington.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In November 1994, unadjusted claimant unemployment in the Workington parliamentary constituency stood at 3,482, a fall of 5.9 per cent. over the year.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of unemployment nationally as indicated by the labour force survey; and what is the difference between this and the claimant total issued by his Department.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  On the seasonally adjusted basis, the summer 1994 labour force survey shows that 2.64 million people were unemployed in Great Britain under the International Labour Organisation definition, while the average claimant count figure over the same period stood at 2.53 million, a difference of 112,000.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to what he attributes the fall in unemployment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Portillo
  Britain's unemployment has fallen faster than that of any other European country because we have pursued sound economic policies based on permanently low inflation and a deregulated, flexible labour market, combined with active measures to help people back to work.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current rates of unemployment in each EU nation; and what were the figures(a) one and (b) five years previously.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Internationally comparable unemployment rates based on the standardised International Labour Organisation definition of unemployment are published by EUROSTAT in its monthly "Unemployment Bulletin," copies of which are available in the Library. The information requested for each member of the EU as at the end of 1994 is given in the following table:
  35

  Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in EU countries

  Latest month (October 1994)

  Last Year (October 1993)

  Five Years ago (October 1989)

  Spain

  22.1

  22.5

  16.7

  France

  11.3

  11.1

  9.2

  Ireland

  17.6

  18.4

  15.1

  Italy

  12.1

  11.3

  10.6

  Luxembourg

  3.5

  2.8

  2.0

  Netherlands

  310.0

  9.5

  8.3

  Portugal

  6.1

  5.5

  4.8

  United Kingdom

  8.9

  10.3

  6.9

  EC Average

  10.7

  10.8

  8.7

  Notes:

  1 No ILO rate available for unified Germany. The above rates are for the former West Germany.

  2 Only 1991 annual average figures available for Greece.

  3 The latest rate shown is for September 1994.

  Source:

  Statistical Office of the European Community Unemployment Bulletin.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 756, what was the total cost of unemployment to the Government in (a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93, together with the cost per person unemployed.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Total expenditure on benefits to the unemployed in Great Britain and the average benefit per person is shown in the following table:

  Table 1. Expenditure on benefits to the unemployed in Great Britain

  Financial year

  Total expenditure £ millions

  Average expenditure per claimant per financial year £1

  1989–90

  4,501

  2,800

  1990–91

  5,290

  3,180

  1991–92

  7,558

  3,210

  1992–93

  8,973

  3,260

  1993–94

  9,720

  3,510

  1 Rounded to nearest £10.

  The figures for total expenditure on benefits to the unemployed are taken from the Social Security Statistics 1994 published by the Department of Social Security. They differ slightly from those given in reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary which were based on the DSS departmental report. The DSS has subsequently revised its estimates. The average expenditure figure is derived by dividing the total expenditure by the average number of the seasonally unadjusted claimant count during the financial year.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage change in the total cost of unemployment between(a) 1989–90 and 1990–91, (b) 1990–91 and 1991–92, (c) 1991–92 and 1992–93 and (d) 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Total expenditure on benefits to the unemployed in Great Britain, and the annual change is shown in the following table:
  36

  Table 1. Expenditure on benefits to the unemployed in Great Britain

  Financial year

  Total expenditure £ millions

  Percentage change on previous year

  1989–90

  4,501

  —

  1990–91

  5,290

  + 18

  1991–92

  7,558

  + 43

  1992–93

  8,973

  + 19

  1993–94

  9,720

  + 8

  The figures for total expenditure on benefits to the unemployed are taken from the "Social Security Statistics 1994", page 3.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of 16 and 17-year-olds not in full-time education and without a job or training scheme(a) in spring 1994 and (b) on the most recent date for which figures are available (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) in each part of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: I have written to the hon. Member and placed a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Education and Training
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department is planning to spend on education and training per unemployed person in 1995–96; and what was the level in 1989–90 at 1995–96 prices.

  Mr. Paice
  As the programmes covered by this expenditure are by no means confined to the unemployed, it would not be appropriate to express expenditure per unemployed person.

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the work of ACAS.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Industrial relations have improved substantially during ACAS's 20-year lifetime. ACAS has played an important part in bringing about these improvements and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department is spending on
  37
  training; and what the level of planned spending is in 1997–98 in today's prices.

  Mr. Paice
  Forecast expenditure by the Department on training and education programmes this year is £2,042 million. Planned expenditure on these programmes in 1997–98 is £1,801 million at current prices.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future role of industrial tribunals.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) on 14 December 1994,Official Report, columns 696–97.

  Employment Service
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been helped into jobs by the Employment Service in the last year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Service placed 1,900,600 people into jobs in the last year. This is 16 per cent. more than in the previous year.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 1 December,Official Report, column 871, if he will make a statement regarding his Department's expenditure on special advisers in each of the last three financial years and for the financial year 1979–80.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 937.

  North Norfolk Action
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 696, if he will make a statement on the principal findings (a) for North Norfolk Action and (b) for each of the Workstart programmes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Evaluations of North Norfolk Action and Workstart both showed encouraging results, and action is being taken to build on these. The most successful element of North Norfolk Action has already been adopted in the 1–2–1 pilot for 18 to 24-year-olds, which will become a national programme in April 1995. The evaluation of Workstart indicated that the subsidy has had a significant effect on employers' attitudes to long-term unemployed people. The 5,000 Workstart places announced in the Budget will provide an opportunity to explore the potential for varying the level of subsidy to obtain the most cost-effective results.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total amount the Government have(a) saved from the Workstart scheme and (b) spent on North Norfolk Action, since their implementation; and
  38
  what has been the expenditure or saving per person per week on each scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Savings in public expenditure from any employment programme arise from long-term improvements in the functioning of the labour market, and cannot be calculated in the terms requested.

  Evaluation of Workstart suggested that it had had a positive effect on employers' willingness to recruit long-term unemployed people, and this approach will be explored further using the 5,000 pilot places announced in the Budget. North Norfolk Action provided work experience or a series of interviews with an Employment Service adviser for people who had been out of the labour market for some time. The national work experience programme, community action, was extended in the Budget, and will provide 40,000 places a year.

  Under the first Workstart pilot, employers who recruited long-term unemployed people were paid £60 a week for the first six months, and £30 a week for the next six. Expenditure on the pilot until the end of November 1994 totalled £1,494,516.

  Providers on North Norfolk Action were paid £52 per week per place, and the total cost of the pilot was £686,624.

  Non-wage Labour Costs
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of non-wage labour costs on employment prospects.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Non-wage labour costs are lower in the United Kingdom than in most countries of the European Union. I believe that any increase in such costs would worsen employment prospects as high non-wage labour costs make it more expensive for employers to create jobs.

  Electronic Mail
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Officials within the Department are investigating the possibility of establishing links to external E-mail services.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of the self-employment in Great Britain in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is given in the following table.

  Self-employment: Great Britain (seasonally adjusted)

  Thousands

  June 1979

  1,956

  June 1985

  2,704

  June 1994

  3,192

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what surpluses were held by each training
  39
  and enterprise council at the end of each of the last two financial years.

  Mr. Paice
  A list of English training and enterprise councils, their accumulated reserves and in-year operating surpluses, as shown in their annual statutory audited accounts, at the end of the financial year 1992–93 is shown in the following table.

  I am unable to give the figures requested for 1993–94 as this information is not yet in the public domain for every TEC. However, as TEC accounts for 1993–94 become available to the Department, copies will be placed in the Library.

  TECS by region

  Accumulated reserves 92–93 £000s

  Post tax operating surplus 92–93 £

  Northern

  County Durham

  6,582

  2,595,107

  Northumberland

  3,696

  1,233,752

  Teesside

  9,186

  3,388,000

  Tyneside

  4,486

  (883,000)

  Sunderland (Wearside)

  2,514

  512,381

  26,464

  6,846,240

  North West

  CEWTEC

  2,579

  603,311

  Cumbria

  2,999

  110,772

  ELTEC

  3,364

  1,338,587

  LAWTEC

  2,917

  (236,657)

  Merseyside

  4,210

  1,191,532

  NORMID

  1,093

  (418,902)

  QUALITEC

  1,055

  312,509

  18,217

  2,901,152

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton/Bury

  2,861

  847,848

  Manchester

  3,377

  (880,942)

  METRO

  519

  108,000

  Oldham

  1,456

  83,406

  Rochdale

  1,087

  597,651

  South and East Cheshire

  2,419

  420,244

  Stockport and High Peak

  2,782

  655,247

  14,501

  1,831,454

  Yorks and Humber

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  3,993

  1,012,208

  Bradford

  3,432

  1,524,888

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  828

  (1,574)

  Humberside

  5,193

  2,258,408

  Leeds

  5,724

  2,160,436

  North Yorks

  4,353

  936,000

  Rotherham

  2,865

  1,134,336

  Sheffield

  4,157

  883,000

  Wakefield

  3,110

  668,301

  33,655

  10,576,003

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  1,556

  220,801

  CAMBS

  622

  34,280

  Essex

  5,037

  742,805

  Gtr Peterborough

  1,532

  661,071

  Hertfordshire

  2,641

  1,199,133

  Norfolk and Waverney

  2,161

  (411,789)

  Suffolk

  2,984

  473,259

  16,533

  2,919,560

  40

  TECS by region

  Accumulated reserves 92–93 £ 000s

  Post tax operating surplus 92–93 £

  East Midlands

  Gtr Nottingham

  944

  98,000

  Leicester

  4,597

  1,888,317

  Lincolnshire

  2,553

  1,328,872

  Northamptonshire

  1,977

  109,609

  North Derbyshire

  749

  87,828

  North Nottinghamshire

  1,289

  (376,000)

  South Derbyshire

  4,106

  611,343

  16,215

  3,747,969

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1,212

  (1,606,000)

  Central England

  1,340

  347,027

  Coventry/Warwick

  2,203

  7,122

  Dudley

  1,214

  801,744

  HAWTEC

  1,679

  702,859

  Sandwell

  1,706

  788,829

  Shropshire

  1,304

  703,807

  Staffordshire

  5,789

  1,717,636

  Walsall

  2,340

  941,491

  Wolverhampton

  1,411

  379,147

  20,198

  4,783,662

  South West

  Avon

  3,071

  1,647,961

  Devon/Cornwall

  7,407

  121,000

  Dorset

  2,848

  53,973

  Gloucester

  1,575

  666

  Somerset

  1,746

  711,143

  Wiltshire

  1,110

  251,265

  17,757

  2,786,008

  London

  AZTEC

  1,932

  411,486

  CENTEC

  906

  757,876

  CILNTEC

  2,161

  1,610,046

  LETEC

  655

  1,138,517

  North London

  3,005

  1,851,198

  North West London

  864

  424,679

  SOLOTEC

  3,439

  2,530,966

  South Thames

  3,611

  2,318,842

  West London

  1,163

  1,000,929

  17,736

  12,044,539

  South East

  Hampshire

  4,679

  1,430,483

  Isle of White

  879

  161,087

  Kent

  5,774

  2,231,284

  Milton Keynes/Nth Bucks

  677

  99,326

  Heart of England

  2,424

  860,611

  Surrey

  1,663

  967,259

  Sussex

  5,230

  1,875,000

  Thames Valley Ent.

  3,970

  643,002

  25,296

  8,268,052

  Grand total

  206,572

  56,704,639

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total budget of Hampshire training and enterprise council for the year 1994–95.

  Mr. Paice
  The budget made available by the Employment Department, Department of the Environment and Department for Trade and Industry to Hampshire training and enterprise council during 1994–95 is £40,543,124.
  41

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance he has given to training and enterprise councils concerning assurances they can give to employers about funding for the modern apprentice scheme beyond the first year.

  Mr. Paice
  The operating agreement between the Department and the training and enterprise councils provides assurances for the continuity of funding. This ensures that sufficient funds will be made available to TECs so that young people on modern apprenticeships can complete their training.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the need to give long-term commitments to employers involved in the modern apprentice scheme.

  Mr. Paice
  I am not aware of having received any particular representations concerning the need to give long-term commitments to employers involved in modern apprenticeships. Sufficient funds will be made available to training and enterprise councils to ensure that young people can complete their training under modern apprenticeship with employers—normally some three years.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what checks his Department is planning on attendance records for those involved in the modern apprentice scheme and working with an employer.

  Mr. Paice
  In training and enterprise council areas where there is a pilot scheme for starts and outcomes funding, no attendance records will be made. Where training weeks continue to be used, checks will be made to substantiate training weeks claimed from the Department and that these records are in accordance with the Department's requirements. For employed status trainees the records required are either:

  (a) employers' own payroll or attendance records, providing these record unauthorised absence and employers are prepared for them to be used to verify the attendance of modern apprentices; or

  (b) the attendance records specified by the Department.

  A sample of records will be checked, primarily by the TEC with whom the provider of the modern apprenticeship has a contract, in accordance with the guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The checks will he the same as for other programmes where the Department pays for training weeks.

  Work Trials
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms and individuals have been involved in work trials in the parliamentary constituency of Derbyshire, North-East since the inception of the scheme; how many people have been placed in permanent employment on(a) a full-time and (b) a part-time basis as a consequence; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  42
  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 10 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Work Trials in the parliamentary constituency of North East Derbyshire.Although performance information is not recorded on a constituency basis, North Derbyshire is broadly covered by the Employment Service Jobcentres in Clay Cross, Dronfield, Eckington and Staveley. Since inception of the Work Trial scheme in April 1993, these offices have signed agreements with 45 employers and run 102 Work Trials which have resulted in 70 placings.Records of the break-down of these placings into full and part time work are not maintained by the majority of Work Trials are for full time positions of over 16 hours a week.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made as to the additional costs which will be incurred by his Department as a result of the changes in national telephone dialling codes next year; and how much this change will cost his Department in additional expenditure.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Disaggregated information of this nature is not available.

  Employment, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the net increase or decrease of jobs in London which he estimates for 1995.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on employment projections is not available. The level of civilian work force in employment in Greater London increased by 65,000—2 per cent.—over the year to September 1994.

  Source:

  Work force in employment survey.

  Part-time Employment
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of the article in the amended treaty of Rome relating to his announcement concerning part-time employment of 20 December 1994, together with the dates at which Her Majesty's Government assented to the article, and those on which the House gave a Second and Third Reading to the relevant ratifying Act.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The judicial review case R. v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission and another was brought under article 119 of the treaty of Rome, which has been in the treaty since it was adopted in 1957; under the equal pay directive, which was adopted in 1975 and came into force in 1976; and under the equal treatment directive, which was adopted in 1976 and came into force in 1978. The application of article 119 is a consequence of the United Kingdom's accession to the European Community, which was approved by Parliament in the European Communities Act 1972. The directives' requirements are met in the UK by provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many skilled workers have lost their jobs in manufacturing industry since 1979.
  43
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Young People
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish tables showing for spring 1994 and for the latest date for which figures are available the total number of 16 and 17-year-olds in the United Kingdom together with the number and percentage who are(a) employed, (b) self-employed, (c) full-time students, (d) undertaking Government employment and training programmes, (e) classified as International Labour Organisation unemployed and (f) economically inactive.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 16 December 1994]: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment has written to the hon. Member and placed a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the opportunities available for young people aged 16 and 17 years who are classified as(a) ILO unemployed and (b) economically inactive.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 16 December I994]: I have written to the hon. Member and placed a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices and offices and official residences.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to her reply, 28 November 1994, column 515]: I regret that my reply of 28 November, Official Report, column 515, was incorrect. It should have read: such costs are included in the total running cost expenditure for this Department which is published in the departmental report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Social Affairs Council held on 21 December 1994.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I attended the Social Affairs Council on 21 December in Brussels, for a further discussion of the draft directive on posted workers.

  Discussion was again inconclusive. As at the previous Council on 6 December 1994, I made clear our considerable difficulties of both principle and detail. A number of other member states, also, had significant difficulties with the proposal, and agreement was not reached.

  Commissioner Flynn reported to the Council on the Essen European Council.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 1 December,Official Report, columns 895–96, if he will make a statement regarding his Department's expenditure on special advisers in each of the last three financial years and for the financial year 1979–80.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 19 December,Official Report, column 937.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what measures have been taken to reform the common agricultural policy in the interests of consumers since the publication of Cmnd. 6003—"Membership of the European Community-report on Renegotiation";

  (2) if he will describe by reference to each commodity listed in paragraph 9 of Cmnd. 6003, the progress which has been made since 1974 towards securing a better balance between supply and demand.

  Mr. Jack
  Since 1979, the common agricultural policy has seen a number of changes. The most notable of these was the 1992 CAP reform agreement, which was a major development in moving the CAP closer to the market. The agreement included significant reductions in support prices of major commodities and other measures to cut excess production, thereby securing a better balance between supply and demand, reducing dependence on intervention and reducing the cost to consumers.

  There are no commodities listed in paragraph 9 of Cmnd. 6003.

  North Sea Fishing
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what action is currently being considered at(a) national and (b) international level to exclude industrial fishing from those areas of the North sea which are of high environmental value;

  (2) if he will seek to introduce a quota system for sandeels when he attends the European Council of Fisheries Ministers later in December.

  Mr. Jack
  It is recognised that sandeel and other short-lived species serve as food for many of the human consumption fish and other top predators in the marine eco-system. Scientific knowledge of the short-lived species is not as extensive as for other fish species. For this, and other reasons, the United Kingdom pressed the Commission to establish a working party of marine ecologists and fisheries biologists to study the implications for the marine eco-system of fishing in general and industrial fishing in particular. This group met in May and has reported to the Commission. When its report is discussed in the Council, attention will need to be paid to the environmental aspects of industrial fishing.

  It is for the European Commission to propose new quotas. It has not done so for sandeels for 1995; the current scientific advice is that sandeels in the North sea can sustain fisheries at their present level.

  Rabies
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of rabies in animals there were in Belgium in 1993 and 1994.

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 1 December 1994,Official Report, column 893.

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, column 627, regarding exported livestock, what plans he has to prosecute livestock exporters for not fulfilling the journey plan and not feeding and watering the animals after 15 hours.

  Mrs. Browning
  We have no such plans. The departure from the original journey plan was due to weather conditions beyond the transporter's control. When the calves arrived back at Coventry having failed to land at Rennes, a judgment had to be made, in the light of their condition and all the circumstances, whether they should be taken straight back to their premises of origin or whether a stop for food and rest should be arranged first. The Ministry's veterinary inspector, who was present and had the power to serve a notice requiring food and rest to be provided, agreed with the judgment that it was in the best interest of the calves to be taken back to their home premises without further delay. The fact that in the event the overall journey took fifteen and a half hours does not invalidate that judgment.

  EC Vote
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how Britain voted in the recent EC vote on extending the moratorium on the use of bovine somatotropin.

  Mrs. Browning
  The United Kingdom voted against the proposed Council decision to continue the moratorium on the marketing and use of bovine somatotropin until 31 December 1999, as this proposal was without scientific justification. The decision was, however, adopted by qualified majority.

  Premium Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each of the three counties of Yorkshire and for Humberside the total cost in each year since 1991 of(a) the sheep annual premium, and(b) suckler cow premium and (c) the beef special premium; and what is his estimate for 1994.

  Mr. Jack
  The information available is provided in the table:

  Total annual payments

  North Yorkshire £

  South Yorkshire £

  West Yorkshire £

  Humberside £

  1991

  SAPS1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SCPS

  2,458,165

  329,368

  652,597

  606,320

  BSPS2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46

  Total annual payments

  North Yorkshire £

  South Yorkshire £

  West Yorkshire £

  Humberside £

  1992

  SAPS3

  2,556,670

  798,337

  18,669,499

  1,050,303

  SCPS

  2,726,418

  381,756

  733,215

  657,953

  BSPS2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  SAPS3

  2,437,136

  732,425

  18,324,704

  1,060,504

  SCPS4

  3,751,256

  481,010

  958,669

  857,170

  BSPS4

  5,406,598

  606,618

  826,398

  1,287,532

  1994 (est)

  SAPS3 5

  1,500,028

  450,829

  11,318,695

  658,345

  SCPS4

  4,609,305

  615,934

  1,218,486

  1,092,518

  BSPS5

  2,650,500

  276,879

  410,012

  640,863

  1 Breakdown by county not readily available.

  2 Current BSPS was introduced in 1993, earlier figures not comparable.

  3 LFA Supplement included.

  4 Extensification premium included.

  5 Advances of premium paid as at 20.12.94.

  Arable Aid
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the yield figures set for land in(a) less-favoured areas and (b) non less-favoured areas in the calculation of arable aid payments in each of the three counties of Yorkshire and Humberside for the 1994–95 marketing year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The yield figures used in the calculation of the arable area aid payments in England are the same for both less-favoured areas and non less-favoured areas and also for each county. For cereals, protein crops, linseed and set-aside areas this 5.93 tonne per hectare and for oilseed crops it is 3.08 tonnes per hectare.

  These figures are based on the average yield for cereals and oilseeds in England over the five years from 1986–87 to 1990–91, excluding the highest and lowest figures.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much a farmer growing cereals will be paid in arable aid for each hectare of cereals grown in 1994–95 in each of the three counties of Yorkshire and Humberside in(a) less-favoured areas and (b) non less-favoured areas; what are the figures for the year 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The arable area payment for cereals grown in 1994–95 will be 265 ecu per hectare. The sterling equivalent of this can not be calculated until the green rate for ecu conversion is known for 10 July 1995. However, it is expected that it will be approximately £247 per hectare. The figure will be same for both less-favoured areas and non less-favoured areas in England.,

  The arable area payment for cereals grown in England in 1993–94 is £193.53 per hectare.

  The increase is the final one planned under the arable area payments scheme to compensate for reductions in intervention prices for cereals.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out by county a breakdown of the 1994 area payments scheme.

  Mr. Jack
  I am unable to provide the information requested by the hon. Member at the moment. However,
  47
  I will write to him with this information as soon as it is available.

  Sugar Beet
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food how much per tonne is given to European farmers for growing sugar beet; and what is the value on the world market for sugar per tonne.

  Mr. Jack
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 December 1994, column 791]: The price at which quota sugar can be sold on the world market with the aid of export refunds was incorrect. This should have been around 280 ecu/tonne—£267/tonne*

  *1 ecu = £0.953575

  Advisory NDPBS sponsored by MAFF which

  (A) hold open meetings

  (B) conduct public consultation exercises

  (C) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests

  (D) publish a register of members' interests

  (E) publish agendas for meetings

  (F) publish the minutes of meetings

  Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes

  no

  yes

  yes

  yes

  yes

  no

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  no

  no

  no

  yes

  no

  no

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  Committee on Agricultural Valuation

  no

  1yes

  no

  no

  no

  no

  Consultative Panel on Badgers and Tuberculosis

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  Consumer Panel

  no

  no

  no

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Consumers Committee for England and Wales

  no

  no

  yes

  no

  no

  no

  Consumers Committee for Great Britain

  no

  no

  yes

  no

  no

  no

  Farm Animal Welfare Council

  no

  yes

  yes

  no

  no

  no

  Food Advisory Committee

  no

  yes

  yes

  yes

  yes

  no

  Hill Farming Advisory Committee for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  National Food Survey Committee

  no

  no

  no2

  no

  no

  no

  Regional Panels for the Farming Industry

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  Salmon Advisory Committee

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee

  no

  no

  no

  yes

  no

  no

  Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  Veterinary Products Committee

  no

  no

  no

  yes

  no

  3no

  1 Occasional consultation with industry representative organisations.

  2 Membership includes representatives of outside commercial interests.

  3 A voluntary news release is published after each meeting detailing the main points.

WALES

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment has been made as to the additional costs which will be incurred by his Department as a result of the changes in national telephone dialling codes next year; and how much this change will cost his Department in additional expenditure.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold open meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings; and whether this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 16 December 1994]: The table shows the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by MAFF and whether they fulfil the criteria specified in the question.

  In every case where information is published, this is done on a voluntary basis.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not possible to give a precise estimate of additional cost but it is expected to be minimal.

  Signal Controls (Alltami)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will release funds to Clwyd county council to enable the Highways Authority to put signal controls at the A494 junction Tan Law lane, Alltami.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It has previously been confirmed in correspondence with the hon. Member that traffic
  49
  signals would not be appropriate at the A494 junction, Tan Lan lane, Alltami. Officials are reviewing conditions at the junction to see if any measures can be introducted to enhance safety.

  NHS (Wales)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of operating per head of population on NHS provision in Wales, with family health services expenditure shown separately.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  District health authority

  1Total expenditure1992–93£000

  2Per capitaspending£

  Clwyd

  173,967

  420

  East Dyfed

  110,099

  464

  Gwent

  195,361

  435

  Gwynedd

  109,915

  459

  Mid Glamorgan

  247,073

  455

  Pembrokeshire

  48,623

  427

  Powys

  62,501

  524

  South Glamorgan

  223,460

  544

  West Glamorgan

  168,143

  453

  Wales

  1,339,142

  462

  Source:

  Final accounts 1992–93.

  Notes:

  1 1992 estimate for 1994–95 target population.

  2 In addition, WHCSA total expenditure for 1992–93 was £31.509 million.

  Family health services authority

  1Total expenditure1992–93£000

  2Per capita spending £

  Clwyd

  63,714

  154

  Dyfed3

  51,455

  147

  Gwent

  65,045

  145

  Gwynedd

  35,940

  150

  Mid Glamorgan

  77,755

  143

  Powys

  17,728

  149

  South Glamorgan

  54,816

  134

  West Glamorgan

  54,842

  148

  Wales

  421,295

  145

  Source:

  Final accounts 1992–93.

  Notes:

  1 1992 estimate for 1994–95 target population.

  2 Dyfed FHSA covers East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire Health Authorities.

  3 In addition, the Dental Practice Board incurred £51.282 million on the provision of General Dental Services in Wales.

  Electronic Mail
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department already has the facility to communicate via electronic mail between Government Departments.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his statement on public expenditure in Wales 50
  on 14 December, Official Report, column 925, if he will give details of his proposals for funding national pay awards to doctors and nurses in the NHS in Wales with respect to (a) provider unit prices and (b) purchaser costs.

  Mr. Redwood
  I expect pay rises in the NHS in Wales in 1995–96 to be offset by improved efficiency, enabling further growth in patient services. I made clear the total increase in cash for the NHS, and look to health authorities to purchase an increasing quantity of good health care with the money.

  Guidance Notes
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement comparing the guidance notes issued by English Nature with those issued by the Cymru, listing those areas not covered in notes in notes by each; what action people in Wales are to take where only English guidance notes exist: and how soon he expects Countryside Commission for Wales to have he expects set of guidance notes in English and Welsh.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am not aware of any guidance notes published by English Nature or the countryside Council for Wales of the type described by the hon. Member.

  Acorns Nurseries
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the termination of the contract with Acorns Nurseries for the provision of a creche for his Department and other civil service staff in central Cardiff.

  Mr. Redwood
  The management contract with Acorns Nurseries was terminated because of breaches of contract which prejudiced the delivery of the service to parents and their children.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to provide a continuation of creche facilities for his staff following the termination of the contract with Acorns Nurseries; what temporary arrangements he has made; and when he expects a long-term replacement contract to be in place.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is planned to re-open the nursery with a new management contractor for an interim period from early February once essential remedial work has been carried out. At the same time, tenders will he invited for a full three-year contract to follow the interim period.

  GP Fundholder Steering Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of States for Wales what is the membership of the GP fundholder steering group; what is the frequency of its meetings; and if he will make a statement concerning its work.

  Mr. Redwood
  I announced the formation of the OP fundholding steering group in my letter to all OP fundholders of 23 March 1994, copied to all health authorities. The group comprises representatives from the Welsh Office health department, health authorities, trusts and GP fundholders. It has met on three occasions; future meetings are expected to be bi-monthly.

  I will write to the hon. Member about the composition of the group and the terms of reference, and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Regional Development Funding
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those public projects which received European regional development funding and were subsequently privatised over the last 10 years, indicating(a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: A number of projects have been approved for European regional development fund grant since 1 January 1984 in Wales from public bodies which have subsequently been privatised. Payments to such projects would normally cover a number of years following the approval of a project.

  A copy of the information available has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Child Care
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the total social services budget was spent on child care provision in Wales in the last five years.

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 19 December 1994]: The information requested is given in the table:

  Gross expenditure on child care services1

  Year

  Per cent.

  1988–89

  21

  1989–90

  20

  1990–91

  22

  1991–92

  22

  1992–93

  21

  Source:

  Local authority returns.

  1 Expenditure on children aged 0–16 as a percentage of total gross local authority expenditure on personal social services. Includes appropriate apportionment for those services which cover children and other client groups.

  Eurorail Freight Depot
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on the Eurorail freight depot; what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the evaluation of the short-listed sites from the point of view of(a) freight transport and (b) property development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 December 1994]: No sites have been shortlisted although the agency is considering proposals from private developers. I wish to speed up progress and, to that end, I am discussing the issues with the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Further Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the budgets of colleges of further education was spent on staff salaries in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 19 December 1994]: This information is not held centrally. However, I have asked the further Education Funding Council for Wales to let the hon. Member have information which it will have

  52
  available shortly in relation to the period since the further education colleges were incorporated on 1 April 1993. I have asked the council to place a copy of the reply in the Library.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that when children are given statements of special educational needs that their parents or guardians are advised to investigate whether their children may be eligible for benefits such as disability allowance.

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 19 December 1994]: I would expect that all those who are professionally involved with children in need, whether or not they have statements of special educational need, to seek to identify ways in which the child and his or her parents or guardians may be helped.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans he has for the recruitment of(a) permanent and (b) casual staff to his Department;

  (2) how many (a) permanent and (b) casual staff his Department employs at present; and how many in each category he estimates will be employed in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98;

  (3) pursuant to his oral statement on public expenditure in Wales on 14 December, Official Report, column 927, what is the total number of jobs to be lost in his Department arising from the reduction in total running costs provisions for his Department; and how many in each year between 1995–96 and 1997–98 will be lost in (a) training and enterprise councils, (b) CADW, (c) Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and (d) the Welsh Office itself.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: At 1 December, my Department employed the full-time equivalent of 2,309 permanent and 240 casual staff. Preliminary estimates indicate a reduction of some 200 jobs by 1995–96 and 400 by 1997–98.

  The aim will be to manage these reductions by voluntary means, including natural wastage and continuing close control of recruitment, and to avoid compulsory redundancy. Staffing plans for the Welsh Office, including CADW, and OHMCI for 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 will be set out in the 1995 departmental report to be published in early March. The staffing levels of training and enterprise councils will be determined by their boards in due course.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the cold weather payments scheme so as more accurately to reflect regional and local variations and to introduce a more flexible scheme.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The cold weather payment scheme is reviewed annually with the Meteorological Office to ensure the links between weather stations and local post code areas are as efficient and effective as possible. The
  53
  Meteorological Office uses its judgment and expertise to link post code areas to 63 national weather stations, reflecting the terrain and local conditions. Substantial changes have been introduced to enable automatic payments to be made for each forecasted or sustained period of exceptionally cold weather ensuring a 100 per cent. take-up of payments.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been recovered by the compensation recovery unit in each of the last three years in 1994 prices.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on 27 October,Official Report, column 803. The amount recovered in 1994–95—up to and including 30 November 1994—now stands at £66 million.

  Child Care Disregard
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what the average award was made to family recipients of the new child care disregard since its introduction in October; and what was the figure for those receiving maximum family credit and for those on the lowest level of family credit;

  (2) how many family credit recipients have claimed the new child care disregard since its introduction in October; and how many of these claims have been (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In the two-month period to 30 November 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, 5,060 families received higher family credit awards as a result of the new help with child care charges. In 4,340 of these cases, the additional help increased their award to the maximum amount of family credit. The average additional weekly amount was £15.60. A further 5,180 families claimed help with child care charges but did not receive help; 3,720 families were not eligible because they did not satisfy the qualifying conditions and 1,460 families received no extra help because they were already receiving maximum family credit. Families with child care charges, including those who receive maximum family credit, may get extra help through housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  It will be some time before the new help takes full effect as existing family credit recipients can only claim the child care help when their current 26-week award expires, while many potential beneficiaries need to find work of 16 hours or more and to make appropriate child care arrangements.

  Five per cent. sample of family credit awards made between 1 October 1994 and 30 November 1994. The figures do not include claims made by 30 November 1994 but decided after that date.

  Incomes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many children in(a) the city of York, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) Yorkshire and Humberside lived in a household whose income was (i) in the lowest 10th of household incomes nationally and (ii) in the highest 10th of household incomes nationally in 1979 and in the most recent year for which figures are available;
  54
  (2) how many children in (a) the city of York, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) Yorkshire and Humberside lived in a household whose income was half or less than half the national average household income in 1979 and in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available on a regional basis.

  Statistics on patterns of household disposable income, for the United Kingdom as a whole, are provided in "Households Below Average Income 1979–1991–92", published in July 1994, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has about the number of previously employed and absent parents who have ceased working after receiving an assessment of liability to pay maintenance from the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 12 July 1994,Official Report, column 569.

  Income Support
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for the most recent available full year the annual number of people aged under 25 years claiming(a) income support without unemployment benefit, (b) unemployment benefit without income support and (c) both income support and unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The annual number of claims is not available, but figures for the number of claims as at November 1993 are set out in the table.

  Claimants under 25 years (thousands)

  Category

  November 1993

  Income support without unemployment benefit

  1,047

  Unemployment benefit without income support

  91

  Both income support and unemployment benefit

  6

  Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. They are from:

  1. The income support statistical quarterly inquiry.

  2. The half-yearly analysis of unemployed claimants.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to consult the Social Security Advisory Committee regarding his proposals for restricting income support payments for mortgage interest.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We will be referring our proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee. The committee will then decide if it intends to have them formally referred for consultation and a report.

  Electronic Mail
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.

  Mr. Hague
  The private office of the Secretary of State for Social Security is currently able to receive and respond to communication via electronic mail from the Department and its agencies.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the level of expenditure on housing benefit in each year since its introduction.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Housing Benefit expenditure (in cash terms) Great Britain

  Rent allowance

  £ million Rent rebate

  1983–84

  536

  1,980

  1984–85

  687

  2,145

  1985–86

  881

  2,296

  1986–87

  996

  2,419

  1987–88

  1,030

  2,506

  1988–89

  1,055

  2,718

  1989–90

  1,336

  2,946

  1990–91

  1,597

  3,345

  1991–92

  2,322

  3,675

  1992–93

  3,257

  4,347

  1993–94 (Estimated outturn)

  3,817

  5,004

  Source:

  Departmental reports.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the 82 people described as panel members in annexe 3 to the report "The Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit" were not among the 80 experts referred to in part 2 of the report; why their names were included in annexe 3; what part each of them played in the work of the panel; how many sub-groups of the panel were formed and for what purposes; how many members each sub-group had; how many member of each sub-group were not members of the panel; how many were employed by(a) the Benefits Agency medical service, (b) the Department of Social Security and (c) the Department of Health; and how many had medical qualifications.

  Mr. Hague
  Originally 80 people agreed to join the panel. Some dropped out and were replaced at a later date. The 82 people listed at annexe 3 of the report "The Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit" were all members of the expert panel at some time. The list includes all those invited on to the panel who agreed that their names should be made public.

  Only one sub-group of the panel was formed, to consider special procedures for assessing the effects of mental health. There were five members, two of whom were employed by the Benefits Agency medical service. In addition, we consulted widely with psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and others representing people with mental health problems.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he decided that the names of the members of the panel on incapacity should not be published without their agreement; and if he will seek the consent of numbers of the sub-group on mental health and incapacity, who agreed to publication of their names in the report "The Medical Assessment of Incapacity Benefit", to the disclosure of the membership of the sub-group.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him on 3 November 1994,Official Report, column 1377, and 25 November 1994, column 421.

  Mortgage Protection Policies
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what negotiations his Department has had with the insurance market about private mortgage protection policies.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) on 7 December 1994,Official Report, column 363.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have taken the habitual residence test; and if he will list(a) how many have failed it, (b) their nationality and (c) their age.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  All income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit claimants have been subject to the habitual residence test since its introduction on 1 August 1994. Provisional figures from the Benefits Agency for the period 1 August to 30 November 1994 indicate that 9,601 income support claimants failed to satisfy the test. Information in relation to housing benefit and council tax benefit claimants who fail the test will not be available until late 1996. Information about a claimant's nationality is not available. Information about a claimant's age is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  VAT (fuel)
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to explain the compensation package for VAT on fuel at 8 per cent. to pensioners who do not have an order book because they receive their pension directly to their bank account by bank automated credit transfer.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 929, which also applies to automated credit transfer arrangements.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cumulative effect on the national insurance fund of contracting out and incentive payments for appropriate personal pensions since 1986, giving also an annual cost for the most recent available full year.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is not available in the form requested. The most recent published, audited figure on the cost to the national insurance fund of rebates and incentives for appropriate personal pensions, and incentive payments to other types of newly contracted out pension schemes is £9.9 billion up to the end of 1992–93. This includes £2.7 billion for the 1992–93 tax year.

  The Government Actuary's report on the contributions uprating order for 1994–95 estimated the costs for 1993–94 and 1994–95 as £2.8 billion and £1.9 billion respectively.

  Widow's Payment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future uprating of the £1,000 widow's payment.
  57
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The level of the lump sum widow's payment has remained at £1,000 since its introduction in 1988. We have no plans to increase it.

  Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the numbers of claimants of the

  Sick and Unemployed Benefit claimants and numbers in employment (Numbers in thousands, rounded to nearest thousand)

  Benefit

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Invalidity Benefit1

  1,047

  1,126

  1,209

  1,317

  1,455

  1,606

  1,705

  Sickness Benefit1

  228

  266

  309

  421

  473

  535

  578

  Severe Disablement Allowance1

  263

  275

  285

  274

  289

  298

  304

  Disability Working Allowance2

  3

  4

  Totals

  1,538

  1,667

  1,803

  2,012

  2,217

  2,442

  2,591

  Unemployed claimants3

  2,182

  1,682

  1,519

  2,201

  2,627

  2,812

  2,545

  Work force in employment3

  25,529

  26,317

  26,528

  25,613

  25,023

  24,605

  24,619

  1 From 1988 to 1990 information based on 1 per cent, sample of claimants on 2.4.88, 1.4.89 and 31.3.90

  From 1991 to 1994 information based on 100 per cent, clerical count on the last day of June, and is subject to revision

  2 Information from 100 per cent, count in May.

  3 Information is for Great Britain on last day of June, seasonally adjusted.

  Unemployed claimants are those claiming income support, unemployment benefit and/or national insurance credits who say they satisfy the conditions for receipt of benefits as unemployed people.

  Work force in employment comprises employees in employment, self-employed HM forces and participants on work-related government training programmes.

  Guaranteed Minimum Pension Test
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to replace the guaranteed only at disproportionate cost. minimum pension test.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government announced their plans to replace the guaranteed minimum pension test with a new test of overall scheme quality in the White Paper "Security, Equality, Choice: the Future for Pensions" on 23 June 1994. Detailed proposals were set out in the Pensions Bill put before the House of Lords on Thursday 15 December 1994.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment has been made as to the additional costs which will be incurred by his Department as a result of the changes in national telephone dialling codes next year; and how much this change will cost his Department in additional expenditure.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department and its agencies have so far identified estimated expenditure of approximately £1.8 million to cover all costs associated with the changes in national telephone dialling codes. These costs will be met within existing budgets.

  Funeral Payments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases funeral payments from the social fund have included additional expenses arising from the requirements of the religious faith of the deceased; and in how many of these cases the addition was of the maximum permitted amount in each year since 1988–89.
  58
  range o sickness and incapacity benefits, (b) the numbers of unemployed at the closest point of the figures in (a) and (c) the number of workers in employment (a) for each year since 1988.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Claims for additional religious costs are a rarity. The information request could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is in a position to respond to the report by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux on disqualification from unemployment benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I met the chief executive of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and two of her colleagues on Tuesday 6 December to discuss the report "Benefit of the Doubt". The recommendations made in the report will be considered in the context of the jobseeker's allowance scheme.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of the drafting of his Bill on discrimination against disabled people; and if he is yet in a position to undertake that the scope of the Bill and money resolution will be sufficiently wide to permit an amendment providing for a disability rights commission.

  Mr. Hague
  The Bill will be introduced shortly. I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 December 1994,Official Report, column 539. It is not our intention to draft the Bill in such a way as to rule out full discussion of this issue.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ivory Coast
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning human rights in the Ivory Coast; and what representations have been made to the authorities there by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are aware of the July 1994 Amnesty International report on freedom of expression and association in Cote d'Ivoire. We note also the emergence of encouraging signs in the field of human rights in the country. We are pleased to witness, for example, the maturing of the relationship between the Government and Ivorian human rights organisations.

  Our ambassador to Cote d'Ivoire has made clear to the Ivorian authorities the importance which the British Government attach to good government, including full respect for human rights.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards a new COCOM structure of export controls; and what exports or export destinations the Government currently consider should form part of such controls.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Multilateral negotiations to establish an export control regime to tackle new threats posed by excessive build-up of conventional weapons and related technology are continuing. Working groups have been established to agree and recommended on those goods to be controlled, the procedures for exports, the membership of the organisation and related administrative matters. The Government are committed to controls which are straight forward, responsible and transparent but which do not place an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on legitimate trade. They should be linked to identifiable threats and consistent with our international commitments.

  At a high-level meeting in the Hague on 21 and 22 December, the 23 former COCOM and COCOM co-operating countries, reaffirmed their. commitment to work towards the establishment of new arrangements as soon as possible. A further meeting is due to be held in February.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a request for the use of aircraft fitted with electronic combat reconnaissance devices was made by the United Kingdom either directly or indirectly through NATO actions and UNPROFOR forces in Bosnia; when it was agreed; and to which country or countries such request was made.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not our policy to comment on operational matters of this nature.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 817, concerning the legal basis for the protection by the United Nations of the civilian population of safe areas in Bosnia-Herzegovina, whether the United Nations Secretariat, the United Kingdom and other members of
  60
  the Security Council take account in creating those areas of the possibility of use for war purposes to mount offensives against the Serbs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Members of the United Nations Security Council, including the United Kingdom, and the United Nations Secretariat do take into account the possibility that safe areas might be used by one party to mount offensives against another. In his report on safe areas of 1 December, the UN Secretary-General highlighted the importance of definition and demilitarisation of safe areas by negotiation. NATO chiefs of defence staff meeting in The Hague on 19 and 20 December, noted the Secretary-General's report on safe areas and underscored the importance of achieving, by negotiations, agreement on complete demilitarisation of the safe areas acceptable to all parties and which could be effectively implemented and controlled by UNPROFOR.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the European Union has to suggest to the Vietnamese Government that the delegation from the UN working group on arbitrary detention be allowed to return to the A20 re-education camp at Xuan Phoc, Phu Yen province, so that they may interview all prisoners who were unavailable on 28 October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am not aware of any such plans. Neither the UN working group on arbitrary detention nor the presidency of the European Union has raised this matter with Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the co-operation received from the Vietnamese Government by the delegation from the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention when they visited the A20 re-education camp, at Xuan Phoc, Phu Yen province, Vietnam, on 28 October 1994.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Nations working group on arbitrary detention has not yet reported on its visit to Vietnam.

  Iran
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to persuade the Government of Iran to allow United Nations special rapporteurs to investigate the murders of the Rev. Haik Hovsepian Mehr, the Rev. Tatess Michaelion and the Rev. Mehdi Dibaj and the situation of the Christian community in Iran.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support the involvement of UN special rapporteurs in investigating the human rights situation in Iran including the situation of Christians and the deaths of Rev. Mehr, Rev. Michaelian and Rev. Dibaj. We and our European partners co-sponsored a resolution on human rights in Iran which was adopted at the UN General Assembly in December 1994. It called on Iran to co-operate with the UN special rapporteur, Mr. Galindo-Pohl, and to carry out a thorough and impartial investigation into the deaths of the three pastors.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration was given to Iran's human rights record when his Department agreed to co-sponsor the forthcoming conference on the political
  61
  economy of contemporary Iran, to be held at the School of African and Oriental Studies in London.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our European partners repeatedly underline to the Iranian Government the importance we attach to their human rights record. Our support for the forthcoming conference on Iran does not detract from our commitment to securing an improvement in Iranian behaviour. This conference is aimed at promoting an improved understanding of the Iranian economy and strengthening academic and economic contacts with Iranian professionals.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to persuade the Government of Iran to reopen the Iranian Bible Society and churches and to ensure that bibles are made freely available in that country.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our European partners remain committed to maintaining pressure on the Iranian Government to honour fundamental freedoms including freedom of religion. Most recently in December 1994 the European Union sponsored a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly reiterating our support for the work of the UN special rapporteur, Mr. Galindo-Pohl. Mr. Pohl has referred to the Bible Society's predicament in his reports and we are discussing with our European partners what further action we can take.

  Caribbean
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 424, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the relations between each of the dependent territories in the Caribbean and the regional secretariat in Barbados; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am satisfied that the dependent territories regional secretariat is operating effectively. It has helped negotiate country policy plans with Anguilla, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands; and it is working with the Governments concerned to ensure their implementation. It is involved in our continuing dialogue with all the Caribbean DTs and is managing the financial assistance being provided from ODA and diplomatic wing resources. This is in line with the programme set out in the FCO departmental report 1994, Cm 2502, page 23.

  UN Arms Register
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library(a) a list of the items that he submits to the United Nations arms register and (b) the returns he has made to that register; and what proposals he has to extend the scope of the register.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A copy of the United Kingdom return to the UN register of conventional arms is placed in the Library each year. Each return includes any items contained in the seven categories of equipment where such imports and exports have taken place. The categories are battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships and missiles and missiles launchers. The UK return also includes background information on national holdings and procurement from national production of 62
  equipment in the seven categories, and a statement of UK policy.

  An international group of governmental experts met last summer to discuss the operation of the register and ways in which it may be developed. There was no consensus for change then, but future groups of experts will look at this question again.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy for ensuring that the people of Gibraltar enjoy the full benefits of membership including the right to vote in Euro-elections and for aircraft using Gibraltar airport to use EU airspace; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We expect Gibraltarians to enjoy those benefits to which they are entitled by virtue of Gibraltar's status within the European Union. We have made this clear whenever necessary. Annexe 2 of the 1976 EC Act on direct elections limits the franchise for European parliamentary elections to the United Kingdom.

  There are no special restrictions affecting the ability of aircraft using Gibraltar airport to fly in the airspace of any EU member state.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister, Señor Javier Solana, concerning Gibraltar and related matters.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had very useful discussions with the Spanish Foreign Minister on 19 and 20 December 1994 on a wide range of issues, including Gibraltar. He welcomed the lifting of secondary checks at the frontier and stressed that they should not be reimposed. We agreed on the need for further practical co-operation on a trilateral basis to tackle drugs trafficking. He made clear that we would not deviate from our commitment to the people of Gibraltar in the 1969 constitution. There was no substantive discussion of sovereignty issues.

  A joint statement was agreed and issued to the press on 20 December. A copy of this will shortly be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Nunn-Lugar Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To aks the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for a European Union equivalent of the Nunn-Lugar co-operative threat reduction programme; and what projects or expenditure the United Kingdom has already committed towards objectives similar to the Nunn-Lugar programme.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European Union has contributed to a number of civil nuclear safety programmes. Individual member states are separately undertaking projects related to military installations. The United Kingdom has committed some £35 million to projects which include the supply of supercontainers and heavy-duty vehicles for the secure transportation of nuclear warheads for dismantlement; and the resettlement and retraining of former military officers.

  Electronic Mail
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has work under way to allow the exchange of documents by electronic mail within the Department. Such a service is already available within the Overseas Development Administration.

  The Department is investigating the use of the Internet to allow more extensive public access. It is likely an FCO presence will be established on the Internet via the CCTA computer later this year. It will allow the dissemination of FCO-ODA material in the first instance. Public electronic mail access to the Department will be considered after experience has been gained with the initial trials.

  European Union
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he proposes to take in response to recommendation 1250—1994—of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe relating to the enlargement of the Council of Europe and budgetary prospects; and if he will make statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Committee of Ministers' Deputies and the secretariat of the Council of Europe are currently looking at the resource implications of the enlargement of the Council of Europe. We shall take decisions once the results of their work are known. The parliamentary assembly's recommendation will be fully taken into account.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will arrange to publish after each Council of Ministers and each European summit a concordat version comparing the claims made by each Government to their own electorate about the nature of the decisions taken and the gains and losses for that country.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no plans to change the existing arrangements for informing the House of the outcomes of meetings of the Council of the European Union or the European Council.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Turkey concerning the imprisonment of some of their Members of Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As stated in the written answer by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of 15 December to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox),Official Report, column 761, we joined our EU partners in a statement of protest to the Turkish Government at the harsh prison sentences imposed on elected members of the Turkish Parliament. He subsequently raised the subject directly with the Turkish Foreign Minister when they met in Brussels on 19 December. The deputies concerned have exercised their right to appeal. We await news of a further hearing.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on Internet and the documents which he intends to be made available on Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server "open.gov.UK" or any specific departmental server.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 29 November 1994,Official Report, column 58. The FCO has active plans for making some data available on the Internet during 1995 and an announcement will be made when it is ready to come on stream.

  China
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that China's most-favoured nation status is only reviewed after an improvement in its record on human rights.

  Mr. Baldry
  We regularly urge the Chinese authorities to improve their human rights record. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the issue during his visit to China last July and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so with the Chinese Foreign Minister in September. But we have consistently held the view that trade and politics should be treated as separate. Trading and economic relationships are helping to open up the Chinese system and promote the country's development, to the benefit of the Chinese people.

  Immigration (Quotas)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether entry clearance officers have been given a quota system for refusing foreign nationals entry to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. All applications for entry clearance are considered on their merits in accordance with the immigration rules.

  Croatia
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the justification for putting Serbs in Croatia under the rule of Croatians.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  When we recognised Croatia on 15 January 1992 as an independent sovereign state, we made it clear that we expected the Government of Croatia to take steps to protect the rights of minorities. We continue to support the efforts of the international conference on former Yugoslavia to bring about a peaceful settlement between the Croatian Government and the Croatian Serb minority. We welcome the recent signing of the economic agreement by both sides which has resulted int he reopening of part of the Zagreb to Belgrade highway. We hope that further elements of the agreement will also be implemented shortly.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what statutory basis the Governor of St. Helena requires the output of the local radio and television stations to receive his approval prior to transmission.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Radio St. Helena is not subject to any statutory control.

  A television station is to be operated under licence by Cable and Wireless. The company is subject to statutory control in so far as the terms of that licence require them to notify the Governor of details of the services to be offered and in each case the channel and frequency of the service on which they will be provided.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on 9 December,Official Report, column 377, if he will give (a) the total exposure in respect of defence contracts by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in 1993–94, (b) the amount of that exposure which was in default or had been rescheduled and (c) the cost to the Exchequer of such defaults on rescheduling in 1993–94.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not currently available and cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made as to the additional costs which will be incurred by his Department as a result of the changes in national telephone dialling codes next year; and how much this change will cost his Department in additional telephone expenditure.

  Mr. Baldry
  British Telecom has provided this service free of charge to its customers. There will be no additional costs to pay. Minor changes to stationery have been incorporated in standard reprinting procedures.

  East Timor
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will prohibit the export of tanks and military aircraft to Indonesia until self-determination has been granted to the people of East Timor.

  Mr. Baldry
  There is no international embargo on arms sales to Indonesia. The export to any destination of arms and other goods listed in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 is prohibited without a licence by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. All applications for export licences for defence equipment are considered carefully on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria. We believe that the best way to achieve a satisfactory settlement of the East Timor issue is to encourage the Portuguese and Indonesians to continue a constructive dialogue under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General.

SCOTLAND

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 1 December,Official Report, columns 840–41 if he will make a statement regarding his Department's expenditure on special advisers in each of the last three financial years and for the financial year 1979–80.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 19 December,Official Report, column 937.

  Appointments
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his definition of extreme political views as used in his answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 30 March 1994,Official Report, column 829.

  Mr. Lang
  I used the term in its generally understood sense, but it would include membership of, or support for, a political organisation which was generally regarded as being of an extremist nature.

  Isle of Lewis
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds from European Resources have been received for road projects on the Isle of Lewis in 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Stewart
  No funds have been awarded for road projects on the Isle of Lewis in 1993–94 from the European regional development fund, the principal source of European funding for infrastructure projects. It is too early to say what projects might come forward through the Highlands and Islands objective 1 programme during 1995.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To aks the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made as to the additional costs which will be incurred by his Department as a result of the changes in national telephone dialling codes next year; and how much this change will cost his Department in additional expenditure.

  Mr. Lang
  Most of the changes to my Department's telecommunications' networks have been carried out free of charge by the companies responsible for maintaining our telephone systems. At one site a charge of £ 1,000 was incurred.

  It is not possible to give an estimate of the cost of alternations to items of stationery, but because the changes were publicised widely well in advance it has been possible in many cases to incorporate the new codes when placing routine orders for new stationery. Some staff time has been or will be devoted to reprogramming fax machines etc.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of vandalism were reported to the procurator fiscal but not proceeded with in the last 10 years for which figures are available.
  67
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Programme Making (Scotland)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of his correspondence with the Director General of the British Broadcasting Corporation about programme making in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 December 1994]: It is not my right hon. Friend's normal practice to make available private correspondence between himself and outside organisations. However, given the public interest in the future of BBC production in Scotland and the nature of the correspondence, he has agreed to make an exception in this case. Accordingly, a copy of my right hon. Friend's letter of 28 October 1994 to Mr. Birt and, with Mr. Birt's agreement, a copy of his reply dated 2 November have today been placed in the Library.

  Housing List Applications
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applicants were waiting on the housing lists of each of the development corporations in each financial year since 1979.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: The information is not held centrally.

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent on telephone charges and how many telephone calls have been made by his Department for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information on telephone charges for calls made via both the public service telephone network and the government telephone network by all Scottish Office Departments is set out in the table.

  Public service telephone network £

  Government telephone network £

  Total £

  1989–90

  645,000

  339,000

  984,000

  1990–91

  615,000

  343,000

  958,000

  1991–92

  675,000

  352,000

  1,027,000

  1992–93

  755,000

  366,000

  1,121,000

  1993–94

  695,000

  343,000

  1,038,000

  As call charges are levied by the volume of units used and not by the number of calls made, records on total numbers of calls are not maintained.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington, (Mr. Milburn) of I December,Official Report, columns 895–96, if he will make a statement regarding his Department's expenditure on special advisers for each of the last three financial years.
  68
  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on 19 December,Official Report, column 937.

  Management Systems
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration he has given to introducing a MINIS-type—managerial information systems—management system to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I will be considering what changes I might make to my Department's planning and management information systems in the light of the fundamental expenditure review of the Department and the recommendations of the multidepartmental efficiency scrutiny of management information and planning systems. Both reviews are expected to report in the spring of 1995.

  National Lottery
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will ensure that all the interest earned on money already collected by the National Lottery Charity Board for distribution to charities and voluntary organisations will he made available to those organisations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yes. The National Lottery etc. Act 1993 provides that interest earned on the proceeds of the national lottery is added to the national lottery distribution fund and attributed to each distributing body on a proportionate basis.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if interest earned on money already collected by the national lottery for distribution to charities and voluntary organisations will accrue to Camelot.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Interest earned on the proceeds of the national lottery will not accrue to Camelot. It is added to the national lottery distribution fund and attributed to each distributing body on an equitable basis.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will consider the abandonment of national lottery rollover prizes above £1 million or, when prizes have not been won, distributing the money to charities through a further draw from a list of registered charities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The rollover of unwon jackpot prizes is a significant factor in maintaining public interest and participation in lotteries around the world. The Government believe that limiting rollover in the UK to a maximum of three consecutive times will balance the aim of maintaining interest in the lottery with the need to put an upper ceiling on jackpot prizes. Returns to good causes would suffer if interest in playing the national lottery generated by jackpot prizes were to decline.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure the national lottery prize winners can remain anonymous if that is their wish.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 15 December 1994]: Under section 11 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, the director-general of the national lottery has been directed to include in the licence to run the national lottery a condition that the identity of any person who has won a prize in any constituent game will not be disclosed by the licensee without the written consent of that person.

  69
  Recent disclosures are being considered both by the director-general and the Press Complaints Commission.

  School Sports
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the Government's interdepartmental review on school sport and physical education was initiated; how many officials have been involved and from which Departments those officials were drawn; when an announcement is due to be made; and if he expects to make that announcement himself.

  Mr. Sproat
  This Department and the Department for Education are considering ways of strengthening competitive school sport as part of their ongoing involvement in this policy area. The bulk of the work falls to six officials who also undertake a range of other duties. Other staff in DNH and DFE and other interested Departments are being consulted as appropriate. The timing and form of any announcement has yet to be decided.

  Channel 4
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what alternatives to the current formula for funding Channel 4 television are being considered by him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am considering the proposals which have been put to me by Channel 4 and the views of others with an interest.

  Sir George Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to reconsider the funding of Channel 4 television; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am considering the proposals which have been put to me by Channel 4 and the views of others with an interest.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of programme time transmitted by BSkyB consists of material originated outside the EC; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Article 4 of the EC broadcasting directive—89/552/EC—requires member states to ensure, where practicable, that broadcasters reserve for European works a majority of their transmission time, subject to the exclusion of certain types of programming such as news, sport and game shows. Member states are further required to report to the Commission every two years on the application of the article. The table shows the performance achieved by the BSkyB channels which were in operation during the period 3 October 1991 to 31 December 1992, as notified to the Commission in the UK's first monitoring report published on 4 November 1993.

  My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), commented on the report in a written answer on the same day to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), Official Report, 4 November 1993, column 310. The action which my predecessor announced that the Department would be
  70
  taking continues, and I shall make a further statement in due course.

  European works broadcast by individual BSkyB channels operating from 3 October 1991 to 31 December 1992

  Channel

  Percentage of total qualifying transmission time

  The Movie Channel

  16.4

  Sky Movies

  13.7

  Sky Movies Gold

  19.1

  Sky News

  64.3

  Sky One

  8.5

  Sky Sports

  65.2

  Charities Fund
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will give assurances that the interest earned on money already collected for distribution to charities and voluntary organisations will be made available to the charities fund.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Interest earned on the proceeds of the national lottery is added to the national lottery distribution fund and attributed to each distributing body on an equitable basis. All interest is therefore available for distribution to good causes. Twenty per cent. of the national lottery distribution fund will be available to the National Lottery Charities Board. Other charities and voluntary organisations connected with sports, arts, and heritage will also benefit from lottery proceeds.

  Assets in lieu of Tax
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the assets received by his Department in lieu of tax for the current financial year and for the years 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The assets my Department has accepted in lieu of tax in the current financial year are as follows:

  Picasso painting—'Tete de Femme 1924'

  Picasso drawing—'Tete de Femme 1937'

  Picasso vase—'Artist at his Easel'

  Klee drawing—'Contraholz Solo'

  George I silver kettle and stand

  Ferneley painting—'Council of Horses'

  Riding tack from Calke Abbey

  Scott painting—'Black Painting 1958'

  Amigoni painting—'Dido and Aeneas'

  Collection of architectural drawings related to Nostell Priory

  Benthall Hall chattels

  The Fairfax Archive

  Two busts by Flaxman and Chantrey

  The Fitzherbert papers

  The building No.2 Willow Road, Hampstead

  The studio of F E McWilliam

  The Acland Archive

  Castle Fraser chattels

  For the previous years, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on 31 March 1994, Official Report, columns 978–79) and 23 April 1993, column 226.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment has been made as to the additional costs which will he incurred by his
  71
  Department as a result of the changes in national telephone dialling codes next year; and how much this change will cost his Department in additional expenditure.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of National Heritage will not incur any significant additional costs as a result of the changes to the national telephone dialling codes.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on Internet and the documents which he intends to be made available on Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server "open.gov.UK" or any specific departmental server.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 22 November 1994,Official Report, column 111.

  Admission Fees
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the admission fees charged by British museums and historic royal palaces in each of the years since 1979 and which charged concessionary admission fees.

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

  York Stone and Cobbles
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to introduce measures to combat the theft of York stone and cobbles.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no such plans. A range of measures to prevent the theft of vulnerable paved surfaces is already available to local authorities and other owners. These include increased security lighting, closed-circuit television and neighbourhood watch schemes. It is important that crime prevention measures in historic town centres and conservation areas respect the character of the area.

  Adrian Spencer
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet Mr. Adrian Spencer to discuss amateurism in rugby union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have no plans to meet Mr. Spencer.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet the Rugby Football Union to discuss the case of Adrian Spencer.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have no plans to meet the Rugby Football Union to discuss the case of Adrian Spencer.

  Rugby
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for legislation to give players the right to play both rugby union and rugby league.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government have no plans for introducing legislation. The rules and regulations of independent and properly constituted governing bodies of 72
  sport are a matter for them. My views on this issue are well known.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those services that have been market tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer/2 December 1994]: To date, no services have been market tested by this Department, although a number of activities have been contracted out to the private sector as a matter of policy. Information on new tests is published in the market testing bulletin each month. A copy of this is placed in the Library.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department (i) hold open meetings, (ii) conduct public consultation exercises, (iii) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (iv) publish a register of members' interests, (v) publish agendas for meetings and (vi) publish the minutes of meetings; and whether this is in each case(a) under a statutory requirement or (b) voluntary.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 16 December 1994]: On point (i), I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 27 July 1993, Official Report, column 763–64. On points (ii) and (iii), the advisory committee on the public lending right has undertaken consultation on reference hooks. My Department has undertaken consultation with the art trade on behalf of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art. The Theatres Trust also consults with outside interests. The regional councils for sport and recreation also conduct consultation exercisees. On points (iv), (v) and (vi), the answer is none.

  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made clear on 2 November 1993—Official Report, column 97–8—all appointments are made in accordance with guidance provided by Cabinet Office and the Treasury, which requires Ministers to satisfy themselves that no conflict of interest arises.

EDUCATION

  School Meals
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils aged(a) under seven, (b) between seven and 11 and (c) over 11 years of age, in each local authority area in England received (i) school meals and (ii) pre-school meals.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the number of school meals taken by pupils in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1994 is shown in the table. Information is not collected centrally on the take-up of school meals according to pupils' ages or in respect of the level of provision of school meals prior to the start of the school day.
  73

  Numbers of day-pupils taking free and paid school meals in maintained schools in England—January 1994

  Local education authority

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Corporation of London

  158

  —

  Camden

  6,974

  4,736

  Greenwich

  10,946

  5,200

  Hackney

  11,782

  4,118

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6,747

  4,199

  Islington

  10,571

  3,118

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4,249

  2,081

  Lambeth

  13,079

  4,075

  Lewisham

  12,874

  5,049

  Southwark

  14,664

  5,792

  Tower Hamlets

  15,262

  6,455

  Wandsworth

  10,744

  5,320

  Westminster

  6,696

  4,018

  Barking and Dagenham

  7,296

  3,062

  Barnet

  11,578

  10,629

  Bexley

  7,464

  4,270

  Brent

  10,984

  4,563

  Bromley

  8,967

  8,287

  Croydon

  13,197

  7,255

  Ealing

  10,450

  6,919

  Enfield

  9,711

  6,628

  Haringey

  11,250

  4,912

  Harrow

  1,538

  3,103

  Havering

  7,951

  4,922

  Hillingdon

  3,153

  5,359

  Hounslow

  8,725

  7,629

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,494

  2,575

  Merton

  5,260

  2,737

  Newham

  12,426

  4,127

  Redbridge

  9,797

  6,436

  Richmond upon Thames

  3,990

  2,941

  Sutton

  5,501

  5,514

  Waltham Forest

  10,914

  5,482

  Birmingham

  57,414

  38,742

  Coventry

  12,129

  6,151

  Dudley

  11,222

  7,338

  Sandwell

  12,994

  5,355

  Solihull

  9,646

  6,097

  Walsall

  11,010

  9,534

  Wolverhampton

  10,920

  6,064

  Knowsley

  9,856

  4,458

  Liverpool

  28,663

  15,538

  St. Helens

  7,452

  6,681

  Sefton

  10,469

  8,443

  Wirral

  15,996

  9,952

  Bolton

  14,934

  9,781

  Bury

  8,986

  4,845

  Manchester

  31,966

  11,742

  Oldham

  15,048

  8,522

  Rochdale

  12,432

  6,444

  Salford

  15,298

  4,785

  Stockport

  11,955

  8,873

  Tameside

  12,030

  6,497

  Trafford

  7,207

  6,915

  Wigan

  13,059

  8,537

  Barnsley

  10,865

  5,495

  Doncaster

  20,008

  10,463

  Rotherham

  12,392

  4,412

  Sheffield

  19,845

  11,030

  Bradford

  21,378

  24,339

  Calderdale

  10,710

  5,282

  Kirklees

  21,461

  9,675

  Leeds

  32,138

  19,354

  Wakefield

  12,675

  5,887

  Gateshead

  10,742

  2,583

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  13,874

  7,729

  North Tyneside

  8,942

  6,550

  South Tyneside

  10,454

  4,493

  Sunderland

  16,611

  5,626

  Isles of Scilly

  62

  49

  Avon

  34,730

  18,630

  74

  Numbers of day-pupils taking free and paid school meals in maintained schools in England—January 1994

  Local education authority

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Bedfordshire

  24,683

  20,713

  Berkshire

  23,039

  19,421

  Buckinghamshire

  6,494

  8,747

  Cambridgeshire

  24,007

  13,364

  Cheshire

  37,448

  30,965

  Cleveland

  37,517

  14,582

  Cornwall

  17,108

  15,240

  Cumbria

  21,183

  16,741

  Derbyshire

  45,941

  36,572

  Devon

  31,987

  30,391

  Dorset

  4,254

  14,105

  Durham

  37,023

  15,187

  East Sussex

  22,514

  12,316

  Essex

  47,946

  35,338

  Gloucestershire

  12,452

  10,215

  Hampshire

  48,253

  28,470

  Hereford and Worcester

  8,400

  15,251

  Hertfordshire

  40,492

  28,858

  Humberside

  48,464

  29,348

  Isle of Wight

  3,354

  4,471

  Kent

  52,317

  40,914

  Lancashire

  58,919

  44,315

  Leicestershire

  32,602

  24,727

  Lincolnshire

  4,367

  14,978

  Norfolk

  25,741

  13,836

  North Yorkshire

  26,083

  22,807

  Northamptonshire

  7,626

  14,117

  Northumberland

  12,125

  14,835

  Nottinghamshire

  42,364

  24,073

  Oxfordshire

  14,431

  10,433

  Shropshire

  18,248

  13,604

  Somerset

  6,238

  9,635

  Staffordshire

  48,268

  24,216

  Suffolk

  18,188

  17,816

  Surrey

  36,255

  20,432

  Warwickshire

  18,472

  10,011

  West Sussex

  21,725

  11,809

  Wiltshire

  15,971

  13,703

  England

  1,886,464

  1,250,958

  GCSE Papers
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have had GCSE papers re-marked by examination boards in the last year; what has been the outcome; and what investigations his Department has undertaken.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not held by the Department. Grading and re-grading are matters for the individual GCSE examining groups.

  School Inspections
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Education (1) for how many years past reports from Her Majesty's inspectorate are kept on file and available for inspection;

  (2) what are her plans for making available past reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate.

  Mr. Forth
  These are matters for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the independent Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.
  75

  Faversham College, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she intends to announce her decision on the application for voluntary-aided status made by Faversham college, Bradford; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend will announce her decision on Faversham college's proposals as soon as possible.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about the plans of her Department to make information available on the Internet and the documents which she intends to be made available on the Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server "Open.Gov.UK" or any specific departmental server.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has noted with interest the recent launch of the open government information service by CCTA, the Government centre for information systems. The Department is keen to play its full part in making information available electronically where appropriate and is considering what material might most helpfully be made accessible via this service.

  Electronic Mail
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend and other Ministers in the Department use electronic mail daily to communicate with officials in London and Darlington.

  The possibilities for extending existing links to connect to non-departmental public bodies and agencies in the education sector are currently under consideration.

  "15,000 Hours"
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will authorise publication of the names of the schools involved in the research led by Professor Michael Rutter published as "15,000 Hours".

  Mr. Forth
  No. It was agreed between all parties before the research began that the schools would never be identified or identifiable in any report which was to be written.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment has been made as to the additional costs which will be incurred by her Department as a result of the changes in national telephone dialling codes next year; and how much this change will cost her Department in additional expenditure.

  Mr. Forth
  Additional departmental costs as a result of the changes in national telephone dialling codes next year are estimated to be £2,000. No further expenditure in addition to this is anticipated.
  76

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of the Further Education Funding Council's budget supports institutions in Hampshire.

  Mr. Boswell
  The total amount of recurrent funding allocated by the Further Education Funding Council for the academic year 1994–95 is £2,610.8 million, of which £109.5 million was allocated to institutions in Hampshire.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total annual budget for the Further Education Funding Council for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  The total annual budget for the Further Education Funding Council for the financial year 1994–95 is £2,814.5 million.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total expenditure by grant-maintained schools in Hampshire in the financial year 1993–94; and what is the forecast expenditure for 1994–95.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information relating to expenditure in GM schools is held by the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the total pupil numbers in schools in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total numbers of pupils in all schools in England in January 1993 and January 1994 were 7,747,000 and 7,882,000 respectively.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) 1 December,Official Report column 863, if she will make a statement regarding her Department's expenditure on special advisers in each of the last three financial years and for the financial year 1979–80.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave on 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 937.

TRANSPORT

  Roads and Airports (EC Funding)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the total amounts received from the European Commission for road building and airports in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Watts
  Figures available for European regional development fund and transport infrastructure grant
  77
  receipts for road and airport related projects in England are as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  ERDF (£ million rounded)

  Airports

  11.3

  2.8

  6.3

  4.5

  1.8

  Roads

  52.5

  23.4

  62.2

  50.2

  25.1

  TIG (£ million)

  Roads

  2.25

  0.12

  5.85

  0.6

  1.05

  1 From 1 April to 31 December 1990.

  Departmental Telephone Calls
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on telephone charges and how many telephone calls have been made by his Department for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  The answer is:

  £

  1990–91

  4,479,004

  1991–92

  4,859,147

  1992–93

  5,580,202

  1993–94

  5,183,307

  Full details for 1989–90 are not available.

  Details of the number of calls made per year are not held centrally.

  Vehicle Inspections
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of spot-checks undertaken on heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles for the west midlands area for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Vehicle Inspectorate. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 10 January 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of vehicle spot-checks undertaken on heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and public service vehicles (PSVs) for the West Midlands Traffic Area for each of the last five years.

  The table below outlines both roadworthiness checks (the mechanical condition of the vehicle) and traffic enforcement checks (the use to which the vehicle is put i.e. drivers' hours, operator licensing etc).

  Roadworthiness

  HGV

  PSV

  Years

  Number of spot checks

  Years

  Number of spot checks

  1993–94

  15,348

  1993–94

  3,491

  1992–93

  10,145

  1992–93

  2,471

  1991–92

  9,552

  1991–92

  2,403

  1990–91

  6,126

  1990–91

  1,370

  1989–90

  5,258

  1989–90

  1,497

  78

  Traffic enforcement

  HGV

  PSV

  Year

  Number of spot checks

  Year

  Number of spot checks

  1993–94

  19,212

  1993–94

  2,337

  1992–93

  17,239

  1992–93

  2,489

  1991–92

  20,938

  1991–92

  1,882

  1990–91

  22,240

  1990–91

  1,754

  1989–90

  23,570

  1989–90

  1,473

  I hope this information is sufficient to answer your query. More information on checks in the West Midlands and elsewhere is available in the Traffic Commissioner Annual Reports and the Licensing Authority Annual Reports, copies of which should be available through the House of Commons Library.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the Vehicle Inspectorate testing stations in the west midlands traffic area, the number of staff employed in each of the last five years.

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

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 10 January 1995:

  Vehicle Inspectorate Staff Employed in the West Midlands Traffic Area.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of staff that have been employed by the Vehicle Inspectorate in the West Midlands Traffic Area during the last five years.The table below gives a breakdown of the total number of staff by year, by a broad categorisation of employment. The attached table gives more detailed information by testing station location and includes staff working on both the Vehicle Testing and Road Transport Enforcement side of the Inspectorate's work. It has not been possible to separate out the VI staff located at testing stations without disproportionate cost.

  Technical

  Administrative

  Industrial

  Total

  1990–91

  51

  31

  25

  107

  1991–921 2

  84

  37

  23

  144

  1992–932

  81

  37

  22

  140

  1993–94

  75

  36

  22

  133

  1994–95

  73

  31

  20

  124

  (Numbers are full-time equivalent and have been rounded to the nearest unit)

  1 The increase in Technical and Administrative staff in 1993–94 results from the amalgamation of the traffic Examiners organisation into the Vehicle Inspectorate as at I April 1991.

  2 It has not been possible to separate South Wales Traffic Area staff out from the West Midlands Traffic area in the first 2 years following the amalgamation.

  I hope this information is sufficient but, if you have any further questions about the Inspectorate's operations, please contact me at the above address.
  79

  Numbers of Staff

  Heavy Goods Vehicle Testing Station

  Year

  Technical

  Admin

  Industrial

  Total

  Shrewsbury

  1990–91

  4

  5

  3

  212

  1991–92

  4

  2

  3

  29

  1992–93

  5

  2

  3

  210

  1993–94

  3

  2

  3

  8

  1994–95

  3

  2

  3

  8

  Birmingham

  1990–91

  17

  9

  7

  233

  1991–92

  18

  9

  6

  233

  1992–93

  16

  9

  6

  231

  1993–94

  7

  5

  6

  18

  1994–95

  7

  3

  6

  16

  Wolverhampton

  1990–91

  14

  8

  9

  231

  1991–92

  15

  8

  7

  230

  1992–93

  15

  8

  6

  229

  1993–94

  7

  4

  6

  17

  1994–95

  6

  3

  5

  14

  Stoke

  1990–91

  16

  7.5

  6.5

  230

  1991–92

  15

  5.5

  6.5

  227

  1992–93

  15

  6

  7

  228

  1993–94

  5

  5

  7

  17

  1994–95

  5

  5

  6

  16

  In addition to the above numbers of staff located in VI offices at HGV testing stations, the following are located in other VI offices in the West Midlands traffic area.

  Year

  Technical

  Admin

  Industrial

  Total

  Other Vehicle

  1990–91

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Inspectorate

  1991–92

  32

  13

  0

  145

  offices3

  1992–93

  30

  13

  0

  143

  1993–94

  52

  21

  0

  373

  1994–95

  52

  18

  0

  370

  1 Includes some staff employed in the South Wales Traffic Area. It is not possible to separate out West Midlands.

  2 Includes staff working on the Road Traffic Enforcement side of the Inspectorate's work.

  3 Includes staff located in VI offices at HGV testing stations.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each multi-agency road check undertaken on HGV and public service vehicles and the number of vehicles inspected together with the number of those receiving prohibition or defect notices for the west midlands area for each of the last 12 months.

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

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 10 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the number of multi-agency checks undertaken on heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), and passenger carrying vehicles (PCVs), and the number of vehicles inspected together with the number of those receiving prohibition or defect notices carried out in the West Midlands Traffic Area during the last 12 months.Unfortunately not all of the information you require is available. A total of 15 checks were carried out over the period which resulted in 1,433 vehicles being inspected. I have attached a table which provides a breakdown of the checks, I am unable to provide details of how many prohibition or defect notices were issued as a result of these specific checks as such information is not recorded in our
  80
  management information system and any additional information can only be provided at disproportionate cost.If you have any further questions about the Inspectorate's operations, please contact me at the above address.

  Multi agency checks conducted in the West Midlands traffic area December 1993–November 1994

  Date

  Number of multi-agency checks

  Number of vehicles inspected

  December 1993

  0

  0

  January 1994

  1

  10

  February 1994

  1

  10

  March 1994

  1

  41

  April 1994

  1

  39

  May 1994

  2

  262

  June 1994

  1

  98

  July 1994

  2

  186

  August 1994

  1

  177

  September 1994

  2

  100

  October 1994

  1

  420

  November 1994

  2

  90

  Total

  15

  1,433

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy and powers to order random and regular safety inspections of public service vehicles; and what plans he has to increase such checks.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: Each year the Secretary of State approves a programme of safety inspections on public service vehicles, which includes a target number of random and regular safety checks undertaken on his behalf by traffic and vehicle examiners from the Vehicle Inspectorate. The programme includes provision for traffic commissioners to request additional safety inspections where required for specific purposes. The number of inspections is kept under review and may be adjusted as necessary.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many public service vehicles and minibuses carrying school children have been found to be defective in regular and random inspections in the last two years for which figures are available in(a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk and (c) England and Wales; and what action has been taken in each case.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: This is an operational matter for the Vehicle Inspectorate. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. David Porter, dated 10 January 1995:
  School bus checks.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about checks on public service vehicles (PSVs) and minibuses carrying school children in Norfolk, Suffolk and England and Wales. Unfortunately, whilst we collect management information on checks on PSVs including any follow-up action, we do not distinguish between those carrying school children and others. The Inspectorate is also unable to provide data on a county by county basis as it is collected by Traffic Areas which do not relate to county boundaries.
  The table attached gives the number of PSVs inspected at roadside checks during 1992–293 and 1993–94 and the number of immediate and delayed prohibitions issued. Additional information can only be provided at a disproportionate cost.
  If you have nay further questions about the Inspectorate's operations, please contact me at the above address.
  81

  PSV spot checks 1992–93 and 1993–94

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Traffic area

  Number of PSVs inspected

  Immediate prohibitions

  Delayed prohibitions

  Number of PSVs inspected

  Immediate Prohibitions

  Delayed prohibitions

  Scotland

  4,059

  264

  157

  4,292

  234

  130

  S. Western

  4,813

  245

  135

  5,191

  316

  170

  N. Eastern

  4,237

  138

  90

  4,604

  277

  261

  S. Wales

  1,853

  110

  117

  2,035

  81

  79

  West Midlands

  2,471

  68

  50

  3,491

  86

  79

  Western

  2,883

  139

  146

  2,947

  89

  128

  Eastern

  2,995

  124

  92

  3,060

  150

  99

  S. Eastern

  6,231

  211

  280

  4,066

  164

  255

  Total

  29,542

  1,299

  1,067

  29,686

  1,397

  1,197

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was allocated for seedcorn research to the Transport Research Laboratory during(a) the current financial year and (b) the three previous financial years.

  Mr. Norris
  The answer is:

  (a) The Department of Transport has allocated £500,000 to the Transport Research Laboratory for seedcorn research in the current financial year 1994–95.

  (b) The amounts allocated previously were:

  in the year 1993–94, £640,000;

  in the year 1992–93, £800,000;

  in the year 1991–92, £550,000.

  Blackwall Tunnel
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) who in his Department receives regular reports on significant interruptions to the north-bound traffic intending to use the Blackwall tunnel;

  (2) if he will estimate the cost-benefit ratio of staffing a special unit to react to indications from detection equipment by diverting over-height vehicles away from the north-bound Blackwall tunnel before traffic is blocked;

  (3) how often drivers or operators of oversized vehicles are charged with an offence if they block the flow of traffic north-bound through the Blackwall tunnel;

  (4) what is his Department's responsibility for (a) the north-bound Blackwall tunnel and (b) its approach road;

  (5) how long it takes on average to unblock traffic at the north-bound Blackwall tunnel after an over-height vehicle blockage.

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Peter Bottomley dated 10 January 1995:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Transport to reply to your recent parliamentary questions about the Blackwall Tunnel, as you have raised a number of operational matters that are now the responsibility of the Highways Agency. The Highways Agency acts in these matters on behalf of the Secretary of State who remains the Highway Authority for both the Blackwall Tunnel and its approach roads.
  The delays at the northbound Blackwall Tunnel are often, but not always, caused by overheight vehicles stopped in the tunnel approach slope by automatically triggered traffic signals. Each incident is dealt with by police officers under the direction of the East London Traffic Control Centre (ELTCC) and takes about fifteen minutes to clear. It is usually possible for ELTCC to get one
  82
  lane of traffic moving within a few minutes using a CCTV and loudspeaker system. The offending vehicle must not be reversed until traffic police arrive at the scene. A dedicated unit situated at the approach to the tunnel would have to be staffed by police as only they have the powers to stop and direct traffic. The police, however, share my view that such an arrangement would have few benefits over the present system. A large number of tall vehicles legitimately use Tunnel Avenue as the only access from the south to the northern tip of the Greenwich Peninsular. These drivers are therefore perfectly entitled to use the A102 to the Blackwall Tunnel before turning off adjacent to the tunnel approach slope, and it would be impossible for an officer to separate out those heading for the peninsular from the real offenders until the point that they are stopped now.
  The ELTCC prepare a daily report on incidents for the Highways Agency's office in Docklands where staff are able to monitor incidents on a CCTV link. There are usually between 50 and 60 incidents a month. About 70% of these offenders are processed through the courts or issued with a fixed penalty notice. The balance, which tend to be those only slightly overheight, receive a verbal warning. The police also write to all the haulage companies concerned.
  These measures have reduced the number of incidents and have avoided any damage to the fabric of the tunnel itself. We are however continually looking for further ways of improving the situation, for example, we are looking into the feasibility of providing an escape ramp to avoid the need for offending vehicles to have to reverse out of the Tunnel approach. But it is too early yet to say what the outcome will be.
  I do hope that this answers the points you raised with the Secretary of State, but please contact me if I can be of further assistance.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent by his Department on the youth training scheme during(a) the current financial year and (b) the three previous financial years.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has spent £35,739.38 date in the current financial year on the youth training scheme. Expenditure in 1993–94, 1992–93 and 1991–92 was £76,237.19, £85,287.85 and £103,652.42 respectively.

  Preferred Carrier Status
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which airlines have been granted preferred carrier status for civil servants' travel to overseas destinations.
  83
  Mr. Norris
  Each Government Department is responsible for obtaining value for money for its own expenditure on overseas travel. My Department has not granted preferred carrier status to any airline.

  River Thames
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the criteria or basis used in the estimate of capital cost of(a) the river-bus vessels for 62 passengers and (b) larger vessels for 200 passengers as mentioned on page 45 of the report of his River Thames working group.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 19 December 1994]: I am having the data on costs verified and will write to the hon. Member very shortly.

  Motor Insurance
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken following the report of the Association of British Insurers, the Motor Insurance Bureau and Lloyds Motor Underwriters on measures to combat motor insurance fraud.

  Mr. Norris
  Departmental officials have been involved in discussions with the insurance industry since July. Evasion is a complex issue with implications across several Departments. We are looking at the feasibility of a number of possible measures to combat this serious offence. We hope to have reached positive conclusions in the course of the next few months.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the number of uninsured motorists.

  Mr. Norris
  In 1993, there were 281,136 convictions in England and Wales for driving without insurance. The insurance industry estimates that 4 to 6 per cent. of drivers are uninsured and a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report also estimates 6 per cent.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the current chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency achieved his performance bonus this year; and what is his salary as the chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  Mr. Norris
  The current chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency achieved a performance bonus of £2,934 in respect of the financial year 1993–94. His salary as chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will be £52,704 per annum.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the current chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency achieved his performance bonus this year; and what is his current salary as head of the renewing of the traffic area office network.

  Mr. Norris
  The current chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency earned a non-consolidated performance bonus of £6,762 in recognition of the achievement of the agency's performance targets for the financial year 1993–94. This was in place of the normal 84
  personal performance pay award arrangements normally applicable to civil servants at the same grade. On 3 January he began a review of the traffic area network and his salary will be £54,118 per annum.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was(a) the cost of road accidents in 1993 in England and Wales and (b) his Department's expenditure on related research in that year; and what is the planned spending for 1994 and 1995.

  Mr. Norris
  The estimated total cost of injury road accidents in England and Wales for 1993 is £8.1 billion. This is the cost-benefit value of the total benefits which would be obtained from the prevention of road accidents.

  Expenditure on road and vehicle safety research in 1993–94 was £10.4 million and the planning budget is £10.08 million for both 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Taxis
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to the regulation of hackney carriage and private hire cabs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 6 December, column 181.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December,Official Report, column 874–75, to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) what was the date of his private visit to Newbury; how long he spent on his visit; what he saw; what other options he has asked the Highways Agency to explore; and which of the requested options has not been already considered.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I visited the Newbury area on 28 November 1994 for about three hours travelling on the A34 from the north and south through the centre of Newbury. I also visited a number of sites to the west of the town to view parts of the published bypass route, as part of my consideration of the proposal. I have asked the Highways Agency to review the options to relieve congestion in Newbury as a matter of urgency.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of the 1988 inspector's inquiry into the route of the A34 Newbury bypass; and how many man hours of(a) the inspector's and (b) other officials' time were involved.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The recorded costs of the 1988 A34 Newbury bypass public inquiry total about £140,000. This sum includes the cost of the inspector, his traffic assessor, the Department's counsel and the physical arrangements for the inquiry but excludes salary costs of others preparing for and attending the inquiry for which records are not available.

  The inspector and his assessor spent about 1,230 and 640 hours respectively in connection with the inquiry. The number of hours spent by other officials preparing for and attending the inquiry have not been recorded.

  London Transport
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff are expected to be working for London Transport following the reorganisation announced by the chairman of London Transport on 24 November 1994.

  Mr. Norris
  London Transport is currently drawing up detailed plans for implementation of the reorganisation announced by its chairman. The management of London Transport will wish to discuss plans for staff reductions with staff representatives and trades unions. London Transport will not be able to give a reliable estimate of future staff numbers until its plans have been completed.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with London Transport over its staff reorganisation.

  Mr. Norris
  London Transport's plans for reorganisation are among a number of matters which my right hon. Friend and I have recently discussed with the chairman of London Transport.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the likely impact of reorganisation of London Transport of its ability to carry out its statutory duties under the London regional Transport Act 1984 and its wider statutory duty to plan for London's transport needs.

  Mr. Norris
  It is primarily for the chairman and board of London Transport to ensure that it is organised in a way which enables it to carry out its statutory duties appropriately and effectively. I am satisfied that they have taken full account of their statutory obligations in drawing up their reorganisation plans.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff worked for London Transport on 24 November 1994.

  Mr. Norris
  London Transport employed 20,437 permanent staff—full-time equivalent—on 12 November 1994, the nearest date for which figures are available from its management accounts.

  Electronic Mail
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.

  Mr. Norris
  Current projects and plans are likely to provide internal and external electronic mail facilities for my office and my headquarters staff during 1996, following relocation to a new HQ building in 1995.

  Peakes Parkway
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the funding for Humberside county council concerning phase 3 of the Peakes parkway.

  Mr. Norris
  The local transport capital settlement for 1995–96 which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 15 December,Official Report, columns 769–74 did not include funding for this scheme. Schemes are accepted for transport supplementary grant on condition that satisfactory progress is maintained and that costs do not rise excessively. In this case, the scheme was originally accepted for grant in 1993–94, when Humberside county council forecast that construction would start in September 1993. The latest forecast start
  86
  date is December 1995. Meanwhile, the estimated cost of the scheme has already risen by over 10 per cent.

  In the circumstances, my right hon. Friend and I did not consider it right to maintain our commitment to fund this scheme. This does not prevent its being resubmitted for funding in a future settlement.

  North Circular Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department received regarding the Willoughby Lane gas works, offered as exchange open space in the north circular road widening project, and the 1988 public inquiry into the roads; and what response he has made.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr Harry Cohen, dared 10 January 1995:
  Steven Norris has asked me to write to you about your question in the House in which you asked about representations received by the Department regarding the former Willoughby Lane gas works, being given as exchange land for public open space required for an improvement of the North Circular Road.
  No representations were received regarding the exchange land, during the statutory period for objecting to the formal proposals, after the public inquiry or before the orders were made and the exchange land certificate issued.
  The Agency has been in correspondence for some considerable time with the local authority, the London Borough of Enfield, about the details of the exchange land and associated technical matters. More recently, it has also been in correspondence with Enfield Friends of the Earth about the condition of the land at the former gas works. The Agency has supplied all the information requested for which it is responsible.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer of 19 December,Official Report, column 1385, to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) concerning the extension of the docklands light railway from Beckton to Thamesmead, if he will obtain estimates of the cost of a single line and double line tunnel respectively for that railway across the Thames on an alignment close to that proposed for the east London river crossing.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 23 November 1994,Official Report, column 381.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what future representation or information he has received concerning the sinking of the MV Derbyshire and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend is considering the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents' assessment of the sonar and video material provided by the International Transport Workers Federation, and whether further action needs to be taken.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made as to the additional costs which will be incurred by his Department as a result of the changes in national telephone dialing
  87
  codes next year; and how much this change will cost his Department in additional expenditure.

  Mr. Norris
  An assessment covered changes to switch board arrangements and revised stationery. The additional costs will be about £3,000.

  Children's Clothing (Reflective Material)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will consider making recommendations to manufacturers to incorporate reflective materials on garments, bags and rucksacks designed for use by children.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 19 December 1994]: We encourage retailers and manufacturers to consider marketing more outer garments with build-in visibility. A number of companies manufacture, market or promote fluorescent and reflective products for use by children. In October we carried out a "Be Safe. Be Seen" initiative with support from 3M(UK).

  Channel Tunnel
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the arrangements for joint safety meetings following the commission of the channel tunnel rail services.

  Mr. Watts
  Under the terms of the treaty of Canterbury the bi-national intergovernmental commission and safety authority are established for the lifetime of the concession agreement with the channel tunnel operators, Eurotunnel, and will continue to meet at regular intervals to consider safety and other matters.

  Scottish Control Zone
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Scottish control zone and the Prestwick control zone were abolished; what was the reason for their abolition; and what consultations took place in advance of their decision.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 16 December 1994]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Civil Aviation Authority has the responsibility for airspace planning. They advise that the Prestwick control zone—formally the Prestwick special rules zone—was abolished on 3 March 1993. On 3 March 1994 the Scottish Zone and parts of the Scottish terminal control area were abolished.

  Reviews are routinely carried out on the use made of controlled airspace to identify those portions that are under-utilised or no longer serve the purpose for which they were established. This is in accordance with ministerial direction to the CAA and the national air traffic services. Such a review showed that the number of passenger public transport aircraft using Prestwick airport had declined to the level where the provision of controlled airspace was no longer necessary. After the review, NATS consulted the Prestwick airport operator, British Aerospace Flying College—the then principle user of Prestwick airport—the Ministry of Defence, and the National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee, as well as its own Scottish air traffic control centre about the changes from late 1991 until early 1994.
  88

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the latest appraisal system supplied to immigration officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A list has been placed in the Library of the standard main tasks and performance levels against which managers assess the performance of immigration officers at ports.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether immigration officers have been given a quota for refusing foreign nationals entry to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There are no refusal quotas for immigration officers. All passengers are dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the immigration rules laid down by Parliament.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all operational targets which apply to the immigration service.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Service standards are set for the immigration service relating to maximum passenger queuing times at ports of entry. These are set out in the service's published operating plan, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the tariff sentences he imposed on Abdul Qayyum Raja and Mohammed Riaz; what action he has taken in these matters following the judgment of the High Court on 16 December; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The judgment effectively requires the Secretary of State to reconsider the cases of these two prisoners, and to set a fresh tariff for each. He will do so following receipt of any further representations which they may wish to make in the light of further disclosure which has been given to them. We are in correspondence with their legal representatives about these matters.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether immigration officers have been given a quota system for(a) interrogating or (b) refusing foreign nationals entry into the United Kingdom; whether their earnings are linked to such targets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There are no quotas of any kind for immigration officers. All passengers are dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the immigration rules laid down by Parliament.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals have been made against payments offered under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board since 1 April 1994; and what has been the administrative cost of processing those appeals.

  Mr. Maclean
  The tariff scheme started on 1 April 1994. Applications lodged before then are being dealt with by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Applications lodged subsequently are being handled by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
  89
  CICB advises that at the end of December 1994 3,357 appeals had been lodged since 1 April 1994, all in respect of applications made before that date. Based on expenditure in 1993–94, the administrative cost of processing this number of appeals is likely to be about £2.5 million.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offers of payment were made by the criminal injuries compensation scheme in November; and in which of the tariff bands these awards fell.

  Mr. Maclean
  Five hundred and ninety five offers of award were made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, under the tariff scheme. They fell into the following tariff bands:

  Band

  Number of awards offered

  1

  135

  2

  36

  3

  158

  4

  8

  5

  59

  6

  26

  7

  87

  8

  22

  9

  8

  10

  11

  11

  6

  12

  36

  13

  1

  16

  2

  Additionally, offers of award were made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in respect of residual cases lodged before 1 April 1994 under the former arrangements. The CICB is however, unable to say how many such offers were made in November 1994.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice his Department is giving applicants to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority about the outcome of their applications in the event of a legal challenge to the establishment of the authority being successful.

  Mr. Maclean
  Applications under the scheme are considered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, not the Home or Scottish Offices. In a standard notice sent to all claimants offered a tariff award, CICA explains that, pending resolution of the legal challenge, the award is being made on a provisional, without prejudice basis, and that if the tariff scheme is withdrawn or altered as a result of the court proceedings the application would be reassessed.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of administering the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in 1993–94; and what proportion of that cost was devoted to dealing with appeals.

  Mr. Maclean
  The provisional outturn cost of administering the CICB in 1993–94 was £17.3 million, of which an estimated £3.4 million—19.6 per cent.—was devoted to hearings administration.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many payments were made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each month from April 1992 to April 1994.
  90
  Mr. Maclean
  The total number of awards made by the CICB in the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1994 was 77,273. The CICB is unable to provide a breakdown by month.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department how many payments were made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board between(a) 1 April 1993 and 1 April 1994 and (b) 1 April 1994 and 21 November 1994 in the bands: (i) £1,000 to £4,999, (ii) £5,000 to £9,999, (iii) £10,000 to £24,999 and (iv) above £25,000.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following information has been provided by the CICB:

  a) payments made between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1994

  32,345 between £1,000—£4,999

  3,398 between £5,000—£9,999

  2,139 over £10,000.

  b) payments made between 1 April 1994 and 31 October 1994 (figures not available after that date)

  10,801 between £1,000—£4,999

  1,306 between £5,000—£9,999

  975 over £10,000

  No further breakdown of payments exceeding £10,000 is readily available.

  In addition the CICA made two payments in the period 1 April 1994 to 31 October 1994, one in the category £1,000 to £4,999, the other in the category £5,000 to £9,999.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to publish each month, the number of offers made by the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. Information about the number of offers made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will be published each year in the authority's annual report. We see no need for more frequent publication.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of the Home Department what plans he has for uprating the level of compensation payable by the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made during debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill on 20 October 1994,Official Report, column 452.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total level of section 11 expenditure in London in 1994–95; what level is planned for 1995–96; and how it will be allocated.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The table shows budget allocations of section 11 grant which have been notified to local authorities and other recipients in the Greater London area in relation to their expenditure in 1994–95.

  Allocations for existing projects which will still be running in 1995–96 should be notified to grant recipients shortly. The methodology for calculating these allocations is currently the subject of consultation with local authority associations. Applications for grant for new projects starting in 1995–96 are under consideration.
  91

  Section 11 allocation 1994–95

  London Borough Councils

  Barking and Dagenham

  230,860

  Barnet

  748,243

  Bexley

  100,138

  Brent

  1,742,385

  Camden

  1,111,346

  Croydon

  949,775

  Ealing

  2,615,675

  Enfield

  1,058,164

  Greenwich

  1,329,673

  Hackney

  3,147,620

  Hammersmith

  713,289

  Haringey

  2,604,874

  Harrow

  556,992

  Havering

  39,169

  Hillingdon

  317,055

  Hounslow

  1,389,502

  Islington

  1,434,673

  Kensington and Chelsea

  899,845

  Kingston

  105,071

  Lambeth

  1,109,603

  Lewisham

  1,637,467

  London Boroughs Grants Unit

  123,071

  Merton

  490,246

  Newham

  2,181,976

  Redbridge

  918,005

  Richmond

  56,225

  Southwark

  1,955,157

  Sutton

  46,902

  Tower Hamlets

  6,826,782

  Waltham Forest

  1,585,015

  Wandsworth

  1,396,800

  Westminster

  1,498,548

  Sub-total

  40,920,146

  Grant maintained schools

  Burntwood (Wandsworth)

  55,687

  Chadwell Heath (Redbridge)

  15,047

  Claremont (Harrow)

  13,629

  Copeland (Brent)

  33,860

  Dormers Wells Junior School (Ealing)

  41,425

  Graveney (Wandsworth)

  69,720

  Greenford (Ealing)

  39,461

  Hendon (Barnet)

  28,041

  London Oratory (Hammersmith and Fulham)

  38,025

  Northolt (Ealing)

  5,379

  Raines Foundation (Tower Hamlets)

  27,146

  St. Lukes (Kingston)

  1,671

  St. Francis Xavier (Wandsworth)

  9,576

  St. Thomas the Apostle College (Southwark)

  10,322

  Salesian School (Wandsworth)

  28,010

  Stratford (Newham)

  54,277

  Wood End (Ealing)

  6,815

  Sub-total

  478,091

  Further Education Colleges

  Barnet

  59,505

  Bexley

  24,920

  Croydon

  77,665

  Ealing

  93,710

  Enfield

  111,567

  Greenhill

  162,085

  Hackney

  234,260

  Hammersmith and West London

  28,865

  Hendon

  128,419

  92

  Section 11 allocation 1994–95

  Islington

  67,102

  Kensington and Chelsea

  33,119

  Kingsway

  49,613

  Leyton 6th Form

  18,574

  Newham

  225,627

  North East London

  124,985

  North West London

  352,602

  Southgate

  49,649

  Tower Hamlets

  356,733

  Uxbridge

  51,481

  Waltham Forest

  35,591

  Wandsworth

  48,140

  City of Westminster

  44,189

  Woolwich

  24,583

  Sub-total

  2,402,984

  Grand total

  43,801,221

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what medical services are available to asylum seekers and others held in detention under immigration laws; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Detainees in immigration detention centres and Prison Service establishments have access on a daily basis to a doctor. There is also a nurse present daily at the Harmondsworth and Campsfield house detention centres. A detainee who requires further medical attention may be transferred to a prison or outside hospital.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been received from citizens of republics of the former Yugoslavia for each of the years 1992, 1993 and 1994; how many have been agreed; how many refused; and how many are still awaiting a decision.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on the number of applications for asylum received from nationals of the former Yugoslavia, and decisions made, for the years 1992, 1993 and until the end of November 1994 is given in the table. As at 30 November 1994, an estimated 6,200 applications for asylum from former Yugoslays were outstanding.

  In addition to consideration of asylum applications, the Government have, under arrangements announced in November 1992 and June 1993, offered to receive 1,000 particularly vulnerable individuals from the former Yugoslavia and those close dependants, an estimated 4,000 people in all. As at 9 January 1995, 836 particularly vulnerable individuals and 1,134 dependants had arrived under these arrangements. Prior to this, 68 sick and wounded ex-detainees from Bosnia arrived in September 1992.
  93

  Decisions1 on applications1 received for asylum from nationals of the former Yugoslavia in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1992 to end-November 1994

  Number of principal applicants

  1992

  1993

  71994

  Asylum applications2

  5,635

  1,830

  1,255

  Decisions (2)(3)

  130

  175

  1,655

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  *

  —

  25

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain4

  *

  55

  1,180

  Refused asylum and ELR - after full consideration

  —

  10

  350

  Refused under para. 180F5

  65

  80

  70

  Refused on safe third country grounds6

  60

  30

  25

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5, with'*' = 1 or 2.

  2 Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same year.

  4 Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  5 For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity (para. 101 prior to 26 July 1993).

  6 Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  7 Figures up to end-November 1994.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 379, if he has asked for a report on the success of Operation Brink by the West Midlands police force.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. This is an operational matter that falls entirely within the responsibility of the chief constable.

  Stefan Kiszko
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the inquiry by the Lancashire police into the Stefan Kiszko case.

  Mr. Maclean
  A report was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which announced on 11 May 1994 that Mr. Richard Holland, a former detective superintendent with West Yorkshire Constabulary, and Mr. Ronald Outteridge, a retired Home Office forensic scientist, are to be prosecuted on charges of perverting the course of justice.

  Blood Sports
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to the cost of policing blood sport events.

  Mr. Maclean
  The deployment of police officers to specific duties is a matter for the chief officer of police. Details of the costs of policing field sports are not held centrally.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how may arrests have been made at blood sport events since the implementation of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
  94
  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of people arrested for specific offences is not collected centrally.

  Information on cautioning and court proceedings data under sections 68 and 69—summary offences of aggravated trespass—of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will not be available until autumn 1996.

  Black People
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of black people in the United Kingdom were the victims of murder or homicide in the last year for which figures are available; and what information he has on the equivalent figure in the United States of America.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally for England and Wales.

  Figures for Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Figures for the United States are, of course, a matter for the United States Government, but I understand that the proportion of black people in the United States of America who were victims of murder and non-negligent manslaughter in 1993 is 37 per 100,000 according to the United States Department of Justice. For comparison, the proportion of the total England and Wales population who were victims of currently recorded homicide during 1993 was 1.2 per 100,000.

  Hampshire Police
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total expenditure for Hampshire police authority in 1994–95.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest estimate of total current and capital expenditure by the Hampshire police authority in 1994–95 is £150.6 million.

  Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the case of Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal, held in Bedford prison.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Proceedings in respect of Mr. Chahal's application to the European Commission of Human Rights concerning the decision to deport him from the United Kingdom are continuing. He will not be removed from the United Kingdom before completion of these proceedings. Mr. Chahal's detention is regularly reviewed, and my right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that it continues to be fully justified.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population broken down by security category, at the latest date available, for(a) Doncaster prison, (b) The Wolds prison and (c) the female wing at Durham prison.

  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.
  95
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 10 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the prison population broken down by security category, at the

  Adults

  Cat A

  Cat B

  Cat C

  Cat D

  Not yet categorised

  Young offenders

  Total

  Doncaster

  0

  10

  61

  39

  256

  368

  734

  The Wolds

  0

  16

  62

  35

  179

  0

  292

  Young offenders are only given a security category when Category A is applicable.

  Unless Category A is applicable, adult male prisoners are not given a security category until after conviction and sentence.

  There are 35 female prisoners held at Durham prison, including one Category A. Female prisoners are only given a security category when Category A is applicable.

ENVIRONMENT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now able to publish draft capital finance regulations relating to the measures under the Government's private finance initiative which he announced on 31 October 1994.

  Mr. Curry
  We have today issued for consultation to the local authority associations and to local authorities the draft of regulations which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment proposes to make under part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. We have asked for comments to be submitted by 13 February 1995. I have arranged for copies of the draft order, together with an explanatory guide, to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The regulations provide:
  —for two major relaxations in the rules governing local authority leasing of non-housing property, extending the revenue treatment of leases from three years to 10 years and enabling capital finance cover to be transferred from one lease to another on surrender or assignment;
  —that notional receipts from disposals of assets to companies in return for shares will no longer require set aside; and
  —that the reserved part of capital receipts from disposals of shares will be reduced from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. if they were acquired before 10 March 1988 or acquired for the purposes of economic development, or if they are in a company connected with waste disposal or the provision of entertainment facilities.

  Housing Associations, Gateshead
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the impact of current and projected future housing association funding both on housing and job creation opportunities in the Gateshead metropolitan borough area.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Housing Corporation estimates that allocations from its approved development programme in 1994–95 for new scheme approvals in the Gateshead metropolitan borough area will total some £2.5 million in 1994–95. Allocations issued for 1995–96 also amount to some £2.5 million. This is expected to enable 126 new social lettings to be approved in 1994–95, and 145 in 1995–96 as a result of the more cost effective use
  96 latest date available, for (a) Doncaster prison, (b) The Wolds prison and (c) the female wing at Durham prison.
  The information requested, as at 19 December 1994, is as follows:

  of resources. Information on jobs created by the approved development programme is not available.

  Housing Corporation
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what analysis he has made of the consequences of changes to the Housing Corporation's approved development programme.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The public resources for the Housing Corporation's approved development programme in 1995–96 will amount to almost £1.2 billion. This is expected to provide some 52,000 new social lettings in 1995–96. We estimate that Housing Corporation and local authority expenditure, and the private finance they will attract, will produce some 180,000 new social lettings over the next three years.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what analysis he has conducted of the consequences to the construction industry resulting from changes in the Housing Corporation's approved development programme; and if he will make such information available.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Modest and sustained growth in the construction industry is expected to continue. The next stage of the construction industry report, which is produced jointly by the Department of the Environment and representatives of the construction industry, will be completed very soon. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the funding for the Housing Corporation's approved development programme in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The public resources for the Housing Corporation's approved development programme in 1993–94 totalled some £1.8 billion enabling the Housing Corporation to provide 56,500 new social lettings in 1993–94. In 1994–95 public funding for the approved development programme will amount to some £1.5 billion, which the Housing Corporation estimates will, with more cost-effective use of public resources, provide over 60,000 new lettings.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total expenditure in Hampshire by the Housing Corporation for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Housing Corporation estimates that some £26 million of the Housing Corporation's capital budget for 1994–95 will be spent in Hampshire.

  Building Control Fees
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he received from the
  97
  National House Building Council prior to his decision to increase local authority building control fees from 1 October.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Together with many other consultees, the NHBC responded with comments and suggestions on the Department's consultation letter of 30 March 1993 proposing changes to the fees regulations. It subsequently wrote three letters reinforcing points in its original submission.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps he took to consult on the level of local authority building control fees prior to their increase in 1 October; and what were the results of those consultations;

  (2) what considerations led to the increase from 1 October of building control fees charged by local authorities.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Preliminary discussions were held over a long period with local authority representatives. There followed a consultants' study into local authority fee income and costs. Based on the conclusions of the above discussions and on the results of the study, two public consultations were carried out into the form and fee levels for new regulations. The responses were considered by the building regulations advisory committee and by a working group made up of members of the committee and representatives of the local authority associations. In the light of these consultations, and the consideration of the responses, the Building (Prescribed Fees) Regulations 1994 were made.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received since announcing the increase in local authority building control fees.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department has received 39 representations on local authority building control fees up to and including 6 January 1995. Twenty-four were principally about the level of increase in fees for new housebuilding, of which 20 were from local authorities. The remaining representations, largely from individuals, were about the size of the increase for all types of buildings or were concerned with the fee levels for house extensions or for commercial work.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what calculations he has made of the effect on local authority revenue of the increase in local authority building control fees in the light of the decision of the National House Building Council to freeze its fees.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  None. We propose to make arrangements to monitor the future levels of local authority fee income and costs without placing unnecessary burdens on local authorities. The level of fees charged by NHBC Building Control Services Limited is a matter for it.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has consulted the National Council for Aviculture on the setting up of a DNA register for birds of prey; and if he will make a statement.
  98
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department has not undertaken any specific consultations on the setting up of a DNA register for birds of prey. However, I explained in reply to the question from the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 20 December,Official Report, columns 1115–1116, that the Department has established a working group to review the enforcement of wildlife controls. The future role of genetic testing in relation to the bird registration system is one of the issues being considered by this working group, on which the National Council for Aviculture is represented. I shall be making a further announcement about the use of DNA in the near future.

  Electronic Mail
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  About a third of the staff in ray Department already have available to them electronic mail facilities for internal communication. A fully advanced office support system project is now under way which will, amongst other things, provide full electronic mail links across all areas of the Department, and the ability to communicate via external networks, during the next three years.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on Internet and the documents which he intends to be made available on Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server "open.gov.UK" or any specific departmental server.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on 30 November,Official Report, column 728.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what directives or advice have been given by his Department to the National Rivers Authority regarding non-prosecution of the privatised water companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. The National Rivers Authority has full discretion in using its enforcement powers in order to fulfil its role of protecting the water environment and dealing with pollution. The effectiveness of NRA enforcement action has contributed to continuing progress in improving water quality.

  Home Owners
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many families who bought a home in the last two years included(a) one, (b) two and (c) three or more earners.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The available estimates are of numbers of households in England with two or more people in them who in 1993–94 had bought a home in the previous two years. Of these, 230,000 had one person in employment, 720,000 had two persons in employment and 80,000 had three or more persons in employment. There
  99
  were also 290,000 purchasers who were one person households and were in employment.

  These figures are from the "Survey of English Housing" and are subject to sampling error.

  Rural Development Commission
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment what was(a) the historic cost and (b) the cost at 1994 prices of the Rural Development Commission's (i) training workshops and (ii) total facility in Salisbury.

  Mr. Atkins
  The cost of the training workshops in 1994 prices is £40,612 with the total Rural Development Commission facility in Salisbury costing £207,816. This compares with the estimated cost of the workshops in 1988, the year in which the commission was established, of £37,420 against a total cost of £191,507.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the independent review of the Rural Development Commission' straining activities.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Rural Development Commission is required to carry out periodic value for money reviews of all its economic and social development programmes. As

  Discipline

  New entrants training scheme

  Open courses

  Marginal cost of training per apprentice (NETS)

  Total cost of training per apprentice including fixed costs

  Marginal cost per student

  Total cost per student

  Woodwork

  3,876

  4,956

  361

  771

  Forgework

  6,004

  8,178

  146

  360

  Furniture

  8,241

  9,969

  68

  303

  Upholstery

  3,030

  5,162

  386

  865

  Saddlery

  4,438

  6,998

  71

  364

  Thatching (nets only)

  3,500

  3,500

  0

  0

  GRP plastics

  3,129

  4,919

  165

  558

  ENG fabrication (nets only)

  3,042

  3,042

  0

  0

  Farriery (nets only)

  6,500

  6,500

  0

  0

  Wheelwrighting

  5,440

  5,440

  279

  553

  Notes:

  1. Marginal costs include salaries and other related costs of tutors.

  2. Fixed costs include an apportionment of administration and other overhead costs.

  3. For some disciplines the running of the courses has been contracted out and this is why there is no difference between marginal and fixed costs.

  4. For open courses the costs are net and take account of fees paid by students.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the Rural Development Commission's 1993 strategy document.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have today arranged for copies of the Rural Development Commission's document, "Rural Development Strategy for the 1990s", published in December 1993, to be placed in the Library of each House.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he was informed by the Rural Development Commission of the possible winding down of its direct training commitment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend has not been informed by the Rural Development Commission of a100
  part of this process the commission engaged ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd to carry out a review of its training services which support economic development. I have today arranged for copies of ECOTEC's report of its review to be placed in the Library of each House.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date officials were informed by the Rural Development Commission of the possible winding down of their direct training commitment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Officials in the Department were informed that the rural development commissioners were considering various options for the future provision of training, including the possible winding down of the facilities at the commission's Salisbury offices, following the commissioners' meeting on 22 November 1994. A final decision has yet to be taken on the future of the direct training facilities. The commissioners are planning to discuss this issue further later this month.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the(a) marginal cost and (b) total cost of training a craftsman in each of the skills offered on the various training schemes of the Rural Development Commission based in Salisbury.

  Mr. Atkins
  The marginal and fixed costs are as follows:

  possible winding down of its direct training commitment. Department officials informed my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Sir Paul Beresford, on 14 December 1994 that the commissioners were considering various options for the future provision of the commission's direct training services which assist rural economic development.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by skill the number of craftsmen trained by Rural Development Commission staff based in Salisbury for each year since the facility was built.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of craftsmen and craftswomen who have had all or some of their training provided by Rural Development Commission staff based in Salisbury is as follows:
  101

  Table 1: Number of apprentices trained

  NETS

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Farriery

  115

  113

  117

  118

  122

  119

  91

  94

  102

  115

  125

  105

  25

  Thatching

  33

  34

  30

  25

  29

  16

  24

  24

  28

  21

  29

  22

  25

  Forgework

  22

  27

  39

  40

  36

  38

  32

  38

  37

  44

  26

  19

  25

  Saddlery

  16

  17

  15

  14

  14

  14

  12

  13

  16

  14

  15

  15

  15

  Furniture

  16

  21

  28

  28

  35

  36

  32

  35

  49

  41

  26

  31

  24

  Upholstery

  4

  8

  11

  18

  12

  17

  18

  11

  13

  12

  7

  12

  24

  Woodworking

  12

  14

  27

  51

  54

  59

  50

  55

  64

  60

  53

  37

  36

  Wheelwrighung

  —

  —

  4

  4

  9

  3

  3

  2

  2

  7

  4

  9

  5

  General Engineering/Fabrication

  10

  19

  22

  18

  13

  13

  12

  13

  16

  20

  13

  12

  20

  Agricultural Miscellaneous Repairs

  12

  22

  27

  29

  18

  14

  17

  9

  5

  16

  —

  —

  —

  Plastics

  6

  12

  12

  11

  14

  11

  12

  7

  11

  16

  9

  9

  6

  General Building

  1

  8

  13

  14

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dry Stone Walling

  6

  3

  9

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  253

  298

  354

  376

  359

  341

  303

  301

  343

  366

  307

  271

  205

  Table 2: Number of craftworkers attending open courses

  Open courses

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  —

  19

  —

  21

  18

  4

  16

  —

  Thatching

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  24

  75

  27

  30

  2

  2

  8

  —

  Forgework

  20

  42

  55

  25

  9

  25

  42

  13

  28

  36

  23

  18

  18

  Saddlery

  25

  26

  24

  37

  18

  12

  28

  49

  67

  53

  48

  50

  50

  Furniture

  30

  35

  42

  38

  45

  99

  74

  61

  40

  37

  52

  53

  51

  Upholstery

  20

  30

  30

  25

  26

  28

  14

  21

  20

  25

  11

  16

  13

  Woodworking

  5

  7

  —

  23

  39

  21

  33

  45

  67

  30

  27

  24

  14

  Wheelwrighting

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  5

  3

  —

  5

  4

  —

  14

  Welding

  12

  17

  8

  8

  7

  4

  7

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Microcomputers

  —

  206

  210

  99

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plastics

  12

  20

  8

  18

  16

  11

  27

  16

  10

  6

  8

  10

  15

  Pottery

  —

  —

  —

  5

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Vehicle Electrics

  12

  12

  12

  9

  19

  51

  11

  —

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Builders Estimating

  25

  92

  22

  30

  123

  157

  97

  183

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wood Turning

  6

  12

  8

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electrical Estimating

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Supervisors course

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  167

  499

  419

  325

  403

  470

  432

  418

  338

  214

  179

  195

  175

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

  Mr. Atkins
  [pursuant to his reply 24 November 1994 column 241–42]: I regret that some of the factual information given in my answer was incorrect. The first paragraph of the answer should have read as follows:
  The CITES conference of the parties agreed new measures to strengthen the operation and effectiveness of the convention. Thirty species presently included on appendix 11 and 111 will be uplisted to appendix 1, and five species will be uplisted from appendix 111 to appendix 11. Twenty-two species presently on appendix 1 or 11 will be downlisted, including six which will be deleted from the appendices altogether. The current listing of a further eight species will be unchanged, but attached conditions will be relaxed. Thirty-three species will be added to the convention for the first time.

  Additionally the number of parties given in paragraph 9 of my answer should have been 124 instead of 126.

  Housing (HIV)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what technical or economic reasons arose from the research commissioned from the Building Research Establishment by his Department to inform the review of part M of the building regulations on why all new housing could not be built with level thresholds as an essential element of independent living for people with HIV.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government will shortly be consulting on proposals to revise the building regulations 102
  in England and Wales to make new housing more accessible to disabled people. One of the matters to be included in that consultation is the issue of level thresholds. A report on relevant research undertaken by the Building Research Establishment will be included in the consultation package.

  Rural Craftsmen
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his policy to give financial support to the training of craftsmen in traditional rural industries including farriery, saddlery and wheelwrighting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Rural Development Commission is the Government's rural regeneration agency and has statutory responsibility for keeping under review and advising my right hon. Friend upon all matters relating to the economic and social development of rural areas of England. The commission may carry out, or assist others to carry out, measures to further such development. Such measures can include the training of craftsmen in traditional rural industries where these are of importance to the rural economy. However, it is for the commission to decide the most appropriate and cost-effective means of delivering this support.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total budget of the southern regions of the National Rivers Authority for the financial year 1994–95.
  103
  Mr. Atkins
  I am informed by the National Rivers Authority that the total budget of its southern region for 1994–95 was £43.6 million.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made as to the additional costs which will be incurred by his Department as a result of the changes in national telephone dialling codes next year; and how much this change will cost his Department in additional expenditure.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  For my Department costs directly attributable to the change in national dialling codes amount to less than £100. There will be no on-going additional expenditure.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the reciprocal arrangements between his Department and the Italian authorities concerning RAF low flying training over Italy and Italian air force low flying over the United Kingdom specify(a) the maximum number of sorties and (b) requirements for flight authorisation.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no formal agreements relating to low flying training by the RAF over Italy or by the Italian air force over the United Kingdom. Requests for use of the low flying systems of Italy and the United Kingdom are considered individually by officials of the Ministry of Defence of the country in which the sorties will be flown. Such requests include details of the numbers of aircraft and the duration of deployment. Approval of such requests, if granted, would be conditional on the aircrews receiving a comprehensive face-to-face briefing on the regulations governing the use of the respective low flying system.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on conducting Royal Air Force police investigations of alleged breaches of low flying regulations which originate from sources other than witnesses on the ground.

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF police may be tasked to carry out an investigation in any case where it appears that a breach of low flying regulations may have occurred, regardless of the source of the complaint.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the RAF police investigations of alleged breaches of flying regulations during 1993 originated from(a) complaints from members of the public, (b) representations from hon. Members, (c) members of the armed forces and (d) other sources.

  Mr. Soames
  Of the 686 RAF police investigations in 1993, 39 originated from representations from hon. Members. A breakdown of investigations by the other categories listed could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the means employed to verify that non-United Kingdom based foreign aircrews conducting low-level flying training over 104
  the United Kingdom are observing low flying regulations during (a) the planning and (b) the execution of their sorties.

  Mr. Soames
  Foreign aircrews using the United Kingdom low flying system are subject to the same monitoring as United Kingdom crews to ensure compliance with low flying regulations.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums were paid by the Italian authorities for use of United Kingdom range and low-flying facilities in 1993.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not my Department's practice to release details of government-to-government payments of this kind.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 907, what is the current radius of the Eshott microlight avoidance area (a) for foreign military aircraft and (b) for British military aircraft; and if the operators of Eshott airfield are provided with information on the dimensions of the avoidance area;

  (2) in respect of which avoidance areas the diversions applying to foreign aircraft are different from those applying to British aircraft;

  (3) if the radius requirements in respect of the Eshott microlight avoidance area apply equally to all foreign aircraft.

  Mr. Soames
  It is my Department's policy not to release specific details of flying restrictions in individual areas, although we understand that the operators of Eshott airfield are aware of the dimensions of their avoidance. The dimensions of all avoidances apply equally to both United Kingdom and foreign military aircraft.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances other than official NATO squadron exchanges or exercises he grants permission to foreign aircrew to conduct low flying over the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  Each request for foreign aircraft to fly in the United Kingdom low flying system is considered on its merits, taking into account the principle of reciprocity, the mutual benefit of such flying to the United Kingdom and our allies and the wider defence interest.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 945, what rank of RAF officer authorised the flight by Italian air force aircraft on 14 July.

  Mr. Soames
  Use of the United Kingdom low flying system was authorised by my officials, and the specific sortie concerned was properly booked with the tactical booking cell at RAF West Drayton. There was no requirement for individual flight plans to be authorised by an RAF officer.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the date, number, type and nationality of aircraft involved, and source of the reported breach, for each confirmed breach of the Eshott microlight avoidance area in 1991 and 1992.
  105
  Mr. Soames
  Breaches of Eshott microlight site which were confirmed by RAF police investigations are detailed:

  Date

  Number and type of aircraft

  Nationality

  1991

  25 September

  4 F16s

  Royal Netherlands Air Force

  26 November

  2 Hawks

  RAF

  1992

  6 May

  1 Buccaneer

  RAF

  9 September

  5 Jaguars

  French Air Force

  12 November

  1 F15E

  USAF

  8 December

  1 Tornado

  RAF

  All were reported by staff working at the site.

  My answer of 1 December 1994, Official Report, column 907, stated that eight breaches occurred in 1992. Further investigation has, however, revealed that this figure included a number of cases where a breach was suspected but could not be confirmed by RAF investigations. The correct total for 1992 is four.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-level passes were conducted over Her Majesty's prison Stocken by an RAF Tornado on 27 September; what was the minimum authorised altitude for the passes; what use was made of reheat; what attack profiles were used; what consideration was given to the environmental effects of the activity on the surrounding population; and what was the sum recovered from the Prison Service in payment for the service.

  Mr. Soames
  Although the precise number was not recorded, between six and eight low-level passes were made over Her Majesty's prison Stocken on 27 September 1994 at the request of Her Majesty's Prison Service. The aircraft flew at a height of 1,000 ft in a figure of eight pattern centred on the prison. The pattern was rotated to avoid the undue concentration of environmental effects. On approaching the prison complex the aircraft descended to 250 ft and only used reheat when within the prison boundary for a period of five seconds on each pass. This task was conducted at the end of a normal training flight and no payments have been sought from the Prison Service.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-level sorties were conducted by Royal Air Force aircraft over Italy during 1993; and at what minimum altitudes.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Low flying by Royal Air Force aircraft in Italy is in general permitted down to 500 ft, although in certain specified areas flying down to 250 ft may be authorised.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the basis of the determination, contained in his Department's evidence to the Defence Select Committee, HC 314 of Session 1993–94, page 37, that the breach of the Dounreay nuclear power station avoidance area by two Portuguese aircraft on 21 September 1993, was inadvertent; and if a copy of the RAF police report on the incident was passed to the commanding officer of the aircrew concerned.

  Mr. Soames
  The aircraft concerned were carrying out a training sortie which, had the planned route been 106
  followed, would have taken them no closer than 10 nautical miles to the Dounreay power station. During the sortie the aircraft became lost; to regain its bearings, it flew north to the coast and then east back on to its planned route. In doing so, it inadvertently infringed the Dounreay avoidance area.

  A copy of the RAF police report was not sent to the commanding officer of the aircrew concerned as the matter had already been discussed with the senior officer of the Portuguese detachment concerned in a debrief at RAF Lossiemouth immediately after the sortie had been flown.

  Simulated Attacks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many telephone kiosks appear on the list of approved features for use as simulated targets for low-level toss or dive attack.

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are taken into consideration when reviewing the suitability of a particular feature for inclusion on the list of approved mock targets for toss or dive attack.

  Mr. Soames
  Features are carefully selected taking into account the location of nearby habitation, environmental and flight safety factors and their similarity to targets which might be encountered during operational sorties. Targets are surveyed by the RAF police before inclusion on the list.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the total number of simulated attack passes carried out during the recent incident involving Royal Air Force Tornados at Gollinglithfoot, Yorkshire; how many attack runs were made by each aircraft; what was the precise time of the incident; what type of exercise the planes were engaged in; and who authorised the exercise;

  (2) how many of the simulated attack runs carried out by Tornados from RAF Bruggen on a telephone kiosk in Gollinglithfoot were (a) toss attacks, (b) dive attacks and (c) level pass attacks.

  Mr. Soames
  Five Tornado aircraft each flew a single reconnaissance profile, similar to a level pass attack, between 1020 and 1038 hours on 28 June; a further five Tornados each flew a single reconnaissance profile between 1520 and 1535 that day. No toss or dive attacks were made. This activity was part of an exercise intended to evaluate the performance of squadron aircrew which was authorised by the Officer Commanding No. 31 Squadron RAF Bruggen.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the particular aspects of toss and dive attacks which limit them to specifically authorised features; and to what extent similar considerations are applied to level pass attacks.

  Mr. Soames
  To enhance deconfliction during toss and dive attacks, targets are allocated from an approved list to a single aircraft at a time. A level pass attack does not differ significantly from normal low-level flight, and no additional deconfliction arrangements are necessary.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions to Royal Air Force aircrew concerning the desirability of selecting(a) features in

  107
  villages and (b) buildings likely to be inhabited, as mock targets, were in force at the time of the incident at Gollinglithfoot, Yorkshire; and what changes have been made to these instructions since the incident.

  Mr. Soames
  Aircrews are instructed that when choosing any type of simulated target, they and authorising officers are to satisfy themselves that the briefed flight profile can be completed safely without infringing low flying regulations or airspace restrictions. Targets are to be selected with consideration for nearby habitation. Repetitive overflight of targets is prohibited unless essential to achieve training objectives, but no single location is to be overflown more than twice per aircraft during each sortie. These instructions were in force on 28 June when the activity occurred at Gollinglithfoot. No subsequent changes have been made.

  Captain Chris Kelly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the death of Captain Chris Kelly.

  Mr. Soames
  It would not be appropriate to make such a statement while the inquest into the death of Captain Kelly is pending.

  RAF Aircrew
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what qualifying criteria are required to be met by Royal Air Force aircrew before they are permitted to participate in(a) a tactical leadership training course and (b) a NATO tactical leadership programme course; what targets are set for the frequency of RAF combat-ready aircrew participation in such courses; and how many such courses have been held in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Soames
  The qualifying criteria for all aircrew participating in tactical leadership training is that they be at least combat ready. Combat-ready aircrew take part in a TLT once during their early career, although they may return later in a supervisory capacity. One TLT was carried out in 1991, and two courses have been held in each year since.

  The pre-course standard for all aircrew participating in the tactical leadership programme is as follows: 500 hours operation flying with 100 hours on aircraft type, with pilots qualified to lead a formation of two aircraft. In addition, half the pilots in any unit detachment to TLP must be qualified to lead a formation of four aircraft or more. No targets are set for the frequency of RAF aircrew participation in TLP. Six TLP courses have been held each year since 1991, and a further out-of-area course was held in 1993 and 1994.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the private sector to develop civil aviation at Royal Air Force Finningley; what replies he has received to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has made no representations to the private sector to develop civil aviation at Royal Air Force Finningley. We are, however, considering proposals put forward by the hon. Member.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the name and rank of Treasury 108
  officials participating in the defence costs study working group on Royal Air Force, Finningley; and what were the number of visits paid and formal meetings held by these teams.

  Mr. Soames
  There has never been a defence costs study working group on Royal Air Force Finningley. As part of a wider remit, however, one of the defence costs study teams examined flying training in all three services, including that conducted at RAF Finningley. The Treasury representative on the team was Mr. R. Devereux, a grade 5 official. There is no central record of all the visits paid and meetings held by the defence costs study teams and such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Air Force Bases (Security)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last inspection was made at(a) Royal Air Force Finningley and (b) Royal Air Force Macrahanish under the terms of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty; when the last arrest was made at each base under the base by-laws; and how many breaches of security there have been at each base over the last 18 months.

  Mr. Soames
  There have been no inspections under the terms of the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty at RAF Finningley and RAF Macrihanish; neither are declared INF inspection sites. There are no byelaws enacted under the Military Lands Acts at RAF Finningley and RAF Macrihanish; there have therefore been no arrests under any such byelaws. There have been no known unauthorised incursions at RAF Finningley and RAF Macrihanish during the past 18 months.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the dates, aircraft types involved, locations and risk categories of air misses numbers(a) 39/93, (b) 52/93, (c) 56/93, (d) 66/93, (e) 73/93, (f) 82/93, (g) 92/93 and (h) 113/93.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no air misses with the serial numbers referred to in the question. Air miss serial numbers are not necessarily continuous since an air miss report can subsequently be withdrawn. The decision to file an air miss report rests with the commander of any of the aircraft involved. There are occasionally instances when an air miss report is later withdrawn by the filing pilot when he realises that there had in fact been no risk of collision.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what hazardous waste stored at(a) Royal Air Force Finningley and (b) Royal Air Force Macrihanish is from United States bases in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) abroad; and if there are polychlorine benzines stored at the bases.

  Mr. Soames
  No hazardous waste originating from United States bases in the United Kingdom or abroad is stored at RAF Finningley or RAF Macrihanish. A small number of electronic components of United Kingdom origin in equipment stored at RAF Finningley contain very small amounts of polychlorinated biphenyl. None is stored at RAF Macrihanish.

  Major Graham Carruthers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons Major Graham Carruthers was given immunity in respect of the recent court martial of Major Peter Kennedy earlier in December.

  Mr. Soames
  Any witness giving evidence in civil or criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom is entitled to refuse to answer any question if the answer to the question might incriminate him or her and might be used in criminal proceedings against him or her. In this case, an allegation of a technical assault on Major Kennedy by Major Carruthers could have been made. To avoid any suggestion at the trial of Major Kennedy that Major Carruthers might therefore be inhibited from giving evidence on the grounds that he might incriminate himself, the normal practice was adopted of his commanding officer condoning that allegation.

  "Competing for Quality"
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by individual activity those who have been awarded contracts under the "Competing for Quality" programme for the periods(a) 1 April 1992 to 30 September 1993 and (b) 1 October 1993 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the period from April 1992 to September 1994 the Ministry of Defence examined 82 support activities under its "Competing for Quality" programme, and as a result contracts were placed with the private sector in respect of 46 of those activities; I have written to the hon. Member with a list and have placed a copy of the letter in the Library of the House. Details of individual contracts remain commercial-in-confidence, although information on contracts awarded is published monthly in the efficiency unit's market testing bulletin, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether German manufactured anti-personnel mines have been transferred or re-exported to UNITA forces in Angola in the last decade

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no information to indicate that UNITA has acquired any German-manufactured anti-personnel landmines.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the possibility of modifying the German AT2 anti-tank mine so as to deploy it as a de facto and anti-personnel mine.

  Mr. Freeman
  Such a modification is not considered practical, and no formal assessment has been made of the possibility.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many German AT2 anti-tank mines are in use with the United Kingdom armed forces; and in what role.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no German AT2 anti-tank mines currently in service with United Kingdom forces although they are being supplied as part of the multiple-launch rocket system, phase II. It is our established policy for security reasons not to reveal quantities of munitions held. The role of the system is the rapid deployment of minefields.
  110
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mines are currently available for deployment with(a) multiple-launch rocket systems and (b) the Skorpion mine-laying system.

  Mr. Freeman
  Although the multiple-launch rocket system phase II, which incorporates anti-tank mines, is in production, none is currently in service. It is our established policy, for security reasons, not to reveal quantities of munitions held.

  The Skorpion mine-laying system is not currently in service with United Kingdom forces.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United Kingdom has exported or transferred to any other country German manufactured anti-personnel mines in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of the non-proliferation treaty in the design and maintenance of United Kingdom triggers for its nuclear weapons at the United States nuclear weapons laboratory at Sandia;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the non-proliferation treaty on the transfer under the 1958 United Kingdom, United States of America agreement on nuclear weapons or fissile material between the two countries; and what implications exist for the renewal of the treaty.

  Mr. Freeman
  The non-proliferation treaty has no implications for the transfer of materials and equipment between the United Kingdom and the United States under the terms of the 1958 mutual defence agreement.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the spending on services recruitment for the last year for which figures are available; and what are his estimates for spending during the current year.

  Mr. Soames
  Expenditure on recruitment to the armed forces during financial year 1993–94, the most recent year for which figures are available, was £96,573,000. This figure differs from that given by my predecessor the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 20 May 1994,Official Report, column 604. This was as a result of a number of bills which were paid later than had been previously expected. It is estimated that expenditure on recruitment during the current financial year will be £92,340,000.

  Royal Artillery Range, Benbecula
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the proposed schedule for contractorisation at the Royal Artillery range, Benbecula; and if he will give an assurance that Ministry of Defence personnel will be kept in place until civilian employees are ready to take on their duties.

  Mr. Freeman
  Consideration is currently being given to the most cost-effective means of operating the Royal Artillery range, Hebrides.

  No firm proposals have yet been made and the existing contract is scheduled to be relet at the end of 1995.

  Electronic Mail
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.

  Mr. Freeman
  The office of the Secretary of State for Defence is able to receive and send electronic mail to some 6,500 users internally. This should rise to 9,000 users by the end of 1995 and 12,000 users by the end of 1996.

  Tanks
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the values and volumes of material exported under the two memoranda of understanding specific to tanks signed with Jordan on 28 November 1979 and 2 February 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  It has been the practice of successive administrations not to reveal information relating to specific defence exports.

  Defence Export Sales Organisation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a table of the total value of defence exports exported through the Defence Export Sales Organisation in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is contained in table 2, vote 3, class I, supply estimates. The most recent edition is for 1994–95—HC276-I, and copies of this are available from the Library of the House.

  Chile
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department, its officials, or any person acting on their behalf have been involved in negotiations jointly with United Kingdom enterprises and enterprises in Chile in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Officials from the Defence Export Services Organisation within my Department have supported efforts by various UK companies to form relationships with Chilean enterprises. However, negotiations between United Kingdom and foreign enterprises are a commercial matter in which the MOD does not participate.

  Al-Yamamah Contracts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence through what agents the oil made available to him as part of the Al-Yamamah contracts was placed on the commodity markets; and what have been the transaction costs involved.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of the funding arrangements for Al-Yamamah are a matter for the Saudi Arabian Government. It is not our practice to comment on detailed matters concerning individual defence exports sales.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it was the practice to ask for end user certificates for defence exports supplied to Saudi Arabia under the Al-Yamamah contracts.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the Al-Yamamah programme, equipment is supplied by the United Kingdom Government which has incorporated no-transfer 112
  provisions in the government-to-government memorandum of understanding covering the programme.

  Equipment (contracts)
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1994,Official Report, column 809, for what military purpose the 12 light dumpers referred to are required; what factors led him to conclude that leasing was not appropriate in this instance; what information he has on availability on the civilian market of equivalent vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The 12 light dumpers are to be held available for short notice, air portable deployments. Given this requirement a short-term lease arrangement would not meet the time required to prepare commercial machines to meet the military specification, while a long-term leasing arrangement would not be cost effective in view of the need to ensure short notice priority for military requirements. A/S Hydrema is the only manufacturer, with the necessary quality assurance certification, who can supply light dumpers of the size required by MOD.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made as to the additional costs which will be incurred by his Department as a result of the changes in national telephone dialling codes next year; and how much this change will cost his Department in additional expenditure.

  Mr. Freeman
  The reprogramming of all the Ministry of Defence telephone exchanges and call connect systems in order to access the new Oftel national dial codes was completed in August 1994 and both the new and old codes now operate in parallel. Call information record and management systems have also been reprogrammed, together with the MOD's call barring and routing tables. Stock orders for all new letterheaded stationary, business cards, and so on, ordered after 1 August 1994 have the respective new dial codes shown.

  An estimate of the cost for these number changes across the Ministry of Defence, is £15,000.

  Defence Research Agency, West Freugh
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what radar bomb scoring facilities are currently available at the Defence Research Agency establishment at West Freugh.

  Mr. Freeman
  The test and evaluation establishment at West Freugh is not part, at present, of the Defence Research Agency. It is capable of providing the necessary facilities for radar bomb scoring and has the required radars and instrumentation for such activity.

  Maritime Patrol Aircraft
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his plans for replacing the current maritime patrol aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Ministry of Defence has invited four potential prime contractors to bid for the supply of a maritime patrol aircraft to replace the Nimrod early next century. The four contractors are British Aerospace, Dassault, Lockheed and Loral ASIC. I expect a contract
  113
  to be let with the winner of this international competition in the late summer of 1996.

  Defence Fixed Telecommunication Service
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department is now in a position to issue a cardinal point specification in relation to the defence fixed telecommunication service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 19 December 1994]: My Department plans to issue a cardinal point specification early this year.

HEALTH

  Nurse Statistics
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified nursing staff there have been by specialty, for each region, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 January 1994,Official Report, column 238 for the years 1989 to 1992. Information for 1993 will be placed in the Library.

  GP Fundholding
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what independent evaluations into(a) the cost-effectiveness, (b) the impact on equity of treatment and (c) the effect on bureaucracy of fundholding have been commissioned; and which of them have been published.

  Mr. Malone
  We welcome the recent independent evaluations of the benefits of general practitioner fundholding. These include: "Evaluating the NHS Reforms", Kings Fund Institute 1994; "Implementing GP Fundholding", Howard Glennester et al. 1994; and the "OECD Economic Survey 1993–94: United Kingdom". On 20 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a review of bureaucracy in general practice.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information she has about the number of hours general practitioners spent on paperwork in March 1991 and currently;

  (2) what information she has about differences in time spent on paperwork between general practitioners in fundholding and in non-fundholding practices.

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

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 1 December,Official Report, column 832, if she will make a statement regarding her Department's expenditure on special advisers in each of the last three financial years and for the financial year 1979–80.
  114
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave on 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 937.

  Alcoholism
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for the co-ordination of alcohol services and other functions carried out by regional alcohol co-ordination following the intended demise of the regional health authorities; and what is to become of the funds made available to regional health authority's following circular HN(89)4 to provide for regional alcohol co-ordinators.

  Mr. Bowis
  The report, "Public Health in England: Roles and Responsibilities of the Department of Health and the NHS", copies of which are available in the Library, makes it clear that health authorities will be expected to continue alcohol-related work. There will be a gradual process of devolution of specialist advice from regional offices as the recommendations of the functions and manpower review take effect and it will be for health authorities to decide the form this should take. Regional offices will be responsible for ensuring that robust and appropriate arrangements are in place. Finance for alcohol co-ordination work was made available to regional health authorities in 1989–90 and added into their general funding in 1990–91.

  Health Authority Staff
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed by each health region in 1993–94; and how many were administrative.

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table. At 30 September 1993, administrative and clerical staff made up 17.3 per cent. of the total national health service work force in England. Over a quarter of administrative staff work in direct support of clinicians, allowing them to concentrate their skills and experience on direct patient care.

  Total national health service staff and administrative staff employed in each region as at 30 September 1993

  Whole-time equivalents

  Administration and clerical

  Total

  Northern

  7,030

  48,560

  Yorkshire

  9,140

  57,810

  Trent

  10,980

  73,790

  East Anglia

  4,660

  31,050

  NW Thames

  8,590

  44,900

  NE Thames

  10,420

  60,060

  SE Thames

  9,760

  53,410

  SW Thames

  7,070

  42,440

  Wessex

  6,800

  45,540

  Oxford

  6,040

  34,810

  South Western

  7,880

  52,010

  West Midlands

  13,020

  81,720

  Mersey

  5,970

  37,350

  North Western

  11,060

  68,680

  SHA's and Others

  14,230

  34,570

  England Total

  132,650

  766,710

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Non-Medical Workforce Censuses.

  Note:

  All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten whole-time equivalents.

  Family Health Services
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the level of spending per head of population on family health service services in England; and if her answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 830, included such expenditure.

  Mr. Malone
  Gross expenditure on family health services per head of population in England in 1993–94 was £157.

  The reply that I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 26 May 1994 at column 305 gave per head of population spending figures for each family health services authority in England for 1992–93.

  The information is not directly comparable because the figures relate to different years, and the earlier answer recorded expenditure by FHSAs on an accruals basis whereas the national figure of £157 specifically reflects spending in cash terms on family health services. Key differences are that the FHSA data include GP fundholders' purchases of hospital services and FHSA administration costs, and exclude dental services administered centrally by the dental practices board and the income from prescription and dental charges collected by FHS contractors.

  Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase funding for research into sudden infant death syndrome.

  Mr. Sackville
  The main agency for Government funding of research into sudden infant death syndrome and respiratory distress syndrome is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Between 1991–92 and 1992–93, the last two years for which figures are available, spending on this area of research rose by almost 117 per cent., from £747,000 to £1.62 million.

  The Department is currently funding two research projects through its central research programme which are both examining changes in infant care practice following the "Back to Sleep" campaign. Estimated expenditure on these totals £408,257 between 1993 and 1996.

  In 1995, the Department will be continuing with a further £200,000 special in-depth study using the mechanism of the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy to examine possible new, avoidable factors leading to sudden and unexplained deaths in infancy. This is in addition to £200,000 which has been spent on the project already this year.

  The need for further research into sudden infant death syndrome is kept under regular review. New research is commissioned as soon as the need arises, as exemplified by the chief medical officer's recent announcement of the formation of an expert group to steer further work on cot death and to examine the likelihood of a causal link between chemicals and cot death.

  Maternity Contracts
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements she has made for piloting the maternity contract minimum data set; and if she will list the sites where it will be piloted, who will be responsible,116
  the duration and costs of the piloting exercise and when a report of the piloting is expected to be available.

  Mr. Sackville
  No arrangements are in place for piloting the maternity contract minimum data set. These will be made following consultation on the content of the proposed data set.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions her Department has had with the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Paediatric Association about the content of the maternity contract minimum data set; and when she proposes to place a copy of the consultation document in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health consulted widely on the content of the maternity, community and mental health contract minimum data set during 1993, and held meetings to gain the views of representatives of the healthcare professional bodies.

  The outcome of the consultations is included in five documents which will be placed in the Library:— "CMDS Volume 1 Overview"; "CMDS Volume 2 Community Health Services"; "CMDS Volume 3 Maternity Services"; "CMDS Volume 4 Mental Health Services" and "CMDS Volume 5 Data Models".

  Subsequent work during 1994 concentrated on the community contract minimum data set. As work on the maternity contract minimum data set has resumed, further discussions will be held with the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Paediatric Association.

  Breast Screening
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons no information was available for the former North West Thames region in the tables of data from the maternity hospital episode system for 1991–92 which she placed in the Library following her answer of 27 October,Official Report, column 820.

  Mr. Sackville
  During 1991–92, changes were undertaken to the hospital information systems in North West Thames region. Problems were encountered in re-establishing links to collate some centrally required maternity data, and the region was unable to provide full data. These difficulties have been resolved and maternity information for the former North West Thames region is available for subsequent years.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that all Government Departments NHS and NHS trust authorities and other non-departmental public bodies should publish all reports on recycled paper.

  Mr. Sackville
  Departments are encouraged to purchase paper and board containing as much recycled fibre as possible without impairing performance. National health service and NHS trust authorities, along with other non-departmental public bodies, make their own purchasing decisions, but we would expect them to consider the environmental issue.

  Road Accident Victims
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what statutory authority hospitals may request payment for treatment from road accident victims; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Hospitals are empowered to collect an emergency treatment fee of £20.65 under section 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The fee must be covered by motor vehicle insurance policies and is payable by vehicle users in respect of each person given immediate treatment or examination arising from a road traffic accident.

  Charges may also be made, under section 157, for subsequent in-patient or out-patient hospital treatment, up to ceilings of £2,856 and £286 respectively. These charges are levied directly on insurance companies, but only in cases where companies make third party payments.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's current policy on the provision of supplies for the treatment of diabetes.

  Mr. Sackville
  Human and animal insulin and disposable syringes to dispense it are available on prescription where necessary for the treatment of diabetes.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if novo pen(a) cartridges and (b) needles used by diabetics are available on prescription.

  Mr. Malone
  The cartridges of insulin for the novo pen II injection device are available on national health service prescription; the needles that fit them are not.

  Disabled Children
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many families with children with disabilities have been provided with respite care for each year since 1990; and what proportion has been provided to them in their own homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information, which relates only to children accommodated by local authorities under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, is shown in the table. This does not include families whose children are not accommodated by local authorities, but may receive respite care under section 17 of the Act within their own homes or elsewhere.

  Children accommodated by local authorities under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 because parents need relief from problems or Stresses of caring for children with disabilities, England.

  Period1 ending 31 March

  1992

  1993

  Series of short term placements covered by one agreement2

  1,600

  3,600

  Single placement23

  900

  1,400

  1 Periods 14 October 1991 to 31 March 1992 and 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993. No comparable information is available prior to implementation of the Act on 14 October 1991.

  2 Some children may be counted in both categories if their type of care changed during the period.

  3 Most children in single placements were receiving long term care.

  118
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action her Department has taken since the publication of the Children Act report 1993 and the social services inspectorate report on the national inspection of services to disabled children and their families in 1994 to improve implementation of the Children Act 1989 with respect to these children and their families.

  Mr. Bowis
  Following the publication of "Services to Disabled Children and their Families" and other information about the implementation of the family support provisions of the Children Act the SSI organised six workshops across England to disseminate the findings and discuss with local authorities how improvements can be achieved.

  Ninety two local authorities attended the workshops, and there was widespread commitment to seeking ways to improve services. A report of the worshop discussions is being prepared.

  Our continuing interest in services for disabled children and their families is demonstrated by the inclusion of a further inspection in the SSI work programme for 1995–96. The findings will be published in due course.

  NHS Guidelines
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she has issued guidance giving further clarification on the issues of(a) setting eligibility criteria, (b) assessment of patients and (c) service provisions;

  (2) if her Department has issued guidance on the NHS responsibility for meeting long-term health care needs following the consultation exercise carried out over the summer.

  Mr. Bowis
  We are considering the results of the consultation exercise. A final version of the guidance will be issued in due course.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cash allocation for health authorities' discretionary use in each year since 1988–89 and in 1994–95; and what was the percentage change in each year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The allocations for resident population for hospital and community health services for 1991–92 to 1994–95, including capital charges, are shown in the table. Figures for earlier years are not available on a comparable basis.

  Year

  Allocation for resident population

  per cent, change

  1991–92

  £17,283,812,000

  1992–93

  £18,909,977,000

  9.41

  1993–94

  £19,731,477,000

  4.34

  1994–95

  £20,569,646,000

  4.25

  Medicines
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that the system of regulation imposed by the Medicines Act 1968 will be maintained to ensure that medicines are not marketed without a product licence.

  Mr. Sackville
  From 12 January this year, no medicinal product for human use, unless specifically exempt from
  119
  licensing, may be placed on the market in the United Kingdom except in accordance with a licence issued by the United Kingdom Licensing Authority under the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc.) Regulations 1994 or the Medicines Act 1968, or, in a small number of cases, an authorisation issued by the European Commission.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department has completed work on the pilot questionnaire to produce regular statistics on the Children Act 1989; and in what areas information will be collected.

  Mr. Bowis
  No general questionnaire is planned as regular statistics are already collected and published to monitor local authority implementation of many of the key aspects of the Act. The most recent figures were presented to Parliament in the Children Act report 1993, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information is not regularly collected centrally at present on local authority support for children and families under section 17 of the Act. A questionnaire was sent to local authorities in September 1994 to identify the information they collect for their own use in implementing this section of the Act. Response to this questionnaire is not yet complete.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding her Department has made available to local authorities to assist with the implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Bowis
  In general, central Government support to local authorities is not allocated to individual services; it is for local authorities to decide on the allocation of resources between particular services in the light of local needs and priorities. Implementation of the Children Act 1989 was, however, one of the factors which influenced the relevant revenue support grant settlements. Standard spending for children's services in the current year is 17 per cent. in real terms above 1990–91.

  Leather Preservatives
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will commission research into the carcinogenic properties of leather preservatives; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are not aware of any particular concern regarding the carcinogenic potential of leather preservatives, and have no plans for commissioning work in this area.

  The International Agency for Research into Cancer reviewed the data in leather tanning and processing industries, and in the manufacture of leather goods, in 1987 and concluded that there is no evidence to warrant classification of these processes in causing cancer.

  Creuzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease were diagnosed in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990; and if she will break down cases by occupation.

  Mr. Sackville
  There have been 166 definite and probable cases of Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease since 1990. Details are shown in the table.120

  Year

  Total

  1990

  31

  1991

  36

  1992

  51

  1993

  40

  1994 (to April)

  8

  Total for the period

  166

  A breakdown of these cases by occupation is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. A demonstration of the broad range of lifetime occupations of 50 definite and probable cases is at table 7 of the third annual report of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob Surveillance Unit. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  AIDS
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds have been made available for the treatment of AIDS in 1993–94 and 1994–95 in(a) absolute terms and (b) as a percentage of the NHS budget.

  Mr. Sackville
  The amount of funding made available specifically for the treatment of HIV and AIDS services was £148 million in 1993–94 and £164 million in 1994–95. As a percentage of the total NHS budget, we estimate this to be approximately 0.5 per cent. in each year.

  Electronic Mail
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.

  Mr. Sackville
  Electronic mail is used throughout the Department of Health and its agencies. However, there are no immediate plans for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to receive or respond to external communications by electronic mail.

  The Department of Health is consulting widely to determine how best to develop electronic mail links with other Government Departments, organisations and electronic networks. These discussions are part of a wider study on external communications.

  The Department will consider establishing electronic mail links with external contacts only when it is sure that it can receive and respond to electronic mail communications effectively without risking the security of confidential or personal information.

  Hospitals, Manchester
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the version of the Wythenshawe hospital development scheme and the clinical review of hospital services in south Manchester since her answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 119; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Professor Sir Herbert Duthie's review of clinical services in south Manchester was received by North West regional health authority at its meeting in November 1994. The review broadly endorsed the proposals for Wythenshawe hospital. Manchester district health authority has been asked to draw up a new public consultation document outlining those needs of the local population that can be met on the site of Withington hospital. Consultation is planned to begin in February.
  121
  The RHA has set up a steering group to ensure that there are no further unnecessary delays in developing services in south Manchester. In the meantime, the South Manchester university hospital national health service trust continues to develop its plans for major capital investment at Wythenshawe hospital.

  Doctor's Letters
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners make a charge for doctor's letters required to assist a patient's application for social housing; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  General practitioners provide a range of services outside the national health service which are considered as private matters between patient and doctor. Such services, of which no record is held, include the writing of letters to provide medical information to a third party, such as a local authority housing department. Doctors are free to charge for such services, as they wish.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the status of the proposed voluntary agreement on tobacco promotion between herself and the industry; and when she expects the agreement to be concluded.

  Mr. Sackville
  The new voluntary agreement on tobacco products advertising and promotion was published on 21 December, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Heart Disease
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of research at Harvard medical school on the practice of hydrogenating vegetable oils to produce solid fats and the effect on coronary heart disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  The committee on medical aspects of food policy has considered the issue of hydrogenation and has examined a wide range of research evidence, including that of Harvard medical school, for its report "Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease", copies of which will be placed in the Library. COMA has recommended that the intake of transfatty acids in the population should not increase beyond the current average and that consideration should be given to ways of decreasing the amount present in the diet.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the proportion of smokers among lone mothers on income support.

  Mr. Sackville
  Data on the proportion of smokers amongst lone mothers on income support are not available centrally. Surveys indicate that the levels of smoking amongst lone parents and amongst low-income families are significantly higher than in the population as a whole.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the proportion of smokers among doctors.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information from a 1989 survey by the Commission of the European Communities showed that 10 per cent., of general medical practitioners in the United Kingdom were smokers. There is no 122
  information collected concerning the smoking habits of doctors working in other fields.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made as to the additional costs which will be incurred by her Department as a result of the changes in national telephone dialling codes next year; and how much this change will cost her Department in additional expenditure.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department will not incur additional costs as a result of changes to national telephone dialling codes. Changes to the Department's telephone exchanges will be done as part of our standing maintenance arrangements and the printing of stationery with the new codes will be contained within our existing financial allocations.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the total budget for Hampshire family health services authority in the financial year 1994–95;

  (2) what was the total annual budget of (a) Winchester, (b) Basingstoke and north Hampshire and (c) Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire district health authorities in the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the South and West regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Rennie Fritchie, for details.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total annual budget for the Wessex regional health authority for 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  The initial cash limit for hospital and community health services for Wessex regional health authority for 1994–95 was set at £1,345,359,000 in December 1993. This figure does not include demand-led spending on family health services or money allocated since then. Wessex regional health authority ceased to exist on 1 April 1994 when it was replaced by the new South and West regional health authority.

  Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make available a screening programme for athletes, sports people and young people in order to reduce hypertrophic cardiomyopathy deaths.

  Mr. Sackville
  A genetic screening test is currently being investigated. An effective screening programme would probably need to be focused on affected families since the disease is inherited.

  Stomach Ulcers
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total expenditure by the national health service in each of the last five years for which figures are available on(a) Zantac, (b) Cimetidine and (c) Tagamet.

  Mr. Sackville
  The data for Zantac and Tagamet are commercially confidential. Information in respect of Cimetidine is shown in the table.
  123

  Prescribing information for the chemical entity cimetidine

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Prescriptions (thousands)

  2,617.4

  2,635.4

  2,608.9

  Net Ingredient Cost (£ thousands)

  48,333.9

  45,860.7

  33,816.0

  Figures are based on items and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and also include prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for health (1) in what percentage of cases of stomach ulcers(a) Zantac, (b) Cimetidine, (c) Tagamet or (d) other acid blockers are prescribed;

  (2) what information she has concerning the percentage of cases of stomach cancer in which (a) Zantac, (b) Cimetidine, (c) Tagamet or (d) other acid blockers are prescribed.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has concerning the comparative typical costs of a full course of treatment for stomach ulcers involving(a) antibiotics for helicobacter whether or not in conjunction with acid blockers and (b) a course of acid blockers not in association with antibiotics for helicobacter; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The medicines resource centre has published data on comparative costs on the treatment of duodenal ulcers, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to the implementation of a screening programme involving a short course of antibiotics for helicobacter as a means of substantially reducing the incidence of(a) stomach ulcers and (b) stomach cancer; how the costs of such a programme might compare to a typical course of treatment involving acid blockers over a period of several years and surgery to remove all or part of the stomach; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Whether to carry out a test for, and subsequently treat, helicobacter pylori infection is primarily a clinical decision to he made by the doctor concerned.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Zantac, Cimetidine and Tagamet are branded or generic products; by whom they are manufactured; whether the antibiotics used for the treatment of helicobacter stomach infections are branded or generic products; and what would be the effect upon the national health service drugs budget of a substantial switch from treatment by the former to the latter.

  Mr. Sackville
  Zantac is the brand name used by Glaxo for drug preparations of the chemical ranitidine hydrochloride. Tagamet is the brand name used by SmithKline Beecham for cimetidine preparations. Cimetidine is also available in other branded and generic versions. All the antibiotics commonly used in the eradication of helicobacter pylori are available as generic versions, except Clarithromycin, which is available only in the proprietary form. It is not possible to calculate the effects on the national health service drugs bill of a switch from H2-antagonists to antibiotic drugs for the treatment 124
  of ulcers as not all prescribing of acid suppressants is for the treatment of ulcers.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department holds relating to the incidence of helicobacter or similar infections in patients suffering from heart disease; what research it is funding in this area; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has no information at present. However, we are aware that research into this subject is taking place.

  The Department of Health has not funded any research into this subject. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State of Health what(a) research projects, (b) publications and (c) meetings, conferences or seminars her Department has funded to promote a greater awareness of the benefits deriving from antibiotic treatment of helicobacter stomach infections in cases of stomach ulcers compared to treatment by a protracted course of acid blockers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The medicines resource centre, which is funded by the Department, has made available to all general practitioners and family health services authorities prescribing advisers detailed information on the success rates achievable with the various regimes, their relative costs versus maintenance therapy and the appropriate selection of patients for this intervention. The medical advisers support centre, which also is departmentally funded, has recently promoted a series of local workshops and educational meetings for FHSA prescribing advisers on this subject and more are planned for 1995–96. The MASC is also co-operating in a practice-based GP endoscopy research project which aims to speed up the rate at which patients are given a specific diagnosis and appropriate treatment, including eradication therapy. The drug and therapeutics bulletin, published by the Consumers Association and distributed to all GPs at the Department's expense, covered this topic in its February 1993 edition. Copies of the relevant D and TB and MeReC publications have been placed in the Library.

  Further research into the most efficacious and economic treatment regimes should commence later this year as part of the national health service health technology assessment research and development programme.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department first became aware of the developments in the treatment of stomach ulcers associated with the use of antibiotics whether or not in conjunction with acid blockers in preference to the use of such acid blockers alone; when her Department first took steps to ensure that these developments were drawn to the attention of general practitioners; how she accounts for the period between the two dates; how many operations were performed during that period for the removal of all or part of a stomach as a result of stomach ulcers; and what claims for compensation her Department is either facing or accepting.

  Mr. Sackville
  The use of antibiotics in the treatment of peptic ulcers has been reported and discussed in academic and professional journals for over a decade. Eradication therapy continues to be debated and medical
  125
  opinion is still divided. These are matters for the profession and the royal colleges, in particular, to lead and inform clinical opinion. Information on the number of gastrectomy and partial gastrectomy operations performed where a gastric ulcer was diagnosed is shown in the table. We are not aware of any claims for compensation against the Department.

  Number of gastrectomy and partial gastrectomy operations performed where a gastric ulcer was diagnosed: finished consultant episodes

  Number

  1989–90

  749

  1990–91

  753

  1991–92

  556

  1992–93

  504

  Source:

  Hospital Episodes System, Department of Health.

  The above figures are 100 per cent. estimates from a 25 per cent. sample database. A finished consultant episode is defined as a period of health care under one consultant in one health care provider.

  Generic Products
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is provided by her Department to enable the development of new regimes of medical treatment in situations where the medication involved in the new regime would be a low-cost generic product, compared with an existing regime of treatment by a highly profitable branded product; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The choice of medical treatment is a matter for the professional judgment of the doctor concerned and will be determined primarily by the clinical needs of the particular patient. Only if there is a choice between two or more equally appropriate and effective medications would the doctor he expected to exercise a decision based on cost. General practitioners are kept informed of developments in treatment regimes, and comparative costs of treatment, by the British National Formulary, medicines resource centre bulletins and the drugs and therapeutic bulletin, all of which are supported financially by the Department of Health. All GPs are also routinely provided with an analysis of their own prescribing patterns and costs by the prescription pricing authority using prescribing analysis and cost data.

  Stomach Cancer
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information she has concerning the percentage of cases in which an individual has been identified as being of greater than average risk of developing stomach cancer and in which antibiotics for helicobacter are prescribed; if it is her policy to encourage general practitioners to make greater use of such antibiotics in such cases; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what information she has concerning the percentage of cases of stomach ulcers in which antibiotics for helicobacter are prescribed; whether it is her policy to encourage general practitioners to make greater use of such antibiotics whether or not in conjunction with acid blockers in preference to the use of such acid blockers alone; and if she will make a statement.
  126
  Mr. Sackville
  Such information is not available centrally. All general practitioners are encouraged to prescribe in a clinically effective and cost-effective manner. The decision on which drug, if any, to prescribe for a particular patient is, however, solely a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department first became aware of the developments in the treatment of those at greater than average risk of stomach cancer associated with the use of antibiotics for helicobacter; when her Department first took steps to ensure that these developments were drawn to the attention of general practitioners; and how she accounts for the period between the two dates.

  Mr. Sackville
  Suggestions of a possible link between stomach cancer and infection with helicobacter pylori emerged around 1990. Research is still in its early stages. Dissemination of the results of such work when completed will initially be by publication in academic and professional medical journals.

  Camden and Islington Health Authority
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings have been held by Ministers or officials of her Department with Camden and Islington health authority concerning the resources available for health care in Camden and Islington; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  There have been no such meetings. The allocation of resources to this health authority is the responsibility of North Thames regional health authority.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will outline the new funding mechanism for the Health Education Authority;

  (2) what plans she has to put out to tender in the private sector the work now being carried out by the Health Education Authority;

  (3) what was the budget for the Health Education Authority for each of the last four years; what will be the level of funding for 1995–96; and what estimate her Department has made of the core funding for the Health Education Authority in 1996–97;

  (4) what assessment she has made of the number of job losses that may result from the Government's announcement on the Health Education Authority's future.

  Mr. Malone
  Total funding to the Health Education Authority in the last four years has been as follows:

  £

  1991–92

  31,427,000

  1992–93

  33,955,000

  1993–94

  36,194,000

  1994–95 (to date)

  36,984,000

  In 1995–96, the authority will receive direct from the Department a sum similar to that for 1994–95. Thereafter, the authority's income will be derived from departmental contracts for services it wishes the authority to provide.

  The staffing of the authority will be for the authority to determine in the light of contracts awarded. Both the

  127
  Department and the authority believe that the authority is well placed to maintain, if not increase, its current income, by better marketing of its products and an increased ability to respond to the needs of its customers.

  Breast Implants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ask general practioners and health service trusts to contact women who have had breast implants to inform them of the extension of the deadline to register potential claims arising from breast implants with the United States legal authorities; and if her Department will take steps to advertise the new deadline.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health is investigating reports that the deadline has been extended to 1 March 1995. When confirmation is received the Department will consider whether any further publicity is needed in addition to that provided from the United States.

  Lynfield Mount Special Care Unit
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has received the report and recommendations of the external review team who inquired into the escape by Mr. Raymond Pemberton from Lynfield Mount special care unit in Bradford last June; if she will place a copy of the report in the Library; if she will arrange for a copy of the report to be provided to those individuals and organisations who gave oral and written evidence to the inquiry; and if she will make a statement outlining what action she is taking in the light of recommendations of the external review team.

  Mr. Bowis
  Ministers have received a copy of the external review team's recommendations which are a matter for Bradford Community Health national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the trust for details of the action it plans to take.

  Imported Blood Samples
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what quantities of amniotic fluid blood samples and human tissues were imported from Hong Kong through Heathrow airport to private laboratories in the United Kingdom in 1994; what tests are carried out on such samples for the AIDS virus, hepatitis and other infectious diseases; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available centrally on the quantity of blood and tissue samples sent to the United Kingdom from abroad. The transport of potentially infectious pathology samples is subject to detailed national and international guidelines directed at ensuring safety. Laboratories receiving such material will be aware of the procedures which they, and the sender, should follow.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to receive the report of the review of the London ambulance service carried out by Mr. William Wells; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today received this report, copies of which are available in the Library. I am grateful to Mr. Wells and his colleagues for undertaking 128
  this review and for producing speedily such a thorough report.

  The review, which looked at the management, working practices and performance of the London Ambulance Service, was established following the unacceptable delays in providing an ambulance for Nasima Begum on the night of 19 June. The report sets out clearly both the progress which the LAS has made since the report of the independent inquiry in February 1993 and the substantial agenda of further work which is needed to improve its performance to the standard achieved by other ambulance services.

  I welcome the report's analysis and the key recommendations arising from it. Most of these are for the LAS and the South Thames regional health authority to implement and I look to it to do this vigorously to the challenging timetable set out in the report. Achieving these changes will require all staff in the LAS and the LAS management, to work together. I have asked Mr. Wells, as chairman of the South Thames RHA, to report regularly on progress to Ministers in addition to producing the quarterly public reports proposed in the report.

  The report recommends that the LAS should seek trust status and that it should remain as a single unit for providing emergency ambulance services for London. I welcome the conclusion about trust status for the LAS. This would, in principle, clarify and strengthen management and accountability for the LAS and I agree that preparatory work should begin now. I also agree that the LAS should remain as a single unit but with the very important proviso that this can be justified only if the LAS improves its performance to the standards achieved by other services.

  Finally, the report recommends that there should be a review of national standards for ambulance response times. My Department has already set action in hand for such a review this year and will take into account the points made in the review report.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department(a) hold open meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings; and whether this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 December 1994]: The information is as follows:

  (a) hold open meetings: None

  (b) conduct public consultation exercises: British Pharmacopoeia Commission; Nutrition Task Force;

  (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests: British Pharmacopoeia Commission; Nutrition Task Force;

  (d) Publish a register of members' interests: Committee on Safety of Medicines (on a voluntary basis); Medicines Commission (on a

  129
  voluntary basis); The advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food; Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment; Committee on the Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment; Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food. Consumer Products and the Environment; Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy; Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials; Advisory Board on the Registration of Homeopathic Products;

  (e) publish agendas for meetings: None

  (f) publish the minutes of meetings:

  (i) under a statutory requirement: None

  (ii) voluntarily: Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy.

  GPs and Dentists
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the population in each family health service authority area is registered currently with(a) a general practitioner and (b) a general dental practitioner.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: Information on the proportion of patients registered with a general medical practitioner is shown in the table. Available information on registration with a dental practitioner is in the Dental Practice Board publication "Registrations: GDS Quarterly Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Proportion of people resident in each FHSA who were registered with a GP 1993–94

  FHSA

  Estimated total resident population at mid 1993

  Registered patients at 1 Oct. 1993

  Per cent.

  Northern RHA

  Cleveland

  557,286

  573,355

  102.9

  Cumbria

  491,874

  494,210

  100.5

  Durham

  604,131

  610,182

  101.0

  Northumberland

  309,019

  307,994

  99.7

  Gateshead

  202,787

  211,773

  104.4

  Newcastle

  275,217

  290,477

  105.5

  North Tyneside

  193,495

  191,635

  99.0

  South Tyneside

  156,281

  160,444

  102.7

  Sunderland

  295,951

  298,783

  101.0

  3,086.041

  3,138.853

  101.7

  Yorkshire RHA

  Humberside

  882,733

  892,995

  101.2

  North Yorkshire

  733,981

  726,107

  98.9

  Bradford

  478,871

  498,894

  104.2

  Calderdale

  194,357

  199,496

  102.6

  Kirklees

  380,732

  385,272

  101.2

  Leeds

  719,880

  731,043

  101.6

  Wakefield

  317,943

  330,172

  103.8

  3,708,497

  3,763,979

  101.5

  Trent RHA

  Derbyshire

  949,702

  953,764

  100.4

  Leicestershire

  907,576

  931,810

  102.7

  Lincolnshire

  602,722

  605,103

  100.4

  Nottinghamshire

  1,027,600

  1,015,682

  98.8

  Barnsley

  224,198

  231,908

  103.4

  Doncaster

  294,394

  296,615

  100.8

  Rotherham

  256,493

  252,026

  98.3

  Sheffield

  525,387

  530,608

  101.0

  4,788,072

  4,817,516

  100.6

  East Anglia RHA

  Cambridgeshire

  688,395

  659,863

  95.9

  Norfolk

  768,759

  735,056

  95.6

  Suffolk

  665,062

  638,939

  96.1

  2,122,216

  2,033,858

  95.8

  130

  Proportion of people resident in each FHSA who were registered with a GP 1993–94

  FHSA

  Estimated total resident population at mid 1993

  Registered patients at 1 Oct. 1993

  Per cent.

  North West Thames RHA

  Bedfordshire

  539,737

  571,500

  105.9

  Hertfordshire

  995,681

  1,036,258

  104.1

  Barnet

  306,691

  361,439

  117.9

  Brent and Harrow

  450,807

  560,106

  124.2

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  647,164

  825,644

  127.6

  Hillingdon

  240,156

  244,042

  101.6

  Kensington Chelsea and Westminster

  339,330

  413,167

  121.8

  3,519,566

  4,012,156

  114.0

  North East Thames RHA

  Essex

  1,564,673

  1,582,637

  101.1

  Barking and Havering

  373,998

  391,552

  104.7

  Camden and Islington

  356,223

  443,531

  124.5

  City and East London

  590,117

  697,054

  118.1

  Enfield and Haringey

  466,444

  542,419

  116.3

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  447,799

  464,654

  103.8

  3,799,254

  4,121,847

  108.5

  South East Thames RHA

  East Sussex

  723,252

  731,975

  101.2

  Kent

  1,551,464

  1,583,583

  102.1

  Greenwich and Bexley

  436,818

  441,546

  101.1

  Bromley

  300,271

  301,464

  100.4

  Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham

  723,696

  869,658

  120.2

  3,735,501

  2,928,226

  105.2

  South West Thames RHA

  Surrey

  1,033,462

  1,061,272

  102.7

  West Sussex

  723,637

  745,978

  103.1

  Croydon

  320,881

  338,277

  105.4

  Kingston and Richmond

  309,028

  322,917

  104.5

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  601,405

  645,079

  107.3

  2,988,413

  3,113,523

  104.2

  Wessex RHA

  Dorset

  671,181

  677,774

  101.0

  Hampshire

  1,595,950

  1,602,384

  100.4

  Wiltshire

  587,895

  561,942

  95.6

  Isle of Wight

  126,656

  126,474

  99.9

  2,981,682

  2,968,574

  99.6

  Oxford RHA

  Berkshire

  764,097

  802,031

  105.0

  Buckinghamshire

  659,288

  662,442

  100.5

  Northamptonshire

  599,634

  596,526

  99.5

  Oxfordshire

  588,051

  597,611

  101.6

  2,611,070

  2,658,610

  101.8

  South Western RHA

  Avon

  966,489

  994,668

  102.9

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  483,114

  478,040

  98.9

  Devon

  1,052,488

  1,031,592

  98,0

  131

  Proportion of people resident in each FHSA who were registered with a GP 1993–94

  FHSA

  Estimated total resident population at mid 1993

  Registered patients at 1 Oct. 1993

  Per cent.

  Gloucestershire

  544,449

  552,682

  101.5

  Somerset

  476,153

  469,561

  98.6

  3,522,693

  3,526,543

  100.1

  West Midlands RHA

  Hereford and Worcester

  694,411

  682,018

  98.2

  Shropshire

  417,005

  407,434

  97.7

  Staffordshire

  1,059,474

  1,023,646

  96,6

  Warwickshire

  492,357

  502,370

  102.0

  Birmingham

  1,004,258

  1,068,805

  106.4

  Coventry

  300,515

  325,178

  108.2

  Dudley

  310,663

  319,786

  102.9

  Sandwell

  292,431

  316,347

  108.2

  Solihull

  203,364

  221,756

  109.0

  Walsall

  263,261

  267,984

  101.8

  Wolverhampton

  245,742

  258,337

  105.1

  5,283,481

  5,393,661

  102.1

  Mersey RHA

  Cheshire

  976.735

  992,462

  101.6

  Liverpool

  466,864

  493,005

  105.6

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  335,232

  354,729

  105.8

  Sefton

  295,501

  289,070

  97.8

  Wirral

  335,943

  341,934

  101.8

  2,410,275

  2,471,200

  102.5

  North Western RHA

  Lancashire

  1,419,625

  1,423,984

  100.3

  Bolton

  265,692

  272,058

  102.4

  Bury

  180,969

  183,415

  101.4

  Manchester

  433,706

  476,980

  110.0

  Oldham

  221,185

  213,580

  96.6

  Rochdale

  207,033

  213,858

  103.3

  Salford

  227,161

  245,733

  108.2

  Stockport

  290,594

  295,034

  101.5

  Tameside

  220,406

  216,056

  98.0

  Trafford

  214,979

  221,441

  103.0

  Wigan

  311,688

  292,774

  93.9

  England

  48,549,799

  50,003,459

  103.0

  The resident population includes members of Her Majesty's forces in England but the population registered with a General Practitioner excludes Her Majesty's Forces patients who move from one family health services authority area to another do not automatically change general practitioners at the same time.

  This will influence the percentage outcomes shown in the table.

  Capital Projects
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) NHS trusts and (b) directly managed units which have received funding from (i) the Department of Health and (ii) the private sector for capital projects in each of the last four years, showing in each case the amount of funding involved.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 15 December 1994]: Information is not available in the form requested. Capital funding for directly managed units is a matter for their parent district health authorities and information about individual units is not available centrally. National health
  132
  service trusts are not funded directly for capital expenditure. Projects are financed by a combination of internally generated resources from trading, principally depreciation and retained surpluses, and loans. The NHS Executive controls the total expenditure of NHS trusts through external financing limits which allow for capital expenditure up to a certain approved level. The actual amount of capital expenditure is for each trust to determine provided expenditure is contained within its external financing limit. A table will be placed in the Library showing actual expenditure on capital assets, excluding donated assets, by each NHS trust. Information is provided for the financial years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94. There were no NHS trusts prior to 1991–92.

  NHS trusts do not normally use private sector funds for capital expenditure since loans are available to them from the NHS Executive at Treasury rates. NHS trusts principally use the private sector to obtain overdrafts to fund working capital requirements.

  Termination Payments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many termination payments have been made by national health service trusts to chief executives and general and senior managers; and what is the total amount for each trust to date.

  Mr. Malone
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 December 1994, column 395]: I regret that my previous reply contained the following clerical errors:

  i) the overall number of termination payments to National Health Service chief executives, senior and general managers notified to the NHS Executive was 54 rather than 48. The total failed to include some late notifications, although these are in the amounts shown for individual trusts;

  ii) the total amount for Broadgreen Hospital NHS Trust was £42,888 not £81,838. The figure was incorrectly shown against Burton Hospitals NHS Trust; and

  iii) The total amount for Burton Hospital NHS Trust was £7,053 not £42,888.

  Prescription Costs
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of prescription drugs cost less than £5.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of prescriptions cost less than £5; what is the(a) average and (b) median cost of a prescription item; how many prescriptions were issued by doctors in the last year; how many prescriptions items were dispensed by pharmacists last year, in total, and by the family health service authority area; and what has been the total revenue generated by charging for prescriptions in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Malone
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 December 1994, column 397]: I regret that some of the figures in the table "Percentage distribution by total cost of prescription items dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors and dispensing doctors and prescription items personally administered by prescribing doctors in England in 1993, and the average total cost of such items" placed in the Library are incorrect. A correct table has been placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Deaf-Blind Children: Needs
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the number of units catering for deaf-blind children, and whether they intend to increase that number.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, there are approximately 20 units. Decisions about whether to increase this number rest with local providers in response to local needs and resources.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in spite of that Answer, is there not substantial evidence to show that more units of various kinds are needed? Equally important is the fact that the spread of the units varies a great deal throughout the country. Some areas are well-provided for; others have no provision. In the circumstances, is there not the strongest case for the Government to extend the three-year government grant which is to finish in April this year? As the needs of deaf-blind children are unique, what are the Government doing about increasing training facilities for the teachers of such children?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that the needs of these children are unique. That is why over three years the Government have set aside ring-fenced funding from central government of £3.9 million as part of the GEST programme in order to meet those needs. It is for local authorities to decide where the units should be sited. They have been encouraged to form consortia. The number of children who need the facility is small and, therefore, it is important that local authorities group together to provide it. The grant was given for two years. That period was extended to three years. The idea of the grant was to meet the start-up costs and to help local authorities to establish the units. They are now established and it is appropriate that local authorities should take on their revenue running costs.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I appreciate the Answer the Minister gave to my noble friend. I understand that SENSE is about to undertake a new survey of the needs of deaf-blind children. Is the department involved in that survey or are there ways in which it can be of assistance to SENSE?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we recognise and appreciate the organisation, which is one of the leading voluntary organisations in the field. It is most
80
businesslike and works well and closely with the department. We wish to support it in any way we can and we believe that the survey will be useful.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is the Minister aware that SENSE celebrates its 40th anniversary this year? Does she agree that the extension of GEST has increased awareness among LEAs of the educational needs of children with dual sensory impairment and learning difficulties?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lady is right. The organisation has the respect not only of the Government but of the nation as a whole. As a result of its good work, it received this year a grant of £110,000. We support the organisation not only in accolades but financially.
Lord Renton: My Lords, how many such children are there in the United Kingdom? Is the number increasing or decreasing?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we do not know the exact number. The degree of disability varies. Some of the children are partially sighted and others are mildly deaf. Today I refer to those who are severely handicapped and deaf-blind, as I believe does the Question. We do not know the exact number of such children. It is interesting to note that in the past the disability was caused by rubella. Its incidence has decreased enormously but, sadly, today these sensory deficiencies are more often the result of premature births.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I understand that the sad problem extends across the responsibilities of both the Department of Health and the Department for Education. If the Minister is saying that the GEST funds will definitely be withdrawn in the spring will it be possible for those departments to co-operate in order to ensure that the unique services, as described by my noble friend, are provided in a way that does not rest simply on the extended funds of local authorities?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we see this as the responsibility of local authorities. Under the Education Act that recently passed through your Lordships' House, they have a statutory responsibility to provide for pupils with special educational needs. The needs of such pupils clearly fall within the remit of education. The units have been set up and it is now up to local authorities to face their responsibilities.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say how the system of reporting congenital abnormalities works? It seems very strange that she does not know how many of those children are suffering from dual handicaps.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when a baby is born there is a system which provides that any physical disabilities from which that baby suffers must be notified to the local health authority through the director of public health. However, it is very difficult to identify

81
deaf-blind babies at birth, especially the deafness. Therefore, that is what SENSE is trying to do in terms of its survey.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, to what extent has it been established, if at all, that the condition is occasioned by vaccine damage?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not have the figures but I believe it to be very rare indeed. We hoped that the numbers of children so affected would reduce as the incidence of rubella decreased, but, as I said, that has not been the case. The primary cause now is premature birth. Very small babies which are born prematurely may have those disabilities.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I found her Answer very disappointing indeed? I should have thought that the least the Government could do would be to extend the grant. The Minister said, as most Ministers from that Bench have said, that it is a matter for the local authorities. Perhaps she will say where the local authorities will find the money in view of the fact that the grants to them have been restricted. A Department of Education survey in 1986 said that there were 600 deaf-blind children. If the Department of Education could do it then, why cannot the Department for Education do it now and obtain some facts about the situation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it depends entirely on the degree of disability about which the noble Lord is talking. There are categories of disability. Because of his unease, I shall write to the noble Lord about the matter. The GEST funding was for two years and it has been extended for a third year. Local authorities know that. They know also that as a group these children have benefited more from central government funding than any other group. It would be unfair to other groups if that funding were to continue and local authorities did not face up to their responsibilities.

Quarantine Protection
2.45 p.m.
Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering replacing the quarantine requirement for cats and dogs entering the United Kingdom from other European Union states with a system of vaccination and unambiguous identification.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government share the concern of the Agriculture Select Committee in another place. They would never support a change which would increase the likelihood of rabies entering the United Kingdom. The question of whether any other arrangements can offer the same protection as quarantine or better is essentially
82
technical which the Government will need to consider carefully. The onus is on those recommending change to demonstrate that it offers at least as good a protection as quarantine, which has served us well.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that, with tried and tested alternatives, we should not keep pets locked up for six months in cold, damp and noisy cells? Is he aware of the changes in Sweden and Norway where, for the first seven months after their introduction, vaccination and identification rather than quarantine have been an outstanding success?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I have already said, quarantine has stood this country in good stead for a great many years. We should have to think extremely carefully before changing that system. It is fair to say that it is too early to make a full assessment of the new systems operating in Norway and Sweden, bearing in mind that the changes were implemented only in June 1994 and the incubation period for rabies is itself six months. Indeed, one must remember that the changes which have been made are based on a system of border controls which are illegal under single market rules.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that 15 years ago the Waterhouse inquiry, for which I take some responsibility, looked at the whole serious problem of rabies in this country? No change has taken place which would justify the repeal of the Act which Parliament implemented on the recommendations of that report.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for reminding the House of the conclusions of the Waterhouse Report which, as he rightly says, reached the conclusion that quarantine should stay and, indeed, that it should be tightened up in certain respects. Since that time, there has been no case of rabies outside of quarantine, and that in itself tells a very powerful story.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that, before any steps are taken to relax the regulations, he will satisfy himself that the veterinary standards in the countries to the south and south-east of the European Community are as high and as well managed as those in this country?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very powerful point. It is the case that some European Union states are defined as "rabies-free" and others have had great success in reducing the incidence of cases through a widespread campaign of wildlife vaccinations. But there are countries in the Community and bordering it where rabies is still common.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell the House whether there are any other countries in the European Union which, like us, do not have a dog registration scheme? As we do not have such a scheme, does that not put us in a very vulnerable position as regards having any sensible liaison with other countries

83
should anything go wrong; that is, dogs coming into this country, going astray and then being unable to be traced?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall need to take advice regarding which members of the European Union have a dog registration scheme and which do not. However, I am sure that the noble Viscount will agree that it is the simplicity of the quarantine system which has, in many ways, proved its success. It is automatic that any animal, whether registered or not, enters quarantine on arrival at these shores. I do not believe that the question of a registration scheme in this country would assist or indeed detract from that fact.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in regard to the reply that my noble friend gave to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—namely, that there were no recent cases of rabies outside of quarantine—can he advise the House how many cases there have been of infected animals inside quarantine?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am aware that there was a case of an animal developing clinical rabies while in quarantine in 1990, when a dog from Zambia developed the disease. Before that I believe there was a further case in 1983. Cases do occur from time to time, but they are by no means common.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the noble Earl has discounted the effectiveness of a dog registration scheme. However, if the quarantine system were to be abolished in this country, leading to demands from large sections of the public for the reintroduction of dog licensing in this country, would Her Majesty's Government respond to such a request?
Earl Howe: My Lords, some of the proposals put forward by the Select Committee would involve a de facto system of licensing. If any change were to be made, I believe that such a system would be necessary. It would be necessary to identify animals in a fail-safe manner.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what measures Her Majesty's Government have taken to prevent the Channel Tunnel being invaded by rabied rats?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend on that score. Strict hygiene, supported by the use of poisoned bait, is being maintained in the Channel Tunnel to minimise the risk of colonisation by rodents. Should regular site inspections reveal any infestation by rodents, intensified treatment of specific areas will be carried out. Members of the state veterinary service and wildlife officers visit the whole area regularly to check on the measures and to give advice.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, given the fact that the environment Bill of, I believe, 1991 gave the Secretary of State the power to introduce a dog registration
84
scheme, can the Minister tell the House whether any plans have been made so that, if it were necessary to do so, such a scheme could be implemented at short notice?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not aware of any plans to introduce dog registration at short notice. However, I shall inquire of my right honourable friend and write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong in that respect.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as the only common land border that we have with another EC country is that between Northern Ireland and the Republic, can my noble friend say whether it continues to be desirable for the Irish and ourselves to go step by step in the matter? Further, can my noble friend tell the House the attitude of the Irish Government?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend has made an important point. The Republic of Ireland is itself defined as rabies free as, of course, is the United Kingdom. My understanding is that the Government of the Republic are of one mind with ourselves.

World Trade Organisation
2.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy that the World Trade Organisation should not be a specialised agency or affiliate of the United Nations.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the World Trade Organisation should be a specialised agency or a formal affiliate of the United Nations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, which I welcome. I wish the new organisation well in its future administration of GATT. However, is there any pressure from other governments and organisations for it to be part of the United Nations? Should not GATT be kept separate, if possible, from the horse-trading that has become a feature at the United Nations on different subjects? GATT negotiations such as those in the recent Uruguay Round seem difficult enough without wider complications.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the United Nations Secretariat did raise the idea of affiliation. However, it met with unanimous opposition from members of the World Trade Organisation. I entirely agree with my noble friend that the organisation should be kept separate from the United Nations.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, in view of the difficulties of ratifying the accords of the Uruguay Round, can my noble friend confirm that every member state of the European Union will be an individual member of the World Trade Organisation and not merely represented by the European Community as a whole?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the answer to my noble friend's question is yes. However, I prefer to

85
take advice on the matter. If I am wrong, I shall inform my noble friend. My understanding is that each member is a member in its own right.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is there not a case for a very close liaison between the new World Trade Organisation—which we all wish success—and other UN specialised agencies in order to ensure very close contact? Was the decision taken a final or an interim one? Further, can the matter be reconsidered if it is thought that that would be helpful?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that we want to reconsider the question. The UK Government do not agree with that idea; nor, indeed, do any other members of the World Trade Organisation. However, I agree with the noble Lord that co-operation is important. We would support the establishment of observers among the World Trade Organisation and other intergovernmental organisations such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and so on. We are all in favour of co-operation, but that is different from saying that the organisation should be a part of the United Nations.

Influenza Virus: Research Co-operation
2.57 p.m.
Lord Molloyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is co-operation between scientists from Britain and from other countries in attempts to control the 'flu virus; and, if so, what is being done to fund this research.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, UK scientists have been collaborating with international researchers for many years. For example, one of three World Health Organisation collaborating centres for influenza is based in the UK and is funded by the Government through the Medical Research Council. The Department of Health also funds research directly and further money has been provided by the European Commission for international surveillance.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that worthwhile reply. It gives us some encouragement. However, is the Minister aware that influenza is still the greatest killer on earth? Indeed, 20 million people died in 1970, and millions die every year. People are a little concerned. Will the Minister consider the situation where there is a threat of infection when people are gathered together; for example, school children in their schools?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the people who suffer from influenza tend to be those who are older. In fact, when we look at the deaths each year from influenza, it is mostly people who are suffering from
86
other chronic conditions; for example, bronchitis, asthma, and so on. Therefore, the question about school children is really not relevant.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister use the occasion to emphasise once again the necessity for older people to have anti-flu vaccinations as quickly as they can?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Indeed, the Chief Medical Officer wrote to general practitioners in June, and again in September last year, reminding them of the need to encourage their patients to come forward for vaccination.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure that she is—that the Australians believe that they are on the verge of making a very great contribution towards producing a vaccine that will prevent influenza? Can we not encourage the rest of the Commonwealth, and other nations, to join us in supporting the Australians in what might well be a very great invention for all mankind?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have vaccines for influenza every year; indeed, we have had them over many years. The difficulty is that the virus changes year on year. Therefore, we have to grow a different vaccine every year according to the anticipated strains that will be current during that year. I should like to take the opportunity to say that UK scientists are actually the world leaders in advising the World Health Organisation on identifying those strains. As a nation, we should be very proud of that fact.

Blasphemy (Abolition) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to abolish the offence of blasphemy and certain other common law offences; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.2 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The first report from the Procedure Committee covers four matters. First, the committee has given further consideration to the report of the Group on Sittings of the House in the light of the views expressed in the debate on 2nd November. The committee has made the eight recommendations set out in the report. The underlying aim of this package of recommendations—most of which are experimental—is to enable the House to rise earlier, which I imagine that all your Lordships will welcome.

87
Secondly, the committee has recommended a relaxation in the sub judice rule to bring the position in this House more closely into line with the position in another place. At present the sub judice rule prevents reference in the House to any case before a court. In another place there is an exception in relation to civil cases for certain matters involving ministerial decisions or issues of national importance. This exception is at the discretion of the Speaker who must be satisfied that there is no real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings.
In the absence of a direct counterpart in this House to the Speaker in another place, the committee recommends that a similar discretion should be exercised by the Leader of the House, whose decision would be made on advice and after consultation. This arrangement is novel in so far as it gives the Leader a role going beyond advising the House. But the committee—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that this is completely unconstitutional to give the Leader of the House a position he has never occupied before? I think it would be quite pernicious.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if matters of that kind were to be dealt with following the moving of this Motion when I feel sure that in your Lordships' customary way your Lordships will take into account any matters which are raised by any noble Lord. Perhaps I should start the last sentence again so that I do not lose your Lordships. I am sure I am never in any danger of doing that, but I might lose myself in the process.
This arrangement is novel in so far as it gives the Leader a role going beyond advising the House, but the committee agreed that the House should have the benefit of the less restrictive rule which applies already in another place and felt that this was the best way of achieving this aim. Thirdly, the committee has approved a new edition of the Brief Guide to the Procedure and Practice of the House. In doing so, the committee decided to clarify three customs of the House which are not always adhered to.
First, maiden speakers should normally be congratulated by the following speaker only. It is desirable that noble Lords should not leave the Chamber during those congratulations. Secondly, noble Lords taking part in debates are expected to attend as much of it as possible, including the end of the debate. Noble Lords who become aware in advance that they are unlikely to be able to stay until the end should normally remove their names from the list of speakers.
Thirdly, the time for Back-Bench questions and comments on Statements is now limited to 20 minutes and the committee considers that the same limit should also apply to Front Bench speakers. Finally, the committee has considered the practice in relation to Questions for Written Answer which have not been answered when the House adjourns for a Recess. At present such Questions remain unanswered until the House resumes. The committee recommends that in future answers should normally be sent to the noble
88
Lord concerned within a fortnight, and then printed in Hansard for the next Sitting day, with a reference to the date on which they were answered.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 9).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
ORDERED TO REPORT:
1. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
The Committee has given further consideration to the Report (HL Paper 83, Session 1993–94) of the Group on Sittings of the House, in the light of the views expressed in debate on 2 November.
The Committee recommends:

(1) That further opportunities should be found for the use of Special Public Bill Committee procedure, in particular for Law Commission bills but also for other bills introduced into either House.

(2) That, as an experiment, a suitable bill should be considered by an informal committee along the lines described in paragraphs 8 to 17 of the Report.

(3) That, as an experiment, a suitable bill should be committed to a committee of the whole House off the floor of the House, as proposed in paragraphs 18 to 23 of the Report. There should be no divisions in the committee.

(4) That no action be taken on the suggestion, discussed in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Report, that some public bills might be carried over from one session to the next.

(5) That there should be a time limit of 1½. hours for all unstarred questions, other than those taken in dinner breaks (which are already limited to one hour). Time limits on speeches should be applied in the usual way, allowing at least 10 minutes for the Lord asking the question and 12 minutes for the Minister's reply, for both 1-hour and l½-hour unstarred questions. It follows that unstarred questions should be asked only on matters where a limited number of Lords are likely to wish to speak.

(6) That the House should sit on Fridays when the pressure of business requires and when there is a realistic expectation that a Friday sitting will enable the House to rise earlier on other days that week.

(7) That no starred questions should be taken on Fridays.

(8) That whenever possible business should be arranged so as to avoid the need for the House to sit beyond an agreed time, say 10 p.m. The Committee recognises that a significant improvement in the hours of sitting of the House can come only with general support throughout the House, and by agreement through the usual channels, and not by any decision of the Committee.

2. THE SUB JUDICE RULE
The Committee has given further consideration to the rule governing reference to cases sub judice. While the House agreed in 1963 that the practice should be similar in both Houses of Parliament, the practice has in fact been different since 1972 when the Commons gave the Speaker discretion to allow reference to matters sub judice which "relate to a Ministerial decision which cannot be challenged in Court except on grounds of misdirection or bad faith, or concern issues of national importance such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life".
The Committee recommends that a somewhat similar relaxation of the rule should be adopted in this House, and that the discretion whether a matter may be raised should be vested in the Leader of the House whose decision would be made on advice and after consultation. In contrast to the practice in relation to Private Notice Questions, where the Leader's preliminary decision may be challenged in the House, the Committee recommends that the

89
Leader's decision should not be subject to challenge as otherwise inappropriate cases might be raised on the floor of the House under the guise of a challenge to the Leader's ruling.
The reference in the Commons' rule to ministerial decisions "which cannot be challenged in Court except on grounds of misdirection or bad faith" is no longer appropriate in view of the development of judicial review since the Commons' rule was adopted, and the Committee recommends that those words be omitted from the rule in this House.
The Committee accordingly recommends that the following proviso should be added to the paragraph in the Companion (page 52) dealing with cases before civil courts:
"This is subject to the proviso that, where a ministerial decision is in question, or a case concerns issues of national importance such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life, reference may be made at the discretion of the Leader of the House, who must be satisfied that there is no real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings. The Leader of the House should be given at least 24 hours' notice of any proposal to refer to a matter which is sub judice. It is undesirable that the exercise of his discretion should be challenged in the House."
3. BRIEF GUIDE TO THE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE OF THE HOUSE
The Committee has considered and approved a draft new edition of the Brief Guide to the Procedure and Practice of the House of Lords, which will be made available at the same time as the new edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders.
The Committee noted certain customs of the House which at present are too often not adhered to and which are to be clarified in the new Brief Guide. They are as follows:
(1) Maiden Speeches
Maiden speakers should normally be congratulated by the following speaker only whose congratulations are on behalf of the whole House. It is accordingly desirable that Lords should not leave the Chamber during such congratulations.
(2) Attendance at debates
Lords taking part in a debate are expected to attend as much of it as possible, in particular the opening speeches, the speeches immediately before and after their own, and the winding-up speeches "below the gap". Lords who become aware in advance that they are unlikely to be able to stay until the end should normally remove their names from the list of speakers.
(3) Statements
The period for back-bench questions and comments on statements is now limited to 20 minutes. While there is no formal limit on front-bench speakers, the Committee considers that they too should seek to be brief and that the time for front-bench questions and comments and the Minister's reply should not normally be longer than the period for back-benchers.
4. QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER: ANSWERS DURING RECESSES
At present a question for written answer which has not been answered when the House adjourns for a recess remains unanswered until the House resumes. The Committee recommends that in future answers should normally be sent to the Lord concerned within a fortnight, even when the House is not sitting. Answers would, as at present, be printed in the Official Report for the next sitting day, with a reference to the date on which they were answered.
Lord Monkswellrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert ("with the exception of item 2 (The Sub-Judice Rule) which shall be referred back to the Select Committee for further consideration).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment in effect asks the Select Committee to have another look at the issue of the sub judice rule. I hope to explain to
90
your Lordships why this may be useful, but before I do I wish to pay a tribute to the Select Committee. I am sure I speak for all of us when I say that we owe a debt of gratitude to the hard work of the Select Committee and in particular to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for the exemplary way in which he has introduced this report.
I should also like to express my gratitude to the powers that be for enabling consideration of this report to be taken now rather than before the Christmas Recess. That has enabled us to consider the report at our leisure and digest the implications. That is useful. I wish to say a few words about the background to the report, then to consider the implications of the recommendations and suggest an alternative way of dealing with them.
As the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has already explained, section 2 of the report effectively sets a precedent in the way in which we conduct ourselves. Two of the very real strengths of this House are that every Member of your Lordships' House is able to contribute to our debates and offer their advice to the Government. Also, virtually all our business is taken on the Floor of the House. In this respect we are rather different from the other place and I think we need to recognise that difference and revel in it, if I may say that.
We must recognise that in the other place there are 650 Members, all of whom want to speak and contribute and raise issues. Over the years they have evolved a system of rules and they have empowered their Speaker to control their debates and determine who shall and shall not speak. But we do things rather differently in this House. I have spoken on previous occasions about the risk that we run in taking business off the Floor of the House and dealing with it upstairs. I do not wish to elaborate on that except to say that in this report we must be careful—I am sure we will be—about recommendations (1) and (3) in section 1.
However, in section 2 on the subject of the sub judice rule we run a new risk. Here I must stress that nothing in my remarks should be construed as a wish to interfere with the judiciary in the discharge of its functions in a court of law. I am sure that I speak for all of your Lordships when I say that we should have no right, nor should we seek to interfere, in the practice of a court of law.
The rules of sub judice should not be used to prevent Parliament offering advice to Government Ministers in the discharge of their discretionary functions. As the committee has advised the House, it is right that issues of national importance should be raised.
In 1963, as the report makes clear, it was agreed that the practice in this House should be similar to the practice in another place. I stress "similar", rather than the same. It is eminently sensible that the committee should be able to raise issues which are in theory sub judice. However, the committee goes much further and suggests that the Leader of the House should have the power to determine what should or should not be discussed on the Floor of your Lordships' House and, unfortunately, to suggest that the decision of the Leader of the House should not be challenged on the Floor of the House.

91
I suggest that that recommendation raises a number of problems. First, it places one of our number in a superior position in determining what may be raised in the House. It also gives that Member the ability to determine what another noble Lord may or may not say in the House. It places the Leader of the House in a very difficult position by calling on him to make a judgment about whether another member of the Government of which he is a member may be called into question on the Floor of the House. It also suggests that the Leader of the House may not be challenged on the Floor of the House in the exercise of his judgment.
I suggest that that is not the way we do business in this House; nor is it a way in which we should do business in the future. It is a major departure from precedent and sets a precedent which may do us harm in the future. Nowhere in the Standing Orders nor in the Companion do we give such power to the Leader of the House.
It has been suggested that the issue of Private Notice Questions is a precedent. I argue that it is not. As Standing Order 33 makes clear, and the Companion elaborates on page 81, there is no bar on a Private Notice Question being asked and the House can insist on the Government giving an immediate reply. That is completely different from giving the Leader of the House the power to prevent an issue being raised and to prevent the House from challenging his judgment.
I have also learned that there has been some concern among noble and learned Lords on the subject of your Lordships raising cases that are sub judice because of the possible risk of this House trying to influence the decision of a court of law. We must recognise that we have a special responsibility because of our relationship with the highest court in the land. I suggest that there are probably Members of your Lordships' House who would have dearly liked to influence a court of law, but we do not do that. I am sure also that if anyone in this House tried to do so there would be a very swift Motion from any quarter of the House that such a noble Lord should no longer be heard.
Where do we go from here? I suggest that we use the precedent that has already been established. I refer to the case of Miss Sue Hagan and Miss Sally Croft. That case was raised in this House on 31st March, 13th April and 6th June last year. On at least two of those occasions the case was sub judice because it was before a court of law. It is interesting and significant that at no time did any Member of your Lordships' House try to influence a court of law, but there was a concerted effort from all sides of your Lordships' House to influence the Home Secretary in the exercise of his discretion in that case.
On one occasion during those debates it was moved that a noble Lord be no longer heard because it was felt that he might transgress the sub judice rule. On that occasion the Motion was withdrawn. The House was adjourned for five minutes and when it reassembled the debate continued.
I suggest that the way in which that case was raised and debated in your Lordships' House showed your Lordships' House at its best. It demonstrated that, even when passions are roused and the rules appear likely to be broken, self-regulation by your Lordships works. In
92
saying that I must pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who, as Leader of the House at the time, demonstrated true capacities of leadership which enabled the House to work to its own rules by accommodating our current sub judice rules with the will of the House expressed in 1963 that our practice should be similar to that of the other place while maintaining our self-regulatory climate. I see no reason for not using that precedent to frame a modification to the Companion to enable debate in this House that would enable us to give advice to government Ministers and prevent us attempting to influence courts of law.
To summarise, there is a need to change our sub judice rules in line with the practice in the other place. In the other place the Speaker controls the business. In this House we control our own business. It has been suggested that the Leader of the House should assume the role of Speaker in this case, but he is a member of the Government and not a servant of the House. We have a proud and good record of controlling our own debates without a Speaker. My amendment would enable the procedure Committee to look at the subject again and frame changes to our sub judice rules which would preserve our self-regulatory regime, allow us to offer advice to Ministers and prevent interference in the conduct of cases before a court of law. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert ("with the exception of item 2 (The Sub-Judice Rule) which shall be referred back to the Select Committee for further consideration).—(Lord Monkswell.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my first instinct was identical to that expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his short intervention a few minutes ago. The rest of the report may be reasonably satisfactory, but trying to install a pseudo Speaker in your Lordships' House would be not only the wrong thing to do but a stupid thing to do. In terms of wanting to copy the other place, if any copying is to be done the other place ought to copy our procedures and our standards. Anyone who has sat in both Houses will be familiar with the nonsense of the points of order which arise from the interpretation of what is right or wrong. Our system works, and it works well. Whatever happens to the rest of the report, I hope that it is not too late to alter the suggestion that there should be a Speaker—whether it is the Leader of the House or anybody else—giving judgment of that sort.
Our strength is our complete independence to work to our own rules. The system has worked well. Any alteration in the direction which is suggested in terms of making the Leader of the House a pseudo Speaker will tie us up in bureaucracy which will interfere with the effectiveness of this House.
I do not know whether the right way to give effect to what I suggest is by voting for the amendment. I shall give more thought to that in the light of what other noble Lords may say. However, whether it is through the amendment or by some other means I hope that the complete freedom of this House to adhere to its own self-control will not be interfered with.

93
I have sat in your Lordships' House under Leaders from different parties, so there is no question about the individuals involved. Indeed, I can think of no one I would rather follow almost without question as Leader than the present Leader of this House. However, that is not the point. To enter into the bureaucracy which would flow from an individual dictating—and being legally able to dictate—how the House shall conduct itself would be a retrograde step. I hope that at this stage we shall find some way to avoid moving down that road.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and my noble friend Lord Monkswell because all that is being asked for is further consideration. I very much hope that the Chairman of Committees will feel able to say that that is appropriate and that my noble friend Lord Monkswell will withdraw his amendment. Anything to do with procedure really ought to go through by general consent because it is the framework within which our deliberations are conducted.
There really is no rush for this because at heading 3 we are told that,
"The Committee has considered and approved a draft new addition of the Brief Guide… and a new edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders".
I obtained those documents from the Printed Paper Office today. They appeared in 1989. I cannot believe that there is any great rush to replace them.
I understand that the Procedure Committee has established a sub-committee to consider the question of Peers' interests. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will explain to the House the sub-committee's remit. The sub-committee could well suggest one or two changes. They would have to be sent out as addenda to the newly printed editions of the Brief Guide and the Companion. For the sake of a few months' delay we are really losing nothing.
When the question of interests is being considered, I would like to draw attention to two points. One concerns the position of EC Commissioners. In this House we are privileged to have former Commissioners in our midst. To peasants like myself, representative of the great unwashed, to be led by the hand through the labyrinths of the EC by those Commissioners is a great privilege. However, I would ask whether our Pharisee Commissioners should not declare an interest if they are in receipt of a pension from the EC. In the interests of pruning the budget, they may well eschew the pension, in which case I congratulate them. But otherwise I believe that there is a specific interest there.
The other point is important because I do not believe that anyone has realised the situation which has evolved. During the debate on 2nd November on the Liaison Committee report I drew attention to a portion of the report which stated:
"The Liaison Committee has considered a proposal for a Select Committee to scrutinise legislation for consistency with the European Convention on Human Rights'".—[official Report, 2/11/94; col. 844.]
94
I said that I suspected that that proposal had come from a pressure group. After the debate I wrote to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal asking for the origin of the proposal. I was told that it was put forward by four Peers, one Conservative, one Labour, one Liberal Democrat and a Cross-Bencher. That leads us on, does it not, to the phrase which is so helpful,
"support in all parts of the House".
But all those four Peers were barristers. It seems to me that where substantial changes in the law are being made which will generate a great deal of work in the courts, that factor is just as much an interest as any other interests which are declared in your Lordships' House. I hope therefore that the Committee will consider that aspect.
It is not an academic matter because in the Sunday Telegraph I noted a report headed, "£150m bill for NHS blunders". The article refers to a memo from the Department of Health to the Treasury revealing that damages for medical negligence will cost the National Health Service £150 million this year. Officials predict that claims will rise by more than 20 per cent. annually. That does not mean that the medical services are becoming more negligent by 20 per cent. every year. It means that the legal profession is touting for business to try to encourage people to take cases. I am sure that noble Lords have seen advertisements in newspapers asking people whether they would not be eligible for claims. The article states:
"Officials … predict that claims will rise by … 20 per cent. annually, with American-style litigation against doctors crippling the Health Service".
It is a serious matter and sooner or later, if we are not to go the way of the United States, this country has to face up to the problem. I suggest that the sub-committee would be doing a service—
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I suggest that the sub-committee may well be doing a service if it had a look at that problem.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if I am not intervening—or am I?—perhaps I may briefly oppose this Motion, albeit that I happen to be a member of the Bar. Having raised the subject on a previous occasion in your Lordships' House, and having been present at the rather unfortunate affair which arose at which my noble friend Lord Ferrers—I see that he is in his place—was present when the question of sub judice arose, I wish to say shortly that it seems to me that the proposed proviso affords a relevant, reasonable and wholly satisfactory resolution of the problem on the basis of 24 hours' notice in which to seek advice and entertain discussion. It surely could not be intended that no one could, so to speak, query the advice or the decision of the Leader of the House; but, by and large, surely as proposed it is a sensible resolution on the face of it. I oppose the amendment.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the case for reconsideration of the proposal to give this strange

95
revolutionary new power to the Leader of the House has been so well expressed by both sides of the House that I need hardly say much. However, I have been Leader of the House, and I have also been moved out of order in this House. That is, I suppose, a unique sequence of events; I cannot envisage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, being moved out of order.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No.
The Earl of Longford: I therefore have certain credentials for taking part in the debate.
There was a real problem last summer. The more one went into it, the more acute the problem was. On the one hand, it could be argued that nothing must be done to disturb the judiciary in their work. On the other hand, the moment that the judiciary had decided on an issue, a couple of ladies were going to be extradited to America and at that time it seemed—mercifully it has not turned out that way—that they would be in prison for a year before trial. That was the difficult situation.
I quite agree that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, handled the matter with dexterity, as was expected of him. I have no doubt that the present Leader of the House would have handled it in the same fashion. But I would not say that the result was perfect. I therefore feel that it is only right that we should have another look at the issue.
However, I cannot agree that it would be right for the Leader of the House to be put on the same footing as the Speaker of the House of Commons. It would be totally unlike anything that has happened in this House before. I remember the days when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was Leader of the House. Lord Stansgate kept chivying him with what seemed to him tiresome questions. The noble and learned Lord finally became irate and said, "The noble Lord knows that I have my remedy". Lord Stansgate, enjoying the situation, replied, "If the noble and learned Lord has his remedy, he had better use it". The noble and learned Lord also enjoying it, said, "I will use it", and he moved that the noble Lord be no longer heard. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, would be the last to suggest that on that occasion he should have been able to move Lord Stansgate out of order.
The proposal is the thin edge of the wedge. I very much hope that anyone who has love for the House and its traditions will agree to the matter being handed back to the committee for further consideration.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I understand both points of view. I understand that the House of Lords should not be in any different position from the House of Commons in matters relating to the sub judice rule. On the other hand, I also understand the arguments of the mover of the amendment and those who have spoken in favour of it. Once again, the proposal would hand over power from the elected body to someone who is, after all, in one way a bureaucrat. We must always be careful about that.
The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees made two points. The first was that any decision of the Leader of the House would be taken after advice. Presumably that would be advice from the Clerks. Secondly, he said
96
that it would be taken after consultation. I should like to know with whom the consultation will take place. Will it take place with the Leader of the Opposition alone, or with all the parties, including the Cross Benches? I think the House is entitled to know the answer to the two questions: where will the advice come from, and with whom will consultation take place? If the amendment is put to a vote, I think that the decision of many Members will depend upon the answers to those questions.
There are two other points I wish to make since the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees did not deal with them. First, as regards Unstarred Questions, a time limit is suggested for speeches. It is also proposed that Unstarred Questions which will take longer than one-and-a-half hours should not be put down. However, we shall not know how many speakers wish to speak perhaps until the very day before the debate and that will raise some difficulty. The final question I wish to ask is: why is it felt necessary to remove Starred Questions from the agenda when we sit on Fridays?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to draw attention to paragrphs (2) and (3) under heading 1 of the report. Paragraph (2) states that,
"a suitable bill should be considered by an informal committee along the lines described in paragraphs 8 to 17 of the Report".
If your Lordships agree to the committee being formed, I take the view that that committee will almost act in the capacity—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will feel it appropriate to adjourn the House for five minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 3.33 to 3.38 p.m.]
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, there are two or three points I wish to raise. I have some anxiety about whether paragraphs (2) and (3) will be productive. It is suggested that,
"as an experiment, a suitable bill should be considered by an informal committee along the lines described in paragraphs 8 to 17 of the Report".
Paragraph (3) states that,
"as an experiment, a suitable bill should be committed to a committee of the whole House off the floor of the House, as proposed in paragraphs 18 to 23 of the Report. There should be no divisions in the committee".
In my view—members of the committee may tell me that I am wrong—this is to enter upon the Standing Committee procedure of another place. When a Bill is sent to a committee, the committee will process the Bill. At Report stage in another place, the Bill returns to the Floor of the House and may still be amended.
Paragraph (3) states:
"There should be no divisions in the committee".
What is proposed is a debating society on particular Bills which will not produce anything. Why do I say that? Paragraph 8 of the report, after reference to formal amendments, states:
"Where an acceptable case has been made, hopefully the Government would make concessions".

97
I have been privileged to sit on the Opposition Benches in this House since 1983. Along with colleagues generally on this side, including members of the Liberal Party, and those in other parts of the Chamber—even, sometimes, some of the Government's own supporters—I have spent hour after hour trying to persuade the Government to be reasonable, to see the light of day and to accept cases in relation to which, if the debate set the criteria for what was to be in the Bill, this side and those in opposition to the Government would have won hands down. The only time in all those years that the Government ever conceded beforehand and refused to process a part of a Bill or bring it back when it had been altered here against their wishes was when they knew that they were on a hiding to nothing. I remind the Government that in respect of one of the reverses they suffered here—on the War Crimes Bill—they invoked the Parliament Act to override noble Lords. I do not argue the points of that Bill. I merely say that that was what the Government did. They trod all over this House, brought the Bill back and made it law. So where do we get—
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I must interrupt my noble friend. The War Crimes Bill was given a free vote in another place.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Yes, my Lords, that is correct. However, noble Lords eventually voted against it and then the Government insisted on it. That is my point. I believe that we are both correct.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Dean of Beswick: I do not believe that the noble Lord is more correct than I am. The last time the Parliament Act was invoked by this Government—the only time, I believe—was in relation to the War Crimes Bill. It is not within my memory that the Government have, with good will, conceded to the opposition—I am not talking only about my own party—anything of a major character where the case has been proved.
The report states that hopefully the Government would make concessions. If that position is accepted but the Government say, "We will not be reasonable; the Bill remains as it stands; we have spent so many hours on it in Committee; we are not altering anything", and it is then brought into this Chamber on Report, effectively a Committee stage is started at Report stage here. In effect, the Bill would be gone through for the first time with voting powers to alter it in this Chamber and not upstairs. I wonder whether we might not be getting involved in a spurious exercise in going through a Bill without opinion being taken by means of a vote being cast at the end of debate on some very important issues.
I want to follow what my noble friend Lord Stoddart said regarding the matter of Unstarred Questions. I would want to see only a minimum of interference in the procedure of this House in respect of what Back-Benchers, more than anyone, value tremendously; namely, the right to bring an issue before the House, debate it and receive a ministerial Answer. That is far better than what happens in the other place by means of
98
the half-hour adjournment debate, which does not mean much at all. I believe that it would be stretching things a little even to say that we will make it the practice for the dinner hour to be taken up with Unstarred Questions. I believe it was my noble friend Lord Stoddart who made the point: how do you know how many names will be put down on the list of speakers? That could be known only at 12 o'clock on the day of the debate. I recall within the past few months the noble Earl, Lord Longford, putting down a Motion on some matter which resulted in a list of between 12 and 18 speakers. Who is going to turn round and tell noble Lords, once their names are down, that they cannot speak because the debate is over-provided for? We have to be very careful when we tinker with that. It should not be forgotten that Unstarred Questions do not trespass on the time of the House in terms of legislation. It is Members' own time that is being used; all that is required is that a Minister is present to answer the debate.
The suggestion has been made that this House is full of self-discipline. It is fair to say that most of the time it is. I have been in this Chamber and have limited myself to 10 to 12 minutes in introducing an Unstarred Question. I believe that the maximum time I ever took was 15 minutes, and I was quite rightly ticked off by my Chief Whip after the event. However, I was followed by a member of my party who spoke for 25 minutes. For the House to accept the proposed rulings on procedure for Unstarred Questions and to expect every Member of this House to give an undertaking to speak for 10 minutes and no more is a complete nonsense.
The Unstarred Question procedure in this place is very valuable. Often a Back-Bencher brings to the notice of the House an issue which ought to be given a place on the Order Paper but the time factor acts against. He or she therefore takes a personal initiative in bringing a matter before the House that is of great significance. A Member once tabled a Question on passports for those from Hong Kong. There was no legislation going through Parliament that could cater for the matter. Back-Benchers brought the issue forward. Those who promote restriction on the time taken up by Unstarred Questions would do well to look at the matter again. It is a retrograde step. We have a very valuable asset. I would be opposed to any alteration. As I say, I reluctantly accept that there may be a case for using the dinner hour to debate some matters; but for most subjects one hour is far too short a time.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may say one or two words merely on one issue that is before the House; namely, the amendment which I had thought we were in process of debating relating to sub judice. I have listened closely indeed to what has been said. I wish to pose the dilemma, as I see it, with which the Procedure Committee was faced.
After the case, to which reference has been made, of the two ladies who were sent back to Oregon and the prohibition that seemed to apply to my noble friend Lord Longford when he tried to raise certain issues of ministerial discretion in relation to the case, despite the fact that it was in front of the court I took the view that

99
our rules in relation to sub judice were too restrictive. I had reason to look at the position taken by the House of Commons. It was perfectly clear that the position there is easier from the point of view of someone seeking to raise an issue than it is in this place. There are various historical reasons for that into which I need not go. The fact is that in another place the Speaker now has a discretion to allow much wider debate on an issue that is before the courts than apparently is the position here. I therefore felt it was right that the Procedure Committee should look at the issue and see whether we could move our procedures nearer to those of the House of Commons, particularly as there is a resolution of this House that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the procedures of the two Houses should be in accord.
After discussion in the Procedure Committee it was concluded that there was indeed a good case for altering the position in this House so that noble Lords could raise issues of ministerial discretion which, up to now, they have not been able to do. Therefore the question is one of mechanisms: how does one achieve a situation in which a noble Lord is entitled to raise the issue without it being raised in such a way as to prejudice the case going on in front of the courts?
The Speaker in the other House has the power to take that decision. On the face of it, nobody in this House is capable of doing it. Somebody has to take the decision. It seems to me that, by definition, there cannot be discussion on the Floor of the House as to whether the issue that one wants to raise and which is in fact being discussed at that moment on the Floor of the House will or will not prejudice the proceedings. By then the issue has been raised. Once the matter is out, the damage has been done—if indeed damage is to be done. Therefore, somehow, a body, an individual or a group of people who could take that decision has to be found.
The Procedure Committee decided to recommend to the House that the person who should have to take that decision should be the Leader of the House. He sits in a dual capacity: he is a political figure and a member of the Cabinet but he also represents the House. As Leader of the Opposition in this House, I believe that in that second capacity the Leader of the House is capable of taking a decision in the interests of the House. I know that there are political problems. I accept that. Sometimes it is very difficult for a politician to be sufficiently schizophrenic in his approach to his duties to be able to cut himself off and say, "I am not doing this in my political capacity; I am doing it in my capacity as Leader of the House". I observe only that judges have to do that in the courts almost every day. If a judge's mind is capable of being divided, I do not see why the mind of the Leader of the House should not be equally capable of making that kind of distinction.
That is the position at which we arrived. It seems to me that the debate today has established two things, at least so far as I am aware. One is that there is a feeling in the House that the Leader of the House is not the right person to take the decision. In answer to that, I ask "If not him, who?" and there is no reply to that. The second point that seems to have been made is that this matter should be referred back to the Procedure Committee. I am not necessarily against that course. If
100
the House wishes it to be referred back, so be it. I observe only that the dilemma which the Procedure Committee faced when it considered the matter a month or so ago remains precisely the same. It does not change because there has been an airing of the issue on the Floor today. We shall still have to face exactly the same issues and problems and try to find an acceptable solution.
I suppose that one other possibility today is for the mechanism to be put in place; we try it for a year or so to see how it works; and if it works (or not) it must come back to the House for the House to say yea or nay on whether noble Lords feel that giving such discretion to the Leader of the House is a good or bad thing. If that were the feeling of the House today, I should certainly not stand in the way of it.
Finally, I believe that on the whole it has been helpful that this issue has been raised. My noble friend Lord Monkswell was perfectly entitled to raise it. He raised it in what I consider to be a moderate and sensible way. The House should be grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to have this debate.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the sub judice rule. The purpose of that rule is to ensure that the system of justice is not interfered with by any extraneous source. It is a counterpart of the rule in the courts that they will not countenance any inquiry into how Parliament—either House of Parliament—conducts its business. The two are complementary, in order to prevent collisions between the judiciary and legislature such as occurred, unfortunately, before those rules were crystallised.
As the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition explained, the purpose of the Procedure Committee's proposal was to bring our procedure closer to that of the other place. I respectfully agree with him that if that is to be done, what is proposed by the Procedure Committee is the only practical course to bring it about.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked: with whom should there be consultation? I apprehend that it would be with the party leaders and perhaps, occasionally, with some Cross-Benchers. The difficulty about the latter is that it would produce a wide variety of opinion. The advice, I should have thought, would be from the Clerk of the Parliaments and possibly the Counsel to the Chairman of Committees. One other consultation seems to me highly desirable; namely, between the Leader of the House and the Speaker of the other place, to ensure that the practice is not different in any particular case.
It is a long time since I had direct experience of this procedure in another place but I have tried to follow it. So far as I can see, the present practice in the other place works extremely well. The most recent case of importance arose during the debate on the Maastricht Bill because there had been an application to the High Court for judicial review which would, in effect, have invalidated that Bill. It was rejected at first instance. It was then appealed and the Speaker had to make her decision. She decided that the rule should be waived. I

101
have seen no criticism at all of that decision; nor do I have any reason to think that it does not operate perfectly satisfactorily.
The difficulty arises in the next stage. There was no appeal from the Court of Appeal to your Lordships' House. But it is there that the difficulty arises because the judicial decision of your Lordships' House is the decision of the whole House. That is the legal position. So often, the conventional, real situation is slightly different—or very different—because the Appellate Committee operates like a court of law, is seen to do so and approved of so operating. On the other hand, it is well over 150 years since the lay Lords attempted in any way to influence a decision of the Appellate Committee—long before there were Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. In my view, it would be highly improper for any Lord of Appeal, whether or not a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, to express any view on the merits of any case which was pending in your Lordships' House. If that were improper, as I think it would be, from any legal Member of your Lordships' House, it would be still more improper from a lay Member in view of the history to which I adverted. It would be extremely improbable therefore that the Leader of the House would ever advise the waiver of the rule in any case that was pending before your Lordships' House. It would need to be a quite exceptional circumstance and one to which I cannot at the moment advert.
It seems to me that there is no reason to refer this report back, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, put it with his usual calm persuasiveness. On the other hand, the question arises of keeping our own procedure in line with that of the other place. The Procedure Committee may like to give that point further consideration. But for that, it is not necessary to refer the matter back, and I hope that it will not be so referred.
4 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, as is so often the case the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, shone a special and clear searchlight on this problem. We are all grateful to him for that. We are grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who outlined the issues with such clarity. I am even more grateful though I slightly differ from him in his conclusions.
What emerges from the debate is that there is a certain conflict between two desiderata. If we can, we want to bring our procedure in relation to the sub judice rule into line with that of the Commons. But we do not want to turn the Leader of your Lordships' House into anything like the Speaker of the House of Commons. I am not worried about individual decisions that he may make, on ex officio or ad hominem grounds. I do not believe that there would be conflict between his political stance and his functions as Leader of the House. I am sure that he would give the fairest possible decisions in which I would have total confidence.
However, the problem arises of taking him down the road of possessing a unilateral power equivalent to that of the Speaker which may have certain repercussions in the future. I incline to the view, as the noble Lord, Lord
102
Richard, said, that there is no other way round the situation. But the doubts expressed were sufficient—to my mind at any rate, speaking as a member of the Procedure Committee and bearing a responsibility for the recommendations—to persuade me that it would be courteous to the House and perhaps produce a better solution if the Procedure Committee, with great expedition, looked again at the matter. I do not think that we should lose much by that. It may well be that after that further meeting we would come back with the same recommendation. But I believe that the matter should be looked at again in light of the views expressed fairly widely around the Chamber.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I rise not to make a speech but to make a brief point. I am surprised that no one mentioned the possibility that there is another solution. It is not an absolute solution but it is a suggestion which should at least be put to the House; namely, that we have a Speaker in the Lord Chancellor. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is also the head of the judiciary, in addition to being a Member of the Cabinet. While I have every faith in the noble Viscount, and have great sympathy with everything said by my noble friend, nevertheless, the Lord Chancellor is a figure of great significance in our constitution and in this House. We should therefore consider the possibility of referring cases to him.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, on the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, there is little to distinguish—from a political point of view—the position of the Lord Chancellor and that of the Leader of the House. It is still a political appointment. If the Lord Chancellor were appointed in the same manner as the Speaker of another place, perhaps the argument would have greater significance.
I listened to the various arguments put forward and understand that a number of your Lordships hold strong views about change. We are animals who, from time to time, have a reluctance to change. However, the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, must appeal to most of your Lordships. In this matter we are taking a step in the dark. We are not certain of what the knock-on effect of this would be. I agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls when he said that it would be a retrograde step. I share his view. It may well be a retrograde step but we do not know that. If, without commitment, your Lordships' accept the proposal put forward by the Procedure Committee and incorporate it in a trial period of, say, two or three years with the Procedure Committee keeping the matter under review, the matter may be brought back to your Lordships' House at a later date when we could assess the views of your Lordships. That may be the best way forward.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the permission of the House, perhaps I may say that this has been an extremely interesting exchange. It has taken rather longer than perhaps any Member sitting in the House expected. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, we should thank the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for raising a matter of considerable interest to your Lordships' House, and rightly so. Perhaps your

103
Lordships will allow me briefly to put my own gloss on this debate. I do not wish to speak to the matters raised by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in his opening remarks. I wish to speak more particularly to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
I am extremely conscious that the Leader of the House enjoys no more privileges than any other Member of your Lordships' House. That is not only the immemorial custom of your Lordships' House, but it is also right that it should be so. Many of your Lordships—I believe everyone who spoke this afternoon—recognised that that is the right and the position. I would be the last in any way to seek to undermine that position. It is fundamental to the way your Lordships' House is organised and self-regulation should be the watchword of how we conduct our affairs.
I therefore have the greatest sympathy with the dilemma put with such clarity by both the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins, concerning the sub judice rule. The difficulty is clearly set out in paragraph 3 of the report. By virtue of a matter being raised as to whether or not it is sub judice, the noble Lord who raises the point is immediately entering into discussion on a matter which may subsequently and retrospectively, after that discussion, be thought to have been sub judice, thereby, in a circular way, defeating the very object of having a sub judice rule in the first place.
The last thing in the world I want to do—indeed it would be invidious for me to do so—is to put the Leader forward as a quasi-Speaker in this matter and in this matter alone. But the difficulty is, as the committee recognised, and indeed as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, recognised in his remarks, that at some point somebody must give a ruling if we are to avoid the matter being raised and thereby prejudicing the case in hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested the Lord Chancellor as someone who might, with advantage, be proposed for this role. I am very far from being against that suggestion. However, I would ask the noble Lord to consider page 17 of the 1989 edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders. If the House would allow me, I should like to quote from that:
"The Lord Chancellor is Speaker of the House of Lords ex officio. It is his duty ordinarily to attend as Speaker, to sit on the Woolsack and to preside over the deliberations of the House, except when it is in Committee. He puts the Question on all Motions which are submitted to the House, but he has no power either to maintain order or to act in any way as the representative or mouthpiece of the House".
That is qualified by the phrase,
"unless the House confers the necessary authority upon him".
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor holds another very important office; namely, he is the head of the judiciary and he sits as a judge. He is one step away from the Cabinet as far as that is concerned.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wholly accept that point. The difficulty, it seems to me—as always, in all matters, but in this matter particularly, I am in the hands of your Lordships—is that the Lord Chancellor, who would undoubtedly be a better judge in these matters
104
than I as Leader of the House, would find it difficult to enter into the regulation of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, might like to take that point into account.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for giving way. The noble Viscount is the Leader of the House. The Lord Chancellor is not the Leader of the House. That is a difference. In one sense the Leader of the House is our man. The Lord Chancellor, apart from being outside of the House, is the judiciary's man. He is the leader of the judiciary. Therefore, he has an interest, unlike the Leader of the House. That surely disqualifies the Lord Chancellor from making any decision as to whether a matter is sub judice.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as is so often the case, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has anticipated what I was going to say, although he perhaps puts it more forcefully and more elegantly than I could have done. The Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, pointed out, have to lead a somewhat schizophrenic existence in your Lordships' House, both as members of the Cabinet and in performing a rather less partisan function. I feel that any competent Leader of the House must regard his or her position as Leader of the House as one in which he or she is Leader of the whole House and is not a partisan figure in that capacity. Many former Leaders of your Lordships' House are still Members of your Lordships' House. By common consent, they have been extremely effective and forceful Leaders of the House who have respected and indeed adorned that tradition. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, is a very good case in point.
There is a case for the Leader of the House to be given this task in spite of the caveats entered by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I understand wholly what he says particularly as, if this change were to be made, it would be I, as Leader of the House, who would take on a function which would be a new departure for your Lordships and therefore would be all the greater a responsibility for me to discharge.
It might also be worth saying that the pronouncements of the Leader over whether a matter should be sub judice would be characterised in particular by two considerations. First, it is very clear that any pronouncement by the Leader on whether a matter is sub judice would be in the direction only of a relaxation of debate rather than a prohibition. That, in terms of the freedoms of your Lordships' House, would be most important for your Lordships to understand.
The second point has been made by many of your Lordships during the course of this afternoon's exchanges. The Leader would not pronounce in a personal capacity. He would take advice. I listened, as always, with particular attention to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I suspect that it would not be appropriate for the Leader to take the advice of the Opposition leaders or indeed the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers because they,

105
inevitably, are purely political figures, however much they may be leaders in waiting. What would be sensible is for the Leader to take the advice of the Counsel to the Chairman of Committees and indeed of the learned Clerk of the House.
As such, primed with their advice and a suitable degree of notice before having to pronounce to your Lordships on sub judice matters, he would be rather like what I understand the Pope would be like when he pronounces on a matter of doctrine, in which he is, I am told, infallible. I am not a Roman Catholic myself but I understand that if he pronounces ex cathedra, he is suitably primed with all the advice and panoply which followers of that faith believe gives him the authority he would need. In this case that kind of advice would bolster the Leader's position as an independent figure representing your Lordships as a whole rather than representing the party of the government of the day.
I am extremely conscious that I have spoken for rather longer than I intended to, which perhaps is one of the penalties of speaking unprepared. I should like to suggest to your Lordships that there are two alternatives. The first is the alternative proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, which is that we should try the recommendation of the committee for a period long enough to give us some experience of the workings of the proposal and that we should then review it after perhaps two or three examples of this happening. Then, if the House expressed itself dissatisfied with how the experiment was working, it would be open to the House to reject it.
The other alternative, which was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was that this matter should be referred back to the Procedure Committee, which would then take note of the exchanges this afternoon and make a further recommendation to your Lordships. I am entirely, as always, in the hands of your Lordships' House. I have to say—this is no more than a matter of judgment in which I could be proved entirely wrong—that I would strongly suspect, having listened with close attention to the deliberations of the Procedure Committee when it discussed this important matter and indeed the consultations that occurred before that committee sat, that the committee would find it very difficult—there are many members of the committee present today who might disagree with me on this—to come to any different conclusion from the one it has already come to.
Therefore, if the House were to ask me to make a recommendation, the recommendation that I would feel constrained to make, in spite of the very sensible and understandable reservations expressed by noble Lords on all sides of the House, would be for a relatively short period of experiment. If the experiment is manifestly a failure, or if there are any doubts at all about the propriety of the way in which the experiment has been handled, or indeed the safeguards that are put in place, it is open to the House to refer it back to the Procedure Committee or indeed to revert to the status quo.
However, I believe that the House will be well aware of the difficulty to which so many of your Lordships have already alluded this afternoon. Quite simply, it
106
does not make sense for Parliament, in the form of both its Houses, to labour under different sub judice rules. We are talking about the pragmatic effects of matters which are not being allowed to be discussed in one House and then being discussed in another. No matter where it is discussed, and in whichever House of Parliament, the person accused or the civil case under discussion, will find itself prejudiced in a way which would be against the best traditions of British justice and of this House.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain to me how the House can express itself on the two propositions which he has put? If the majority of us feel that the matter should go back to the committee, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, how can we set about doing that? If we support the amendment on the Order Paper, what would be the procedure for getting the second alternative accepted rather than the one which my noble friend appears to favour?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I know that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees is waiting to reply. I say to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicolls that I hope that this is a matter which does not come to a vote because I suspect that matters of this kind are much better resolved by consensus and agreement. Therefore, I suggest that it is open to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, to decide whether or not to withdraw his amendment. If he wishes to withdraw it, that would imply that your Lordships as a whole would follow the inclination both of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and of myself. However, if the noble Lord does not wish to withdraw the amendment, I would be reluctant to push the matter to a vote.
I suggest to your Lordships that if there is sufficient feeling in your Lordships' House, the second alternative open to us is the one that we can follow. It would be extremely unfortunate if we divided on this matter. A decision is much better arrived at by consensus. If we need to take a little time, so much the better.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, why cannot we do both? We can ask the committee to consider looking at it and to adopt the measure temporarily as it is. That seems to me to satisfy everybody's inclinations.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this significant debate this afternoon. As your Lordships appreciate, it would be normal courtesy for me to refer by name to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, but I hope that they will forgive me if I do not do so because there have been a large number of speakers. I shall of course mention those noble Lords who have raised matters outside this particular issue.
In the few, brief references in this debate on the sub judice rule, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for his kind remarks at the outset of his speech, and also for having notified me before he tabled his amendment that he was proposing to raise this matter in some way in the House.

107
It has become evident in the course of this afternoon's debate that there is a point which has not been specifically mentioned but which I believe I should mention. I hope that I am not disclosing a secret which I should not disclose. The discussions in the Procedure Committee were very lengthy. It sat on three occasions considering the sub judice rule. Therefore, that is an indication in itself that the committee was taking the matter very seriously indeed. It considered all the points which have been raised by your Lordships this afternoon. Over quite a period of time the committee has been very conscious both of the difficulties and of the benefits of introducing a change to the rule.
A point which has not been raised is one which I believe I should mention; namely, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House accepted with some diffidence the role which was proposed in the recommendation from the Procedure Committee. It is not something which was overwhelmingly and instantly accepted with acclamation and great enthusiasm. But having been considered over a period of time, and for all the reasons which have been outlined this afternoon by the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in particular—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred to it as well—it has been accepted that that was really the only practicable solution which was open to the committee to recommend to your Lordships.
The only other points which I wish to mention are these: as has been stated in the debate this afternoon and in the report which is before your Lordships, that the decision of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would be based on advice. It is perfectly true to say—it has not been spelt out in so many words—that those who have been suggested as the providers of that advice to the Leader are the very ones who, for example, were mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—that is to say, the Clerk of the Parliaments and the counsel to the Chairman of Committees in the principal place. In these circumstances, the Leader would need independent legal advice. The others who have been mentioned are the noble and learned Lords the Lords of Appeal and the Lord Chancellor.
I enter a note of reservation on that point. We have to be conscious, as the Procedure Committee itself was conscious—it could not be otherwise with two noble and learned Lords sitting on that committee; namely, the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and Lord Mustill—that that consultation would have to be carried out with some delicacy because noble and learned Lords may well find themselves sitting on the very cases which have come under consideration under the sub judice rule. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary at that level generally would find a practical way of dealing with the situation, but we have to be conscious of it. That is why I mentioned that the principal, and initial at least, source of advice would be the Clerk of the Parliaments and the counsel to the Chairman of Committees.
I do not want to prolong matters, but there is one other point which I should like to mention in this connection. It was the clear wish of the Procedure Committee that there should be greater freedom in this House—and that cannot be over-emphasised in my
108
respectful submission—as there is already in another place, to refer in debate to matters which are technically sub judice but which are the legitimate concerns of Parliament.
I underline that by saying that the important feature of the new procedure proposed to your Lordships is that the Leader, in coming to a decision on one of these matters, can only relax the prohibition in debate; he cannot impose it. It is important for us to bear that in mind because it is a relaxation. It is an extension of the powers of the House to consider these matters.
In the light of all that your Lordships have said, I say this to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Monkswell—I am so sorry, my Lords, I should have said, "the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell". I shall have to try very rapidly to retrieve my awkward situation by saying that he presented his case so eloquently that perhaps your Lordships might feel that an accolade of that kind is not inappropriate in his case. If the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, feels able to withdraw his amendment, I shall now give a firm undertaking to the House that after the limited period of experience of these matters, I shall invite the Procedure Committee to review the situation to see whether it is working or working as properly as we would wish.
In giving that very firm undertaking, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, not to tie me down to a specific period because it may be that for the remainder of this Session we might have no sub judice matter to consider at all. In that case, there would be no point and it would be a time-wasting matter. If I may leave the matter in that way and not attempt to tie your Lordships down to a specific time, and say that within a reasonable period of experience, which might well be a Session and a half or even six months, that might best suit your Lordships' convenience.
So as not to have to intervene later, perhaps I may deal with the various other points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, dealt with new editions of the Companion and the Brief Guide. Before we rose for the Christmas Recess on 16th December, we had a report from the Procedure Committee and accepted amendments to the Companion. The new edition is in train. I well understand the points he made. They can be taken into account, and, if necessary, an appropriate addition can be made at a later stage.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for a second as he is on that subject. On maiden speakers, it has been drawn to my attention and to the attention of many other noble Lords that when maiden speakers are speaking people walk in as well as out. Could that point be inserted in the Brief Guide?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. As the House has taken a decision on the new edition of the Companion, it is open to me only to invite those concerned to make alterations on the basis of editorial discretion. That is something to which your Lordships have given approval in the past and which, I understand,

109
is a practice of the House. I shall be happy to consider that point to see whether it can be accommodated by that means.
On another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, happily, Commissioners are not a matter for me. He also raised the subject of interests. I have no doubt that when the committee comes to consider Members' interests it will bear that in mind. Perhaps I may quote one sentence without prolonging matters unduly. The terms of reference of the sub-committee on this matter which is to be appointed state:
"To consider the practice of the House in relation to financial and other interests of Members and, in particular, the case for a register of interests; and to make recommendations".
The points the noble Lord made are wholly embraced in the remit given to the sub-committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, asked about the one-and-a-half hour rule. I can assure him that that is a point with which the Procedure Committee grappled. It must be admitted that there is a difficulty. I invite him to accept that the best way forward is to see how it works. Most of the proposals are suggested experiments. Nothing is immutable. Nothing is cast in stone and cannot be altered. If necessary, the Procedure Committee will get to grips again with that matter.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. On the same point, is the Chairman of Committees saying that the dinner hour Unstarred Question and the one-and-a-half hour limit are trials and will not be enforced rigidly at this stage?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the one-hour limit for Unstarred Questions in the dinner hour is a matter which has been accepted by your Lordships. The new proposal is for a one-and-a-half hour limitation. That experiment is recommended in the Procedure Committee's report. I suggest that the experiment should be tried to see how it works.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, suppose there are seven names down, which would mean a one-and-a-half hour debate, and the last speaker rises after one hour and 28 minutes, will someone call him to order?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, no one would be able to call that speaker to order. What the noble Lord implies by his question is right. If the final speaker in such an Unstarred Question is the Minister, it has been thought that at least for the trial period an informal indication can be given by the Clerk of the Parliaments or the Clerk at the Table to the Minister that the time is running out. The matter can be brought to a satisfactory and civilised conclusion in that way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend concludes, will he deal with recommendation No. (7)—no Starred Questions on Fridays? Why should there not be Starred Questions?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with his customary perspicacity, the noble Lord has raised the very point upon which my index finger rests in my rough notes. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made the point about no Starred Questions on Fridays.
110
That too is a problem. I have to confess that the Procedure Committee grappled with a great many things. It saw both sides of the argument clearly. It was difficult to come to a conclusion. The main point of the proposal that there should be additional Friday sittings was that it would save noble Lords from sitting late on other days of the week. That was the prime purpose. Starred Questions come into that argument because they would take up a certain amount of time and so jeopardise some of the time that we are trying to save. That is one consideration.
There is another consideration which I feel free to mention and which neither the noble Viscount the Leader of the House nor the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, would feel so free to raise—it is a significant point, if I may say so—and it is that Ministers have other duties. If they are to do their job properly it is essential for them to get around the country to do other things in their departments and elsewhere and also to go outside the country. I may offend some noble Lords when I say that it is a consideration that to some extent Ministers need to be protected to that extent by us as a House.
I appreciate the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Stoddart, on the subject of Starred Questions. This too is something that I suggest should be tried out. It is something to which we can return if your Lordships are restive about the way the matter is going. If that is so, I shall have no hesitation in recommending that the Procedure Committee has another look at the matter. Again, it is an experiment. This is a package of experiments. I invite your Lordships to accept it in that spirit and in that way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene again. What he said about Ministers' time apparently does not apply in the Commons.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I should be trespassing hazardously were I to venture an answer about procedure in the other place. Nowadays, if not in earlier years, there are no Oral Questions—I recall they call them that in another place—on Fridays.
I believe and hope that I have dealt with all the various matters, except on the sub judice rule, that noble Lords have raised. If not, they will of course approach me elsewhere, and I shall try to find an answer for them. It is in that spirit that I say that this is a series of recommendations which, although modest, is significant, and I invite your Lordships to accept it.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have only one short point to make. I refrained from taking part in the general discussion on the Question that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, be agreed to because I thought that a later opportunity would arise when the Question was whether the report itself should be agreed to. It is a very short point. It is simply on paragraph 3 and relates to maiden speeches. The noble Lord referred to the short sentence that says simply that only the next speaker shall

111
congratulate the maiden speaker. However, the custom seems to have grown up for the Minister replying to the debate to add his congratulations to the maiden speaker.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear!
Lord Airedale: My Lords, no doubt that is of great satisfaction to the maiden speaker and the custom finds favour in the House.
If the words in the report are transferred into the new Companion to the Standing Orders, in future Ministers winding up will feel inhibited in adding their congratulations to the maiden speaker. That would be a pity. I understand that the new Companion goes to the printers in a week's time. I hope that even at this late hour some means can be found of making it clear that the Minister winding up the debate is free to add his congratulations to the maiden speaker, if he feels inclined to do so.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has raised a significant point. As regards his pessimism about the amount of time, I have no information that the new Companion is to go to the printers next week. I understand that there will be a little more time. Perhaps I may consider his suggestion and see whether the wording needs to be incorporated into the new edition. It would have to be done under the editorial discretion reservation. However, it might not be necessary to go so far as that because the recommended insertion reads:
"Maiden speakers should normally be congratulated by the following speaker only".
I suggest that that amply accommodates any congratulations offered by the Minister in winding up. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—although not uttered from a standing position—that this is a desirable practice to be retained.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, it is imperative that the Minister has ample time to answer an Unstarred Question, otherwise why have the Question in the first place?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I agree that that is a consideration and, if your Lordships agree to the Motion today, a matter that we must look at closely in the course of the experiment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, having been under the same misapprehension as my noble friend Lord Airedale, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question. It relates to Front Bench time being limited to 20 minutes as regards Statements. I sympathise with the objective of that recommendation but I can recall cases in which Statements have lasted beyond 20 minutes. Will the principle be applied in conjunction with the principle of equal time?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising that point because it gives me an opportunity to clarify the matter. The Statement is excluded from the time limit.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on my amendment.
112
There was support from all sides of the House. I do not intend to refer to all the speakers who took part—I am sure noble Lords will understand why—but I wish to refer to one or two points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whom the Leader of the House would consult in reaching a decision. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that someone must take a decision but, my Lords, in this House we collectively take decisions. There is no Member who must take decisions on our current Standing Orders and rules of debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, suggested that an alternative person might be the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that the only Member of this House who is a servant of the House as opposed to a government Minister or Leader of the Opposition is the Chairman of Committees. It might be that in the further deliberations of the Procedure Committee the use of his position will be considered.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his contribution. It clarified the exercise of this new function of his office. It is important to note that he said specifically that he would not consult through the usual channels but would take legal advice and advice on procedure. That is most significant and I welcome it. It means that the usual channels will not be compromised by the decision.
I was also grateful to the Chairman of Committees not only for his clear explanation and reply to the debate but for the assurances that he has given to the House that the proposal for the operation of the sub judice rule is for a trial period. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Finance) Bill
4.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extended meaning of "the Treaties" and "the Community Treaties"]:
Lord Bruce of Doningtonmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, after ("1994") insert ("(as set out in the Schedule to this Act)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. They have as their purpose the incorporation of the Council decision of 31st October 1994 as a schedule to the Bill. Today we spent longer than expected on the extremely interesting Motion relating to Standing Orders. I and colleagues in other parts of the Committee have tabled amendments to the Bill. Without in any way binding them, I must

113
point out that it will be necessary for me to curtail my remarks with the object of concluding the Committee procedure at a reasonable hour, preferably before dinner. Obviously, I cannot bind my colleagues, but those are my sentiments on the matter.
During Second Reading much was made of the authority of the Prime Minister to give an undertaking on behalf of Parliament—whether it was on behalf of Parliament or his own Government—to the provisions relating to own resources within the Community and within a new financial perspective.
It was said that the House and, indeed, Parliament should automatically agree to the new ceilings which are set out on the basis that the Prime Minister had given an undertaking to carry them into effect. For my part, and perhaps for the part of some of my colleagues, that authority did not exist on the basis of the Council of Ministers' deliberations in Edinburgh.
Therefore, I thought it necessary to clarify the matter beyond all reasonable doubt. I have before me the detailed proceedings of the European Council in Edinburgh and the conclusions of the presidency. Connoisseurs of the diaries of Mr. Alan Clark, which have been referred to on a number of occasions in relation to the deliberations of the Council, will confirm that sometimes those deliberations take place under rather unpromising circumstances. It will be recalled that Mr. Clark, as a matter of his own personal memory, commented on the sobriety or otherwise of members of the Council when taking part in its proceedings. Indeed, more recently, the right honourable gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames also ventured to suggest that very important decisions were taken over port and cigars in the evening without the benefit of papers. We all know that those presidential conclusions are, in the main, drafted before the conference takes place.
Bearing that in mind, it would seem that the presidency of 22nd December 1992 in Edinburgh reached two conclusions. The first conclusion was included in Part C at paragraph Ai, which refers to the own resources ceiling. It ventures to put forward the actual figures. It states that:
"The annual ceiling on own resources for appropriations for payments will be as follows and shall under no circumstances be exceeded".
That assent by the British presidency to the proposition which is implied by the presence of that paragraph in the president's conclusions would seem to be conclusive.
But yet, it is followed almost on the next page, by another decision which is essentially in conflict with the one already agreed. It states:
"The European Council asks the Commission to prepare a new Own Resources Decision…",
although one had already been agreed to earlier on in the communiqué,
"for the Council to approve and recommend to Member States for adoption by 1995 in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 201 of the Treaty. The ceilings applicable in 1999 will continue to apply until such time as the new Own Resources Decision is amended".
114
Therefore, there is a half justification for the decision that has been taken by the Government.
However, one matter is certain on a reading of the documents: it was open to the Government, prior to the decision which was reached as a result of that conclusion, to seek to amend it before the Council decision of 31st October. Noble Lords will observe that it is the Council's decision of 31st October which I wish to have incorporated as a schedule to the Bill.
I am told that it is not proper for the decision to be incorporated as a schedule to the Bill because a schedule to a Bill can be amended and, therefore, the schedule should not contain that decision. All I can say is that I was advised by the Table that the amendment was quite in order. Who am I to suggest that the Table was wrong to advise that I could table the decision in the form of a schedule and add it to the Bill?
Of course, there is another purpose. If one goes back to the original Bill, one finds that it is very short. Its principal provision in Clause 1 is to incorporate:
"the decisions of the Council of 7th May 1985, 24th June 1988, and 31st October 1994, on the Communities' system of own resources".
At this stage, I imagined that on seeing the Bill and being immediately seized of the necessity to grasp its implications thoroughly before any observations were made on it in the Chamber, there would have been a rush by noble Lords on the Printed Paper Office to provide copies of the decision which Members were invited to debate on Second Reading. I am pleased to say that the House was well attended on Second Reading. Therefore, I should have thought that the Printed Paper Office would have been overwhelmed by demands for copies of the decision. I doubt whether there were sufficient copies of the Council's decision, as a Community document, on the premises at the time. Therefore, by tabling the amendment my intention is that the attention of Members of the Committee should be drawn to the contents of the decision. I am quite sure that most Members of the Committee here today have a copy of those amendments. Therefore, by tabling this amendment, I have at least drawn the attention of Members of the Committee to what the Council's decision really comprises.
I see no reason why it should not be included as a schedule. There are legal, accounting and management considerations. Members of the Committee will have noted that Amendment No. 3, which we shall debate, states:
"Provided that Her Majesty's Government shall lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on the operation of Article 2(1) (c) of the latter decision".
It would have been impossible for the Committee to have considered in detail the various matters relating to Article 2(1) (c), which has now been reproduced as Amendment No. 7, unless it was read in the context of the decision as a whole.
Therefore, I have quite properly tabled the amendment and when matters for elucidation under Amendment No. 3 come to be discussed, Members of the Committee will at least have the decision before them. Indeed, later amendments will also refer to the

115
decision. Without having the decision in front of the Committee, it would be difficult to judge such amendments within the context of the decision.
That is why—and I am keeping one eye on the Clock, as well as trying to safeguard what remains of my voice—I urge the Government to accept the amendment. What conceivable harm is there in incorporating as a schedule to a government Bill a decision, in detail, which has already been agreed by the Government? Why should they be such blushing brides in the face of the results of their own detailed negotiations and ingenuity? Is there something in a decision reached on 31st October by virtue of which they feel we might find out something that they would rather we did not know? Why should it not be incorporated in the Bill?
There are other matters involved; as, indeed, will emerge from discussion on later amendments with which we are due to deal, albeit shortly, this afternoon. There are questions relating to VAT and questions relating to estimates or figures in respect of the gross national product or the gross national income of each country which are set out in some detail. Such matters are likely to be in dispute for some time and need to be discussed. On the way forward to the intergovernmental conference, it must not be imagined that the agenda which Parliament will discuss will be set for us in advance or that we shall be dictated to regarding what we shall or shall not discuss in the lead-up to the conference. Therefore, it is vital that the decisions arrived at are readily available, not only to Members of this Chamber but also to members of the legal profession in the UK. Such decisions should also be available to the European Court of Justice and in Europe generally.
Is it expected that those people will ask their respective sources of published data for copies of an opinion or explanatory notes by their own governments or, for that matter, explanatory notes by our Government, when there is a perfectly easy way of dealing with it by simply referring to the legislation itself which would be in the office of every lawyer in the country and in the offices of all the European lawyers? It would be a much greater advantage for them in terms of time and—dare I mention it?—in terms of cost to have the text readily available in the legal document that they are examining.
Therefore, I urge the Government, with all the powers that my croaky voice will permit, to accept the amendment. They will do themselves justice and they will greatly facilitate the workings of this Chamber and, possibly, of the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister would inform the Committee as to the position on this and subsequent amendments which are, after all, amendments to what has been certified by Madam Speaker as a money Bill. As I understand it—and I am subject of course to correction in such matters—if this Chamber carries this or any other amendment it would have absolutely no effect because the Bill would proceed with Royal Assent in a few days' time in its present form; in other words, in the form that it left the other place.
116
Before Members of the Committee spend a great deal of time and care—as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has obviously done—on detailed discussion of what would be good to put in the Bill, I believe that we should know whether that work will serve any useful purpose. In the Committee stage, or during any other stage of the Bill, we can express opinions which we hope will command attention outside—for example, in the media—and influence public opinion in the long term. Let us hope that that proves to be so. However, actually to carry an amendment to the Bill seems not only to be a waste of time but is also, if I may put it this way, asking this Chamber to make a fool of itself.
Lord Henley: It may be useful to my noble friend and to Members of the Committee if I repeat some of what I said on the subject yesterday when I confirmed, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter put it, that Madam Speaker in another place had certified the legislation as being a money Bill. As my noble friend quite rightly said, it means that after Thursday of this week, the Bill may be presented for Royal Assent under the terms of the Parliament Act with or without agreement of this Chamber. There is no need for the Bill to be considered further in another place, whether or not this place amends it.
As I also stressed yesterday, because considerable interest had been expressed in the Bill, we felt it right to have a full debate on Second Reading. It was agreed by the usual channels—most unusually for a money Bill—that there would be a separate Committee stage which would allow noble Lords further to air their views on particular subjects. At the time, I said that amendments had already been tabled.
During yesterday's debate, I said that I felt there was no practical purpose to be served by amending the Bill and further prolonging the proceedings. I believe I said that I therefore trusted that noble Lords would not seek further to obstruct the passage of the Bill. I hope that we can have further useful discussion on those points this afternoon. However, for the very reasons given by my noble friend, I believe that it would be very ill-advised for this Chamber to seek to amend the Bill.
I turn now to the noble Lord's amendment. I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene. I give way.
The Earl of Onslow: I am much obliged. Am I right in saying that if, peradventure, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, which seems to be a very sensible amendment, were to be carried, the other place would not even bother to discuss it and would pay no attention to it at all? If that is the case, then however sensible we may be, the idiocies in other places—I use the word in the plural rather than the singular—cannot be coped with.
However, if the other place would actually discuss the matter again there is some point in continuing. But if the other place will not pay a blind bit of notice to what

117
we say, however sensible, intelligent, wise or omniscient we may be, it seems slightly pointless for us even to attempt to be omniscient.
Lord Richard: I am not sure whether I am interrupting the Minister or saying something on my own account. However, whichever it is, I should like to make it perfectly clear. I should like the Minister to consider the following in his reply. As I understand the position, once the legislation is certified as a money Bill, then the Act applies and, so far as we are concerned, any amendment that we pass would have absolutely no effect whatever. Indeed, not only would it have no effect but also the other place would not need to discuss it.
It is not a question of saying to the other place, "Look, reconsider it: we think you ought to think again". None of that applies. In effect, we are indulging ourselves by discussing amendments and, should we pass them, the Bill would be changed so far as concerns this Chamber; but it would not have a scrap of effect. I am bound to say that I very much agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If we continue, I believe that we shall be making fools of ourselves.
Perhaps I may just say one other thing. I agreed that there should be two days' discussion on this Bill. Various representations were made to me, and on behalf of the Labour Party I thought it was right that we should have a full discussion on it. We therefore had a full discussion on Second Reading yesterday. I am bound to say that when I agreed to two days I did not think we were going to go through this charade of having a Committee stage which has no effect whatsoever. I had thought that what we would do was to have the Second Reading yesterday and today we would have had a Third Reading debate, in which no doubt those who spoke yesterday could have repeated on Third Reading what they had said on Second Reading. Perhaps indeed some extra people would have come in in order to support what they did not say yesterday but what they would have said had they been there yesterday. At the end of the day that would have been the Third Reading of the Bill and that would have been the end of it.
It still is my view that if the Chamber wishes to air opinions on this piece of legislation, and if it wishes to express its views—individually Members of the Committee have views to express—the way to do it is to have a Third Reading debate, and the way not to do it is to consider in detail amendments as if this were a Bill that we could amend with any kind of sense at all and send it back to the other place to reconsider.
Lord Henley: I do not—
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I feel that with this money Bill issue we put our finger on an important point as regards our relationship with Europe. The fact of the matter is that here we are unable to speak because this is a money Bill but it affects the constitutional position. Money is the key to the whole thing. The Committee might like to consider what my noble friend Lord Cockfield said in the Second Reading debate:
118
"it is a great pity that the Community did not proceed to a successful conclusion with economic integration before it embarked upon political union".—[Official Report, 9/1/95; col. 25.]
He then explained how the economic integration would automatically lead on to the political issue he mentioned. I think the Committee ought to have a view on the political side of this matter. To be gagged, as we always are in the case of a money Bill, greatly inhibits us. I think the people—
5.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: With all due respect, if I could interrupt my noble friend, he is in no way being gagged at all and nor is this Chamber being gagged. My noble friend had every opportunity yesterday to make a speech at Second Reading; nor am I suggesting that he should be gagged at Committee stage or Third Reading. If I can depress the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, he has an opportunity for further debate at Third Reading and Bill do now pass, all stages of which we shall be taking today. In no way are we trying to gag my noble friend. He did have his opportunity to speak at Second Reading yesterday.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I apologise to my noble friend; I accept his point on that. However, we are inhibited in that we cannot pass an amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It seems that we have now got away from interventions and are back discussing the matter in Committee, and we shall await what the Minister has to say when he gets to his feet a second time. I did not intend to intervene on this until my noble friend did so. We have to be perfectly clear that it is the right of this Chamber to discuss—indeed, I believe it also has a duty to do so—these matters. It is perfectly possible for the Committee to discuss, and indeed to pass, amendments if it so wishes. There is absolutely nothing in the rules of this Chamber, nor in the Parliament Act, which precludes this Chamber from discussing and agreeing to amendments. What happens to them afterwards, of course, is a different matter. The House of Commons need not even consider them, that is true, but of course the House of Lords has the power to consider them as well. That is why it can be valuable for this House to be entitled to—and it often does have—a Committee stage. It may well be that some sensible amendment is moved here and passed here and the House of Commons suddenly says, "By God, that is not a bad amendment after all. We shall take it on board and we shall pass it".
The idea that the House of Lords Committee stage means absolutely nothing at all is completely erroneous. I repeat that we are entitled to have a Committee stage on a money Bill. The fact that we have not had them is neither here nor there. This Chamber is entitled to have such a stage. On this occasion we have had it. The House of Lords is perfectly entitled this afternoon to discuss amendments and, if necessary, to pass the amendments, and after that the House of Commons is perfectly entitled to look at those amendments and, if necessary, take them on board, pass them themselves and incorporate them in this Bill. That is the position. I am glad that the House of Lords has had this debate. I

119
am also glad that it is having this debate this afternoon on a Committee stage which enables us to probe matters relating to the Bill and to probe them in the same way as we would probe them on any other Bill before us.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I hope I may interrupt yet again. I feel quite strongly on this. I am emotionally on the side of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Stoddart, on this matter. I find the Bill personally offensive. The Government have done silly things. They have provided money which was unnecessary. But if we are going to argue that we have to act constitutionally and rightly and we want Europe to behave in the same way as us we should not, I think, as a Chamber behave in what could be regarded as a silly fashion. We are in danger of being silly over this. I do not quite know whether what I am suggesting is in order, but I wish to suggest that we adjourn the Committee stage now and we discuss the amendments as a whole, without attempting to do any voting or anything like that, in a Third Reading debate. I think that would be a more civilised and more sensible way to proceed and one that is more in tune with the spirit of the constitution. I am an old-fashioned high Tory and I like the spirits of constitutions rather than their nitty or their gritty.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Earl sits down, he may be unaware that this Committee stage was agreed through the usual channels several weeks ago.
Lord Henley: I am not sure I can take the Committee much further on this point. As I said—and as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just repeated—it has been agreed through the usual channels that, most unusually for a money Bill, we would have this opportunity for further discussion and we would use the opportunity of the Committee stage to do it. My advice to the Committee would be to reject each and every amendment as it comes along because I think no useful purpose is served by passing amendments in this Chamber. But I think that it is possible—as many noble Lords have said, this has been agreed by the usual channels and by others—that we can have a discussion on these matters. It might be to the benefit of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Stoddart, if they were able to raise their points and I, on behalf of the Government, could then give a considered response. But I hope that after they have listened to those considered responses, they will not feel it necessary to seek the opinion of the Committee on each or any of their amendments.
If I may, I would now, hoping that I shall not be interrupted, seek to address a little more briefly than the noble Lord did his own amendment, Amendment No. 1, which he moved and in speaking to it spoke also to Amendment No. 7. I have no intention whatsoever on this occasion of arguing that it is not a proper amendment. I would be quite happy to do that, whatever the advice of the Clerks, if I felt it was not a proper amendment. It is perfectly in order. But I have to say in passing that, because of the way he has transcripted it from, I presume, Cmnd. 2702, without, I think, taking into account the correction slip, the amendment itself
120
would be defective. Should we have passed the amendment, I believe we would then have to come back at a further Report stage to amend his amendment.
I also wanted to assure the noble Lord that in no way was it necessary for him to put down the amendment merely to ensure that sufficient copies would be available. As he made that point, I asked one of my colleagues on the Front Bench to run, walk or whatever to the Printed Paper Office. My noble friend Lady Trumpington did exactly that and took advice from the Printed Paper Office. I received the assurance that there are sufficient copies there for the noble Lord and others who might want to have a copy of it.
I do not believe that there is a need to add the own resources decision as a schedule to the Bill. It was certainly not done in 1985 or in 1988 and there has never been any question of the status of those own resources decisions. Indeed, none of the legislation listed in Schedule 1(2) to the European Communities Act appears as a schedule to that Act.
The reference in the Bill is perfectly clear. The inclusion of the Own Resources Decision as a schedule would add nothing. The Own Resources Decision has been published as a Command Paper and is readily available. Such an addition to the Bill would quite simply further lengthen a piece of legislation unnecessarily. The noble Lord will be aware of the calls from many noble Lords on that subject on many occasions, and I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in his place.
Perhaps I may also deal with one other point which the noble Lord made. He referred to Part C of the future financing of the Community (the Delors II package), which I have in front of me. Page 5 refers to the fact that under the new Own Resources Decision the European Council asked the Commission to prepare a new Own Resources Decision incorporating those changes.
I believe that the noble Lord suspected that some funny business was going on. I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing of the sort. The Edinburgh Council simply reached a political agreement on details such as the own resources ceiling. It simply then asked the Commission to prepare the new Own Resources Decision; namely, the legal text. That is what appears in the Command Paper, Cmnd. 2702, and was also published in the Official Journal of the European Union. That legal text incorporates that new ceiling. There is nothing sinister in the mention in subparagraph 5 of the new Own Resources Decision. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that assurance and will not feel it necessary to press the amendment on this occasion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply and to all those who have taken part in this short debate. I believe it can be agreed that there are occasions when it is not possible at Second Reading to go into some of the details of various proposals which in the normal way are more appropriate to Committee stage. That is the purpose of Committee stages: to focus on matters of detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, may say that, in the light of our legal position vis-à-vis the Parliament Act and so on, it is largely irrelevant for us to discuss

121
the matter here. However, I am quite sure that on reflection the noble Lord will agree that these are matters which it is proper for this Chamber to discuss in detail notwithstanding the fact that the Government in another place may pay no attention to them. As a testimonial for that position I draw the Government's attention—and that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—to the attendance in your Lordships' Chamber this afternoon on matters on which it is presumed to have little interest. I believe that the answer lies in the seats behind the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. The noble Lord should be fair. I said that it was very good to discuss these issues in public and hope that they will be taken up by the media and public opinion, but that it would be pointless and foolish to divide the Committee when one knows that the result of the Division will be totally ineffective.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and ask the Committee to forgive the state of my voice at present.
Having accomplished my original purpose, I respectfully ask the Committee for leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monsonmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("Communities"') and insert ("Union's").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the amendment with more than my usual trepidation, partly because I am standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, at fairly short notice and partly because of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, yesterday (at col. 24 of Hansard) described those of us who oppose the Bill or have doubts or reservations about it. The noble Lord described us as disaffected elements, very much in the same way as a high-ranking officer in the paramilitary forces of the Russian Ministry of the Interior would describe Chechen freedom fighters. One can only hope that we United Kingdom freedom fighters do not face a similar fate.
The reason for tabling the amendment is not that we actually want the budget extended to cover European Union expenditure in addition to the narrower European Community expenditure. Far from it. However, whether we want it or not, it seems that it is already a fait accompli.
The European Parliament has already asked its president to rename the budget of the European Communities the "budget of the European Union". Although no reason was given it seems clear that that is to reflect the fact that the common foreign and security policy, together with the justice and home affairs expenditure, is included in the budget for the first time.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, (who I am sorry cannot be here today) was told by the Government in our Maastricht debates that Titles V and VI of European Union expenditure would be allocated from the Communities' budget but would be limited to
122
administrative costs and possibly—but only if agreed unanimously in the Council—also to operational costs. The draft budget for 1995 shows that 901 million ecu were allocated to external aspects of certain Community policies and "other co-operation measures". Can the noble Lord, Lord Henley, tell us exactly what those are? Is it, as promised by the Government at the time of our Maastricht debates, all being spent purely on administration or is the Commission using Community funds to draw a Union competence into its clutches?
Will the Government give an assurance that the distinction between the Community and the Union will not become blurred, as apparently the European Parliament wants to happen so that the Community and the Union ultimately become indistinguishable? We await the answer with interest.
Incidentally, I believe that this covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. In any Third Reading debate we could not expect detailed, semi-technical replies from the Government, whatever the matter being discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, also made that point very well. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The Council decision is entitled a decision on:
"the system of the European Communities' own resources".
It is not a decision on the own resources of the Union. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that a description used in an Act of Parliament to refer to another piece of legislation should correspond to the title of that legislation.
There is also a good reason for the Council's decision being referred to as a decision on the system of the European Communities' own resources, for it is not based on any article of the Treaty on European Union (namely Maastricht). Instead it is based entirely on articles of the various founding treaties—the Treaty of Rome and the treaties setting up the European Atomic Energy Community, the Coal and Steel Community, and so on.
The noble Lord went on to say that the European Parliament has asked that the European Communities' budget should be renamed the budget of the European Union. That is true, although the Council does not accept the Parliament's renaming of the budget because it is the budget of the European Communities. There is no question but that the own resources system legally relates simply to the Community, based, as I said, on the articles of the various founding treaties, and not to the Union itself.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am pleased to hear that the Council has rejected the European Parliament's request. We shall have to continue to be very vigilant in the matter. However, I do not believe that we can go further today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

123
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindonmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert:
("Provided that Her Majesty's Government shall lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on the operation of Article 2(1) (c) of the latter decision;").
The noble Lord said: As noble Lords will know, Article 2(1)(c) refers to VAT and to the determination of a uniform rate. I shall not read out the article. Article 10 refers to the arrangements for a possible introduction of a fixed uniform rate applicable to the VAT base.
I hope that I have understood the meaning of uniform rate. I take it to mean—I stand to be corrected—that we shall have a uniform rate for VAT across the Community, and eventually a standard base also. If I am wrong no doubt I shall be corrected. However, as I say, Article 2(1) (c) when taken in conjunction with Article 10 could be a ticking time bomb which, if allowed to explode, will have serious implications for parliamentary control of taxation and for the people of this country. They could find themselves paying taxes not strictly levied by their elected representatives. That seems to me to be taxation without representation. I hope that I read the article correctly, and that I shall be corrected if I do not. That means taxation without representation.
As I understand it, we already have the elimination of zero-rated VAT on such items as books, periodicals and newspapers, children's clothes, new buildings and transport fares hanging over our heads. The pass has already been sold on domestic fuel, which now has VAT levied at 8 per cent. No doubt in due course further attempts will be made to levy the full 17.5 per cent. tax on domestic fuel. We are already under threat of a big extension of VAT on essential items. The Commission will not be satisfied until we have VAT on everything, including all foodstuffs.
The implications for the economy alone, especially for the retail prices index with the inflationary pressures, of allowing anybody other than the properly elected Parliament and Government so to decide, are horrific. Yet that is what is being contemplated by the EC with the apparent full consent and approval of the British Chancellor and the Cabinet. No doubt that squares well with the Chancellor's fanatical support for a single currency which he knows perfectly well implies a single Government complete with taxing powers. However, it does not square with democratic government and parliamentary control. Indeed, if control was lost over the range of Vat rated items and the rate of VAT, that would be the final betrayal of Parliament and of the right of the people to proper representation before taxation, including the right to boot out those who would impose taxation which the people believe to be oppressive or unnecessary.
As I understand it, what the Chancellor has ostensibly agreed to will not be possible under the regime foreshadowed by the Council, by our own Government and by the decision in October 1996. I have no doubt that we shall be told that the Government have the veto
124
over all matters of taxation; that qualified majority voting will not apply in the case of taxation. But we have no guarantee that the Government will not cave in to pressure as they so often do—and most recently did in allowing the Spanish fishermen further access to fishing grounds to the disadvantage of British fishermen, further endangering fish stocks in British waters.
Having given in, the issue will first be represented as a great victory—game, set and match, so to speak—and a triumph for our negotiations. Then when the truth is revealed—that it is a bad deal for Britain and the powers of Parliament—and Parliament shows signs of rebellion, it will be told that the Government made an international agreement which Parliament must honour. That is what the Government did over the Bill that we now discuss. The matter will then be made one of confidence, with dissolution threatened if Parliament dares to rebel. We know the end of the story because it is all written in the House of Commons Hansard.
We must ensure that Parliament, and especially the House of Commons, are never again faced with the blackmail that they encountered over the Bill. That is why the amendment should be passed in order to help Parliament to keep proper control over what the Government do, especially over taxation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: This pass has already been sold. When there was a row over whether fuel should be taxed, it was noticeable that the Labour Party—if peradventure by the most unlikely of coincidences it should ever become the Government—studiously avoided giving an undertaking that it would remove VAT from fuel. That particular pass has been sold. Parliament has already allowed its taxation rights to be inhibited. The issue obviously slipped through; perhaps people did not understand it, but it has happened. I do not know how we can claw that matter back. Somehow we must claw it back because the rights of taxation are at the root and core of all government.
If one takes away the right to tax, one takes away the power to govern. That is how the whole of English parliamentary tradition arose. Parliament said to the king, "You have run short of money, and if you want some more you will have to come and ask us for it". That is how the core of English parliamentary tradition and government arose. That is why, that directive having been agreed, we cannot now lower VAT below 15 per cent. If any amount goes on, that can only be agreed unanimously. But equally any amount can only be taken off unanimously. The idea that the Greeks may say, "No, you can take some VAT off children's shoes which has been imposed", fills me with total disbelief.
Anything which can be done to restrict the rights of the European Commission to impose any tax on British subjects must be encouraged above anything else.
Lord Cockfield: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will be greatly relieved, if somewhat disappointed, that Article 2(1) (c) does not bear the meaning that he seeks to put on it. It could not possibly bear the meaning that he seeks to put on it; it has never borne the meaning that he seeks to put on it; and it will never bear the meaning that he seeks to put on it. It is merely an item in a calculation that has to be

125
made to ascertain the contributions given by individual member states, all of which have slight differences or greater ones in their VAT coverage.
If you tax 12 or 15 people by means of a calculation based upon any concept you like, you must have a uniform concept on which to do it. Therefore, what is created is what is called a Community assiette. I am sorry to use foreign words in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. You set up a notional system which would provide the same amount or the same basis of revenue which you then use to calculate the contributions. That has nothing whatever to do with the system that a member uses in its own member state. In fact, it is a recognition that systems differ from one member state to another.
There is one point on which I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It is a great pity that we are not given more information about the financial relations between our own country and the European Union. In an earlier debate I suggested that the budget Red Book ought to contain a comparatively modest section—possibly of two or three pages and it already has many pages—which sets out clearly the financial relationships. That is not to produce an argument but merely to ensure that at least we have a solid basis of factual information which can underpin discussion of many of the issues.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on his amendment. I am quite sure that the Committee will be grateful for the usual authoritative utterances delivered with his customary modesty on what is really the state of affairs. He makes it quite clear that:
"the application of a uniform rate valid for all Member States to the VAT assessment base which is determined in a uniform manner for Member States according to Community rules"
remains for most Members of the Committee, and, I suspect, for Members of another place who bother to read the regulations, a matter of some mystery. Therefore, I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will reveal to the Committee the nature of the calculations involved in the determination of a uniform rate. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, suggested that perhaps in some future budget—if it should ever be considered by your Lordships' House—there ought to be three pages explaining how the calculations are arrived at. However, for this afternoon's purposes we shall be grateful for a brief summary from the noble Lord of how the uniform rate is determined. I am quite sure that the Committee will agree that the calculations are a matter which we ought to consider in Committee. They are matters of detail but since they affect the amount of money payable from the Consolidated Fund into European funds, they ought to be carefully considered and should not remain shrouded in mystery.
If Members of the Committee examine Article 2 1(c) a little further, they will find the words,
"However, the assessment base to be taken into account"—
and so far we do not know how that is calculated—
126
"for the purposes of this Decision shall, from 1995, not exceed 50% of GNP in the case of Member States whose per capita GNP in 1991 was less than 90% of the Community average; for the other Member States the assessment base to be taken into account shall not exceed"—
and the article lists them: 54 per cent. of their GNP in 1995, 53 per cent. in 1996, 52 per cent. in 1997, 51 per cent. in 1998 and 50 per cent. in 1999. The article continues:
"The cap of 50% of their GNP to be introduced for all Member States in 1999 shall remain applicable until such time as this Decision is amended".
I trust that the Committee is now seized of the detail comprised in Article 2 1(c). After all, they are matters of some importance in determining what the contributions of member states shall be.
Unhappily, GNP is nowhere defined. That makes it a little difficult for the matter to be considered even on Second Reading in general terms, let alone in Committee. The Government seem to resent even the existence of a committee to discuss the matter. So perhaps we may have the opinion of the Court of Auditors on it. The report of the Court of Auditors unfortunately arrived too late for the Government to take it into account when they were discussing the Bill in another place. However, in its latest report, the Court of Auditors has some pretty pungent observations to make about the way of determining GNP. With leave, I shall acquaint the Committee with what the report says about the matter. I trust that noble Lords will bear with me and the husky voice in which I deliver the comments.
Page 33 of the report of the Court of Auditors covering the financial year 1993 states:
"In order to evaluate the ability to pay, or the relative prosperity of the Member States, the regulations"—
referred to in the Bill as "rules"—
"in force sometimes refer to GNP and sometimes to GDP, which are evaluated in some cases in ecus and in others in purchasing power standards, (PPS). The choice of concept has repercussions on the financial responsibilities of the Member States. The Commission should explain the criteria which led to the adoption of GNP in ecus in the area of budget financing".
The report continues:
"In spite of the measures already taken by the Commission, the degree of comparability, exhaustiveness and reliability of the data in respect of the Member States' national accounts should be improved and considerable progress may still be made so as to obtain a genuinely harmonized system, as the Court pointed out … in its Annual Report concerning the financial year 1991".
The report states further:
"As a result of the forecasting errors inherent in any GNP forecast there is a danger that the ceiling for levies provided for by Community legislation will be exceeded and the risk of bias in the allocation of the charge between the Member States, which then has to be corrected by means of an unwieldy system of balances".
Finally, in terms of ducking the system or the lack of information available to it, the Court of Auditors concludes:
"Employing a statistical concept such as GNP, which does not correspond to a fiscal base which can be checked with a reasonable degree of certainty, may provide a means of ensuring that the financial responsibilities of the European Union are fairly divided up between the Member States. Nevertheless, the use of such a concept requires a considerable effort from the Commission and the Member

127
States to ensure that the national accounts are reliable and harmonized, and thus to ensure that the budget and policies of the European Union are managed rationally".
In other words, before the rules come into operation, the Commission and the member states of the Council have to agree on what GNP really is, and then to agree it so that beyond all reasonable doubt the ultimate contributions of the member states and the ceilings of the own resources demanded of them can be accurately determined. At the moment they cannot be.
One of the purposes in putting down this amendment is to acquaint noble Lords with the fact that many difficulties lie ahead and that, in spite of these abstruse calculations —which, if I may say so without offence, members of the Council do not themselves always understand—without some reliable check as to the accuracy of the assumptions that are made (the degree of accuracy which is insisted upon by firms of chartered accountants when they approve the prospectuses of companies; namely, that all the assumptions are correct and the calculations are reasonable) all this will be a lot of nonsense. Indeed, in their present form all they are designed to do is to obscure and ultimately damage the Council's perception of what may be the truth.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. I say to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington that I must admit I did not know that this amendment was to do with the correct definition of GNP or GDP. Having lectured on the subject for more years than I care to reflect on, I can only say that I have never had the slightest difficulty in knowing what either of the terms means or how to produce a consistent set of national accounts; and I cannot believe that the future of the European Community depends on matters of that sort. However, that is not the main reason for my intervention.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon referred to the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he replies, will agree that the decision to levy VAT on domestic fuel was taken by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, presumably in agreement with the Prime Minister. The decision was to levy VAT at the full rate in two stages. The current Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that decision. Again, the decision was taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, I assume, again in agreement with the Prime Minister. The other place then got rid of the second tranche of that increase, precisely as would happen in the normal workings of our government and as has happened traditionally for a great many years.
Will the Minister therefore confirm that the decision was not taken by the European Community—that it was not taken by the Commission; that it did not instruct the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do that; and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at no time under pressure to do it? It is vitally important that we confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country is still the person who leads us —together with the First Lord of the Treasury, who is of course the Prime Minister—in taxation matters of this kind. It is certainly news to me that this tax was levied because of the European Commission. I hope that the Minister can
128
confirm that it was the Chancellor. Obviously I have a political reason for pressing that point: I wish to make it very clear now and in future that this loathsome tax was one that was decided upon by this Government, and is not a tax that was put on by the Commission. It is very important for the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for once to rebut the view expressed by my noble friend.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord on this point. Am I not also right in that, had the tax been put on, and had there been a Labour Government, they could not have taken it off? That is the fundamental taxation point. It is no good rabbiting on about how evil the tax is, blah, blah, blah, and then complaining that it is the European Community that levied it. If you cannot take it off, you are still hidebound by an outside authority which has taken away substantial taxation powers—historical powers which have been attributed and got by the Parliaments of this kingdom for a long time. That is the core of the rot that has set in.
Lord Peston: I hesitate to intervene a second time, but that was not the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I hope that the noble Earl will recognise that it was Members in another place—and in particular some of his friends in the other place—who prevented the second tranche of that tax being levied, and who could, if they had so wanted, have prevented the first tranche being levied. He simply cannot get off the hook that it was the Government who levied the tax and not the European Commission. It is vitally important to remember what this Government did. But it is equally worth remembering what the noble Lord's friends in another place also managed to do.
Lord Henley: I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Cockfield for his intervention. I have a sneaking suspicion that it would have been convenient for the House if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, had intervened after the intervention of my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who gave a perfectly clear explanation of what we are talking about here, and withdrawn his amendment. However, I have a sneaking feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, knew all along that this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the rate of VAT that is levied on goods and services.
Like the fat boy in Pickwick Papers, the noble Lord likes to make our flesh creep with stories about VAT and scares of that sort. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that any decisions of that sort that actually went to the Council of Ministers would require unanimity, just as any changes to the rebate negotiated by my noble friend Lady Thatcher in 1984 would also require unanimity. The noble Lord implied that we caved in on every occasion. I stress again to the noble Lord that it was a Conservative Government who arranged that rebate and we have no intention of caving in on that in the future.
I can also confirm that it is obviously my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is the one who makes decisions, which then obviously have to go to another place, about levels of taxation, levels of VAT. As I said, this amendment and the clause with which we are dealing has absolutely nothing to do

129
with the rate of VAT that is levied on goods and services. It relates solely to the formulae used to calculate own resources. The VAT-based own resource does not flow directly from the amount of tax that is collected but is a wholly separate calculation, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield stressed, based on member states' VAT bases which for this purpose alone are subject to statistical judgment to ensure the same coverage of all goods and services in all member states.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked for details—although I do not believe he really wanted that detailed an explanation —of just how that would work. I do not believe that it would assist the House if I gave the noble Lord the detailed explanation that he requires at the moment. But I can assure him—I am sure that he has the papers—that Her Majesty's Treasury did supply the committee with papers on 15th July and 26th September explaining the detail behind the United Kingdom's gross contributions and the calculations of the United Kingdom's abatement. I am sure that the noble Lord, if he has not already done so, will study those papers with the extraordinary detail that he normally devotes to these matters.
I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that work is going on to harmonise the methods of calculating member states' GNP. I note the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am sure that noble Lords will remember his expertise in trying to come to a detailed and harmonised method of calculating such figures, which the noble Lord assures us is a matter of considerable ease.
The amendment requires the Government to produce further supplementary reports on the operation of the VAT resource. It might be worth my turning some little attention to that one particular point. Even if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, did not address that point, certainly my noble friend Lord Cockfield did.
I can assure the noble Lord that in another place it was suggested that information on the Community budget appears in too many reports and documents and may not be in the most user-friendly presentation. As a result of that and a as a result of those representations, my honourable friend the Paymaster General in another place at Committee stage—I refer the noble Lord to the comments that he makes at cols. 372 and 413 of Hansard on 7th December—undertook to expand and improve the annual statement of the Community budget. The noble Lord will be familiar with the annual statement that comes out in the spring of each year. I have before me the one for March 1994. That statement already provides for the amounts that are paid by each member state under the VAT-based own resource. I refer the noble Lord to Table 2 on page 9 of the annual statement which sets out each member state's VAT contributions in each year from 1991 to 1994.
I trust therefore that the noble Lord will agree that the inclusion in the Bill of an obligation on the Government to provide a report on the operation of VAT own resource would add very little indeed, if anything, to the information that the House will receive, bearing in mind the assurances and guarantees that my right honourable
130
friend made in another place. I hope therefore that on this occasion the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he will answer what to him is probably a rather simplistic question. I have found in various aspects of my life, in dealing with charities and listed buildings, that I have come up against the Treasury. The Treasury has written to me and said that much as they regret having to charge this tax, it is subject to a VAT directive and therefore nothing can be done about the matter. That seems to me to run somewhat counter to what my noble friend has been saying; namely, that VAT is a purely national tax levied by national processes.
Lord Henley: I can assure my noble friend that what he is discussing has nothing whatever to do with the Bill before the Committee on this occasion. It is true that the standard rate of VAT can be no lower than 15 per cent. The extent of zero-rating and reduced-rate VAT is certainly limited. As regards the decision as to where my right honourable friend wishes to put VAT, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, stressed that point in relation to VAT on fuel. We might disagree on the merits or otherwise of it but it was the decision of my right honourable friend the former Chancellor, confirmed by my right honourable friend the present Chancellor, to levy that particular duty, which, sadly, was not agreed to by another place.
6 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: If we needed any justification for having a Committee stage on this Bill, the present discussion has just shown it. Many noble Lords, including myself, have learned much and been put right by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and others. We now understand a lot more about VAT—how it is levied, the basis upon which it is levied and indeed the limitation, if there is one, on the ability of the European Community to impose taxation of a particular kind on the British people and indeed the British Parliament. So this Committee stage has been very useful. I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition will accept that it has been a useful exercise.
I must say to my noble friend Lord Bruce that I do not like being too fair to the Government. But in fact the Government raised no objection to a Committee stage. They were perfectly amenable to it all the way along. I have heard no criticism at all from them and that is to their credit. We cannot give them much credit but when credit is due, I believe in giving it. I give the Government credit on this particular issue. Indeed, the Government Benches are almost full. It is remarkable. I congratulate them.
I also accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that the European Community cannot fix the amount of tax nor, at this stage, fix the base on which the tax is levied. What he said was interesting in more than one respect. He was absolutely right to say that people simply do not understand what is coming out of the European Community. There is so much gobbledegook in so many languages that even Members

131
of Parliament do not understand what is being said, let alone the general electorate. That is simply not good enough. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the Government are to make some attempt to ensure that not only Members of Parliament but people generally understand what is being proposed and done in the European Community.
My noble friend Lord Peston took to task my noble friend Lord Bruce about his contribution. He said that he did not know what GNP had to do with the matter. I shall tell him. The Court of Auditors drew attention to the problem in 1993. The 1993 Court of Auditors' report found that Germany had not included the former East Germany in its calculations of its GNP and that some countries were still using 1970s data. The Court of Auditors described some of the information provided to the Commission by member states as "unreliable". In those circumstances, I believe that the points raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce were very relevant and of use to the Committee.
My noble friend also asked what on earth VAT on fuel had to do with the Commission—or the Council of Ministers, because that is the body that makes the final decisions and one has to accept that. The fact of the matter is that the proposal to put VAT on fuel is included in the sixth directive. So it is already a directive of the EC that VAT should be levied on domestic fuel, as well as on a range of other items. The question is when it comes into operation, not whether it does so.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. As he said, we are all trying to learn from this debate. Is he saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not have a choice about levying VAT on domestic fuel? Is he also saying that when his right honourable friend, in the very near future, becomes Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will not have an opportunity to take such decisions? I find that very difficult to follow. Is he telling me that there is no choice?
Lord Bruce of Donington: His field of action was very limited. After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to raise some £3 billion net out of the Consolidated Fund. Indeed, he had to impose a three-line Whip in order to secure the Government's agreement to that £3 billion and threaten resignation if it were not found. In searching around for money to enable him to honour the obligation to pay that £3 billion net to the Commission, he was circumscribed. In fact, he alighted, quite reasonably from his point of view, on the measure already taken by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, his right honourable friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: In answer to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I did not say in my speech that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to levy 17½ per cent., or whatever, on fuel. I said that the threat was hanging over our heads. That threat is there all the time through the sixth directive, which was agreed by the British Government; and indeed, as I understand it, must be imposed or made effective by 1996. No doubt I shall
132
be corrected if that is wrong. Nevertheless, that threat is there all the time. At one time or another the European Commission will say: "Come along, Britain, you are dragging your feet. There are all these things to which we have agreed to extend VAT. It is about time you implemented them".
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred again to unanimity being required before EC decisions are made. The problem is that British governments, British Ministers and Chancellors of the Exchequer, can go to Europe and make decisions without first obtaining the consent of Parliament. They can make decisions on expenditure and on taxation. As I said earlier, when it comes to the push and Parliament is asked to ratify what those Ministers have done, Parliament is told, "We made an international agreement and therefore you will let us down if you do not do what we say and ratify the agreement we have already made". That is the problem which we must address and which the Government will increasingly need to consider as the dissidents grow greater in influence and more in number.
With those words, I shall not press the amendment. I accede to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Beloffmoved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
(". Each year Her Majesty's Government shall make a report to Parliament which shall include—

(a) Her Majesty's Government's estimate of the amount of money from the Budget of the European Communities which is lost to fraud, irregularity and financial mismanagement in the previous year;

(b) details of Her Majesty's Government's efforts to combat fraud, irregularity and financial mismanagement both within the United Kingdom and in the institutions of the European Communities;

(c) details of the efforts of the European Commission and the European Parliament to combat fraud, irregularity and financial mismanagement;

(d) details of the efforts made by other Member States in combating fraud, irregularity and financial mismanagement.").

The noble Lord said: If this were a real Committee stage, I should be saying that the Government will accept the amendment because it merely puts into statutory form what they assure us is already their practice. Indeed, in the course of yesterday's debate, the Minister explained the very active role Her Majesty's Government are playing in the pursuit of fraud and mismanagement. However, as this is not a real Committee stage—as was pointed out, it is an occasion for discussion rather than legislation—I simply take the opportunity of asking the Chamber to turn for a little while to the subject of fraud and mismanagement, which was discussed at intervals yesterday.
I do not share the optimism of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that by discussing these matters we contribute greatly to general enlightenment. I found no

133
report of yesterday's proceedings in the press, in spite of the fact that they were graced by the contributions of no fewer than five former commissioners.
Lord Cockfield: In fact, there was a report in the Financial Times.
Lord Beloff: I do not have time to read the specialist press; I read only general newspapers and books. However much we think that we may have enlightened the elite readership of the Financial Times, that is unlikely to make a huge impact on the electorate. But it was informative for your Lordships, largely because of the contributions of the former commissioners, of whom no fewer than three are now in their places.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Four!
Lord Beloff: I apologise, four. There was also the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who did not intervene in the debate. Perhaps he repents his earlier life in Brussels. At any rate, we received no guidance one way or the other from that brooding presence.
When we came to discuss fraud and the commissioners, what struck me was their eagerness to disclaim responsibility for what the Community actually does. In their sensitivity they felt that when anything was said about the Community then it must to some extent be a criticism of the Commission. It reminded me of other kinds of prima donnas and I was thinking that a possible collective word for former commissioners would be a "sensitivity" of commissioners.
In some respects, the former commissioners remind me also of a class of persons much in the public eye at the moment; namely, the Prison Service. When there is an escape, a riot or something of that kind, what do we hear from the Director of the Prison Service and his acolytes? They all say, "Oh, no, it was not me; it was those Ministers". That is what the commissioners tell us about fraud. Anything that is lacking is due to the failure of the Ministers. That may or may not be true. But it is an interesting fact upon which these commissioners, who come from different political parties, appear to agree.
The other main point, made particularly by my noble friend Lord Cockfield and generally accepted in the Chamber, was that the bulk of fraud takes place not in Brussels itself, but in the various member countries. He said that we must find a way of dealing with fraud and mismanagement in those member states, or many of them. My noble friend produced a possible solution which did great credit to his imagination, perhaps fertilised by constant reading of the Financial Times. Roughly, as I understood it—I believe I understood it—it was that if the expenditures undertaken under the Community umbrella were in part financed out of those countries' own taxation—that is to say, if it were not just our money being spent in Spain but Spanish money, also—then they would perhaps be keener on making sure that the money was properly spent.
That sounds plausible. It sounded so plausible that even my noble friend Lord Tebbit—who I regret cannot be with us today—was attracted by the proposition. But
134
when one comes to think of it, it does not really work for one perfectly obvious reason. It was frequently said yesterday, and rightly, that the expenditure that countries make on their contributions to the European Community is relatively small compared with total public expenditure. By the same token, it is true also, though not quite to the same extent, that receipts from the Community are, in most countries, even those who are net recipients, a relatively small part of the general money available to their governments.
When we consider what is happening in the way of financial mismanagement and fraud, we obtain some guidance from the fact that other governments do not themselves already deal satisfactorily with what is going on in their own countries. The degree of fraud perpetrated in Spain by Ministers or persons close to Ministers was recently referred to by His Majesty the King of Spain as calling into question the ability of Spain to retain the democracy it recovered after the death of Franco. In France the number of Ministers under arrest or threatened with arrest is reaching the point where it may be cheaper to hold Cabinet meetings in gaol. When one comes to Italy it looks as though the impact made on the public mind by the revelations of fraud and corruption is such that, to put it in a nutshell, we are seeing the reversal of the Risorgimento. We are seeing the break up of the Italian Republic.
I do not go into minor delinquencies. If the Greeks wish to spend their own money on furnishing Mr. Papandreou with a new palace and three swimming pools, that is their decision. But if we are asked to be in partnership with a number of countries which, quite irrespective of what they do with the money we raise from our taxpayers, are not at the moment capable of dealing with the money they raise from their own taxpayers, does that not cast a very considerable doubt on this whole idea of progressing towards economic and monetary union, on which the twin ornaments of the economic profession and the Labour Front Bench seem so keen? There is only one way in which this could be approached even moderately reasonably, which would be to say, "Okay, we throw in the sponge. We will accept a single currency, which will be the deutschmark; we will accept the Bundesbank as Europe's rulers; and, by and large, we hope that we can accommodate ourselves to that kind of thing". But that is not desired by any country and perhaps least of all, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, would agree, by Germany itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, pointed out yesterday how the misgivings, the discontents, the dissents, or whatever one likes to call them, in this country with regard to the financial aspect of the way in which the Community is being run are increasingly paralleled in continental Europe. One has to face the fact that this is only one example—the example of an attitude towards fraud and financial mismanagement—of what divides countries and makes some societies very different from others. To try to unite them in some

135
federal system, with a single currency and a single bank which go with it, would involve a federal system or even something rather more centralised than a federal system.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord has just said that a single language goes with a single currency. Would he care to repeat that opinion in Caernarvon?
Lord Beloff: I did not use the word "language". I am afraid the noble Earl—I do not blame him—was not listening to me very carefully. In this House we are not only free in what we can say: we are also free in how far we listen.
Perhaps I may come back to my central point. I was struck yesterday by something quite different which came from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He pointed out that our Minister of Agriculture was unable to stop the trade in live animals across the Channel because, under the Community's rules, he had no power to do so. Then it struck me how interesting it was that in this country the sufferings of animals figure largely in the public consciousness. As someone living in the county of Sussex, which is now being flooded with policemen at our expense in order to protect these shipments, I am aware of the degree to which animal welfare is a subject in this country. But it is not among most of our continental partners. There is a difference. It is a profound, if one likes, philosophical difference.
Wherever we go—fraud is one way in and animal welfare is another: one can think of half a dozen more but they were illustrated yesterday—we are brought to the conclusion that the most important task at the moment is to find ways in which the countries of Europe, different though they are, can co-operate. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who lives in a world of abstractions, was suddenly confronted, as he thought, by some degree of what he called xenophobia in our discussions. There may be some xenophobia—not, I think, in the discussions of this House but in the country and in other European countries—but the xenophobia is created by the Community. It is because people feel that they are not being asked to be nice to foreigners or to co-operate with foreigners but are to be ruled by foreigners that there is this instinctive reaction.
This debate has given us the opportunity to look at this matter again. I hope there will be further opportunities. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, draw attention not only to fraud but to irregularity in financial management, at whatever level. In the course of our discussions on Second Reading relating to fraud and to irregularity in financial management the Government have concentrated mainly on the fraud aspect, without any particular emphasis upon irregularity in financial management. Their case is substantially the same as that of the Commission itself. It is that the responsibility for fraud lies mainly with the member states. The value of this amendment is that over the whole sphere it draws attention not only to fraud but to irregularity in financial management.
136
There can be no doubt but that irregularity and mismanagement are not necessarily principally concentrated in the member states but in the Commission itself. If the noble Lord reads pages 5 and 6 of the Court of Auditors' report for the financial year 1993 he will find that view abundantly justified. Because of time I shall give two extracts only from pages 5 and 6 of the Court of Auditors' report for 1993. The first states that,
"the development of Community activities has not been accompanied, either in the Commission or in the Member States, by a commensurate development of the necessary financial management and control systems".
It goes on:
"Although the Commission has undoubtedly made efforts to correct the weaknesses in accounting and financial management systems to which successive reports of the Court have drawn attention, it has failed to secure … the proper level of financial management and control necessary in the complex environment of Community finances".
If I may say so, this is one of the factors to which I have endeavoured over these weeks and months to draw your Lordships' attention.
At the bureaucratic level there is lack of control and bad financial management. There are persistent breaches of the Commission's own financial regulations and the Commission seeks to avoid responsibility for this by insisting, with the apparent approval of Her Majesty's Government and possibly also, for all I know, of Her Majesty's Opposition, that the principal responsibility lies in the hands of the member states. There will indeed have to be further investigations into this matter. I can assure Members of the Committee that there will be detailed investigations into when, doubtless through the usual channels, it will be convenient to discuss the Court of Auditors' report for 1993, which has only recently been delivered.
In the meantime I leave the Committee with a quotation from a report which appeared in the Daily Express on 12th November 1994. I would like some observations as to whether Her Majesty's Government know anything about it and, if they do, whether they place any credence in it at all. So far it has not been contradicted either by the Commission or the Government. It says:
"Several top Eurocrats face jail for involvement in frauds worth billions of pounds. EU officials revealed yesterday that there are nine separate investigations into corruption inside Commission headquarters, with the Italian Mafia believed to be involved. The EU has already completed one investigation into corruption-by an Italian who committed suicide when he learned he was about to be questioned. This week the EU opened a fraud hotline, with rewards for information which leads to fiddles being exposed".
I do not place my own personal credence on that report. I would like to have greater verification than that, as the noble Lord well knows. But at this stage I ask whether the Government have heard anything about it and whether—following the usual press office facilities that exist within the noble Lord's department, a department which has tentacles throughout the Press Association and the newspapers of the world—any checks were made by the Treasury or by his department as to whether or not there is any truth in this. I have seen no rebuttal.

137
In the meantime I trust that the Committee will accept the verdict of the latest Court of Auditors' report which has not been before either the other place or this House. It shows that there is widespread irregularity and lack of proper financial control within the Commission itself. I trust that, when the Government provide the various reports which they have promised and which substantially agree with what the noble Lord asks for in his amendment, they will include full details of anything that comes to light.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: This question of fraud is inevitable when we have something quite as silly as the common agricultural policy. Fraud is involved in Italy in getting subsidies for double or triple the number of olive trees which really exist. There is the export of more hard wheat from Italy than is actually produced there. There is the fraud as regards Greek tobacco which even the Albanians will not smoke. Admittedly the next fraud is peculiarly and blissfully an Irish one involving cows on a farm which straddled the border, the animals being moved back and forth across the border. The farmer was finally acquitted because defence counsel said, "How can you prove that the cows were exactly the same as those which went each way on several occasions?" That was a famous Irish fraud.
The CAP is the root cause not only of distortion of world trade, but of this fraud and fiddle. Until we get rid of it, with all its trade distortions, environmental disasters and subsidies to do things which we should not do, there will be no improvement. I plead guilty to putting my nose into the trough and getting set-aside payments. If somebody is stupid enough to put the trough there, my nose is going to go into it with the rest of them, and quick as a flash. But we must get rid of the common agricultural policy which is where the vast majority of the fraud occurs. The CAP also accounts for a large proportion of the European budget. It represents at a minimum 50 per cent. of its budget. Furthermore, in the social and cohesion funds, there is the drainage of the marshes at Missolonghi to increase Greek agricultural production. That has caused environmental damage. There is also the question of cutting down cork trees which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, in the debate yesterday. We have not only the common agricultural policy which takes up far too much of the European budget and the possibilities for fraud which go with it, but we have other budgets under other financial headings for increases in agricultural production. Until these matters are put right fraud will not go away.
Lord Monson: I support this amendment. I wish to pick up what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in his magnificent introduction as regards the attitude to fraud as distinct from specific acts of fraud. Time and time again those of us who are not actively involved read or hear what occurs when British Ministers, MPs, MEPs, commissioners or civil servants bring up the question of fraud in Brussels or Strasbourg. Their continental counterparts, or most of them, almost
138
invariably yawn, fidget, twiddle their fingers, fill in crosswords or generally show by their body language that they are thoroughly bored with the whole business.
It is not that they are actively in favour of fraud, but simply that generally they do not consider it to be as iniquitous as we do on this side of the Channel and that too much Anglo-Saxon obsession with fraud diverts time and energy from the grandiose task of building a United States of Europe. That is why it is so important that Her Majesty's Government produce an annual report on fraud, whether by accepting the amendment on the Marshalled List or otherwise.
Lord Cockfield: If I may be so bold as to say so, the only difference which exists between myself and the four previous speakers is that they are so extraordinarily good at talking about the subject: I simply want to do something about it. My speech yesterday was directed to that end. If one is going to do something about it, one has to start by identifying where the fraud occurs and who is responsible for it. If one looks at every single case quoted by my noble friend Lord Onslow, in each case the money was expended by the government of a member state or their agencies.
I have with me, because I referred to it yesterday, an admirable booklet produced by the Intervention Board in Reading. This is a document of enormous clarity. It sets out very clearly indeed who pays the money and the progress. I suggest that one of the reasons why fraud, mismanagement, maladministration and all the other emotive terms which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, can think of, is so much lower in the United Kingdom is because the situation is explained with great clarity by people like the Intervention Board in the United Kingdom. If one reads that document one can see exactly where the responsibility lies. It goes so far as saying that the responsibility for auditing the books rests not with the Commission in Brussels, but with the National Audit Office in London.
That is the position throughout. If the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would care to update himself a little and move from 1993 to November 1994—I told this story yesterday—he would know that the president of the Court of the Auditors said that 80 per cent. of the money was disbursed by the member states. If 80 per cent. of the expenditure incurred properly or improperly is incurred in the member states by their governments and under their authority and with whatever controls or lack of them which exist in those member states, that is where the responsibility primarily lies.
You see it again if you read the conclusions of the Essen Summit—the meeting of the heads of government. They deal with fraud under pillar 3 of the Maastricht Treaty, and pillar 3 is inter-governmental co-operation between the member states. The Commission is marginalised under pillar 3. Unless you start by finding out where the responsibility lies, you will never solve the problem. As I said some time ago in your Lordships' House, it is no good shooting the wrong man. You have to start by finding the right person and then proceed to shoot him. That is what I have been trying to do.

139
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Beloff is so scornful of the forces of the market-place. I know that he is not an economist and regards economists as being somewhat lowly down the intellectual pecking order. But I am saying that what motivates people's behaviour at the end of the day is who foots the bill. If they have to foot the bill themselves for the fraud, the irregularities and the maladministration which occur in their own member state, that is the best possible incentive you can give them to do something about it.
I am far more anxious than any noble Lord who has spoken so far that this problem should be dealt with and solved. I am anxious that it should be dealt with and solved because it is a blot on the face of the Community, and I support the Community, while so many of the people who talk about fraud do so from the perspective of knocking the Community. I am not referring to any particular person so I hope that there will not be any protest about that. There is not the slightest doubt that a great deal of the attention that is directed to the subject is in the context of criticising the Community. If you proceed down the road of ensuring that the member states have to bear the greater part of the burden—I suggest that they should pay 51 per cent. of the total amount that they claim—they will undoubtedly take a much stronger line on good administration in their own country. This is a problem that has to be dealt with, and any effective way of dealing with it I should be only too glad to support.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I could suggest an even better solution than that presented by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, and that is that the individual countries should pay 100 per cent. The problem with all these matters is that once there are enormous sums of other people's money floating about people are bound to get at it. I know that my noble friend Lord Cockfield would say that the whole of the agricultural policy is designed by the Community to produce various results—more or less production and specific objectives. But I am a farmer, and when the booklet so admirably produced by MAFF comes through I read it carefully. There are a great many experts reading it all over the country. They say that that is where the money is. Therefore one does not farm with a view to producing anything in particular; there is a new crop in farming. It is called the European paper crop. We pay a great deal of attention to reaping vast amounts of money from it.
I see from the figures in the Bill that agricultural expenditure is calculated to rise by 8 per cent., 9 per cent. or whatever it is. How can one possibly tell what it will rise by? It will depend entirely upon how people play the game; what happens to the weather; and everything else. For the moment we are being paid increased subsidies when the price of grain, for instance, is way above its support levels. We cannot intercept the free market and adjust that matter. We will spend our time endlessly wasting money until we return the
140
payment of subsidy to national interest, and then if governments get it wrong the electorate will vote them out and try a different government.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: Perhaps I may offer one or two brief comments based on the torrid experience of having represented the UK in the Budget Council for a number of years in the 1980s. My strong impression at that time was that many Ministers representing those member states which were net beneficiaries of the Community budget were careless of how expenditure was to be applied so long as the appropriate portion of the total came the way of their country.
I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said about will power in this whole area. Of course it is necessary, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield said, to pursue the issue through the member states where fraud and irregularities occur. But I doubt seriously whether the sanctions on those member states within the processes of the Community, and particularly with regard to the Community budget, are effective. One has only to look at the consequences of sanctions in any area to see whether they are effective, and clearly in this area they are not.
If restitution has to be paid, it is to be paid only if the irregularity or the fraud is discovered. All moneys which are applied wrongly in member states, but where the fraudulent or irregular application of those moneys never properly comes to light or cannot properly be substantiated, are in terms of transfers of resources still effectively to the advantage of those countries. Although their governments may in general terms be committed to the orderly conduct of their affairs, it is inevitable—it is only human nature—that if there are financial advantages for those countries to turn something of a blind eye or to be less than 100 per cent. enthusiastic in pursuing the areas of misappropriation, then that is likely to happen.
I suspect that the difference in attitude between member states, based on whether they are net beneficiaries or net contributors to the Community budget, probably lies at the heart of this great problem. So I hope that the Government can, through their representatives, particularly in the Budget Council, try to establish a specific axis with other member states which are net contributors—for all practical purposes in the past that has meant Germany, although I understand that if the amendments to the budget process go through other member states are likely to become net contributors—and that by concerted action by those who represent taxpayers who are parting with their money in favour of the citizens of other countries putting their case strongly, persistently and with determination we can achieve a different attitude among the recipients.
I well recall a number of Budget Councils where the UK was isolated, with the exception of Germany, in calling for restraint on expenditure. The obvious reason for that was that Germany and the UK were the two countries which had to pay most of the bills for the extra budget expenditure for which the other 10 member states were calling.

141
The member states which are continuous net beneficiaries from the Community budget underestimate the resentment that can be caused in countries such as ours, where for so many years we have had to look at the issue the other way around. I hope and believe that a tougher attitude is developing in Germany. For a long time, it seemed willing to provide substantial resources because of the importance which, for strategic and other reasons, it attaches to the coherence of the Community. Perhaps, since the collapse of the Warsaw pact and the reunification of Germany, its emphasis has changed. If so, that is in Europe's interest. We, like Germany, are in the position of having to come to Parliament year after year and ask for expenditure to be sanctioned. We know that inevitably part of that will go to other member states, and that part of it will not properly be applied.
I hope that those who represent this country in the councils will be able to make common cause with others who are, or will be, the net contributors to that budget and will try to follow the purpose through as strongly as they can.
Lord Tugendhat: Like my noble friend Lord Stewartby, I have had experience of budget councils. Indeed, for some eight years I was budget Commissioner and am one of the two Commissioners who did not speak yesterday. I agree with my noble friend that standards of public life and financial probity vary substantially from one member state to another. However, I cannot help feeling that if one stands back a little from the debate, one might suppose that we are citizens of a country in which fraud and financial irregularity is completely unknown and a phenomenon to be found only on the other side of the Channel. That is not the case, as we know, in relation to income tax, social benefits, the workings of the CAP in this country and in relations with the Community, as we have found when court decisions have gone against us. I cannot help believing that a modicum of modesty about the righteousness of our position and the wrongness of other people's might be helpful on these occasions.
Although we have high standards of public life and financial probity, we are not alone in that. Denmark and Holland have standards that are equally high. Germany and a number of other countries also have high standards. If we are criticising other countries for having lower standards, it is tempting to believe that there is an element of nationalism and xenophobia, to which my noble friend Lord Beloff referred, in particular when one criticises them when they are trying to do something about it. I believe that the events in Italy—the extraordinary courage of the Italian magistrates facing dangers that in this country are known only in Northern Ireland—deserve praise rather than what has seemed to me from time to time to be supercilious contempt.
In large part, the same applies to what is happening in France. It is no part of my brief to defend the French way of doing things but I believe that a country which can bring its Ministers to book, which can prosecute Ministers who break the law and which can even put Ministers in prison, is a country which is doing something about the standards in public life and not one
142
that is going rapidly down hill. I believe that recent events in France and Italy should give one some encouragement rather than the reverse. I am reminded of the problems that the Security Services used to run into when they uncovered Soviet spies working in MI5. They were always more criticised for uncovering them than they would have been had they let them remain in operation.
My next point is addressed primarily to my old sparring partner in the European Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He draws a great deal on the reports of the Court of Auditors and on other accusations that are made. It is worth pointing out—and I am sure that he will agree with me—that perhaps the principal source of information about fraud in the Community are the Community institutions. Again, one ought to draw some encouragement from the fact that the Community institutions take this issue so seriously that they have brought before the public the great body of evidence on which this debate has centred. The Court of Auditors has played an important part in that. As the noble Lord will recall, the Court of Auditors produces a report and the Commission produces a reply. In the interests of balance and fairness, it might from time to time be reasonable to quote not only the accusations of the Court of Auditors—accusations which I am sure are fully investigated. Our mutual friend, Mr. Daniel Strasser, with whom we used to have so many dealings together, is an illustrious member of the Court of Auditors. I believe that before throwing on to the table accusations that appear in the Daily Express or some other periodical, it would be worth considering the Commission's response.
I hope that in respect of my final point I might carry with me the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Surely, one of the biggest failings of the European Parliament in recent years has been the failure to make sufficient use of the discharge; that is the point at which it goes over the way the money was spent. Making more use of the discharge would be one of the best possible ways of putting a check on the extent to which funds can be made available subsequently for misuse. It is in the power of the discharge that the European Parliament has the opportunity to make a considerable contribution to dealing with what is undoubtedly a serious problem. It is a problem that all of us ought to take seriously and it is one which the Community institutions do more than anyone else to bring to public attention.
7 p.m.
Lord Henley: I welcome my noble friend Lord Tugendhat to the debate. He is not the last of the former Commissioners to speak; there is one more member of that vast body of expertise to lend his weight to our deliberations.
I have considerable sympathy with the sentiments which motivated the tabling of the amendment. We have had a useful discussion but at the same time one ought to remember the wise words of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat in asking certain Members of the Committee to put these matters into perspective. It would be idle of me to repeat all that my noble friend Lady Chalker and I said yesterday about what the Government are doing

143
in the fight against fraud and the changes that we have seen in the CAP. The fight will continue and Her Majesty's Government will be at the forefront of it.
As regards the amendment, I give the assurance that, through explanatory memoranda, debates and liaison with Select Committees, the Government always keep Parliament in close touch with developments on this front. However, I do not believe that there is any need for a section in the Act spelling out exactly how that should be done.
The Government do much to keep Parliament informed of all developments on fraud and financial mismanagement. Indeed, as I said in respect of an earlier amendment, one of the criticisms most often heard is that there are too many documents and reports and not too few. In 1994 approximately 700 explanatory memoranda were submitted, of which about 60 covered budgetary matters. I daresay that even the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, might be overwhelmed by such a large number of documents for his perusal.
Lord Bruce of Donington: No.
Lord Henley: I live in hope! What is needed is that the various documents and reports available should be brought together in one document. As I said earlier, in another place the Paymaster General confirmed the Government's view that one of the essential tasks is to keep Parliament fully informed about what they are doing to counter fraud and mismanagement. That is why my right honourable friend gave the assurance that he did, which I repeated earlier to the Committee on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to expand the Annual Statement on the Community Budget to include what is being done as regards budgetary discipline and mismanagement and to counter fraud.
In the light of the Government's commitment to improve the annual statement to cover the points which have been raised, I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that a legislative obligation to do that is unnecessary.
Perhaps I may deal with a couple of paragraphs in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. With regard to subsection (a), the noble Lord asks that an annual estimate should be given of the amount of money lost to fraud. I repeat that the level of fraud and waste is a matter of great anxiety to the Government, as it is to all Members of the Committee. But I believe that all would agree that the level of fraud and irregularity, whether it is fraud against those funds, fraud at home against the social security budget or tax fraud, is something which, by its nature, is incalculable. We cannot know to what extent findings are representative of the whole picture. Contrary to many press reports, the European Court of Auditors does not give an estimate, despite the fact that it obviously has access to a great deal more information than the Government. However, although we shall expand the reports to which I referred earlier, I regret that it would not be possible for the Government to give an estimate which would be of any use whatever to your Lordships.
144
Secondly, subsection (d) of the amendment asks whether the annual statement could contain details of efforts made by other member states to counter fraud. Obviously the Government are very interested in what other member states are doing to combat fraud. Indeed, we were instrumental in achieving European Council conclusions at Essen which invited all member states to produce a report to the Council on just that. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the Government to submit statutory reports to the United Kingdom Parliament on what other member states are doing. Following Essen, it is for the member states to produce those reports for the Council. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to do so.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the question of financial mismanagement and irregularity because I believe that we have focused to a greater extent on fraud than on those matters which were discussed when we debated these issues yesterday. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that financial mismanagement and irregularities are problems for the Community budget as well as the criminal fraud to which we have referred. I believe that our approach to fraud and mismanagement is parallel. I have already explained our approach to fraud. On mismanagement, the Edinburgh European Council spelt out that Community policies should be subject to periodic review and that individual projects should be subject to thorough appraisal before resources are committed to ensure that they yield economic benefits in keeping with the resources deployed. Since Edinburgh, the need for prior appraisal has been built into the cohesion and structural fund regulations and into the fourth framework programme for research and development. I assure the noble Lord that the Government will continue to press for all new policies to contain similar provisions. The Court of Auditors will play an important role in ensuring that the appraisals are carried out according to the appropriate standards.
As regards irregularities, Article 13 of the new budget discipline decision agreed on 31st October 1994 provides for the possibility of temporarily reducing or suspending monthly advances to cover CAP expenditure where irregularities are suspected or where there is a problem as regards the quality of data provided to the Commission by member states. I believe that those are positive steps which the Government will continue to pursue.
We shall continue to press also for further improvements. I assure my noble friend Lord Stewartby that we are receiving greater assistance from member states which are or are about to become net contributors and which have strong traditions of intolerance of fraud and waste. I assure my noble friend that we shall continue to work extremely closely with all those states which are or are about to become net contributors.
With regard to the Daily Express article of 12th November to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred, I assure him that we are aware of the investigations into the Italian official mentioned in that article. When we are aware of allegations against Community officials, we shall pursue those matters as is appropriate through the Council. In the light of earlier

145
discussions this afternoon on the subject of the sub judice rule, it would not be wise for me to comment further on that matter at the moment.
In the light of what I said both on this amendment and on the earlier amendment in relation to the assurances that the Paymaster General and I have given as to the improved annual report which the Government will put before Parliament, I hope that my noble friend Lord Beloff will not press the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Beloff: We have had a jolly run round the course again. There have been some interesting contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, repeated the suggestion that he made yesterday and gave the analysis which led him to it. My problem is that, if it is the governments of certain countries who are responsible, it is rather difficult to see how they can also be made the agents for curing the problem. The noble Lord's idea is that the answer would be to raise locally a proportion of the money. However, that presupposes that, if there were no transfers between member states, there would be no irregularity or fraud. That seems to me to be a very difficult proposition to sustain. But we can continue to disagree at the moment. None of our solutions looks likely to deal conclusively with what is bound to be a continuing problem.
It was valuable to have the intervention of yet another former Commissioner, but I believe that the noble Lord who accused me of superciliousness was quite wrong. I was not suggesting that Britain is uniquely virtuous or that other countries are uniquely vicious. I suggested merely that, in a continent in which countries differ so greatly in their fundamental attitudes to so many matters, to try to create a federal system in which all of them would participate freely is, at this stage, asking too much and that the attempt to impose such a system is one of the reasons for discontent.
I should not wish further to prolong the debate. No doubt we shall have many more debates and I gladly accede to the Minister's polite request and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Morrismoved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
(" . This Act shall not come into force until the final version of the Budget of the European Communities for 1995, as adopted by the European Parliament and the Budget Council, has been made available to Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the above modest amendment, despite the fact that it is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. As Members of the Committee who heard discussions on previous amendments will be aware, there is every reason to have considerable concern for the welfare of the noble Lord's voice. In that spirit, I wish to assist him by moving the amendment.
Although the final version of the final budget of the European Community was adopted by the European Parliament on 15th December, according to the Library
146
of the other place the text will not be available in this country until February. We thus have the astonishing position where Parliament—that is, the other place—is being asked to approve expenditure without knowing the details of its destination.
So far as I am aware, the own resources decision has not even been approved by the Dutch Parliament. Can my noble friend the Minister say how many countries have not yet given their approval to it; and, if not, why not? A summary is available of the final version including commitment appropriations of 80,892.87 million ecus and payment appropriations of 76.5 million ecus. That represents a 12 per cent. increase on the 1994 budget. However, it must be pointed out that that is for 15 nations and not 12.
Further, 400 million ecus will be given to help modernise the Portuguese textile industry. One would like to ask why? What about the Lancastrians? Moreover, 460 million ecus of aid have been allocated to the Mediterranean programme. That is not as much as was requested, but it has been described as,
"a step in the right direction".
As to the latter payments, the question should first be asked why British taxpayers should have to pay for what is essentially a political programme to keep the French and Spanish happy in the face of the shift in the Community's centre of gravity north and east with the accession of Sweden, Finland and Austria and the expected entry of eastern Europe.
Secondly, it should be asked whether the Government feel that taxpayers' money will be well spent on Colonel Gaddafi and President Assad. Although there has been an aid programme to North Africa since the early 1970s, the new programme goes far beyond that, and furthermore takes on new countries such as Libya.
The first instalment of 460 million ecus will undoubtedly escalate to the 4.3 billion requested by the Commission—with, of course, French and Spanish prompting. It seems absurd to pay such sums when we are still unsure where the money to the "poor four" goes. That is just another illustration of the ancient principle that there should be no taxation without representation. I believe that this modest little amendment would go a good way in the right direction towards helping to solve the problem. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I should like to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that it is unfortunate that the draft budget as established by the Council for the year 1995 has not been available to Parliament. Indeed, it is only in a few months' time that the preliminary draft budget for 1996—in May to be precise—will be made available to the European Parliament and presumably to Her Majesty's Government. It is most unfortunate that we do not receive such documents on time.
I willingly agree with the remarks that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, with whom I was very pleased to co-operate when he was Budget Commissioner and I was a rapporteur for the European

147
Parliament's Budget Committee. I believe that the noble Lord would probably accept from me that, before I make my remarks on the reports of the Court of Auditors, I invariably examine the Commission's replies and then attempt some evaluation. Most of the replies from the Commission to the documents are to the effect that since the report remedial action has been taken. However, that is a little mysterious because the same problem arises all over again in the next year. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord will accept from me —as, indeed, I accepted from him when he was a very illustrious Commissioner—that I speak with the same good faith as he was good enough to address to the European Parliament while serving there.
I am not saying that the production of the 1995 draft budget would have illuminated Members of the Committee very much. It is a document about three inches thick with nearly 1,000 pages, most of which are unintelligible except to those who are fairly skilled in the interpretation of the various regulations to which it refers and who are able to understand the complex language involved; for example, the difference between commitment appropriations, undifferentiated commitments, commitments of payment and so on. It is a most complex document; but, nevertheless, it is susceptible enough, after fairly continuous study, to enable one to know what it is all about. Indeed, I can assure the Committee that it is sufficient for me to be dead accurate in the observations that I have made about Title B1-17 on the tobacco appropriations that were made for 1994 and anticipated for 1995.
Once again we have a problem. We have arrived at a situation where the ceilings of expenditure are ultimately decided by unanimity. The budget decisions which are required to come within the limits, and which do in fact come within those limits by quite a fair margin—for example, the odd 50 million or so—are made by qualified majority voting. In other words, although Her Majesty's Government give unanimous approval to the ceiling, they have no control as to how those amounts are expended because the allocations in the budget are made by qualified majority voting. One has only to look at some of the recipient countries to see what I mean. However, I speak with respect for those nationalities. I am not xenophobic in that sense. I refer to those countries with the utmost respect for their inhabitants, their rulers, their advisers and everyone else.
However, if one looks at what happens to money in the budget devoted not merely to the CAP but also to the structural funds and sees the allocations to Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal and, indeed, our fellows across the Irish Channel, the mind sometimes boggles as to how those sums have been arrived at and what real approval the United Kingdom would have given had the budget itself been subject to unanimity as distinct from qualified majority voting.
148
That is all I have to say on the budget for the time being. I terminate my remarks on that aspect in the full and certain knowledge that, with the indulgence of the Committee, I shall be here once again when the preliminary draft budget for 1996 comes to this place.
Lord Henley: Both noble Lords have spoken briefly to the amendment. I hope that they will allow me to respond even more briefly. Parliament has had an explanatory memorandum accompanying the Council's second reading of the 1995 budget. That second reading occurred on 16th November. Parliament also received an explanatory memorandum on the Commission's second letter of amendment which took account of enlargement to 15 member states, and was agreed by the Council on 8th December. After the Council's second reading, the procedure is that the budget goes to the European Parliament for adoption. The final version of the budget as adopted is never published, I regret, until late January or early February. I am afraid that the 1995 budget is no exception.
I believe it would be inappropriate to hold up the coming into force of this Bill until the final version of the 1995 budget has been published. Provisions made in the 1995 budget can be altered only by way of supplementary and amending budget. Whatever supplementary and amending budget was proposed, should such supplementary and amending budget be proposed, a further explanatory memorandum would be submitted for the noble Lord's elucidation, and/or others. I shall certainly ensure, as far as I am able, that the final version of the 1995 budget is available to the Chamber absolutely as soon as it is published. Then I will await with interest the questions, an estimation, and whatever, from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
If this new clause were carried, and if the other place were of the same view, the United Kingdom would be unable to report adoption of the Council Decision until the final version of the budget had been made available. I believe that that delay is both unnecessary and undesirable and would in fact achieve absolutely nothing. I hope therefore that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will feel able on this occasion to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I shall respond to that final point that the noble Lord has made. The noble Lord will doubtless be aware that another place, even though it had not seen the documents, was constrained to note the contents of the preliminary draft budget—the first draft budget as established by the Council—and explanatory memorandum. It was given one hour's debate on 28th November with 20 Members present and very little evidence that any Member of another place had examined the budget in detail, which is perhaps the justification for the interest, fortunately, which this Chamber has given to the budget.
Lord Henley: I obviously cannot speak for another place, but I am sure that if the noble Lord wishes to find

149
means of debating these matters in this Chamber, with his usual ingenuity he will do so. That is a matter for the noble Lord.
Lord Morris: I must thank my noble friend for that answer and for giving me a tour d'horizon of the procedures for the examination of these matters by the Council of Ministers and indeed by the European Parliament. I do not know whether it is coincidence but I was interested to hear that the Council of Ministers completed the examination of the budget on 8th December which happened to be the Feast of the Holy Innocents. That may be a total coincidence and nothing else. However, I do not wish to make myself even more unpopular by pressing this amendment. I think that in the circumstances I had better withdraw it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonmoved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
(" . This Act shall come into force only when each House of Parliament has come to a resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown as to whether the United Kingdom Government has taken sufficient steps to eliminate wasteful and fraudulent expenditure within the General budget of the European Community as identified by the Court of Auditors.").
The noble Lord said: If I may, I shall deal with this amendment very shortly indeed, partly because of the time limitations which I intimated to the usual channels and partly because, in a way, it would not be appropriate for me to introduce the new clause in the manner in which I should have preferred to have introduced it. The new clause states:
"This Act shall come into force only when each House of Parliament has come to a resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown as to whether the United Kingdom Government has taken sufficient steps to eliminate wasteful and fraudulent expenditure within the General budget of the European Community as identified by the Court of Auditors".
I have some rather important information to give to the Committee which does not enable me to comply with the terms of the new clause itself because my own amendment stipulates,
"as identified by the Court of Auditors".
It has come to my attention that the audit of the Court of Auditors does not extend over the whole extent of European Community expenditure. That is a fact that I have been able to verify for the year 1993 by an examination in detail of the Court of Auditors' report. I am informed—I have given, the Government notice of the facts as I have discovered them—that the Court of Auditors does not audit the internal expenditure of any of the institutions. It only audits the operational expenditure. I must apologise to the Committee for not being aware of that before. I ought to have picked it up a long time ago on the basis of evidence already available to me.
However, the fact of the matter is that there is a cosy deal between the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council on the basis of, "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine", and it has become an apparent convention that the Court of Auditors does not intrude into a detailed audit of the
150
institutions' own expenditure. This I regard as something very important indeed to which I sincerely trust Her Majesty's Government will pay immediate attention and produce some immediate assurances, because the luxury expenditure of these institutions on new parliaments, on some of their so-called information campaigns, and some of their internal grants to the individual party organisations comprised within the European Parliament has to be seen to be believed. Provided that I get the normal customary, and perhaps on this occasion even short response from the Government, it would be my intention after the Government's reply, subject to any other Member wishing to speak, to withdraw the amendment in due course. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: In due course I hope to respond to that specific point raised by the noble Lord. I thank him for his usual courtesy in giving me some degree of notice, and I hope that to some extent I understood him when we discussed this earlier. I hope therefore that my response will be sufficient. Obviously, if it is not, it might be most useful to suggest that we come back to it on another occasion when we can consider the matter, having carefully read what the noble Lord had to say this afternoon, and when the noble Lord has had a look at what I am about to say. Then we could take the whole matter further.
As regards the amendment, I am grateful that the noble Lord has given an assurance that what I believe to be the last substantive amendment will not be pressed to a Division. In due course we can therefore move on after what I believe has been three or four hours of relatively useful debate, and return this Bill to another place.
Turning to the noble Lord's specific point as to whether the Court of Auditors is in breach of the treaty as it does not audit internal administrative spending, under Article 188C of the treaty, the Court of Auditors is required to examine the accounts of all revenue and expenditure of the Community. The Court does audit all Community expenditure and revenue, and that includes both the management of Community resources in member states where the work is carried out in liaison with national audit bodies such as the National Audit Office in the United Kingdom, and expenditure related to the Community institutions—the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament and the Court of Justice. The Court of Auditors itself is subject to external audit.
The Court of Auditors' report on the 1993 EC budget includes references to expenditure administered by the Commission. Chapter 16 deals with travel expenses paid by the institutions. Chapter 19 deals with the Commission's management of data protection resources. The Court of Auditors' report on the 1992 budget includes references to expenditure administered by the Commission. Chapter 15 deals with the European Parliament's budgetary and general accounts with particular reference to the use of consultancy services and an inventory of movable property. Chapter 16 dealt with the Council's administrative expenditure, with particular reference to inventory records and the checking and authorisation of commitments. Chapter 17

151
dealt with the Commission's move from the Berlaymont building. Therefore, I do not consider the Court of Auditors to be in breach of its obligations to audit all Community expenditure and revenue.
Nevertheless, having said that, I shall look very carefully at what the noble Lord had to say and take further advice on these matters, I hope that he will also look carefully at what I have said this afternoon, and I suggest that we take the matter up on another occasion.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance. I can assure him that the matters that he has discussed in relation to the Court of Auditors' report for 1992 and 1991 are not unknown to me, but they cover specific operations of the various bodies concerned. I do not think that he made any reference to the internal accounts of either the European Parliament or the Council. Nevertheless, I agree that we ought to discuss the matter more fully on a later occasion. I thank Members of the Committee for their participation in this debate. I believe that the Committee stage of the Bill was abundantly justified on information grounds only. Such detail could not have been dealt with solely on a Second Reading. Expressing my thanks to all concerned, exactly on the dot that I promised, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 15th December): Report received.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
This may be the appropriate moment for me to say a few words. We have had two interesting days of useful debate on the Bill. The points that have been raised are very relevant. Certainly her Majesty's Government will bear them in mind for the future.
Much has been said about fraud and financial mismanagement and irregularity in the Community. Yet again, I give the assurance that Her Majesty's Government will continue to take these matters very seriously and will continue to play a leading role in seeking improvements. In addition, the work of your Lordships' Select Committee in this respect has been extremely valuable. I have no doubt that it will continue to play an active role in investigating this important issue.
I understand that on Bills of this type feelings can occasionally run very high and people hold very strong opinions on the matters which are before us. I should like to offer my thanks to the House on this occasion for the generally good-natured manner in which we have conducted our debates and the very positive approach which all Members of the House who have taken part in the Committee stage have taken in regard to assisting Her Majesty's Government in passing this important piece of legislation to meet the commitments we made at Edinburgh—a successful deal negotiated by my right honourable friend. I should like to thank all Members of
152
the House for assisting us in getting this vital piece of legislation through. Furthermore, I should like to thank the House for the manner in which the debate has been conducted. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry—I am being told by the Leader of my party to "come on". Indeed, I shall, and very quickly. I had meant to say these few words at Third Reading but I was beaten to the punch by the Chairman of Committees.
This has been a worthwhile debate. We have heard excellent speeches and an excellent maiden speech. I should like to thank the Government and the usual channels for making it possible for us to have this debate. I should also like to thank all those who have taken part for their courtesy and the way that they dealt with the debate. In particular, I should like to thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for their courtesy and for the genuine attempt that they made to answer the points which were raised.
I believe that this has been a worthwhile couple of days, and I hope that most of the Members of the House who have taken part, if not all, agree that that was so.
On Question, Bill passed.

Fire Safety
7.35 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troonrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the consequences of putting into effect the report of the Fire Safety Legislation and Enforcement review will place greater cost burdens on business and upon local and national taxpayers; why a cost-benefit analysis of the proposals was not provided in the report; and whether they can guarantee that there will be no reduction in the existing inspection role of the fire authorities after the report's recommendations are in place.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin my remarks on a solemn note. I wish to pay a brief but no less heartfelt tribute to my old friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead who died just before Christmas and who, as noble Lords will remember, sat beside me in this corner of the Chamber for the past 15 years since we moved across from the other side of the House, however unwillingly. David was a marvellous man. He was a loyal party man, but he was never a party hack. He always knew his own mind and he always behaved accordingly. When his party was correct, Lord Pitt supported it. When his party was mistaken, which was infrequently, Lord Pitt opposed it. I am happy to say that he and I went through the Opposition Lobby together hand in hand despite the blandishments of the Chief Whip on many occasions. I am very sad that I shall no longer be able to do that.

153
Turning to the Question in my name on the Order Paper, noble Lords will notice that it is in three parts. It deals with cost burdens, with cost-benefit analysis—although that is somewhat in parentheses—and with the inspection role of the fire authorities. First, I should like to talk about cost. In its response to the interdepartmental review, the Fire Brigades Union, which has asked me to raise these matters (and I happily do so), identified cost implications in the following areas. It says that the:
"Department of Environment will have to provide substantial ongoing financial support and secretariat provisions for the proposed National Advisory Panel.
"The Department of Employment and HSC will have to provide substantial financial support for the legal implications of carrying through the proposals to make the Fire Precautions Act 1971 a relevant statutory provision of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 plus the long-term and ongoing costs of becoming the policy maker for all fire safety legislation.
"Business will pick up substantial costs of the move from the existing fire certification procedures to one of producing their own and self compliance with regulations".
The union considers that those recommendations in those areas are nothing less than a consultants' charter. As a consultant myself, I may waver in my support of the union, but I know what it means. It means that the authorities will have to pay someone to do the work previously done by the fire brigade and its associates.
The union also states:
"Local and the new unitary authorities will pick up significant costs from the proposals relating to building control procedures supplanting the role of the fire authority, costs will escalate and must either be borne or passed on to clients in increased building regulation fees".
It ends by stating:
"Central government must be prepared to inject substantial amounts of public money into two Government Departments".
That is the union's considered view of the interdepartmental scrutiny review.
The report of the review claims that its proposals for building control authorities should not increase overall costs because the increases in costs will be balanced by savings elsewhere. It may well be right. On the other hand, as the union states:
"Recommendation 21 proposes that building control authorities should have statutory responsibility for the entire building control process up to the occupation of the building, including the additional physical fire precautions currently catered for through fire certification under the Fire Precautions Act".
It points out that at the moment such certification is free.
The union refers to recommendations 24 and 25 of the report which state that building control authorities should issue occupational certificates in respect of all buildings at the end of the building control process in so far as their use is known. The union continues:
"These proposed measures, and the extension of the role of the Building Control Authority into the role of the Fire Authority will have to be paid for. Building Control Departments have to be self-financing and when their role or … the building control approval process is extended as the Report recommends then the customer"—
that is business—
"must pay. It cannot be financed in any other way".
154
It is now proposed that the present system of certification by fire authority should be replaced by the customer taking responsibility. To all intents and purposes, that is self certification. At present there is no charge for certification apart from a modest administration fee. However, at paragraph 148 the review now proposes that the owner or occupier of premises should carry out his own fire risk assessment and from that assessment he should then determine what measures are necessary to safeguard the persons in the premises and to address the risks of fire to them. In the union's view—I believe that it is correct —that must impose costs on business. An example is given. At present, for a business using the present fire certification system of a large fire brigade in the West Midlands area, and a sliding scale of charges based on the number of employees on the premises, or beds in a hotel as the case may be, the cost ranges between £87 and £223 for the production and issue of a fire certificate. Replacement certificates cost about half as much.
The union now estimates that for an owner or occupier to produce the fire certificate plans necessary to meet the review team's proposals would cost a minimum of £500. That is based on professional charges for architects, architectural technicians and other consultant advisers before the costs of the consultants surveying the premises, monitoring the works, liaising with the fire authority and other enforcers are taken into account. It estimates that the scale of charges would escalate to a minimum lower range figure of at least £2,000; and if the company decided to employ its own person to do that work, the average salary range might be in the nature of £18,000 a year, or possibly more.

It has been proposed to add a national advisory panel to the existing system. That is a new tier to be added to the existing arrangements. At present the fire safety standards for new buildings are drawn up by the British Standards Institution (BSI). It is a well known and respected body in the construction and engineering world. The BSI is partly supported by the taxpayers and partly by the sale of its various publications. If the recommendations of the review team are implemented, the additional new advisory panel will mean that taxpayers will be asked to subsidise another committee. In addition to paying for the BSI, which taxpayers already do in part, they will be asked to pay for the national advisory committee too. That would involve additional cost.
The review proposes transferring the role of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The cost implications are admitted by the review body. The review team states:
"We recognise that our recommendations will inevitably generate a considerable new workload for both the Home Office and the Health and Safety Executive which will not be reflected in their current PES allocations. We consider, however, that this is an example of a need to spend in the short term to save in the long term. HSE believe that an outcome of our recommendations could be that they would need significant extra resources".
The review body indicates a number of areas in which those resources would be required. At all events, the review team admits that there are cost implications in its proposals if they are put into operation.

155
The second part of my Question relates to the cost benefit analysis. There is little to say on that except that the review body merely admits that it did not conduct a cost benefit analysis. The reason was presumably that it did not have time to do so. I believe that such a cost benefit analysis ought to be done before any of the recommendations are implemented.
The last part of my Question relates to whether it can be guaranteed that the existing inspection role of the fire authorities will not be reduced if the recommendations of the review are adopted. The problem is that by subsuming the Fire Precautions Act into the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act there will be no direct policy-making line for the fire authorities as exists at present. That is because the new regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 come under the Department of Employment and not the Home Office, which has the responsibility for the fire service. I do not wish to go into the detailed implications, but the Fire Brigades Union fears that the fire service role in fire safety would under those arrangements become no more than one of policing the work of other people. It would no longer be an integral part of fire safety.
I have little to add save that the Fire Brigades Union has asked me to make a statement on its behalf. There are several paragraphs and I shall not burden the House with the detail. At the end it states:
"if the members of the fire service are good enough to fight fires in buildings and to rescue persons from buildings on fire and from time to time risk their lives in so doing, then they are equally good enough to have a voice in how those buildings are designed, constructed and legislated for".
I believe that the review suffered from a defect which is not uncommon among the various efficiency scrutiny reviews which the Government have undertaken. They have all been hurried and have produced their reports within a relatively short time. It is fair to say that none of the scrutiny efficiency reviews has gone into its subject in sufficient detail and this one is no exception.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I confess to being an amateur in this subject and the consensus that I have identified from those whom I have consulted on the paper is that it is extremely complex. From my position of little knowledge I can see the confusion that the review team has sought to address, including who is responsible for what—in other words, who carries the can. I mention it because in the context of questions of cost addressed by my noble friend Lord Howie, costs must be balanced against accountability.
The current legislation has been described to me as being "mosaic-like". One of the parts of the mosaic is that the different geographical areas have different regulations. I am told that London has the best regulations. That comment was made by an architect and he may have a biased view.
It certainly cannot be to the public benefit that there are problems of accountability. In the recommendations in support of the current controls and the mention of simpler and less costly systems, one might be worried about the consequences of allowing people or organisations that are less publicly accountable to
156
exercise regulatory control over premises. I appreciate that single-family dwellings may not come within that. If there is to be a new group of inspectors—perhaps the same people but under a new denomination—there must be appropriate criteria for their qualifications, experience and expertise.
I have been interested in the interface between the regulations and insurance which the review has thrown up. I am attracted by the notion that one might perhaps distinguish between hazard to life and potential damage to fabric and possibly look at new regulations and new assessments distinguishing between those two areas of hazard. After all, in the area of motor insurance there is mandatory cover for one area of potential damage but not for others. Perhaps that analogy can be extended to the building industry.
For the construction industry and for building owners—I appreciate that there are problems between those two groups —it might be a matter of insurance to deal with the fabric of the building. That would mean that insurance companies would begin to write the rules as to how fabric risks should be assessed. I do not necessarily advocate that as the way forward, but it throws up some interesting considerations. There should certainly be mandatory cover for potential personal injury, and in raising the question of insurance I do not suggest that inspection becomes unimportant. It is extremely important because it is no good discovering after the event that there has been a lapse. However, again applying the analogy of motor cars, cars are lethal weapons in the same way as dangerous buildings may be lethal weapons.
It must also be right that the construction industry has one or at least a limited number of points of contact in doing its work. It must be difficult enough in an industry where technologies are developing quite fast and there must be a natural wish—it is human nature—to shy away from responsibility. I have seen how tempting it is for professionals in different areas to suggest that a particular responsibility is that of someone else.
I can understand problems such as those that have been mentioned to me of Canary Wharf where new technology was applied. It had never been tried before in this country and therefore there had to be recourse to American standards for building many storeys of a building on top of a podium base which itself was particularly high. I mention that because I can understand the problems that professionals have in a changing world.
As regards the question of costs directly, the CBI has indicated that its member companies with the resources available have said that they will employ a surveyor specially trained to apply the law cost-effectively. However, that is not an option for small and medium-sized enterprises. They cannot simply go out and recruit new staff. The potential cost for them must be something of a worry. As the CBI comments, legislation should not become a consultant's charter which imposes extra costs on business under the banner of deregulation.
I turn now to specific points in the review document. First is the matter of high life-risk premises, as I believe they are termed; that is, premises where large numbers

157
of members of the public gather. I agree with the comments about the need to retain a very high level of regulation for such premises. It is debatable how far simpler and less costly systems ought to apply, and there should be a cautious approach to modifying enforcement procedures for fire precautions in sports grounds, cinemas and other areas of public assembly. The comment which I have heard—and I repeat it because I believe that it is telling—is that those who have been involved in dealing with sports stadia in the aftermath of the Bradford fire will take some convincing that simpler and less costly control systems are worth investigating for such premises. Perhaps the main area on which the review should focus is low to normal risk buildings. If there is more concentration on the areas of public assembly, that in itself might damage the credibility of the work of the team.
Secondly, there is the matter of licensing in London, where conditions on fire safety and means of escape are included in licences and compliance with fire conditions is checked by local authority officers at the same time as compliance with other conditions. In other words, the local authority is the one-stop shop for licensing purposes. Under the review team's proposals the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority (LFCDA) would become responsible for fire safety and its officers would have to carry out checks in addition to checks by borough officers. So applicants would be faced with two enforcement agencies rather than the efficiency of the one inspection as at present. It has been estimated that the cost to the boroughs, which would have to be passed on to businesses, would be in the region of £2 million a year.
Thirdly, I turn to the matter of houses in multiple occupation, which are currently subject to the Housing Act 1985. In London the LFCDA is the fire authority; housing authorities consult with it on a regular basis but it carries out all the enforcement.
Allowing fire safety checks to be done by local authority officers, again as part of a package of overall checks, is a cost-effective approach—again a one-stop shop, in this case for the landlord. London boroughs are concerned about possible duplication, with the housing authority having to carry out its inspections in relation to its wider housing responsibilities and the fire authority having to carry out separate safety checks, again with the likelihood of greater costs both on the landlords and on local authorities.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister, if she is able to tell us tonight, about the response to the consultation document. I said a few minutes ago that the consensus seemed to be that this is a complex subject. No doubt consultees, with their particular experience, will have been able to be clearer than I confess I have been able to be on the subject matter. I cannot resist sharing with the House the bafflement that I experienced in response to an item early on (this is to show that I read as far as page xvi) which stated:
"We recommend … that fire authorities should be given a statutory responsibility to promote public fire to the public"!
158
I can only think that that must be a typing error. I delved into the report and I think the intention must have been to refer to "fire safety". The serious point is that if such an error can creep in, what does that indicate about the confusion of all of those who are involved in the process?
8.2 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this report of the interdepartmental review team on fire safety legislation and enforcement came about because of the need to comply with a European directive. At the same time as the compliance cost for this directive was being calculated, the DTI's deregulation task forces were at work and this triggered a further review of fire regulation legislation and enforcement. That is the review that we are discussing.
Therefore there are two justifications for this review: cost and deregulation. My noble friend Lord Howie put the unions' view. I would like to put the commonsense view. Needless to say, our views coincide. First, let us look at cost.
No cost-benefit analysis has been done on this review—apparently because the committee was asked to report within 90 days and did not have sufficient time to prepare one. However, the report states:
"The costs involved should be marginal and recoverable from the fees charged".
The report goes on to say that the increase in fees at the building control stage should be balanced by the simpler and cheaper certification procedure when the building is ready for occupation. However, at present safety inspection certification is virtually free and is done by fire officers who double as fire-fighters. That seems sensible to me. The fire-fighters have every incentive to make sure that the safety regulations are enforced, because it is they who risk their lives if the regulations are not properly carried out.
The review team, however, proposes (in paragraph 146, which my noble friend Lord Howie quoted) that owners or occupiers of premises should carry out their own fire risk assessment and determine the measures necessary to address the risk of fire. However, as there is no stated recommendation to reduce the number of fire-fighters as a result of reducing their inspection duties, perhaps the Minister can tell us where the savings will come from.
Therefore, the whole question of cost savings from these recommendations is very unclear. It appears to me that, if there are any, they will be achieved by charging owners and occupiers of buildings for the services which at present they receive virtually free. But owners and occupiers of buildings do not consider them to be free. They consider them to be services which they receive in return for their business rates. This is hardly an encouragement to the business community. Perhaps the real intention is to keep fees down by creating some sort of internal market wherein the fire service competes with self-certification or outside consultants.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the question of insurance. That must be a further concern for business owners and occupiers. Will insurance companies charge the same premium on a building that

159
is certified after inspection by the fire service as on one that is certified after self-compliance by the owner? I very much doubt it. Indeed, the review team seems to have ignored this matter entirely. Yet if the insurance companies insist on inspection by the fire service instead of self-compliance, the whole review will have been pointless.
I now turn to the matter of deregulation. Deregulation is to be achieved by self-compliance, as with other health and safety regulations. Is the Minister sure that the enforcement of the normal health and safety regulations can be compared with the enforcement of the fire regulations? Usually a failure in enforcement in health and safety only affects the people in the factory or office concerned, whereas a failure in fire regulations can affect the whole community. Premises with poorly enforced fire regulations can burn down adjoining premises which have excellently enforced fire regulations. Failure to comply can do a lot of damage to others. Perhaps these regulations are more comparable to the MoT test rather than the normal health and safety regulations: a car in poor mechanical condition can be a danger to the public. With motor cars there is no self-compliance. The owner has to take the car to a garage, where it is properly inspected and tested. I am not therefore convinced that fire is a suitable matter for deregulation by self-compliance.
In the final part of his Question, my noble friend Lord Howie asks whether the Government,
"can guarantee that there will be no reduction in the existing inspection role of the Fire Authorities after the report's recommendations are in place".
I await the answer with interest. There must be an impact on the fire service. Large firms will comply because they will have the resources to carry out the work and pay the fire service for the consultation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, that will not necessarily be the case with small and medium-sized enterprises. Many will comply, but others may use consultants or do nothing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about a "consultant's charter". There are two kinds of consultant. I am concerned about the increasing pandering to vested interests of the wrong kind. In no way do I criticise consultants such as my noble friend Lord Howie, who has the special knowledge and skills that companies need from time to time. Rather I am concerned about consultants who advise companies how to operate the system to their best advantage and get round rules and regulations. Self-appraisal and self-regulation are spawning a great deal of this kind of consultancy. I think I detect a growing suspicion of it. Why create new opportunities for this type of consultancy when the job is being well done by the fire service? Is there a lack of trust and confidence in the fire service? There may be anecdotal evidence provided by bodies with a vested interest in deposing the fire service, but the review team was unable to find any general dissatisfaction. On the contrary, most people have trust and confidence in the fire service, where men and women put their lives at risk.
160
This is not a case of nostalgia and sentimentality. It is a matter of the public being realistic. I, and I am certain most other people, would prefer to walk into a building and be reassured by seeing a fire certificate issued by the local fire brigade, which is known to be professional and long-standing, rather than a certificate issued by a consultancy of which perhaps no one has ever heard and which may no longer be in existence or may disappear as soon as there is trouble—perhaps advised by an insolvency consultant.
There is one final matter that I urge the Minister to consider. It is a cost which accountants cannot measure but about which managers feel very strongly; namely, the cost of demoralisation. That demoralisation will occur in the fire service if the recommendations of the interdepartmental review team are implemented, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie, told the House, the role of the fire service will be reduced to one of merely policing the fire safety laws and regulations. It is their contact with the public in enforcing the fire regulations and fighting fires that maintains their pride and high standards of service. Unless there are strong complaints about the fire service which this report does not reveal, it would be most unwise to risk demoralising the service for the sake of questionable deregulation and unknown financial savings. I hope that the Minister will take that into consideration. Certainly the public will feel its effect as they have done in the health, police and education services.
The question that I strongly recommend the Minister to ask the review team is: "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" These recommendations will only add to the extra costs of businesses by charging them for a service for which they think they are already paying. It will probably put up their insurance premiums. The enforcement of the fire regulations is too important to be left to the "market" of self-regulation.
8.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for giving us the opportunity this evening to debate the important subject of fire safety.
But perhaps I could say at the outset that I should like to associate myself—and, if it were a more exciting time, those colleagues who would be behind me—with the comments that the noble Lord made about our beloved and much missed Lord Pitt of Hampstead. I cannot think of anybody more loved and more respected in this House. We shall miss him greatly.
As all noble Lords know, fire is a special risk. It is unlike any other in its scope and potential to cause damage and take lives. It can strike at home, in the workplace, or in places of entertainment or leisure. It is no respecter of place, circumstance, rank or title. A careless action by one individual—for example, propping open a fire door—can so easily endanger the lives of many others, even those quite remote from the source of the fire.
The promotion of fire safety, effective fire prevention measures and the enforcement of fire safety requirements, should therefore be matters of the highest

161
importance to us all. Rightly, they are matters to which the fire service is devoting increasing attention. Up and down the land, firefighters of great courage are saving many lives each year, not just by tackling fires at whatever hour of the day or night that they occur but also by providing invaluable fire safety advice to businesses and the public on the best ways to prevent fire and how to make buildings as safe as possible for those who use them. That advice is based on first-hand experience in fighting fires and observing human behaviour in those conditions, together with specialised fire safety training. No other group of professionals can bring that unique blend of expertise to bear on fire safety issues.
Since 1971, when the Fire Precautions Act was brought into effect, we have seen a steady decline in the number of fire deaths, particularly in premises covered by the Act. It is widely agreed that it has been a success story. But the Government have been concerned for some time that the 1971 Act may not provide the most suitable legislative framework for a fire safety regime for the 1990s and beyond. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, reminded us of the changing nature of firefighting and the advent of technology, with all that it represents to the building and construction industry as well as to firefighting. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary commissioned a review of the Act in 1993. The report was published last February. It recommended new fire safety legislation with a risk-based self-compliant approach. That report, together with the work of the Construction Industry Deregulation Task Force, paved the way for the interdepartmental review of fire safety legislation and enforcement to which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, referred.
The recommendations of the interdepartmental fire safety scrutiny drew heavily on those of the earlier Home Office review of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. When its report was published in June last year, the Government gave it a general welcome and invited comments from those interested in and affected by its recommendations. The consultation period ended on 31st October. Over 450 separate responses were received. Given the importance of fire safety, the Government want to consider them very carefully and take into account the views of all those who have taken the time and trouble to respond.
In considering how to structure any new fire safety regime, the Government are committed to maintaining fire safety standards at the same time as minimising the overall burdens on those involved. In its report, the scrutiny team argued that those twin objectives could be secured by following its recommendations. I believe that it can take some encouragement from the fact that most respondents have given the report a broad welcome. There is strong and widespread agreement that the present arrangements can be improved and should be changed.
In addition to providing their written responses, there have been opportunities for interested parties to discuss the findings and recommendations of the scrutiny. I myself chaired a meeting of the Central Fire Brigades
162
Advisory Council at which representatives from different parts of the fire service community told me of their reactions to the recommendations. I know that throughout the country seminars have been hosted by various professional bodies to provide a forum for discussion.
The Government welcome the widespread debate and believe that it will contribute towards finding a fire safety regime which will maintain the high standards of fire safety to which the public are entitled, while at the same time reducing the burden on business and enforcing authorities.
The Government plan to announce their preliminary views on a possible way forward within the next few months. We shall then want to discuss those preliminary conclusions with interested parties, particularly since we recognise that it will not be possible to assess any new scheme properly until some flesh is put on the bones of the framework provided by the scrutiny and the details are worked out.
The Government will be looking to members of the fire community, building control officers and other interested parties to participate fully in that process, to ensure that the dual objectives of maintaining standards and minimising burdens are achieved.
When the Government consider whether to implement the scrutiny recommendations, and if so in what way, we shall place particular emphasis on looking at both the costs and benefits of the propositions before us. That aspect of our consideration of the most appropriate way forward will be particularly important, because no cost-benefit analysis of its proposals was put forward in the report of the interdepartmental scrutiny. That, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, was because there had been insufficient time. The scrutiny had to be completed within the normal 90 working days allowed for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, specifically asked whether the Government could guarantee that the inspection and role of the fire authorities would not be reduced in any fire safety scheme. As I made clear, the Government have not yet taken any decisions on the recommendations. For that reason I am not in a position to offer a guarantee as such. However, it is quite clear from the scrutiny report —and indeed from the reports of other scrutineers which have touched on the enforcement role of fire authorities—that there is no evidence of any widespread dissatisfaction with the job that the fire service is now doing in this area. Quite the contrary, the fire service is one of the most respected and well loved services in the country. Many respondents have gone out of their way to plead that its enforcement role should be left untouched. That was also broadly the conclusion of the interdepartmental scrutiny.
When we consider the possible future role of the fire service, we must never lose sight of its very special fire safety expertise. The three strands of the fire brigades' work—fire fighting, fire investigation and fire safety—are closely linked, each one feeding into and informing responses to others. The Government would need to be

163
convinced that the benefits outweighed the advantages before doing anything which might disturb that complex interplay of functions.
A number of points were raised. I shall not be able to cover them all, but I shall do my best to cover the main ones. First, an accusation, given voice by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, but from the FBU, said that the guidance was something of a consultant's charter. I do not agree. I believe the fears that it is something of a charter for consultants is unfounded. Owners and occupiers of most premises will be able to do the required risk assessment and decide on the appropriate fire safety arrangements without any need for professional advice. The guidance that we produced in connection with places of work regulations was warmly welcomed as user friendly and easy to understand.
During our compliance cost exercise we asked over 80 small firms for their views on whether they would be able to undertake the requirements without resorting to consultants. The majority of them were confident that they could do that. Naturally, there will be some complex buildings, usually owned by big businesses or organisations, which will require professional expertise. But in many instances companies already have well-trained fire safety officers who are able to undertake the work for them. The Government do not believe that the proposals are a consultant's El Dorado.
Reference was made to small businesses. We shall in particular look closely at the effects of any proposed changes on small businesses. For example, we shall be concerned that if a new system were to be based on self-compliance, small businesses should not be forced to seek the advice of consultants to ensure that they are meeting their legal obligations. We shall be concerned also if new arrangements were to make it more difficult for occupiers to obtain advice from fire brigades. I know that many businesses value highly that source of information.
Quite a lot of reference was made to the transfer of enforcement responsibilities to building control. Apart from the issue of fire risk, which is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, a transfer of that kind would mean that there would be one enforcing authority for fire precaution matters from the construction of a building and throughout its occupation. However, a number of significant obstacles would need to be overcome. There would be considerable cost implications. For example, there would be a need for a wide-ranging programme of training for building control officers in general fire precaution matters were building control authorities to take over the enforcement role from fire authorities. By way of comparison, at present a fully trained fire prevention officer will have received 20 weeks of specialised fire training in addition to any basic training in fire safety that he received in his brigade.
There would be considerable resource implications for building control authorities in inspecting general fire precautions in occupied buildings. Each year fire authorities in England and Wales carry out over 800,000 inspections of premises. Many fire authority personnel who carry out those inspections, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, pointed out, also have operational fire-fighting
164
responsibilities. One could not simply transfer to building control authorities from fire authorities the necessary resources were building control authorities to take over the inspection function. The alternative would be to accept lower levels of inspection. It is inevitable that that would lead to a lowering of existing levels of fire safety which we, as a government, would find unacceptable. There would be other disadvantages in removing responsibility for enforcement from fire authorities. There is important cross-fertilisation between fire authorities' operational work, fire investigation work and fire safety and enforcement responsibilities. Each strand feeds into and informs the others. We would therefore need to give serious consideration to that aspect of the report.
As with the burdens on other agencies, we seek to minimise the burdens placed on local authorities, for example. That is one consideration we shall wish to take into account in considering any proposals for changes in fire safety regulations. We shall wish to examine carefully the likely cost of any proposed new fire safety regime before deciding what, if any, changes should be made. Against the background of the Government's commitment to reduce burdens, it would clearly be a nonsense to introduce changes which would have the effect of increasing them. We shall look carefully at the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Howie and Lord Haskel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, regarding what they said on costs that may be incurred by central government, local authorities and businesses. As I said, we have no wish to create a consultant's charter.
The extra bureaucracy created by adding the fire advisory panel was mentioned. We have no wish to create extra layers of bureaucracy or unnecessary new advisory committees. But there is a clear need for one consistent set of fire safety standards. That must be our goal and we shall consider carefully how that can best be achieved and whether it needs the creation of a new advisory body.
Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, concerned fire safety policy moving to the Health and Safety Executive. The scrutiny team did not recommend that fire safety policy should rest with the Health and Safety Commission. However, I understand why some noble Lords may think that that may happen if fire safety legislation was in future subsumed under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and I can assure the House that the Government have not taken any decisions at all in that regard. Even if we decide to take forward the recommendations of the scrutiny report about subsuming fire safety legislation into the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, that does not mean that the policy responsibilities would move from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
As I made clear earlier, fire safety is one of the three key tasks of the fire brigade, linking closely with fire fighting and fire investigation. But the Home Office is responsible for all the fire brigades' activities and it would therefore be difficult to contemplate fire safety policy being filleted out of the Home Office's responsibility. That is all the more important if the fire service is to have a coherent policy for tackling fire

165
which emphasises prevention as well as fire fighting. I am assured that the fire service will always be fully consulted whatever government department holds responsibility for fire safety policy. But the point is well noted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised an important point in relation to houses in multiple occupation. I remind the House that, in addition to the scrutiny recommendations in regard to houses in multiple occupation, the Government issued a consultation paper concerning the feasibility of introducing a licensing scheme for houses in such occupation and that document is out for consultation until the middle of February.
Houses in multiple occupation present a particular problem, not least with the question of definition. In the Housing Act the current definition is:
"A house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household".
That is a wide definition, as the scrutiny recognised. Though the wide definition of a house in multiple occupation makes it difficult to be precise in regard to the number of fires and fire deaths in such premises, it is generally accepted that they represent a greater risk than ordinary single, private domestic dwellings. However, houses in multiple occupation provide much needed accommodation for those who might otherwise have nowhere to live. Such premises are often at the lower end of the housing market. Over the years there have been a number of fires with tragic consequences in houses in multiple occupation. Your Lordships may remember the fire in Scarborough last year which resulted in two fatalities.
Fire safety in houses in multiple occupation is covered by provisions in housing legislation. As we know, it is enforced by local authorities, which are required not only to consider the fire safety of such premises but also other matters, including health and safety generally, as well as questions of hygiene. The scrutiny, in recommending that fire safety in houses in multiple occupation should be included in any new general fire legislation enforced by fire authorities acknowledged at the same time the need to ensure that local authorities would remain a party to any enforcement action which fire authorities might take, given the possible implications for the occupants. We shall wish to consider whether the advantages of local authorities retaining a holistic approach to houses in multiple occupation would be outweighed by those which would accrue from consolidating in general fire safety legislation fire safety in houses in multiple occupation.
The effectiveness of self-compliance was a point touched on in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I am not sure that I share the view that self-compliance is non-compliance. The vast majority of the British public are well accustomed to the concept of
166
self-compliance in every walk of life. They are well aware of the dangers of fire and the speed with which people can be trapped and lose their lives when fires break out. There is no reason to think that owners and occupiers of premises will neglect the fundamental fire safety requirements and there is every reason to think that, by encouraging people to take personal responsibility for fire safety, rather than wait for the fire brigade to come, often when it is too late, and tell them exactly what to do or what they should have done, we can achieve and maintain high safety standards. After all, we already have a measure of self-compliance in Section 9A of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, and very few lives have been lost in those premises.
We must also remember that self-compliance will only work if it is coupled with a sensible enforcement regime, which I am confident the fire authorities would provide. One of the reasons for proceeding with the proposed places of work regulations would be to assess just how well a self-compliance regime would work out in practice.
The points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Howie and Lord Haskel, about the prospect of additional costs being borne by businesses are clearly a matter at which the Government will need to look closely. We will certainly ensure that this debate informs that thinking and we will be considering the point carefully when we review businesses' response to the report and its recommendations.
This has been an important and interesting debate, although I am conscious that we have this evening been able to touch on only a few of the issues underlying this important subject of fire safety. The Government are aware of the importance of the decisions which we shall shortly be making as we consider how we might best adapt the legislative framework and enforcement arrangements which have already done much to reduce the loss of life and property in fires. But we think that it is a task that should now be faced. Many things have changed since 1971 and the law should take account of that.
We believe that it should be possible to introduce new arrangements which safeguard and, if possible, strengthen, existing standards while reducing the burdens on business and enforcers. I have taken careful note of the points which your Lordships have made this evening and I will ensure that those are properly taken into account when the Government decide on their response to the scrutiny report. After all, I am the Minister who has this matter on her portfolio and I will be vigilant and rigorous in my scrutiny of it.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may thank her for that full and careful reply to my Question. It will require further study. I especially thank her for her very warm and moving reference to my late noble friend.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before nine o'clock.

  HEDGES: USE ON MOTORWAYS AND DUAL CARRIAGEWAYS
  Viscount Devonport
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will adopt the practice common in continental Europe of planting motorway and dual carriageway central reservations with hedges to screen the glare from headlights of oncoming vehicles at night; and what research they have undertaken to establish the value of hedges in controlling dust and pollution and reducing the effect of noise emanating from motorways and dual carriageways.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)
  These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the noble Viscount.

  Letter to Viscount Devonport from the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes:
  The Viscount Goschen has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent parliamentary Questions about the use of hedges as a means of reducing headlight glare from oncoming vehicles, controlling dust and pollution, and reducing noise from trunk roads and motorways.
  Whilst we fully recognise the benefits that hedges within the central reservation can bring to reducing the glare from headlights of oncoming traffic, hedges are not generally provided. We have found that it is difficult to establish trees or shrubs and to maintain them in good condition in a central reserve under 10m wide. This is because the reserve usually also has to accommodate drains and lighting columns, safety fences or telecommunications equipment and is an extremely hostile environment for plants due to winter saltings and turbulence from passing traffic. Similar conditions occur less frequently on the majority of roads on the Continent.
  Hedgerows could be established if wider central reserves were provided. This would mean, however, that additional land would be required, and no matter what the width of the central reserve, access

  Numbers of accidents resulting in:-

  Deaths

  Serious Casualties

  Slight Casualties

  Total

  1989

  0

  1

  3

  4

  1990

  2

  0

  1

  3

  1991

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1992

  0

  2

  4

  6

  1993

  1

  2

  3

  6

  1994 (provisional to end of September)

  0

  1

  2

  3

  Total (5¾ years)

  3

  6

  15

  24

  PLANNING INSPECTORATE: REVIEW
  Lord Brougham and Vaux
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What plans they have to review the Planning Inspectorate.
  WA 20
  for maintenance is difficult and has substantial road safety implications for personnel undertaking the maintenance work.
  The Government commissioned research through the Transport and Road Research Laboratory between 1974 and 1982 which showed that, although vegetation could perform a screening function for some pollutants, especially particulates, for many species this resulted either in damage to, or the death of the plants, so making any benefits short term. Planting including hedgerows is therefore usually provided as a means of visual screening or to help integrate the road into the landscape through which it passes. This means that predominantly native species are used.
  Research in this country and practice abroad have shown that very dense vegetative barriers can reduce measured noise levels. However, there are problems with the sustainablity and maintenance of such barriers. The best species to achieve the required density is willow, and this often needs irrigation and can suffer from pest attack. Traditional hedges are not dense enough to have a noticeable effect on measured noise.
  There is research evidence to suggest that listeners perceive some noise reduction when the noise source is partially visually screened. Currently we are undertaking research to see how we might use vegetation to exploit this perceived benefit.

  COLSTERWORTH ROAD JUNCTION: ACCIDENTS
  Lord Monson
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many road accidents resulting in (a) deaths: (b) serious casualties; (c) slight casualties occurred at or adjacent to the junction of the A.1 and the B.6403 near Colsterworth in each of the last five years for which statistics are available.

  Viscount Goschen
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the noble Lord.

  Letter to Lord Monson from the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about road accidents at or adjacent to the junction of the A.1 and the B.6403 near Colsterworth.
  The number of accidents resulting in (a) deaths, (b) serious casualties and (c) slight casualties in each of the years 1989 to 1993, and also provisionally in 1994 to the end of September, are given in the table attached.

  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)
  The Planning Inspectorate, as an executive Next Steps Agency, is being reviewed. As part of the usual arrangements for Next Steps agencies, performance and activities will be subjected to the normal prior options tests set out in the 1993 Next Steps Review (Cm 2430).
  WA 21
  Comments and contributions from those with an interest in the work of the agency will be welcome, and should be sent, by 28 February 1995, to Richard Jones, Planning Directorate, Department of the Environment, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 3EB, for England or to Peter Roderick, Planning Division, Welsh Office, Cathay's Park, Cardiff, CFI 3NQ for Wales.

  The Planning Inspectorate was launched as an Executive Agency, in the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, in April 1992. It serves the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Wales on appeals and other casework under planning, housing, environment, highways and allied legislation.

  WALES: POLICE FUNDING PROPOSALS
  Lord Hooson
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Why the level of funding for police forces in Wales has been scaled down by some 4 per cent. compared with similar forces in England.

  Lord Lucas
  In a difficult local government revenue settlement it is necessary to balance the needs of police and other local authority services. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is of the view that £300.7 million is an appropriate level of resources for police. It is less than the level of police resources implied by the full application of the police funding formula and this has given rise to the difference in scaling.

  The sum of £300.7 million for police services nevertheless represents an increase of 6 per cent. on 1994–95 budgets and demonstrates the importance the Government attach to policing. It compares with a settlement increase for other local authority services of around 0.5 per cent. The Secretary of State for Wales is of the view that to direct resources from county and district council services to policing would put an unreasonable strain on those services. His funding proposals are provisional and are the subject of consultation.

  Lord Hooson
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Why, in allocating the additional £16 million made available to him to distribute between the four police forces in Wales, the Secretary of State gave £12.7 million to South Wales and £3.5 million to Gwent and nothing to the other police forces; and on what grounds he based his decision.

  Lord Lucas
  The allocation of resources between the individual police forces derives from a funding formula for police authorities in England and Wales which the Government propose to introduce for 1995–96.

  The aim of the formula is to distribute money objectively and fairly in relation to each area's need for policing. The formula assesses the need for policing by looking at factors such as population density and the social characteristics of each area. It also includes approved police establishments as an indicator of need; this factor—weighted at 50 per cent.—takes account of the need for continuity and stability of funding.
  WA 22
  The Government are at present consulting on the formula and resulting distribution of resources to individual police authorities. Their final proposals will be announced shortly.

  HOUSING BENEFIT: AVERAGE RENT CALCULATION
  Lord Milverton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What method they propose to use in calculating the average rent for housing benefit payments.

  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)
  We are considering options and will be discussing these with, for example, the local authority associations and the Institute of Rent Officers.

  HOUSING BENEFIT: EMPTY PROPERTIES
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the statement of Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (HL Deb, 30 November 1994, col. 646), which categories of people with exceptional reasons for being absent from home beyond 13 weeks will retain entitlement to housing benefit; whether these categories allow the flexibility to provide for unforseen cases; and what consultations are in progress on the subject.

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
  Proposals for amending the rules for the payment of housing benefit in respect of housing costs on empty properties provide, subject to certain qualifying conditions, for benefit to be paid for up to the first 13 weeks of a person's temporary absence from home, and for up to 52 weeks in prescribed circumstances. The proposed circumstances are:

  - prisoners held on remand;

  - hospital in-patients;

  - persons away from home for medically approved treatment or convalescence for themselves or dependants;

  - persons providing or receiving medically approved care;

  - persons receiving care in residential accommodation;

  - persons undertaking a training course;

  - persons in remunerative work in the UK.

  It is intended to retain the current flexibility which enables benefit to be awarded for 52 weeks even though the period of absence exceeds the normally permitted maximum of 52 weeks.

  The proposals have been put to the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authority associations. The Social Security Advisory Committee have decided to consult with interested bodies and are due to report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State early in 1995.

  MEANS-TESTED BENEFITS: HABITUAL RESIDENCE TEST
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many British subjects have failed the habitual residence test for means-tested benefits since its introduction: how many have appealed: how many appeals have been successful: and how many of those affected have subsequently left the United Kingdom.

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
  1,053 British citizens did not satisfy the habitual residence test when claiming income support in the three months from 1 August. Figures for housing benefit and council tax benefit refusals are not available. I am informed by the President of the Independent Tribunal Service that the information about appeals from British citizens is not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The Government do not keep records of the reasons for British citizens leaving the UK.

  MORTGAGE PAYMENTS ASSISTANCE: CEILING
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the figure of £100,000 as a limit beyond which the Department of Social Security will not provide help with mortgages will be applied to London on an equal basis with the rest of the country.

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
  The limit of £100,000 will be applied equally throughout Great Britain.

  MORTGAGE PAYMENTS ASSISTANCE: AMENDMENT PROCEDURE
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the changes in help with mortgage interest announced by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on 30th November 1994 (HL Deb., col. 646) will require primary legislation and, if so, whether that legislation will be embodied in a separate Bill.

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
  The rules providing assistance with mortgage interest in Income Support will be amended using secondary legislation.

  PART-TIME WORKERS: PENSIONS EQUAL RIGHTS
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will introduce legislation to secure to part-time workers their right to join occupational pension schemes and to obtain benefits under those schemes without sex discrimination, so as to give full effect to the rights conferred by Article 119 of the EC Treaty and by the EC Equal Pay Directive 75/117/EEC, in accordance with the decisions of the European Court of Justice and the principle of legal certainty.

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
  In response to recent rulings of the European Court of Justice, the WA 24
  Government propose to legislate to bring domestic legislation into line with European law, to prohibit sex discrimination in occupational pensions. The proposals were included in the Pensions Bill put before the House on Thursday 15 December 1994. Clauses 55–59 provide that schemes must comply with an equal treatment rule which relates to the terms on which persons become members of the scheme and terms on which members of the scheme are treated.

  SOCIAL FUND FUNERAL PAYMENTS: UPRATING
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the cash limit on grants paid for funerals through the Social Fund will be uprated in line with means-tested benefits.

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
  Like other Social Fund payments, funeral payments are not subject to the annual uprating of income-related benefits. However, we keep the level of all Social Fund payments under review.

  HORTICULTURAL MARKETING
  Lord Gallacher
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Where organisational responsibility now rests for promoting horticultural marketing co-operatives since the change of focus in activities of the Food From Britain Organisation.

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)
  The Government encourage better horticultural marketing through the Marketing Development Scheme and the Processing and Marketing Grant, which are administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but do not promote one particular type of marketing organisation rather than another.

  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 12–15 DECEMBER 1994
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels from 12 to 14 December.

  Earl Howe
  My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food represented the United Kingdom at this meeting of the Council, which lasted from 12–15 December.

  The Council's major achievement was agreement on ground rules for implementing the GATT Uruguay Round agreement on agriculture. This package, including the Framework Agreement on bananas, will now pass to the Foreign Affairs Council on 19/20 December for formal adoption along with all other GATT implementation texts. This is a very important agreement for Britain in itself. In addition, I am glad to report that my right honourable friend achieved a range of measures designed to meet specific British interests, notably in relation to cereals, bananas, and commitments

  WA 25
  of benefit to the processed food industry. My right honourable friend also made clear to the Commission that the eventual arrangements for rice, which are not yet in place, must not disadvantage UK millers of high quality rice.

  The Council also discussed a Commission proposal to revise the agrimonetary regime. In the absence of an opinion from the European Parliament, no formal decision could be taken. But it was established that a qualified majority of the Council existed in favour of a Presidency compromise proposal which the Commission was prepared to support. My right honourable friend voted against this revised proposal because, although it abolished the potentially expensive and inflationary switchover mechanism which my right honourable friend strongly welcomed, it also introduced unduly complex and potentially costly replacement arrangements to protect farmers in strong-currency countries against currency-induced falls in incomes. Denmark also voted against. The Commission tabled a proposal to prolong the present regime until 31 January 1995 pending a European Parliament opinion on the substantive proposal.

  The Council held a further discussion of the Commission's proposal on the welfare of animals in transit, but was unable to reach agreement. My right honourable friend will continue to press for strong and effective Community measures. But meanwhile my right honourable friend is introducing improved national measures to help fill the gap resulting from the absence of agreement by the Council.

  My right honourable friend voted against a Council Decision to continue the moratorium on Bovine Somatotropin until 31 December 1999 as this was without scientific justification. The Decision was however adopted by qualified majority.

  The Agriculture Commissioner, René Steichen, tabled a report supporting the case, for which the UK has long argued, for allowing land entered into environmental set-aside or woodland to be counted, under certain conditions, against the farmer's compulsory market set-aside requirement. The Council committed itself to taking an early decision on this matter.

  The Council adopted unanimously proposals providing for continuation of New Zealand butter access to the United Kingdom and for continuation of sheepmeat imports from various third countries under existing Voluntary Restraint Agreements. In both cases, these regulations apply until 30 June 1995, when they
  WA 26
  will be superseded by the GATT Uruguay Round provisions.

  Directives amending the Fresh Meat Hygiene Directive and Milk Hygiene Directive were agreed by qualified majority. On meat hygiene, my right honourable friend abstained, whilst the Dutch and Portuguese delegations opposed. The outcome on milk hygiene was generally highly satisfactory; however, my right honourable friend abstained because there were no provisions to permit the continued double pasteurisation of skimmed milk.

  Finally, I am particularly delighted to report that the Council agreed unanimously a new Directive on Minced Meat and Meat Preparations which protects traditional British products, including the British sausage.

  SHEEP SCAB
  Lord Stanley of Alderley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many cases of sheep scab have been identified by their officials at livestock markets; what action has been taken and how many cases have been taken to court in (a) England and (b) Wales.

  Earl Howe
  From figures received up to 19 December, only eight of 1,348 market visits conducted since 1 September 1994 have resulted in sheep scab being detected. Of the 181 animals discovered with sheep scab, 78 sheep were withdrawn from sale and treated and 103 were sent for slaughter, as planned.

  Seven cases of scab found at markets necessitated welfare visits to the vendor's premises but we are not yet aware of any cases where local authorities are considering prosecution.

  BBC WORLD SERVICE: NORTHERN IRELAND REFERENCES
  Lord Monson
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will ask the BBC World Service, in its news and current affairs programmes covering Northern Ireland, to refrain from using the phrases "Protestant paramilitaries" and "Protestant terrorists", bearing in mind that care is taken to avoid references to "Catholic paramilitaries" or "Catholic terrorists".

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor)
  This is a matter for the BBC, taking account of its obligation to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality.