Sitting of 17 January 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Health Appointments Systems
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the health appointments systems.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): The Government's aim is to ensure that the national health service continues to benefit from the appointment of the best possible people with a wide range of skills to serve as chairmen and non-executive directors of health authorities and trusts.
    Mr. Milburn: Is the Minister aware that the system for appointing people to serve on health authorities and trusts is now widely discredited? Will he agree with the following three simple steps to open up the health appointment system? First, will he publish a full list of those nominated; secondly, will he make clear the selection criteria that Ministers use; and, thirdly, will he itemise, as for magistrates, the party political affiliations of those chosen to serve? Or does the Minister continue to believe that jobs for the boys and jobs for the girls are more important than public accountability in the national health service?
    Mr. Malone: The system has certainly been extremely unfairly impugned by the hon. Gentleman and members of his party. The system is open and accountable. Measures are being put in hand to advertise the non-executive posts more widely to attract a wider range of people, with all the business skills and talents and other necessary skills in the community. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to improve matters, perhaps he will submit to the Nolan committee the disgraceful letter from Labour's national executive committee that instructs members of the Labour party who serve in non-executive capacities to report back to Walworth road. That is where the problem lies.
    Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. Friend congratulate some of the well-known Labour supporters in the north of England, such as Brian Hanson, who serve on national health service trusts and do quite a good job and who disagree with the contentions of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on the health service but
    566
    agree with the British Medical Association, which says that it is not the time for further major organisational upheaval?
    Mr. Malone: Yes, I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. In fact, I would go further and say that the vast majority of all those, from whichever party, who serve in non-executive capacities do a first-class job. They are taking the health service forward and deserve the greatest congratulation on the voluntary service that they provide.

    National Health Service Reorganisations
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out, by year, the reorganisations of the national health service that have taken place since 1979.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Major legislative changes were made in 1980, 1984 and 1990, as a result of which 2.5 million more patients are treated in hospital every year and the number of coronary bypass and cataract operations has more than doubled. The number of patients waiting more than a year for treatment is a quarter of the size that it was. I promise the House even more improvements following the publication of our new patients charter tomorrow.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Have not Tory Governments reorganised the management structure of the health service on at least nine occasions since 1979? Is not it like painting the Forth bridge, except that the painting of that is normally completed before it is started again'? Will the Secretary of State reflect on the enormous cost to the public purse of those bogus reorganisations, which have sapped morale, lost expertise and meant that people who are dedicated to the national health service have not been able to care for patients?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his own spokesman, or possibly to his party leader. We are not entirely sure how health policy is approved in his party; perhaps Richard Rosser, the transport worker who chairs the hon. Gentleman's policy committee, approves it. Our changes have much improved the efficiency of the service and have increased the quantity and quality of care. It is the hon. Gentleman's party that is threatening upheaval and turmoil and to undo all the good achieved by health service workers in recent years.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government believe that the process of national health service reorganisation is now drawing to a close and that it will be her priority to create stability, under which staff can realise the full potential of the new system? Is that not in stark contrast with Labour's proposals, which threaten to tear the NHS up by its roots, thus inflicting massive damage on staff and patients? Does that not show in whose hands the NHS is really safe?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's points. Health service staff have worked hard to achieve a quality of care that is now being observed by independent commentators and around the world. The recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

    567
    Development report was an independent commentary on the success of our reforms. The Labour party, however, is trying to appease its left wing to buy out clause IV and to give the health service to the unions at a cost of £1 billion, which will do nothing for patients. The Labour party will not get away with that and the Socialist Health Association is already condemning it for its cynical approach.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Secretary of State explain how the constant reorganisations have helped my constituent, 88-year-old Frances Grew, who, on Sunday afternoon went into Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield, waited five hours for a bed and, at 9 pm, was admitted to the maternity ward, where she remains today? How have we reached such a sorry state where an 88-year-old lady has to be admitted to a maternity ward to obtain treatment?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Of course there will be times when things go wrong, and they should be investigated, but Labour's approach is always scaremongering, divisiveness and appeasing the unions. The hon. Gentleman failed to say that, in the west midlands in the past five years, the number of hours for which junior doctors are contracted has fallen by 20 hours, that five years ago there were 8,000 people on the two-year waiting list and that west midlands will meet the nine-month target by next year. Health achievements in the west midlands in the past five years are truly remarkable, but they all stand in jeopardy because of the policies of the Labour party.

    General Practitioner Targets
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners met their targets for immunisation and cancer screening (a) on the introduction of the general practitioner contract and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Malone: In 1990, 89 per cent. of general practitioners met targets for childhood immunisation and 86 per cent. for cancer screening. By April 1993, this had increased to 96 per cent. meeting childhood immunisation targets and 98 per cent. meeting cancer screening targets. This is an excellent achievement by family doctors, who are leading the way in improving the health of their patients.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that those figures are a tribute to the GP contract? Will he join me in congratulating doctors in west Norfolk who, under the contract, are delivering a superb service to their patients? As Labour voted against the contract, is it not time Labour gave doctors an apology?
    Mr. Malone: When Labour Members are apologising, perhaps they will point out the fact that, in my hon. Friend's constituency, 100 per cent. of GPs are reaching the higher targets for childhood immunisation and cancer screening. That is an amazing achievement, particularly as we were told by the Labour party and the general medical services committee when we embarked on this exercise that it would be impossible to achieve. The exercise has exceeded all expectations.
    Mr. Flynn: While the Government are congratulating themselves on the mounting number of drugs that are
    568
    being prescribed, will they consider the submission from the victims of Septrin support group, which claims that 100 people have been killed by that drug and that thousands of others have suffered side effects? Will the Government make a sensible investigation into Septrin, or are they entirely in the control and pockets of the pharmaceutical industry?
    Mr. Malone: No, the hon. Gentleman is, first, off the point and, secondly, entirely wrong. The consistent evaluation of drugs and their efficacy is not directly a day-to-day responsibility of Ministers. I am not congratulating myself or my ministerial colleagues on achieving those immunisation targets but recording my thanks and congratulations to practitioners and others involved in the service on those excellent results and on completing a measles vaccination campaign in record time over the winter period.

    Community Care (Funding)
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met representatives of the Association of County Councils to discuss the funding of community care; and if she will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I meet representatives of the Association of County Councils formally and informally on a variety of occasions, the last occasion having been last Monday. We discuss a variety of matters relating to English social services on such occasions.
    Mr. Griffiths: Why does not the Minister listen to Lady Farrington, who chairs the association and who presented a list of 20 areas, from Bedfordshire to Wiltshire, that are chronically underfunded for community care? Does he not realise that the murder of Georgina Robinson showed what a failure community care has been and that it is time not for the new mental health Bill that the Minister promises but for a new Minister, a new Secretary of State and a new Government?
    Mr. Bowis: I welcome the hon. and Scottish Member to questions about English health, but I shall not be able to do so for much longer if his party has its way. I certainly listen to the ACC. I also listen to the Audit Commission when it tells me that community care has got off to a good start, that some authorities have got into a financial muddle because of inadequate financial control and that others are playing politics with community care, spending money on administration, refusing to use the independent sector and then reducing services to people in need.
    Sir George Gardiner: Will my hon. Friend comment on the situation in Surrey county council—a hung council—which appears to have run out of funds to support social services for the remainder of this year?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. I have seen the letter from Surrey county council to independent homes, which states:
    "This must seem a strange letter to receive."
    I endorse that comment. In its letter to councillors, it confesses that everyone took their eye off the budget ball, but, in the end, there were no excuses for Surrey social services.

    569
    I recall that, last year, Surrey social services received £93 million. For community and social services this year, the figure is £108 million. We have announced £121 million for next year, 17 per cent. extra this year, and another 11 per cent. next year. It is beyond my understanding how a county could get into such a muddle when it knew the figures for the current year in December 1993.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: From his contacts with local authorities and discussions about community care, is the Minister aware of the extent to which councils are increasingly being asked to take on community care people who should be in hospital? Is he aware of unconscious people who are on drips being referred to councils for community care? Is he aware of people who are in a coma being referred to councils for community care? Is not the root of the crisis in community care the operation of the Government's market in health?
    Mr. Bowis: I am aware that, this year, we are putting £4.6 billion into community care. I am aware that, for the coming year, as we have already announced, the allocation will be more than £5.1 billion. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have issued draft guidance and will shortly issue full guidance on continuing care, which will reinforce the message to the NHS that it has a responsibility for continuing medical and health care for people in need. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's policies and those of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on community care and on continuing care—whether they agree with the views of the Commission on Social Justice, whether they have not yet made up their minds, or whether they are still waiting for Alastair Campbell to tell them.
    Mr. Sims: Is not the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) confusing two different matters? Care in the community for the mentally ill has been running for a number of years. It is showing some shortcomings, as in some places provision in the community is not adequate, but there is also evidence that clinicians are releasing into the community some mentally ill patients with a history of violence who should not be released. The community care policy, which has been running only a relatively short time, gives local authorities responsibility for the elderly, children and the disabled. That policy has been generously funded and it is working well in most parts of the country, but some local authorities are financially incompetent.
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. The amount of resources for mental health is not being criticised, although the use of the Mental Health Act 1983 is criticised on occasions. Implementation of the Government's widely welcomed and accepted policy is sometimes inadequate. That was the message of the Blom-Cooper inquiry, which called for a tightening of the Mental Health Act with regard to severely mentally ill people. That is precisely why, before too long, we shall introduce a Bill to implement supervised discharge.

    "Working for Patients"
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the document "Working for Patients".
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: "Working for Patients" has been a great success. Some 96 per cent. of NHS hospitals are now trusts, more than half of all eligible practices are now fundholding and, most important, the quality and quantity of patient care continue to improve.
    Mrs. Mahon: Five years after the grossly misnamed "Working for Patients" document, we have the longest-ever waiting lists and the obscenity of people dying because there are no intensive care beds and services for the mentally ill are dangerously underprovided. Will the right hon. Lady make a brief statement on the document and its consequences, perhaps saying, "The Government got it wrong and my team and I resign"?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady will know that the length of time that people wait has just about halved, that every day we treat 3,000 more patients than we did at the time of "Working for Patients" and that the quality, and quantity of care have improved. We have increased the number of hip operations by 24 per cent., of cataract operations by 44 per cent. and of cardiac operations by 66 per cent. Those are dramatic improvements in the health service.
    When considering how to spend the extra £1.3 billion that we are putting into the NHS this year, health authorities will want to be sure that they have the balance right between intensive care, mental health services and reducing waiting times. They are pleased to have Conservatives in government as we provide extra resources for the health service—unlike the Labour party, which cut expenditure on the health service in real terms.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: As "Working for Patients" has led directly to reduced bureaucracy and improved care for patients, especially in my constituency of Norwich, North, will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today's announcement in Norwich of approval for the outline business plan for the new district general hospital? It is good news. Way back in the past, there was a history of delay and endless prevarication. Under the new reforms, we now have approval, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that we get the new hospital as quickly as possible?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Most certainly; I can do just that. Because we have been determined to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the health service, it is possible for patients to have a dividend. There can be a massive capital programme with a new project starting every eight days. That is what the Conservative party delivers. All that the Labour party delivers is the wish list of the trade unions, at a price of £1 billion, achieving nothing for patients and nothing for the NHS. It is just trying to keep the left wing happy. Of course, the greatest waiting list scandal in the NHS is the waiting list for a Labour party policy on the health service.

    "The Health of the Nation"
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on "The Health of the Nation" objectives and progress.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: "The Health of the Nation" continues to enjoy the enthusiastic support of the clinical professions within the national health service and of outside bodies such as the World Health Organisation. Where latest information is available, it shows that for 19 out of the 23 targets we are moving in the right direction.
    Dr. Wright: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the growing inequality in health between the deprived and the affluent parts of this country is making a nonsense of many of the key targets of "The Health of the Nation"? In particular, does she accept that the appalling rise in suicide rates among young men in deprived areas, which is an indictment of us all, is a direct result of the lack of jobs and the lack of hope? When will the Government understand that we can build a decent health service only if we build a decent society first?
    Mrs. Bottomley: May I respond to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the increase in suicide? It is true that suicides have increased in virtually all comparable countries. More people take their own lives than are killed on roads. Our figures are about the average for similar countries. That is why it is such an important target in "The Health of the Nation" strategy. The hon. Gentleman is entirely misguided in that he does not recognise that the changed funding arrangements for the health service, and the distinction between purchasers and providers, mean that we can better focus on many of the difficulties that some areas face. I find it extraordinary that he supports a party that opposed the GP contract, which introduced for the first time deprivation payments for GPs in poorer regions. Perinatal and mortality rates have improved for all income groups and all social classes.
    Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend believe it to be in the interests of patients for NHS hospitals to be put under the control of local Labour councillors and Labour party hacks—as the Labour party proposes—which even Bevan would not have contemplated?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. Of course the battle that Herbert Morrison and Nye Bevan fought in 1948 is the debate now being fought in the Labour party. That shows its forward-thinking approach to health policies. It turns the clock back not to 1979, but to 1948 and it reopens the battle of that time. We must have a health service that is responsive to patients, that works with GPs and that focuses on health outcomes. The Government are achieving that, which is why we are delivering results that have exceeded even our own expectations at the time of the first patients charter.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Lady agree that ensuring that men are as aware of health risks and health needs as women is a legitimate objective of an NHS strategy? Has she noted the alarming rate of deaths caused by prostatic cancer, which exceeds the rate of deaths by cervical cancer? Does she agree that the time has come to
    572
    ask GPs to screen their male patients, as many screen their female patients, so that men's health can be greatly improved?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am pleased that the hon. and learned Gentleman implicitly recognises the success of the cancer screening programmes. Cervical and breast cancer screening programmes have been extremely effective, with many women being screened. They build on the investment in primary care and show the importance in GP services of having, when possible, effective screening processes at primary care level. We shall consider the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition carefully.

    NHS Trusts
    Sir Peter Fry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the number of patients treated on the NHS has increased since the establishment of NHS trusts.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): The number of acute patients admitted to hospital between 1991, the year before the first trusts were established, and 1994 increased by 18 per cent. That represents an additional 3,000 patients treated each day.
    Sir Peter Fry: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that in the Oxford-Anglian region, my own region, some 25 per cent. more patients have been treated by trusts and that some 50 per cent. more day cases have been treated? Does he, like me, find it difficult to understand why the Labour party wishes to sweep away trusts and thus deny the benefits of their success to our constituents?
    Mr. Sackville: I agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate his region on its exceptional performance. I agree that, under the sort of shower that the Labour party would bring to the health service, there is no way in which the number of patients treated could increase.
    Mr. Pike: If the figures are so good, why do so many people find it necessary to pay for their first appointment to see a consultant, in the knowledge that, if they do not do so, they will have to wait months?
    Mr. Sackville: Waiting times have come down. All districts are obliged to publish the length of the waiting list of each consultant for out-patient appointments. Waiting times for both in-patient and out-patient appointments are coming down. I should have thought that the Labour party would congratulate the NHS on that.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only the figures should be noted? The fact is that more patients have been treated with infinitely more complicated and expensive operations, treatments and drugs than ever before in our history and that thousands of people are alive today who would have died from their condition even five or 10 years ago.
    Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend describes the successes of today's NHS in her own way.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister recognise that the figures that he gives are largely meaningless as they include so many elements of double counting because they count treatments and not patients? If the Minister really wants to look at patient episodes in that way, is he

    573
    aware of the substantial increase in the number of private patients treated in national health service hospitals? Does he recognise that most British people think that NHS patients should have priority in NHS hospitals?
    Mr. Sackville: I am aware that the right hon. Lady is only just learning her job. She accuses us of double counting. The figures are now collected on the basis of finished consultant episodes because that is the best way to measure NHS activity. The difference between that figure and the old way of counting based on deaths and discharges is about 3 per cent. and all comparative figures reflect that.

    NHS Expenditure
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of gross domestic product was spent on the national health service in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the percentage in 1978.
    Mr. Malone: National health service spending in the United Kingdom as a whole has risen from 4.7 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1978–79 to an estimated 5.8 per cent. in 1994–95.
    Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show up the different priorities that Conservative and Labour Governments have for the national health service?
    Mr. Malone: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only that—they underpin the fact that there is increased activity and not merely increased spending. It is the improvement in patient health care that really counts for people in this country.
    Ms Jowell: In view of the proportion of gross domestic product spent on the national health service and the importance of securing proper value for money for patients, does the Minister for Health accept that more rigorous monitoring is needed of the way in which NHS consultants who also undertake private practice divide their time between their NHS responsibilities and their private patients?
    Mr. Malone: I am delighted that the hon. Lady now seems to support the Government's policy for ensuring that the management of clinicians should be devolved to a local level so that all these matters can be examined. I welcome her to this side. I had hoped that an Opposition Front-Bench Member might stand up and say what a Labour Government would spend as a proportion of gross domestic product, but on the vital matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox) there is yet again a resounding silence from the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the figures, which clearly show the Government's commitment to the national health service. Does my hon. Friend accept that some high-tech sophisticated operations cannot be carried out in hospitals within the national health service in the United Kingdom? I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the case of Miss Alicia McCluckie in my constituency, who needed to go to New York for an operation to remove a brain tumour. Will my hon. Friend introduce a system to provide people in this country with a procedure whereby they can bring pressure to bear on
    574
    the authorities to provide facilities for operations abroad when such treatment is not available in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Malone: e people come to Britain to take advantage of medical services here than travel abroad. However, it is true that some procedures are available abroad which have not been clinically proven in this country.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: In 1978, Britain spent 8 per cent. less than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average on public health care. By 1991, the position had changed to 12 per cent. below the OECD average. Before I answer the Minister's questions, perhaps he will tell the House why the relative position has regressed under Conservative Government.
    Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman said, "Before I answer the Minister's questions," but he is clearly not going to do so. Perhaps we shall get a commitment once the answer has been cleared, although I had thought that the hon. Gentleman was one of the Front-Bench spokesmen cleared to speak for his party.
    On the OECD league tables, the hon. Gentleman is forgetting entirely that one is not comparing health systems that are the same. Some bring in expenditure from social services while others have an entirely different structure. He should study the OECD recommendations, which state that the British health care system is probably the most effective in the European Union and, more importantly, that we allocate funds throughout the country in a far fairer, more flexible and more sophisticated way than any other health service in Europe in order to meet deprivation and need.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most civilised part of Essex—Harlow—is delighted with the increased spending on the health service? We are delighted with our new NHS trust, our new computerised axial tomography scanner and our new magnetic resonance imaging scanner, and also with the £10 million spent by the Government on our accident and emergency facilities.
    Madam Speaker: And I shall be delighted if the hon. Gentleman will ask a question.
    Mr. Hayes: Thank you for that advice, Madam Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree with me?
    Mr. Malone: I had always thought that my hon. Friend was the most sophisticated and delightful part of Essex, but that opinion is perhaps not shared across the Floor of the House. I thoroughly agree with him. I was in Essex last week, opening a community health trust centre in Purfleet, which shows how excellent health care is in that county and how it is improving.

    Care Beds (Elderly)
    Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the present level of provision of NHS continuing care beds for the elderly; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Bowis: District health authorities are responsible for making such assessment locally and for ensuring adequate provision.
    Ms Coffey: Does the Minister agree that it is crucial to have national eligibility criteria for access to NHS

    575
    continuing care? It cannot be right for an elderly person in one part of the country to have to pay for health care which is free in another part of the country. How does the Minister intend to ensure that health authorities fulfil their financial obligations under the National Health Service Act 1977 and that the elderly have equal access to NHS care, irrespective of where they live?
    Mr. Bowis: The answer lies partly in the continued generous funding for the national health service under this Government—£32 billion for England this year—partly in the fact that about 40 per cent. of spending on hospital and community health services goes on the 16 per cent. of people who are 65 and over and partly in the guidance that we are issuing to the health service to ensure that it continues to keep responsibility for the continuing health needs of the elderly and that it reviews, and if necessary re-provides, provision in that area. The hon. Lady must not ask me to take the place of the doctors, who ultimately decide the clinical needs of patients.
    Mr. Garnier: If my hon. Friend wants to assess the provision of national health service care, would he like to visit the Coventry Road and St. Luke's hospitals in Market Harborough? Were he to do so, he would find fine examples of the success of the Government's policies and the good sense, management and operation of the Fosse health trust.
    Mr. Bowis: I am sure that that is the case and that if I visited those hospitals I would see precisely what my hon. Friend describes—good quality care for people, irrespective of age, provided by the national health service within hospitals and the community.

    Blood Donation
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra level of financing has been agreed by her Department for an advertising campaign by the National Blood Authority to encourage blood donation.
    Mr. Sackville: National publicity to retain and recruit donors for the national blood service is funded by the Department of Health—in 1993–94, to the extent of £1.6 million. The budget for 1994–95 is £1.2 million. Smaller-scale local publicity is generally funded and organised by the National Blood Authority.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Minister not realise that recent changes, which have threatened blood transfusion centres with closure, and the evidence that the National Blood Authority is selling blood products, are fatally undermining the contract with donors who freely give their blood? Does he not realise that a Government who believe in putting a price on everything, while knowing the value of nothing and flogging off everything that cannot be nailed down, will ruin our national blood service?
    Mr. Sackville: The only thing which might have undermined blood donation has been the disgraceful campaign by the hon. Lady and her colleagues to frighten donors, but it has failed to do so. Blood stocks are now at about 15,000 units, and it is a tribute to our loyal donors that they have ignored the rubbish that they have heard from the hon. Lady and her colleagues.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: My hon. Friend will be aware that I receive many letters from donors who fear that they may
    576
    not have the opportunity that they currently enjoy to donate their blood at travelling units because of changes to the regional centres. Will he assure the House that, despite changes that may be made to regional centres, people will still be able to enjoy the benefits of attending those mobile units?
    Mr. Sackville: Only a tiny proportion of blood collection takes place at those centres. The reorganisation is taking place because there is too much capacity in processing and testing. The savings that can be made will be available to improve donor support and recruitment of donors. I give that assurance to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Illsley: Does the Minister accept that there is a crisis within the national blood service? He has just quoted a figure of 15,000 units of blood. At yesterday's date—16—January—blood stock levels were 11,939 units, which is below both the figure that he quoted and the service's target figure of 20,000 units. The public are now unwilling to donate blood because the reorganisation proposals are unpopular and because of the increasing commercialisation of the national blood service. Will the Minister now reverse those reorganisation proposals?
    Mr. Sackville: The latest figure happens to be 14,500 units. For the hon. Gentleman to talk about a crisis in the national blood service is highly irresponsible, as it is designed to frighten donors. Of all that has been said by the Opposition, that is the most disgraceful. It has nothing to do with the NHS but is about making political points.

    Epilepsy
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been provided for research into epilepsy in the past financial year.
    Mr. Bowis: The main channel is through the Medical Research Council, which spent a total of £472,000 during 1993–94 on research into epilepsy, an increase of 40 per cent. over the previous year.
    Mrs. Gillan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the increase of 40 per cent. in spending on research into epilepsy. Is he aware that the world's first scanner dedicated to treatment and research on epilepsy will be opened this spring at the National Society for Epilepsy in Chalfont St. Peter in my constituency? The society is delighted that the Secretary of State is to visit the scanner to see its progress. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to thank the private donors who have raised £1.75 million to build that scanner, which will bring much help, treatment and relief to the many sufferers of epilepsy?
    Mr. Bowis: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in the tribute that she pays to both the National Society for Epilepsy and the donors who have made the scanner possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking forward to opening it next week. I confirm the Government's real commitment to epilepsy. In recent months, not only did I open the Centre for Epilepsy and launch the Institute for Epileptology, but I have recently asked our officials to consider and come forward with plans for new initiatives in that area.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Minister ensure that research into epilepsy leads to action on behalf of people who have

    577
    epilepsy and that people who want to work in the national health service are not refused jobs because they are epileptic?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The work, including research, which we and the whole medical profession have been doing, is into educating general practitioners and the public. That includes employers, so that they accept people with epilepsy. It is to help people to live with the problem and also to encourage research. All those matters are on our agenda, which I am delighted to share with the hon. Gentleman.

    Hospital Services (Northumberland)
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will visit Northumberland to discuss the financing of hospital services in the area.
    Mr. Sackville: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State enjoyed her visit to Northumberland on 2 August 1994, but has no plans to visit again in the near future. I, however, would be happy to respond to an invitation from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister follow up that kind offer and bring the Prime Minister with him? People in Northumberland are extremely baffled as to why, since the Secretary of State's visit, the Cheviot and Wansbeck hospital trust has lost more than £1 million in its first year of operation. Can the Minister give a guarantee to back up the undertaking given by the regional chairman to the effect that, whatever the cause of that enormous cash shortfall, it will not impair hospital services in Berwick, Alnwick or Rothbury? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that that does not happen?
    Mr. Sackville: I understand that last week the right hon. Gentleman and other parliamentary colleagues had a constructive meeting with the regional chairman at which they received that very assurance.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 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.
    Mr. Winnick: Why has the Prime Minister refused to allow the Nolan committee to look into the way in which political parties are funded? Is it because that committee would soon discover the underhand and shabby way in which the Tory party collects a lot of its money and how knighthoods and peerages are given to many of those who make the largest donations to the Tory party? Surely it is disgraceful that the Conservative party should carry on in that manner in this day and age.
    The Prime Minister: There is a disgrace in party funding. The hon. Gentleman is right—yes, indeed. The disgrace in party funding is the Labour party's dependence on trade unions, which buy direct influence
    578
    over that party's votes. We have seen that many times in the past and we shall see it again with clause IV, as the old, unreconstructed Labour party comes to the rescue of the new Labour party.
    Mr. Brooke: Does my right hon. Friend recall that after the country gave up paying danegeld the policy was resumed under King Ethelred the Unready?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend always adds a touch of erudition to these occasions. I suspect that he has in mind the precise point that I touched upon just a moment ago—he who pays the piper calls the tune, and we know who pays the Labour party.
    Mr. Blair: On 10 January, the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's Question Time that he was as committed to maintaining the existing through-ticketing service on British Rail as I was. Tomorrow the House will have a chance to vote on a motion opposing any reduction in through ticketing. Will the Prime Minister therefore support that motion?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows what the Rail Regulator said last week. The regulator made the position perfectly clear: he is now considering the responses to his own consultation document. He said:
    "Privatisation and restructuring of the railways are intended to improve service to customers and stimulate innovation. In looking at any new proposals to replace British Rail's current arrangements, I shall want to be satisfied that they are likely to achieve those objectives."
    I agree entirely and I shall wait to see what proposals the regulator makes.
    Mr. Blair: But the question is: what is the Prime Minister's own position? The Secretary of State for Transport said that any reduction in existing through-ticketing services was unacceptable. Will that therefore be the Government's position in the consultation, which the regulator has said may mean a significant reduction in service? Will the Government tell the regulator that that would be unacceptable? And if the regulator ignores the Prime Minister's view, what will the right hon. Gentleman do?
    The Prime Minister: I set out the Government's position precisely, just a moment ago. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my first answer, he might not have asked his second question. If the right hon. Gentleman were, time after time, to hear the Government say precisely what would be the outcome of consultations before the consultation was completed, and when the consultation was being undertaken by a regulator, he would accuse us of abusing the position of the regulator and not listening to the consultation.
    I repeat for the right hon. Gentleman: I shall want to be satisfied that the outcome of the consultation generally improves the service that is available to people on through ticketing and other matters. That is the purpose of privatisation. I am not satisfied at present with the service that British Rail has offered for many years, and I intend to see it improved. That is what privatisation will achieve.
    Mr. Blair: Is it not the case, therefore, that last week the Prime Minister was saying that he was committed to maintaining the existing service and that now he will not say that he is committed to doing so?[Interruption.] He has just been given two chances to do so, and he has not said it.

    579
    Is not this the problem with privatisation? When the public see £700 million being spent up to now on privatisation, cuts in timetable, cuts in services, and now a possible cut in through ticketing, is it any wonder that they do not want British Rail broken up and sold off but want it maintained as a publicly owned, publicly accountable transport service?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has an unsuspected sense of humour. I had not imagined, after the turn and turn about in his transport policy on British Rail in the past few days, that he would have had the brass neck to suggest to us, incorrectly, that we had changed the position that we have taken on through ticketing.
    Our position is precisely as we stated it at the beginning. We have made it perfectly clear what we expect at the end of the process. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, we have not changed our policy on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, as he has done through a range of his own spokesmen on the Front Bench, past and present, and his press spokesman.
    Mr. Hicks: In view of the disappointing performances by our English test cricketers in recent years and the contribution that cricket makes to our national society, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need to establish a cricket academy in this country and that it is a suitable project for consideration for funding by the Millennium Commission?
    The Prime Minister: On the latter point, there is no reason why, if a suitable project were put forward, it could not be considered by the Millennium Commission or, indeed, I would think, in terms of the resources front the national lottery, by the Sports Council. As regards the general proposition, my hon. Friend knows my concern about team sports generally and my desire that they should be given much more importance in the school curriculum. We intend to pursue that.
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Darling: The Prime Minister will recall his great triumph last year when he installed Monsieur Santer as President of the European Commission. In the light of what Mr. Santer had to say today on the subject of European integration, does the Prime Minister still believe that Monsieur Santer is the right man for the right job at the right time, or is the right hon. Gentleman guilty of yet another gross error of judgment?
    The Prime Minister: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read all 34 pages of Mr. Santer's speech. [Interruption.] It is obvious from the hon. Gentleman's face that he has read the Press Association extract and nothing more. As for the best men for the job, we shall judge the new Commission by its performance and by its efficiency in carrying out the tasks assigned to it. As I have said before and I repeat now, I believe that the high tide of federalism in Europe is past, and I believe that that will be apparent in the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.
    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1974 the Conservative Government banned the export of
    580
    live animals for slaughter but the Labour Government of 1975 lifted the ban? How does my right hon. Friend think that that squares with the squawking that we hear from Opposition Members, given that the Opposition agriculture spokesman was a member of the Government who lifted that ban?
    The Prime Minister: The straight answer to my hon. Friend is that I was not aware of the duplicity of the Opposition's position on that subject—although I suppose that in view of their position on so many other matters, I would have been wise to look back and see what their agriculture spokesman had done in the past. Surely the right approach for all people concerned about the welfare of animals is to raise standards of animal welfare across the European Union, which is what we are seeking to do. We lead from the front in negotiations on the subject and we intend to continue to do so to seek the best standards of animal welfare, not just in the United Kingdom where they are already better than anywhere else in the European Union, but right across the European Union.
    Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Chidgey: Is the Prime Minister aware that a recent survey by Eagle Star showed that there were more burglaries committed in Britain than in any other country in Europe? If so, will he now admit that the failure of his policies to tackle crime have placed this country not at the heart of Europe but on the far margins of lawlessness and disorder?
    The Prime Minister: I sometimes wonder whether there is any piece of silliness that the Liberal party will not adopt to make a party point. Everyone in the House is concerned to see crime cut. The crime statistics, for the first time in not just two or three years but 30 to 40 years, are now beginning to fall. I have seen no support from the hon. Gentleman or his colleagues on the Liberal Benches for the vast range of measures that we have taken in recent years to combat and punish crime. When the hon. Gentleman comes into the Lobby to support the fight against crime I will listen to what he has to say at Prime Minister's Question Time on the subject of crime.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister find time today to consider West Midlands Travel which, under Labour, was a sleepy nationalised industry but which, under the Tories, has been a privatised success story and is about to be floated on the stock market? Is it not good news that all the employees will receive free shares and the directors, who include the former Labour transport spokesman, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), will make large profits on their share options?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that that is another indication this week that it is best to be a former Labour transport spokesman than a current Labour transport spokesman. I welcome the flotation; I hope that it is a

    581
    great success and that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) does well out of it. The privatisation of the bus services has proved immensely successful for bus service users and will continue to do so—[Interruption.] Labour Members who shout "Rubbish" had better take up the matter with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East.
    Mr. Barnes: Why are the Government involved in a massive exercise to kill off the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill by introducing their own limited and restricted measure in the House ahead of discussions on that measure? The provision is required by the 10 per cent. of people in this country who suffer from disabilities and has massive support inside and outside the House.
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill that he is seeking to dismiss. That "limited" Bill carries rights for disabled people when they are unfairly discriminated against in employment. It gives them the right to complain to an industrial tribunal when they feel that unlawful discrimination has occurred. It requires those providing goods and services to ensure that they are accessible and it provides for a conciliation service, a national disability council and measures to combat discrimination in transport and education sectors. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a limited Bill, I think that he has limited capacity to understand what is in the Government's legislation.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware how greatly he heartened most people in this country when he
    582
    stated on television on 8 January that at the intergovernmental conference in 1996 he would not agree to any constitutional change which impacted on the sovereignty of this Parliament? Does that not contrast—with striking historical force—with the renewed admission by the Leader of the Opposition in Brussels on 10 January that a Labour Government would agree to further reductions in British parliamentary and national sovereignty?
    The Prime Minister: I repeat that I believe that it would be a departure to make further constitutional changes. I was quite clear about that in my policy when I set it out a week or so ago.
    I am rather surprised by what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about handing more powers to the European Parliament in view of the low opinion that he expressed recently of some Members of that Parliament.

  BILL PRESENTED
    HOME RULE (SCOTLAND)
    Mr. Menzies Campbell, supported by Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Sir Russell Johnston, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Sir David Steel, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mrs. Ray Michie, presented a Bill to establish and entrench a Scottish Parliament elected by a system of proportional representation, with revenue-raising powers, to assume legislative authority on all matters of public policy relating to Scotland, under reservation of matters relating to defence, international and macro-economic affairs which shall remain the preserve of the United Kingdom Parliament; to provide for changes in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 27 January, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not a long-established practice in the House that, when a Member raises an issue affecting another Member's constituency, he writes to tell that Member that he intends to raise it? As the town of West Bromwich also forms part of your constituency, do you not agree that it would have been common courtesy for the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) to inform my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), in order to give him the right of reply?
Madam Speaker: I make it quite clear that I am the Member for West Bromwich, West—the better part of West Bromwich. In all seriousness, I received a similar request yesterday which I am looking at and I hope to make a statement to the House fairly soon about those matters.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that the Nolan committee is carrying out an inquiry into conduct in public life and that many hon. Members are giving evidence to that committee. They wish to give evidence in some detail about the relationship between lobbying companies and Ministers of the Crown, and over a period, I have tabled a number of questions on that issue.
Before Christmas, I tabled a question to the President of the Board of Trade asking on how many occasions he or his departmental officials had met representatives of Messrs Ian Greer Associates. I was told that I could not be given that answer, for a reason that you will understand, Madam Speaker: Ministers regularly cite disproportionate cost as a reason for not answering questions.
The problem is that I know—as you do, Madam Speaker—that Nolan himself is in a position to secure that information from Government. Yet I, as a Member of Parliament, am not allowed to seek the information because Ministers will not answer questions. As the whole country is observing what is going on in the Nolan committee, will you express the view on this occasion that Ministers should answer questions, not on the detail of meetings but on when they met lobbying companies, thereby enabling Members of Parliament to speak responsibly about those matters when they appear before Nolan? If we are not in a position to do so, we shall find it difficult to substantiate our claim to the Nolan committee that it should consider the matter in some detail.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. If a question has been answered
584
with the response that to obtain the information would cost too much, and later on that information is supplied to some other body, surely it would be a courtesy for the Government Department concerned to write to the hon. Member saying that the information is now available.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made a wise suggestion in that respect.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) began by saying that I know that hon. Members are giving evidence to the Nolan committee. I do not know who those Members are, but he has raised a serious point with me. Perhaps I can look at the responses that he has received and see whether I can be helpful in that respect.
Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In his reply to a question, the Prime Minister said that the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill contained provisions relating to education and transport. As that is not the case, would you consider inviting the Prime Minister to apologise for again misleading the House?
Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but concerns political exchanges across the Floor of the House. The proceedings were perfectly in order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter, he can find opportunities to do so, either with the Ministers concerned or with the Prime Minister himself.
Ms Angela Eagle: Following the event at Downing street yesterday, which was clearly party political, and especially given the present financial condition of the Conservative party, I wonder whether Parliament can take a view on whether 10 Downing street is to be used for party political fund-raising events at any time in future.
Madam Speaker: There has been no breach of our procedures here, which are a matter for me. Proceedings which take place outside the House are not my concern.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

UNLICENSED TELEVISION SERVICES
That the Broadcasting (Unlicensed Television Services) Exemption Order 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3172) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Question agreed to.

Building Societies (Joint Account Holders)
3.36 pm
Mr. Douglas French: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure the rights of second-named account holders in Building Society joint accounts; and for connected purposes.
The Bill addresses the problem which arises whenever there is a takeover or merger by a building society which involves a bonus payout to members. It applies currently in the case of the takeover of the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society by Lloyd's bank. It will apply in respect of the proposed merger of the Halifax building society and the Leeds Permanent, and any others that may follow.
The combined effect of schedule 2(7) and section 100(9) of the Building Societies Act 1986, is that any distribution of bonus to savers who have investment accounts—that is, members who hold shares in the society—can be made only to a sole account holder or to the first-named person of a joint account, and in both cases only to those who have invested continuously for two years.
The requirement to have invested continuously for two years is a very wise provision, because it seeks to reward loyalty for long-term saving and not to reward those who open accounts in anticipation of a takeover and a windfall cash distribution.
The restriction to first-named joint account holders, however, discriminates against categories of saver who ought to be entitled to benefit. The most unfairly treated category of all is widows who have had a joint account with their husbands and whose husbands die during the qualifying period.
The husband's name may be deleted from the existing account, or the balance may be transferred to a new account in the widow's name only. Either way, the counting of the two-year qualifying period has to begin all over again. It makes no difference how many years previously the wife has contributed to the account: she gets no credit for it, because it is deemed to be in her husband's name.
The problem is well illustrated by my constituent Mrs. Wiltshire, of 52 Mayfield drive, Hucclecote, Gloucester. As long ago as 1964, she opened an account with the Cheltenham and Gloucester in her first married name of Mrs. Wellington. In 1966, her first husband having died, she remarried, and her account was amended to the name of Mr. and Mrs. Wiltshire.
Sadly, Mr. Wiltshire died in 1993, and the account was transferred back to Mrs. Wiltshire's sole name. She is therefore a continuous saver of more than 30 years' standing, but she does not qualify for a cash distribution under the C and G takeover, because she was not the first named account holder for two years prior to the qualifying date—in this case, 31 December 1994.
The same problem arises with newly marrieds. A single woman who has a building society investment account may on marriage choose to redesignate the account jointly in the name of her new husband and herself. By doing so, she loses the rights that may have accrued to her when the account was in her own name. Her new husband must
586
begin the two-year qualifying period in his name alone. A similar disadvantage can arise in cases of divorce, when a woman must reopen an account in her name alone.
Those examples show that the 1986 Act unwittingly enshrined a degree of sex discrimination. It is virtually always the woman, whether a widow or newly wed, who suffers, because the normal convention in the English language is to designate an account Mr. and Mrs. To open an account using Mrs. and Mr. would be thought rather odd. Consequently, the woman is invariably the second-named account holder and cannot accrue any rights in relation to a two-year qualifying period while she remains the second-named person.
That problem has been much in the news recently, but it is not new. It was identified as early as 1988, when the Abbey National building society decided to convert to plc status. In making share allocations, the Abbey National found that it was precluded from conferring any benefit on second-named account holders. Six years later, that problem remains unresolved.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury is well aware of the problem, and I pay tribute to him for the tune and trouble he has taken to consider possible solutions. He is currently engaged in a full review of building societies' powers, and hopes to present a range of measures in due course. The trouble is, as my hon. Friend pointed out in his letter to me of 14 December 1994, that he sees little possibility of bringing forward any legislation before 1996—and even then, the 1986 Act's takeover provisions are not his prime concern. My Bill singles out for earlier treatment one point that must surely be perceived as an injustice by whoever considers it.
The Bill does not attempt to tackle every related problem. For example, individuals who switch from a deposit account to a share account during the qualifying period also exclude themselves from any entitlement—but that is a more complex matter, which falls outside the Bill's scope.
In my opinion, the flaw in the 1986 Act was to assume that eligibility for bonus payments must be based exclusively on voting rights. Second and subsequent joint account holders were not given voting rights, because members could then have exercised multiple votes simply by adding extra names to joint accounts. That is why only one vote attaches to one account. However, exclusion from voting need not in every case be accompanied by exclusion from bonus entitlement. One bonus payout should attach to each account where either the first named account holder or a second or subsequent account holder meets the two-year qualifying period for continuous saving.
If my Bill becomes law, it will be for the Cheltenham and Gloucester to decide whether to take advantage of the legislation to benefit its members. A vote on the takeover's current terms is due at the end of March, and the two-year qualifying period ended on 31 December 1994. It would be open to the C and G to make the operative date later. It has already postponed it once, and could do so again. I hope that the society will so decide. In any event, the Bill protects against a similar problem arising in future takeovers.
The Bill does not attempt to change the two-year qualifying period or to give joint account holders more than their fair share or to alter voting rights. All it does, by two small amendments to the Building Societies Act,

587
is give credit for the savings record of the second-named account holder, and by so doing, fairness and justice to thousands of people. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Douglas French, Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Paul Marland, Mr. John Townend and Mr. Nigel Waterson.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (JOINT ACCOUNT HOLDERS)
Mr. Douglas French accordingly presented a Bill to secure the rights of second-named account holders in Building Society joint accounts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 February, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]
Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  [Relevant document: The Third Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on The 1994 Budget (House of Commons Paper No. 79).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.45 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  All Finance Bills are vigorously debated, and I am sure that this Bill will be no exception, but I shall begin by commending to the House a procedural innovation affecting this year's debates, which may well improve the quality of our proceedings. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced in his business statement on Thursday, it would be proposed that the Standing Committee on this Bill would not be required to sit long into the evening or, indeed, into the night. In accordance with the spirit of the Jopling reforms, it is proposed that the Committee will sit in the mornings and afternoons, thus ending more than a century of a tradition of nocturnal sittings.
  I take this chance to pay tribute to both sides of the usual channels and also to thank the Opposition for their co-operation in making the reform possible. It is a sensible modernisation of our antediluvian procedures, and it has been generally welcomed not only by hon. Members from all parties, but by the many outside bodies which like to attend the debates in Committee, including representatives of the professions, the unions, industry and the press. Apart from a few incorrigible Westminster night owls, almost everyone will be grateful for this new procedural move in favour of daylight debating time.
  As the House knows, the Finance Bill is the annual legislation which enables the Government to complete their virtuous circle of sound public finances by aligning what goes out in public spending with what comes in in taxation. I am not at all sure that the Opposition understand that such a circle exists or that it needs to be virtuous, or, indeed, that there needs to be any sort of alignment between taxation, expenditure and borrowing.
  The problem is not what the Opposition say. The deputy leader of the Labour party was flattering his team of Treasury spokesmen when he ticked them off recently in the middle of their shambolic disarray over VAT on education with the rebuke:
  "I think we have been so long in opposition that we tend to be a little bit loose with our language."
  Not for the first time, the deputy leader of the Labour party got it wrong. The real problem which we are likely to face in the course of debate on this Bill is not Labour's loose language, or even its loose purse-strings on expensive policy commitments such as new bureaucracies to handle the break-up of Britain, new quangos and the job-destroying minimum wage legislation. No, the real problem that the House and the country have with the Opposition on economic policy is the problem of their evasive silences.
  Up to now, the shadow Treasury spokesmen have performed a passable imitation of four Trappist monks in a Harold Pinter play. Whenever they are asked

  589
  fundamental questions on vital economic policies—such as, do they think that the present levels of borrowing are too high or too low, do they think that the present levels of public expenditure are too high or too low, would they put taxes up or down, or at what figure will they set the minimum weekly wage that they have undertaken to introduce—consistently, answer comes there none. All we get are these uncomfortable Pinteresque silences, which are even being written up and noticed by the critics.
  For example, this week's Economist published a perceptive article headlined "Labour's Profit Phobia" in which it asked:
  "Is Labour really committed to a dynamic modern market economy?"
  The report continued:
  "But no one knows. There is considerable disagreement over economic policy within the Labour party, even among those who seem Mr. Blair's keenest supporters … there remain huge differences of opinion, for example, about the residual role of public ownership, about public spending and public borrowing and, most important, about profits and rewards."
  I am delighted that The Economist and other parts of the media are waking up to Labour's yawning credibility gap on these issues. Conservative Members know where we stand on these important matters because one of the cardinal features of this Finance Bill is that it demonstrates our commitment to strengthening Britain's dynamic modern market economy. I shall refer to specific clauses that are dedicated to that purpose later in my speech.
  However, let me focus for a moment on the phrase "dynamic modern market economy" because that phrase, and the commitment to it, came from the lips of no less a personage than the Leader of the Opposition during his ill-fated speech in Brussels on 10 January.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Ill-fated?
  Mr. Aitken: I hear a muttering of dissent from the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I called that speech "ill-fated" because, as has been well reported, the Leader of the Opposition's speech was torpedoed that same morning by the Guardian advertisement which attacked Labour's modernisation plans. That advertisement was placed by the majority group of 32 Labour MEPs who were later castigated by the Leader of the Opposition, with true brotherly charm, as "infantile incompetents".
  Where was the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer in that divisive rumpus created by Labour's "infantile incompetents"? I have a fascinating revelation to make. The House will be interested to know that the source of the hostile Guardian advertisement was an office with a most intriguing address. The address was published in the advertisement, and it was 25 Church street, Inverkeithing, Fife. Guess whose office that was; guess whose office the anti-Blairite MEPs were using as their base from which to attack the Leader of the Opposition? The astonishing fact is that the anti-Blairite MEPs were using the shadow Chancellor's constituency office as their launch pad for that hostile Guardian advertisement.
  Well, well, well; talk about getting wires crossed; talk about political schizophrenia and the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. We have always known that the Labour party is a divided church. Now we know that, even in the shadow Chancellor's own office, Labour is divided at 25 Church street.
  590
  I cannot think how the Opposition are going to manage their party, in respect of the Finance Bill, with that kind of unity. Imagine the scene when a new Labour well-wisher visits the office of the shadow Chancellor to offer advice on this admirable piece of legislation which promotes a dynamic modern market economy—after all, that is what the Leader of the Opposition wants—and what happens? He comes face to face with the old Labour's infantile incompetents tendency and the brothers who do not even approve of a market economy, and certainly do not want to see it modernised, dynamised or even endogenous-zone-ised.
  My advice to the warring parties in "Blair Wars" is that they should at least compromise by declaring the Dunfermline, East constituency office a demilitarised zone. Joking apart—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, we like to have light and shade in such speeches. My colleagues are enjoying themselves. I am sorry that Opposition Members are so discomfited.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: While we are on the subject of joking, is my right hon. Friend certain that The Guardian had not stolen the writing paper?
  Mr. Aitken: I am tempted to avoid those matters, as they are probably sub judice.
  As I was saying, those schizophrenic splits and silences within the Opposition are quite rightly going to come under intense scrutiny during the debates on this Bill, as the whole purpose of our legislation is to consolidate and strengthen Britain's growing economic success story, underpinned as it is by the Government's resolute commitment to sound public finances.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister address the situation that is facing the charity organisations, whereby the excess which they must pay on VAT is in the region of £300 million a year, which is 10 per cent. above the income they receive? Does the right hon. Gentleman say that that is how the Government are building the economy, or does he agree that charities should be given special consideration?
  Mr. Aitken: Charities have long been given special consideration under our taxation law, and they will continue to be so. The hon. Gentleman might be referring to a wholly erroneous report in one of the Sunday newspapers, which was completely misleading about that aspect of the Bill. It is such a detailed point that we had better keep it for discussion in Committee, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is going down a wrong road. The Government are all in favour of some special concessions remaining for the taxation of charities.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that, notwithstanding the very valuable incentives that the Government have provided to charitable giving, charities face a burden of more than £300 million on irrecoverable VAT? Does he agree that, given that the Government are increasingly looking to charities to play a part in the provision of public services, it is important that the tax regime reflects coherent and consistent encouragement for charities? Therefore, before the measure is considered in Committee, will my right hon. Friend undertake to consider scope for a VAT refund scheme for charities?
  Mr. Aitken: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in and support for charities. I assure him that there is no

  591
  sinister hidden agenda in the Bill somehow to do down charities in relation to tax. It is worth mentioning that charities already receive £1.4 billion of tax relief each year. Therefore, any criticism of anything in the Bill—I am sure that such matters will be debated fully in Committee—must be seen against that background. My hon. Friend's point must be seen in the clear perspective of the £1.4 billion of tax reliefs, but we will certainly consider it in Committee.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave danger of a Labour Government—if by some mischance Labour formed the Government of the day—removing charity status from schools, and of the problems that that would pose to Church schools and Church colleges, particularly those whose buildings were donated many centuries ago?
  Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. However, one of the temporary, at least, productive signs of the power struggle between old Labour and new Labour is that the sword of Damocles of VAT on Church schools and others—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Charities.
  Mr. Aitken: It is all part of the package which was announced by the Labour education spokesman, and which was then smartly repudiated. He had that agenda in mind, but, if I can follow the gyrations and acrobatics in Labour policy making, it has been repudiated. However, that question is not for me, but for the Opposition. I hope that my hon. Friend's fears are misplaced.
  Mr. John Sykes: Perhaps, in view of what my right hon. Friend has said, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) should direct her inquiries to Inverkeithing rather than to Walworth road on this matter.
  Mr. Aitken: Perhaps Church street looks after Church schools—we will see.
  Sound public finances are the foundation of the Bill. I remind the House that, in his Budget statement, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced that we will reduce public expenditure by £28 billion over the next three years. Moreover, by a combination of encouraging economic growth and keeping such firm control on public expenditure, the Government will halve the public sector borrowing requirement between last year and next year from £45 billion to £22 billion. We project that we will nearly halve the PSBR again in 1996–97.
  Opposition Members apparently do not approve of that, but my hon. Friends certainly do, and so do Britain's companies, Britain's inward investors and the international financial markets. The widespread approval of our policy of sound public finances and the decisions that flow from it have produced some remarkable results. I hope that all hon. Members will welcome the fact that the economy has performed way ahead of expectations over the past year.
  The British economy has now been growing for two and a half years. Growth last year was more than 4 per cent., the fastest in the European Union, and exporters have led the way. Exports are up 13 per cent. on a year ago, and are at record levels. Some forecasters are making
  592
  clear predictions that Britain's balance of payments may be in surplus this year and next. Certainly the House should welcome the fact that the current account is in surplus for the first time since 1987. After decades of decline, the United Kingdom's share of world trade in manufactured goods stabilised in the mid-1980s, and we are now selling more goods and services abroad than ever before.
  Just one example of the remarkable success being achieved by British business is Japan—a nation to which we extend our heartfelt sympathies for the tragic earthquake it suffered today. On the general picture of British-Japanese business relations, many people would consider it remarkable that it appears that in recent months Britain has moved into current account surplus with Japan. That is surely a success story of which it is worth being proud.
  In manufacturing, output is up by 5 per cent.; productivity is up by 6 per cent.—the fastest rise since April 1989—and unit wage costs are falling. Recent CBI surveys show that the manufacturing sector is expected to grow strongly.
  It is also becoming widely recognised that Britain is one of the best places in the world to do business. That is certainly well recognised by our competitor countries, even if not by the Labour party. The United Kingdom has attracted the lion's share of inward investment to Europe, with more than 40 per cent. of United States and Japanese investment in the European Union coming here.
  After America, Britain is now the world's second most popular inward investment destination. In 1993–94, almost 100,000 jobs were created or safeguarded by inward investment. Since 1988, overseas investors have backed Britain to the tune of £4 billion with projects such as the Nissan factory, which created more than 4,000 jobs in County Durham; Honda, which created 2,000 jobs in Swindon; Motorola, which created 250 jobs in East Kilbride; and Samsung, which created more than 3,000 jobs in Wynyard. Those developments are a real vote of confidence in the British economy and in British workers.
  Mr. Alex SalmondBefore Budget No.1, the Scottish media told us that Scottish Office Ministers had made representations to the Treasury team to put off the second tranche of VAT on fuel. Those representations were obviously ignored by the Treasury team but subsequently accepted by the House. Before Budget No. 2, did Scottish Office Ministers make representations to put off the increases on fuel and whisky—two further anti-Scottish measures? Were they ignored again, or did they not bother to make any representations?
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that Scottish Ministers fight their corner admirably, in Whitehall and everywhere else. Inevitably, such representations and communications with Ministers are not published; they are all part of the collegiate discussion. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Ministers fought their corner admirably at all stages of the Budget discussions.
  The successes that I have listed have been due to two main keys. The first was the supply side reforms introduced by the Government over several years. The second, which is important for creating jobs and remaining competitive in world markets, is keeping a tight lid on inflation. Inflation is low—indeed, it is lower than

  593
  the European Union average. It has now been below 3 per cent. for 14 months running, something not seen since 1961, when the Leader of the Opposition was still receiving his private school education at a school free of VAT.
  Against that background of low inflation, the present economic environment of a good performance by exporters, solid growth by industry, encouraging trends in investment and prudent stewardship of finances by Government, will definitely be strengthened by the Bill.
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is an encouraging trend that the level of business investment last year was only 2 per cent.? Has he taken heed of what the Select Committee said in its report this week—that it does not really accept the Treasury forecast of an 11 per cent. increase in business investment in the year ahead? Is that not a problem area for the economy? Will not the position be made worse by the interest rate rises, in view of the capacity shortages in the economy'?
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of being a doom-monger, and I shall tell him why. First, the latest data show that investment in plant and machinery in the third quarter of 1994 was up 5.3 per cent. on a year ago. Therefore, the latest figures suggest that the rate of investment is accelerating. The Treasury is forecasting a 10.75 per cent. growth in business investment in 1995, but that is a rather lower figure than the CBI forecast, which is that manufacturing investment in 1995 will rise by 11.25 per cent.
  If the hon. Gentleman is not convinced by either of those forecasts, perhaps he would care to take a backward look and be reminded that, during a number of recent years, annual business investment growth has been running at more than 10 per cent. For example, it was 10.9 per cent. in 1984; 13.3 per cent. in 1987; 14.9 per cent. in 1988; and 11.3 per cent. in 1989. As the hon. Gentleman may realise, I was looking forward to an intervention on the pessimistic view of investment. A much more optimistic view exists. It should, and I hope will, prevail on the basis of the facts that I have given.
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for giving way. He has been generous with his time, and I am grateful to him for that.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned investment projects into the United Kingdom, which of course includes Scotland, and the Government's so-called prudent stewardship of public finance. In his list of investment successes, he notably failed to mention Health Care International private hospital in Clydebank. The Secretary of State for Scotland poured millions of pounds into that failed project, yet he is still promising a further £4 million of public money to any private investor who steps in to try to rescue that project. How does that square with the Government's image of their stewardship of public finance?
  Mr. Aitken: The very nature of investments is that they are sometimes risks. Not every investment works out as a tremendous success. Apparently, another foreign investor is thinking of investing in that hospital, which was a risk that was clearly misjudged at the time. Nevertheless, it is
  594
  probably a good hospital building, and I hope that, under new ownership and new management, it will still provide a good service to the patients of Scotland.
  I do not want to get into too much detail on any one investment project. I was giving the broad picture, which is extremely encouraging. I was anxious to turn to the contents of the Bill, which I can best summarise by concentrating on two major themes that emphasise the purpose of the Government's tax policies. The first is the encouragement of enterprise in employment, and the second, clearly linked to the first, is deregulation and simplification of our taxation system.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his Budget, the Government are especially keen to help small businesses to grow and to flourish. They represent the very lifeblood of Britain's commerce. It is a notable statistic that 96 per cent. of all firms employ fewer than 20 people, and that there are now 1 million more small businesses than there were when Labour left office in 1979. That represents a 50 per cent. increase in small businesses.
  There has also been an excellent increase in self-employment, which has increased by 35 per cent. in the past 10 years. Those trends are steadily improving, as National Westminster bank's latest review of small business trends, published last week, clearly emphasises.
  As a Government, we try to listen carefully to what small businesses tell us. We respond to their priority requests to help on matters such as cutting the cost of taking on new staff, easing the cost of business rates, raising new capital for expansion, cutting red tape and simplifying the tax system. All those requests have met a positive response in the Budget and the Bill.
  For example, we have cut the cost of taking on new staff by our measures to reduce each of the lower rates of employer's national insurance contributions by 0.6 per cent. That will cut the cost of employing anyone who earns less than £205 a week. We have also announced a one-year holiday for employers' national insurance charges when an employer recruits as a new member of staff someone who has been unemployed for more than a year. On average, that will save employers more than £300 for each person they take on, at a total benefit to employers of £45 million a year.
  Those two measures will boost output and help with the reduction of unemployment, which has fallen by more than 500,000 since its peak in December 1992, and which in recent months has been falling at the rate of more than 1,000 people coming off the unemployment register per day.
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of small businesses, will he comment on the excise duty on video games, which affects several small businesses in my constituency? Many small business operators who have been to see me fully recognise that video games should fall within the tax net, but the proposals in the Bill will kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and prevent the operation of many video machines, which in a constituency such as Morecambe and Lunesdale provides many jobs for my constituents.
  Mr. Aitken: From a constituency point of view, I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point because amusement machines seem to be concentrated not only in

  595
  coastal locations such as Morecambe and Lunesdale but in Thanet. I have received some vigorous representations on the matter—[Interruption.] So, I can hear, have my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes). We shall have some interesting debates on the matter. It is not a new tax but an extension of an existing tax. We have broadened the boundaries. The amusement machine licence duty will broaden the tax base and protect long-term yield in an evolving market. Amusement machines without prizes will be taxed at a lower rate of duty. Payment by instalments will be available to ease cash flow. We will probably have a good debate in Committee on what I realise is for many of my hon. Friends a sensitive constituency issue.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Aitken: For the last time.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, on the sensitive issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd), he and his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury are prepared to consider representations by the trade body, the British Amusement Catering Trades Association, with which I am due to see my hon. Friend the Paymaster General with some of my hon. Friends next week?
  Mr. Aitken: Yes. We will certainly listen carefully to representations from BACTA. I know that an appointment has already been made with my hon. Friend the Paymaster General. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) for his help in organising the meeting, which is of some importance. We will listen carefully to the representations made.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Aitken: I have just said that I have taken enough interventions. I must make progress.
  We recognise that revaluation for business rates can cause uncertainty by imposing sudden additional costs on businesses. So we have eased that problem in the Budget by introducing a new transitional business rate relief scheme, at a cost of £605 million in 1995–96.
  On the question of helping growing small businesses to raise capital, I draw the attention of the House to clauses 64 to 67 and schedules 14 to 16 of the Bill, which launch a new venture capital trust scheme to encourage the flow of new investment into small and growing businesses.
  Mrs. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that, for many people in small businesses, the main means of raising finance is the equity on their home? One of the difficulties that many businesses face at present is that the further fall in house prices in the past year has meant that more of them than ever before have negative equity. Does he have any specific proposals to deal with that?
  Mr. Aitken: I was dealing with helping businesses to raise capital. I was telling the House that we were introducing a new method of raising capital for small businesses. The venture capital scheme to which I referred
  596
  will make it unnecessary for business people in future to mortgage parts of the equity on their home, which has always been a risky thing to do unless one was very confident of the business.
  The venture capital trust scheme has been designed to fill the gap in the range of financing options available to growing companies. The VCTs will generate risk capital in the unquoted companies sector, while giving investors the security of a quoted pool vehicle. They are expected to lead to a substantial increase in investment. We estimate that a total of up to £2.5 billion could be raised by VCTs over the next three years. They will provide more funds where they are most needed: among dynamic, innovative and growing businesses.
  I now turn to the easing of burdens on small businesses and tax simplification measures. I highlight the Budget reform which raised by one third the threshold below which small employers can account for PAYE and national insurance contributions quarterly rather than monthly. That means that 60 per cent. of all employers will now be able to make their PAYE payments quarterly.
  I remind the House that we have introduced other deregulatory measures to cut red tape, including increasing the VAT registration threshold, which at the new level of £46,000 is now easily the highest in the European Union.
  As for simplifying the tax system, the unwelcome size and weight of the Finance Bill highlights the strange paradox that simplification can be a complicated business, at least in terms of legislation. Some 70 pages of the Bill are devoted to a major reform and simplification of the tax system. Self-assessment will be of particular help to those affected—some 4 million self-employed taxpayers and an equivalent number of business taxpayers—by the relatively complicated tax returns.
  Self-assessment is desirable because it removes unnecessary duplication of work. It helps taxpayers to pay the right bills at the right time. It leaves taxpayers with fewer clerical burdens, so that they have more time and energy to devote to their primary objective of creating wealth.
  Self-assessment saves public money, simplifies collection arrangements and enables the Inland Revenue to pursue dishonest taxpayers more effectively. It is true that this year's self-assessment measures will place some new burdens on employers, but those are being kept to the minimum. The overall impact of self-assessment will be significantly to reduce business compliance costs. I hope that those measures will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I hope that the Opposition will notice that this Finance Bill, like many of its predecessors, contains more than a dozen clauses designed to plug loopholes that may offer opportunities for tax avoidance. I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will be pleased by that fact, because in recent months he seems to have developed almost an unhealthy obsession with tax loopholes. He squawks and sound-bites on the subject with so much moral indignation that there are times when he brings to mind Disraeli's caustic comment on Gladstone:
  "I don't mind him having the ace of trumps up his sleeve but I do wish he wouldn't claim that God had put it there."
  My less celestial, but similar, complaint about the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is not that he wants to close tax loopholes but that he will keep pretending that

  597
  he and the Labour party have a divine right to claim it as a political card of their invention. That is complete nonsense.
  The truth of the matter is that, in recent years, the Government have introduced more than 50 legislative measures to combat tax avoidance. This Finance Bill continues that regular process, and includes loophole-closing measures estimated to raise more than £1.5 billion in the next three years. I hope that that commitment knocks on the head the notion that the Inland Revenue or the Government are soft on unnecessary tax avoidance. We are not soft on tax avoidance, and a dozen clauses in the Bill are there to prove it.
  Finally, on the two "clause fours", the Bill contains a clause 4 that deals with the denaturing of alcohol. That process has a remarkably similar bearing to what the new Islington elitists among the Opposition are up to—denaturing the Labour party. That denaturing of the old Labour party, over clause IV, is an esoteric exercise, which seems to be generating more heat than light, and is about as relevant to Britain's modern economy as a 19th-century ecclesiastical dispute about hymns, ancient and modern.
  The Islington public relations spin doctors, however, are only too delighted to use the clause IV squabble as a cynical diversionary tactic to confuse the electorate with the illusion that something important is happening within the official Opposition.
  The House and the country will not judge the Opposition and the Finance Bill by whether the natural Labour party or the denatured Labour party is making the most noise—that is Tweedledum or Tweedledee territory. The battle over whose new rattle is best may well continue with a vengeance every weekend in the Dunfermline office to which I referred, where the loyal shadow Chancellor has to battle it out with the disloyal leader of the Labour Members of the European Parliament who placed that advertisement in The Guardian, but that is all "Alice in Wonderland" stuff. It is absolutely irrelevant to Britain's dynamic modern market economy.
  During the course of this Finance Bill, we want to find out whether the Opposition will break their Trappist vows and evasive silences on taxation, public expenditure, borrowing and the level of the planned minimum wage. If they do not do so, they will be exposed not merely as the denatured party, but as the discredited and devalued party that does not dare to reveal its true financial and economic policies, even during the intense scrutiny of a Finance Bill debate.
  By contrast, our Finance Bill will put into effect the key measures in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. It will strengthen the excellent economic performance that we are seeing in Britain today; it will help to encourage our enterprise culture, to simplify and deregulate the tax system and to clamp down on real tax avoidance. The Bill is full of sensible and prudent measures to sustain growth in a low-inflation, high-exporting Britain, and I commend it to the House.
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: First, I join the Chief Secretary in welcoming the innovation agreed by both sides of the House, of morning sittings of the Finance Bill Standing Committee. I assure him that that means that the Bill will have more scrutiny by the Opposition,
  598
  not less. I shall not join him, however, in devoting my speech to matters other than the Finance Bill. It spoke volumes for what the Government have put in the Finance Bill that the Chief Secretary spoke for 20 full minutes before referring to the Bill. Even then, the remainder of what he said was spattered with the sparsest references to it. He spoke for eight minutes on the Bill and 24 or 25 minutes on other matters.
  The Bill contains 348 pages, but does nothing to address the country's needs. It is as disappointing, damaging and divisive as the Budgets from which it results. Throughout its proceedings, the Opposition will contrast our approach of fairness and opportunity with the Government's addiction to privilege, vested interests and unfair taxation. The Bill is also rather a shambles, containing neither proposals to rescind the increase in VAT on fuel, nor measures to implement the mini-Budget of 8 December. We know that the Government will bring those forward by way of amendments later, but what a way to carry on—major Budget changes spatchcocked into the Bill at the last minute, when the public, interested parties and hon. Members will have less than adequate time to consider them and no opportunity to amend them in Committee.
  The Bill will compound the Government's record of broken promises and incompetence. It will do no good to the vast majority of people and nothing to improve the position described by the vice-chairman of the Conservative party—no less—when he said in the Maples report:
  "the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest, who are getting poorer."
  That is the reality that people are experiencing, and it will get worse as living standards fall under the impact of the further tax increases that will hit people this April and of the rise in housing costs, which the Bill would make worse, and as people are hit by the consequences of centrally imposed cuts in local council services.
  Mr. Giles Brandreth: The hon. Gentleman has touched on tax increases. As it would be fruitless to ask him what tax increases he has in mind, will he concentrate his mind on public sector borrowing'.' Does he endorse the Government's aim of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement to £5 billion by 1997–98? What does he judge is the correct level of public borrowing in the term covered by the Bill?
  Mr. Smith: We shall take no lectures from a party that not only broke all its election promises on tax, but built up record levels of public borrowing, for which the country will pay dear over the next few years.
  Instead of dealing with people's worries and doing something about them, Conservative Members just claim that everything the Government do makes things better. They pump out propaganda that shows the same scrupulous regard for the truth as the promises that they made to cut taxes at the previous general election. We have the 100 facts from the chairman of the Conservative party, which I presume the Chief Secretary must have checked as they contain such wonders of wishful thinking as fact 27:
  "The PSBR is forecast to fall from £21.5 million in 1995/96"—
  chance would be a fine thing—and the claim in fact 96 that spending on the Welsh language is "now over £7.5 billion." That will come as news to my hon. Friends in Wales.

  599
  Doubtless in the same spirit, the chairman said in his news release:
  "for Britain, good news is all about us, if only we care to look."
  Once he has finished explaining that to his vice-chairman, Mr. Maples, who thinks that people are getting poorer, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) may find time to explain to the country the fact that living standards are falling by 4 per cent. this year; this year, direct taxes on a typical family will go up by £6.44 a week; indirect taxes will go up by £2.72 a week; and interest on the national debt will be a staggering £36 billion more in the next five years compared with the past five years. With killer facts such as that, the Conservative party chairman has nothing to boast about. He should be apologising to people for broken promises and for how badly the Government have let Britain down.
  Ministers should apologise today for bringing forward a Bill that does nothing for investment, jobs and fairness. In their news release on the publication of the Bill, the Government heralded venture capital trusts as
  " a major theme of the Finance Bill".
  They said that they would provide
  "vital extra funds for investment."
  The Chief Secretary said in his speech that that would ensure that funds went where they were most needed. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that the proposal will create any new money for investment—there is every expectation that it will divert savings from other quarters.
  It is revealing that the financial and investment press has focused rather more on the tax avoidance opportunities and rather less, indeed hardly at all, on new funds for investment. The magazine, Small Company Investor, for example, reports:
  "Our bet is that there will be an avalanche of lower-risk property-backed schemes taking money away from entrepreneurial small companies. Think again Chancellor."
  I fear that that message will fall on stony ground and will be unseen by the Chancellor and his colleagues, because reading that magazine and criticisms of the Government's proposals in other publications prompted me to ask to which investment publications the Treasury subscribes. I received an interesting list, which included something called "Baking Technology", which I presume is used for cooking the books.
  Given how often the Government make extravagant claims about the help that they have given to small businesses and bearing in mind the fact that more than 750,000 of them have gone bust in the past five years, one might have thought that the Government would subscribe to Small Company Investor. Between now and the Committee proceedings, the Government should make a wise investment in a subscription for that magazine and obtain some back copies of it. They would then discover that it contains headlines such as:
  "Life is just a bowl of tax cherries. Will you need to pay capital gains tax again? Maybe not."
  There is no doubt that venture capital trusts are a massive tax break. They provide tax breaks when the money goes in through relief from income and capital gains tax; tax breaks when the money is in trusts when
  600
  dividend and capital gains are not taxed and tax relief when the money comes out with relief on the capital gains.
  Property-backed companies, which are trading for tax purposes, fall within the Bill's provisions, which means that the Bill risks replicating the worst features of the business expansion scheme. There would be nothing to stop a venture capital trust being designed round the opportunities for a millionaire's tax shelters, such as that marketed by Johnson Fry Holdings, which offers the opportunity to shelter capital gains of up to £100,000 a year, with the indefinite benefit of the interest gained on the tax liability thereby deferred.
  The Opposition do not believe that the stated purpose behind the investment schemes is all bad; we want to see investment encouraged. We have argued for particular encouragement for investment in research and development. Our concern, however, is that the schemes presented in the Bill offer legion opportunities for abuse. The Government will claim that they have created provisions to reduce those opportunities, but they have succeeded rather more in creating legislative complexity than they have in inhibiting avoidance. It would be a triumph of hope over experience to expect that things will not be worse than even I have described once the full ingenuity of the tax avoidance industry gets to work.
  The same goes for the provisions to extend the enterprise investment scheme and roll-over relief. The memorable words of the December 1994 issue of "BESt Investment Tax Shelter Service"—another publication that I would commend to Ministers—were:
  "Another detail change (for which we had been lobbying) sees the much disliked 'property test' abolished for EIS and Re-investment Relief companies. This will have the effect of … reducing the costs of creating artificial structures to get around the old provisions."
  There could be no clearer confirmation that the Government are opening up further opportunities for abuse of low-risk property-backed schemes, which even they had to recognise and reverse following their abuse in the business expansion scheme.
  What is more, the tax avoidance culture for super-rich and very well-advised people makes a sickening contrast with the increases in tax bills—£800 extra a year—for a typical family, compared with 1992, when the Prime Minister promised tax cuts year on year. It is obvious, yet again, that, with the Government, there is one rule for the few and another rule for the many; one rule for a person with £100,000 of capital gains a year to shelter, and another for the waged or salaried employee, struggling to pay a mortgage and fearful of unemployment.
  Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman is missing one rather important point—that a lot of people who make equity investments lose a lot of money. The record showed that many people went into the BES for tax reasons and lost a great deal of money. As a considerable risk is involved, surely it is right that the Treasury should offer some tax incentives for people to take a risk. That is the important point, is it not?
  Mr. Smith: It is a long time since I heard anything as extraordinary as the idea that the mass of ordinary taxpayers should subsidise wealthy people to put their money into schemes that are often safe, one-way bets without risk.

  601
  The Bill also threatens investment by its proposals on deep discount and qualifying index securities. Although we understand that the Government are thereby trying to prevent loans being structured with the sole intention of deferring or avoiding tax, we are worried about the serious, possibly unanticipated, effects that that would have, especially on non-profit-making organisations such as housing associations and universities.
  Those organisations have found those instruments for borrowing especially advantageous because they have been available to them on more favourable terms. It would cause special difficulties for them if the goalposts were to be moved part of the way through the game, so that those organisations were now confronted by greater borrowing costs on existing loans. That could mean larger rents for housing association tenants and budget difficulties for universities—perhaps even for health trusts, if they also have used those instruments.
  The Finance Bill changes would be especially onerous on institutions that had already incurred, before 29 November, considerable fees in preparing a qualifying index security for issue but had not yet issued the debt. The university of Portsmouth has been cited to me as an example, and I am sure that we shall need to discuss many others in the detailed proceedings on the Bill.
  Options should be explored to avoid those difficulties. First, the taxation of existing arrangements on the same basis as was expected when the transaction was initially executed—which natural justice and fairness would dictate—has much to commend it. Secondly, tax benefits on future arrangements could be restricted to approved borrowers, such as the non-profit-making organisations, including housing associations and universities, to which I referred. Such options could deal with the potential injustice caused by the increased cost that many borrowers will bear because the Conservative Government propose to remove—in effect, retrospectively—tax incentives that the Conservatives themselves created in 1984 and 1989.
  What I have just said about deep discount securities emphasises the importance of what I said earlier about venture capital trusts. The Government always appear to be taken by surprise when, having created a tax break, they subsequently find people taking advantage of it. Rather than launching different schemes to capture a few headlines each year only to be confronted with the need to unscramble the mess later, it would be much better to take a considered, long-term and properly consultative approach to encouraging investment and saving. We need properly thought out action, not gimmicks.
  Just as the Bill is wholly inadequate on investment, it abjectly fails to tackle unemployment. The increases in beer and spirit duty that the Government propose to introduce under the mini-Budget resolutions will cost jobs. We share the concern expressed by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which said in its Budget report published yesterday:
  "We recommended in our Report on cross-border shopping that the Chancellor should take full account of the potential disadvantages of any widening in the level of duties between the UK and the rest of the European Union, and the encouragement this might give to increased cross-border purchases. We are concerned that this recommendation may not have been heeded and that UK industry could be damaged as a result."
  Our fear and that of many in the brewing, pub, retailing and distribution industries is that those excise duty increases, further widening the cross-channel differential,
  602
  will prove a jobs killer. What is more, the unemployed will look in vain for any measures in the Bill that will effectively generate jobs. We shall argue for a proper rebate for employers recruiting the long-term unemployed. We shall put the case for phased release of local authority capital receipts, for a small business expansion scheme, for measures to increase the availability of affordable child care and for job-generating energy efficiency schemes.
  We shall take every opportunity to oppose the vindictive proposal to withdraw mortgage help for the unemployed. The unemployed need jobs and training; they need help to get them back to work, not punishment that threatens to turf them out on the streets. We argue for fairness where the Government are entrenching a Britain of double standards and deepening inequality. We want action on boardroom excesses, on profiteering by the privatised utilities and on excessive bank charges.
  Mr. Sykes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. When he talks about chucking people out on to the streets and turfing them out of jobs, does not he realise that the Labour party's adherence to the social chapter will do exactly that? I speak not just as a Member of Parliament, but as an employer.
  Mr. Smith: The social chapter—long overdue for application in this country—would extend to British employees rights that are increasingly taken for granted across the rest of the European Union. Why should people in this country suffer due to the obsessions of some Conservative Members, not all of them—I recall the speech that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) made last week when he said that the minimum wage should apply as a matter of justice and that we should sign the social chapter. We are talking about basic rights and protecting people. The Government want to remove even the basic protection that remains after their wanton vandalism of our welfare state over the past 15 years.
  Mr. Sykes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indulging me yet again. If what he says is true, what does he have to say to the people in Scarborough with jobs at a large company in my constituency, which has just, doubled its production line in Scarborough rather than build a factory in France because of the social chapter there? Jobs come here because of our lack of a social chapter and because it costs so much to employ people on the continent. That is the reason why we are the centre for Japanese and American investment—not the hon. Gentleman's policies.
  Mr. Smith: We welcome inward investment, including that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. In many such cases, the executives running those companies have stated on the record that they would be happy to comply with the provisions of the social chapter. What worries inward investors is not that we may be applying social protection in the United Kingdom in common with our European partners, but that Conservative Members' antics involve divorcing Britain from the European Union, thereby cutting us off from the business opportunities that the single market presents.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: The hon. Gentleman says that he is interested in inward investment. We receive much inward investment because we have

  603
  among the lowest rates of corporate tax in Europe. What would the hon. Gentleman say, therefore, to someone such as Howard Davies, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who analysed the Labour party's plans to close so-called "loopholes" in corporate tax only a year ago and found that they would increase the rate of corporate tax by no less than 25 per cent. or £3.6 billion every year? How does the hon. Gentleman expect people to invest in this country when faced with that scenario?
  Mr. Smith: Howard Davies subsequently accepted that that was not the case, and I have not heard him comment about our proposals in the way that the hon. Gentleman implies.
  We shall oppose two miserable and mean-minded measures in the Finance Bill. There can be no justification for the Government freezing the modest blind person's allowance for the third time in four years, especially when so many blind people have to get by on such low incomes. We also challenge the unfairness of the Bill not extending to those holding pensions in occupational schemes and retirement annuity contracts the flexibility on purchasing annuities that the Bill introduces for personal pensions. There is no good reason to discriminate against a million pensioners in that way.
  As well as the Bill's unfairness, we shall also expose its absurdities and the damage that will result from the imposition of the new vehicle excise duties and registration regime. It will impose administrative burdens on emergency services and load new charges on essential service vehicles such as snow ploughs, gritters, and street-cleaning and street-lighting lorries. The new charges will affect tractors and even mowing machines. Cars on display in second-hand car dealerships will be taxed—I am sure that Conservative Members will have something to say about that.
  I look forward to hearing Ministers explain how that is all part of their deregulation initiative to lift the burdens of red tape from business. I also look forward to their explaining the operation of the Bill's provisions for self-assessment in taxation. I wish that I shared the Chief Secretary's optimism that they will simplify matters. I note that he conceded that the Bill's provisions will impose additional burdens on employers. The proposal, which has a certain amount to commend it in theory, is threatened by the incomprehensibility of its implementation. After all, self-assessment is being introduced into a tax system that the Government have made increasingly complex in recent years. A crude measure of that is the number of pages of legislation on income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax, which has more than doubled since 1982.
  There is no dodging the fact that self-assessment involves a big transfer of responsibility for compliance from the Inland Revenue to the taxpayer. Judging from the Bill's complexity, many taxpayers who at present are able to manage their tax affairs without professional advice will need to employ such advice as a result of the operation of the Bill, and that advice does not come cheaply. Whereas people previously had to state just their income and capital gains, they will now have to have sufficient knowledge of the tax rules to calculate their
  604
  own liability. That will prove very worrying for many people—especially elderly taxpayers—given their legal obligation to get their calculations right.
  We shall pursue how the provisions can be made to work in a fair and straightforward fashion and what help and advice will be available to taxpayers. The Government should think very seriously about the proposal because taxpayers face a double burden—insult on top of injury. Not only will they be charged more tax—in breach of the Conservatives' election promises—but they will face more worry in calculating their liability.
  There is a lot wrong with the Finance Bill. Like the Budgets that it implements, it is a wasted opportunity. In place of an incompetent Government's inadequate Bill, Labour and the country want to see action for jobs, action for investment, and partnership—the only route to success for a modern economy. Where there is unfairness, division and disillusion, Britain needs investment, training, jobs, partnership and fairness: real hope for the future.
  In voting against the Bill tonight and in the policies and action for which we are campaigning up and down the country, we shall demonstrate how Labour speaks for Britain and brings closer the renewal of government, which Britain needs so desperately.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) made a characteristically vigorous speech, hut, perhaps understandably, he declined to mention the most startling fact about the British economy—the unprecedentedly favourable conjuncture of economic circumstances.
  Last year, growth was slightly more than 4 per cent., inflation was 2 per cent. and unemployment declined by 500,000, compared with the trough of the recession two years ago. Productivity and investment were extremely buoyant and the increase in exports generated much of last year's growth. As a result, at a time when our economy is growing much faster than those of most of our trading partners, our balance of payments has improved substantially—in fact, we now have a balance of payments equilibrium.
  That combination of factors is quite unprecedented in the lifetime of Members of this Parliament. It raises two obvious questions: first, what caused that benign combination and what was the role of Government policy in it and, secondly, how can it be sustained?
  Inflation has been a disease of the British economy for the past 30 years. I think that there is general agreement, nationally and internationally, that we could not have succeeded in mastering inflation in the time scale and to the extent to which that has been achieved if we had not been in the exchange rate mechanism. The Prime Minister took the extremely brave decision to join when he was Chancellor in the autumn of 1990. It was a deliberate Government decision that has certainly brought its rewards. Of course, as often happens when one has to cure a serious disease, the medicine is not always very palatable, but it was a necessary decision and it has proved extremely effective.
  Relaxation of monetary policy and the reduction of interest rates made possible by our membership of the ERM—indeed, it began at the moment when we joined the ERM and continued from autumn 1990 until the early

  605
  part of last year—have resulted in the revival in economic growth. Some economists believe that, as a general rule, there is a gap of 18 to 24 months between changes in monetary policy and those changes impacting on output. Remarkably, that rule seems to have applied perfectly in this instance: output began to revive and we came out of recession in spring 1992.
  Considerable fiscal expansion ran parallel with that relaxation of monetary policy and reduction in interest rates, which contributed to re-establishing the growth of the British economy. Both policies were clearly deliberate, conscious Government actions, and they have produced results.
  It is wrong, however, to look at the growth or success of any economy purely from the demand side. We all know—as we have learnt in Britain through painful experience and as the entire world has learnt in many different contexts—that it is no use increasing demand through monetary or fiscal measures if the supply side cannot respond and produce the new products, which are called for as fashions and the patterns of demand change, effectively and at a competitive cost. If the supply side cannot respond to an increase in demand, that increase in demand will simply create inflation or a massive increase in imports as the rest of world meets it, resulting in rapid deterioration in the balance of payments.
  We have experienced exactly the opposite: a substantial increase in demand with falling inflation and a steadily improving balance of payments. That demonstrates that there has been a fundamental change in the British economy, which is a result of the supply side reforms that the Government have undertaken since the beginning of the 1980s, embracing the improvement in the labour market, the reduction of trade union monopolies and the diminution in the obstacles to productivity growth that beset British industry for so long, increasing flexibility, mobility of capital and labour and increased dynamism and professionalism in management.
  Mr. Barry Legg: My hon. Friend mentioned our exports performance and the tremendous improvements in the current account. How much of that would he attribute to the more competitive level of sterling following our departure from the exchange rate mechanism?
  Mr. Davies: It is quite clear that devaluation has improved our competitiveness, but much more striking—as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware—is the fact that our turnaround in output and emergence from the recession predated the end of sterling's membership of the ERM and black Wednesday by some six months. The devaluation was clearly not the basis of the revival in output.
  One can say, however—and perhaps my hon. Friend was thinking of this—that the devaluation posed considerable dangers. At a time of rising demand, falling interest rates and rising Government expenditure, to add on to that already expansive formula a considerable devaluation of about 15 per cent. against the weighted average of currencies with which we deal could have taken the economy over the edge into inflation.
  My hon. Friend brings me to my second point—where we stand on inflation. The Government sensibly and wisely responded to the devaluation with a considerable
  606
  change in fiscal policy by reducing public expenditure, or at least the growth of public expenditure, and by raising new tax revenues and reducing Government borrowing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and I supported the Government in that fiscal retrenchment and in the difficult and painful decisions that have had to be taken on taxation, as we all know so well. We defended the Government because we knew that those measures were necessary and that, if they had not been taken, there would have been a danger of increased inflation, particularly because of the devaluation to which my hon. Friend rightly refers.
  The second great question I want to raise is the one that most concerns our constituents: whether such a splendid state of affairs and encouraging series of developments can be sustained. One might look again at two aspects: demand and growth on one side and inflation on the other, and we know how interdependent they are. If we run into inflation, we shall find ourselves back in the stop-go cycle that has beset us so disastrously in the past.
  People are not primarily concerned with growth at present. The economy has been extremely buoyant, but it cannot continue to grow at a rate of 4 per cent. per annum, as it has in the past 12 months.
  In the Red Book, the Government predict that from 1996–97 onwards the rate of growth will be 2.75 per cent. If the Government consider that 2.75 per cent. is the sustainable non-inflationary growth rate of the British economy, that represents a considerable increase in the secular sustainable growth rate of the British economy in the past. It is an encouraging picture and it reflects the supply-side reforms to which I have referred, the buoyancy of investment and the even greater buoyancy of business investment predicted for next year.
  The question is how to come down gradually and gently into a sustainable rate of growth. The Government have been extremely sensible and prudent in their fiscal and monetary policy. We have had not only the fiscal retrenchment, to which I referred and which is extremely welcome, but a change in monetary policy since last autumn, when interest rates began to rise again. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has had to take difficult decisions. There is always pressure from politicians, from the media, from constituents, from industry and from borrowers, who say interest rates should be lower. We hear that unfailingly from Opposition Members, particularly from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) who, ever since I have been in the House, has never said anything about monetary policy except that interest rates should be lower, whatever the concatenation of circumstances and whatever the results of that policy might have been.
  We know that it would have been disastrous to have said simply that interest rates should always be low. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has sensibly decided that the time has come, when the economy is buoyant and without waiting for inflation to manifest itself, to take some early measures to trim demand to a sound and sustainable level. It is striking that he has intervened to increase interest rates at an earlier stage in the cycle than ever before, and I commend him for that.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has done something else, the significance of which has not been appreciated as much as it should have been. He has taken an extremely brave measure in deciding that the minutes of his monthly meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England

  607
  should be published six weeks later. There is a precedent for that in the open market committee of the Federal Reserve bank in the United States, but that is a committee of an independent central bank.
  It is quite unprecedented for politicians voluntarily to decide to put such constraints on their monetary policy as will inevitably follow from publishing those minutes. No Government could easily sustain their position when those minutes were published six weeks later and it was revealed that the Governor had said that the Government's inflationary targets could not be met unless interest rates were put up and the Chancellor had replied, "No, I shall not put them up; I cannot take your advice." Complete chaos and collapse would follow in all the financial markets—in the sterling foreign exchange market, in the money markets and in the gilt market—and that would prove very expensive.
  The Chancellor has placed a discipline on himself quite voluntarily. He has decided to forgo—and those of us who have sufficient confidence in him and in the Government know that they would not have wanted to use it in practice—even the theoretical possibility for the Government to manipulate monetary policy for electoral or political purposes.
  That is an extremely important self-denying ordinance. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) mutters into his beard—well might he do so. He is probably saying what a confounded thing that is. If, by any dreadful mishap, Labour is returned to power, it would immediately want to go for broke, cut interest rates and spend money like it was going out of fashion, but a possible constraint, on even a future Labour Government, has now been built into the system.
  It is unprecedented for a Government to impose such a self-denying ordinance on themselves, but it is good monetary policy since it increases its credibility. It makes it clear to the financial markets, borrowers, savers and investors in the economy that British monetary policy will not be manipulated for short-term political purposes. That will create greater confidence in the economy and will positively affect the cost of capital, investment intentions, willingness to buy gilts and—other things being equal—the yield on gilts and the cost of funding the national debt, which we all know is too high and is a matter of concern.
  That self-denying ordinance should also reduce the British economy's volatility. If monetary policy is more credible and then is altered in one direction or another, everybody will believe that the new policy will be stuck to and will not be pushed off course by political pressure. That can only be good, because adjustments of a lesser amplitude will then be needed to effect a given change in expectations and behaviour. We will achieve at least some of the benefits that countries with independent central banks have enjoyed as a consequence of the greater credibility with which they conduct and pursue sustained and consistent monetary policy.
  I give particular credit to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for that. It gives us great confidence that our achievement of bringing down inflation is not a one-off and temporary but can be sustained. Of course this Parliament has experienced difficulties, but when future generations look back on it they may say that one of its great achievements was to bring to an end an era in which
  608
  the economy was blighted by the disease of inflation and that inflation then ceased to be a competitive handicap on the British economy.
  The Finance Bill is, as always, far too long. A number of right hon. and hon. Members and others outside have commented that if parliamentary draftsmen cannot produce a more lucid and succinct Bill, we ought at least to market-test, to see whether outside firms of lawyers could not do a better job. Those comments have clearly not been taken to heart, but one hopes, as with many drips of water on a stone, that one will eventually have some impact. I hope that I will be forgiven if I continue to make that point.
  Mr. Matthew Carrington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the complexity of the tax system—and consequently of the Finance Bill—makes an increasingly strong case for an annual taxes management Bill in addition to the Finance Bill? A taxes management Bill would be considered by a Committee that could take expert outside evidence and examine tax proposals in considerable detail, separately from the political matters incorporated in the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Davies: I much appreciate my hon. Friend's expertise and I have the greatest regard for it. He makes a good point extremely well, but I hesitate because the effect of two Standing Committees considering the Bill would be that the technical Committee would tend to be marginalised and would not make quite the impact on opinion or on the formation of tax law that is desirable. The distinction between the Bill's technical and political aspects is not always as clear as some people think. What are sometimes seen as technical issues are invariably couched in incomprehensible verbiage, as in recent Finance Bills, but they nevertheless can have considerable economic impact on businesses, consumers, savers and investors. The general and political impact might be missed if so-called technical matters were brushed into a separate Committee.
  I see great merit in my hon. Friend's proposal that the Committee considering the Finance Bill should take evidence from outsiders before detailed debate. That principle should generally be adopted, as I have said in other contexts. Before any major Bill is taken through the House, a Special Standing Committee should take evidence. The constitutional and procedural procedure that would enable it to do so already exists but. regrettably, little advantage is taken of it. Our procedures and scrutiny would be more effective and better legislation would go on the statute book and would not need to be revised so often if we took advantage of it.
  It would be churlish and ungrateful not to acknowledge three technical aspects—to reflect my hon. Friend's intervention—of great importance, where changes for which I have been pressing for some time have been incorporated in the Bill. I refer first to changes to schedule A. I am grateful that the Government propose that the profits of companies involved in real estate should be taxed according to the same criteria used for other forms of business. A case could never be made in equity or in economic theory why that should not be so. I am sorry that the Government have not gone to the logical extent of extending that principle to companies.
  I am equally grateful for the proposed changes in roll-over relief but—and I will make this point in Committee if I have the chance to do so—there is no

  609
  reason for not taking matters to their logical conclusion, which would save 30 or 40 pages of appendices. It could simply be stated that roll-over relief applies whether the funds are rolled over into incorporated businesses, assets or shares in businesses run by individuals trading as a principal.
  Finally, in respect of personal equity plans, in the past I have pressed for new clauses or amendments to Finance Bills to achieve a reduction in the distorting effects of tax breaks available for retail savings, by wrapping them all up in one vehicle. I would like bank deposits, which now enjoy tax-exempt special savings account facilities, and all forms of financial instrument, including equities, convertibles and bonds, to be available through the same vehicle and on the same terms.
  The Bill makes a major step forward with the proposal that bonds can be included in a PEP, for which I am grateful, but I am sorry that the Government have not gone the whole hog and allowed individuals to manage their own PEPs—to set aside a portion of their portfolios and to manage them themselves. The present PEP tax breaks do little, especially for savers on small incomes. They pay tax at the marginal 25 per cent. rate and have no reason to benefit from capital gains tax concessions that PEPs offer because they do not normally enjoy capital gains of more than £5,000 a year. Such people generally find that the tax benefits of a PEP do no more than compensate for the management fees that they have to pay to intermediaries for enjoying such tax breaks.
  I should have thought that the introduction of personal assessment would be a good opportunity to go a little further and allow people to manage their own ring-fenced savings and to put into them such maximum amounts as the Government may consider that they can afford in any one year. Any breaks for such savings contribute to the favourable shift in the burden of taxation from more damaging direct taxes to indirect taxes, which has been one of the many encouraging features of Conservative fiscal policy over the past 15 years.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) chose to quote an apt and fairly obvious text in his speech—the words of the Maples memorandum. The former Financial Secretary said:
  "the reality is now that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest, who are getting poorer."
  Even the old Labour party could not have put it better than that. Certainly, this Bill does not improve matters. It probably makes matters worse. I shall try to give one reason why the rich have been getting richer on the backs of everybody else. It is partly because for the first time, certainly since the 1920s and 1930s, financial policy has economic and industrial policy in its stranglehold. The bankers and the central bankers now rule to a greater extent than at any previous time, certainly since 1945 and before.
  The Government have made two major economic blunders. The first was to enter a regional, fixed-exchange system—the exchange rate mechanism—when there was very little exchange control left in the world and we had a global economy. Then, of course, when that became a disaster, the Government made another major error—partly, no doubt, in panic—and I am sure that the Treasury has regretted it ever since. In effect, as the hon. Member
  610
  for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) said, the Government handed over control of monetary policy to the Governor of the Bank of England.
  Again for the first time since the war, we have a division of control: the Government control fiscal policy, at least in theory, while the Governor of the Bank of England controls monetary policy. The wretched meetings that take place every month—the Eddie and Kenny show—do not come up to Pete and Dud or Smith and Jones. Every month the two portly gentlemen sit there, take each other's temperature and no doubt also stuff a thermometer into the mouth of the British economy and perhaps other parts of its anatomy as well. After every month's meeting, the teenage scribblers in the City are in a state of neurosis trying to discover what has gone on.
  I have been in the House long enough to remember fine tuning. Were I not addressing such an august gathering, I would say, "Hands up who remembers fine tuning." You probably remember fine tuning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not know whether anyone else does. Fine tuning was condemned throughout the 1970s in trenchant speeches by Baroness Thatcher and various other financial experts then on the Opposition Benches. Fine tuning was condemned as a terrible thing: how could industrialists plan for the future or for investment with all that Government interference in the marketplace?
  The present monthly meetings really amount to fine tuning. Every month those involved sit down and look at the economy; then interest rates go up or down by a quarter or half a per cent. point, or by half a per cent. I feel sorry for any industrialist or business man who has to plan and invest and try to create growth in his or her business faced with the nonsense of those meetings every month.
  I intended to direct a comment to the Chief Secretary, had he still been present, but I will address my remarks to the Financial Secretary. I hope that they will try to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give it a rest for a month. Why not make it every two months to let things settle down? It is ridiculous to have such an absurd division and method of conducting matters.
  Once upon a time—more people may remember this than fine tuning, and we heard about it from the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding—there was the fashionable doctrine of monetarism: the teaching and lectures of Professor Friedman, if I may use that shorthand form. It certainly existed in the 1970s and 1980s, until, Lord Lawson decided that he either did not understand monetary policy or that he was tired of it and so a different monetary policy was introduced. Lord Lawson's monetary policy was to shadow the deutschmark. Apparently nobody told the then Prime Minister, but Lord Lawson went on shadowing the deutschmark, into the exchange rate mechanism we went and the rest, as they say in Hollywood, is history.
  What is happening at the moment and the way in which monetary policy is being controlled is not monetarism. I have some respect for intelligent monetarism, but the present policy is not even monetarism. M3 has practically gone out of the window. M4 has gone, MO has gone and also M1. I even remember domestic credit expansion—hands up who remembers that—and I remember sterling M3 as well. Clearly, few Conservative Members know very much about such things, so perhaps one should delve back in time a little, although I accept entirely that we should not become trapped in history.

  611
  Today's policies are not monetarism because monetarism had a certain rationality, although it did not work very well. Perhaps that is why Lord Lawson gave it up and why none of the central banks of the world, although they may pay lip service to it, pays much attention to M3 and M4. The Bundesbank still pretends, but it misses its targets most of the time and when it misses its targets it does not adjust its guidelines or ranges.
  Now we have something quite different, although I am not really sure what it is. I suppose if one hands over the control of money to the high priests of the mysteries, one ends up with some kind of mystical monetary policy. I can describe it only as a kind of monetary policy based on the jus naturale or natural law—a kind of medieval policy. Apparently, the Governor of the Bank of England knows the natural growth rate of the British economy. I do not know what it is, and I do not suppose that the Governor knows either although he pretends that he does. It is a little like the old courts of equity, which used to say that justice varied according to the length of the Chancellor's foot. Perhaps the natural growth rate of the British economy varies in a similar way.
  Apparently there is a natural growth rate and woe betide us if it increases by a little above that natural growth rate: if that happens, up go interest rates, the Governor gets into a terrible state and the Chancellor has to do as he is told. Again, I feel sorry for the industrialist who has increased productivity, whose growth is greater than the natural growth rate and who is trying to create jobs and investment. Along comes Eddie from the bank and tells him that he cannot do that, up go the interest rates and the industrialist has to pay more for his money.
  How on earth are we expected to have investment-led growth in the British economy if the Governor of the Bank of England is for ever knocking any such growth on the head whenever he feels that the natural rate has been exceeded? Moreover, it is depressing that the natural rate seems to be based on extrapolation from the past. Sadly, governors of central banks, like generals, tend always to be fighting the last war, which can have very damaging consequences for an economy.
  There has been no real attempt to consider the changes that have taken place in the British economy over the past 10 years: the changes in the labour market, the massive global changes that are taking place in the economies of many countries in the world, the fact that tariffs are coming down and will rapidly disappear with GATT, and all the pressures on costs—those matters are apparently not taken into account. Instead, we are told that the high priests—the bankers—know what the natural growth rate is.
  Unemployment, too, is a favourite target for central bankers. Again, apparently, there is a natural level of unemployment. What a cheek they have. According to the Governor, in a lecture a week or so ago, there is something called structural unemployment. I do not know what that is, but clearly the Governor does. If, at one of those monthly meetings, it appears that one extra poor individual has found a job, taking the number of unemployed below the natural level, up go interest rates to hit him on the head and ensure that no one else gets work.
  612
  One may tease and satirise, but it is a brutal, cynical and cruel policy because it targets the unemployed on the basis of very little rational analysis of what is happening. Moreover, not only is that the Government's policy operated through the Governor of the Bank of England; I am sorry to say that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench also seem to support the handing over of monetary policy to a central bank. That happened in the 1930s when both main political parties paid obeisance to Montague Norman and it is happening again. All the fashionable opinion in this House and all parties apparently dare not question the nonsense currently known as monetary policy.
  If I were unemployed, I would ask, "Who needs a Bank of England?" I spent four years as a Treasury Minister, with responsibility not for the Bank of England—thank goodness—but for matters covered by the Bank, and I often asked myself that question.
  In those days, the Bank of England did certain things. It had to control the movement of capital and there was exchange control. That involved 400 people pushing pieces of paper around. I was responsible for banking legislation and, perhaps foolishly, I decided that the Bank of England should be the institution to deal with banking regulation. That responsibility could have gone elsewhere or to another institution.
  After 1979 and the changes in the 1980s, the Bank of England still regulates the banks, but exchange control has gone. With floating exchange rates, who needs central bankers? Apparently, the Bank of England sold Government stock. I do not know whether the Bank is responsible for that. When I was in the City a very long time ago, there was a splendid man with a high hat and pin-stripe trousers employed by a firm called Mullens and Co. which had been selling Government stock for about 200 years. Apparently that company knew all about selling Government stock and did it very well. I am not sure whether the sale of such stock is still contracted out. If it is not, there should be market testing for the Bank of England.
  What does the Bank do? I have been told that central bankers provide marvellous lunches. Apart from that, and clobbering the unemployed, what does Eddie do for his money? In all fairness, someone must ask on behalf of the unemployed, "Who needs Eddie George? Who needs the Bank of England?" My view may be old fashioned, but I believe that it is wrong for Governments to hand over control of important matters relating to the economy and of monetary policy when those matters affect the livelihoods—and sometimes the lives—of people. It is wrong for Governments to hand over control to undemocratic and unelected institutions, but that is what has happened and it is no business of an Opposition to support a Government who do that.
  One of these days there will be a catalyst. One of these days the fashion will change again. Until it changes, I do not see much investment-led growth coming to the British economy or much reduction in unemployment. The rich will get richer, the rest will get poorer, and the poor and the poorer will have no hope because democracy will not provide them with any hope.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Barry Legg: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). His speeches are always

  613
  entertaining, witty and erudite. I cannot agree with much of his speech, but I am glad that he took the opportunity to remind the House of his time as a Treasury Minister during those halcyon days of Lord Healey.
  When Lord Healey presided over the economy, interest rate stability was the order of the day. British industry, and those who tried to run British industry, had the certainty of stable interest rates under Lord Healey's guidance. They had low inflation and an economy which usually had to face at least two or three Budgets a year.
  Mr. McAvoy: Would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect on his own record in respect of presiding over financial matters?
  Mr. Legg: My financial record is outstanding. My contributions, in national and local government, to saving money and to efficiency are outstanding.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli that our affairs are still overshadowed by the figure of Lord Lawson. The shadow of Lord Lawson is still cast on the making of our economic policy. Lord Lawson will certainly rank as one of the more interesting Chancellors of modern times. He was certainly a great reforming Chancellor with regard to taxation. However, his reputation was badly tarnished by the financial mismanagement of monetary policy in the late 1980s, to which the right hon. Member for Llanelli referred, when we followed a policy of shadowing the deutschmark. Hon. Members will also recall that he advocated our membership of the exchange rate mechanism.
  Lord Lawson's mistakes in monetary policy still affect our economic policy making today. However, we can understand why the Government have paid so much attention to trying to get monetary policy right and to providing monetary stability.
  Mr. Clive Betts: Do the hon. Gentleman's comments about Lord Lawson apply, in terms of his criticism of policy at that time, to the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury?
  Mr. Legg: Opposition Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), will recall that, when Lord Lawson appeared before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, he was asked to comment on the making of monetary policy. He said that interest rates went up when he said so. That was how monetary policy was run under the stewardship of Lord Lawson.
  My colleagues on the Treasury Bench can be rightly proud of the fact that the making of monetary policy is now more open and more balanced. I support the current openness, and I believe that the publication of the minutes of the meetings between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England improves the economic debate in this country. They show the people who are running businesses and investing in this country how monetary policy is being made.
  I do not agree with some hon. Members and commentators who believe that the Governor and the Bank of England have been given de facto independence. When the Governor gave evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, he took pride in the fact that he took the initiative in respect of the last interest rate increase. When the Chancellor gave evidence, he admitted that some power has passed from the Treasury to the
  614
  Bank. He believed that that was good for the markets and that they now had more confidence in the making of monetary policy.
  I do not believe that there is de facto independence. I believe that we have arrived at a halfway house. The way in which that halfway house operates must be considered further. My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) referred to the open market committee of the Federal Reserve bank in the United States, which also produces minutes. However, if we consider central bank operations in the United States and in Germany, it is clear that there is a more collegiate approach to monetary policy.
  One of our present problems is that, from the minutes of the monthly meetings between the Chancellor and the Governor, it is clear that a whole range of indicators have been brought into play. Decision making on interest rate policy seems to be all too anecdotal.
  Again, in the rhetoric of the Chancellor and the Governor we find much about stopping the boom-and-bust cycle. That is an echo of the late 1980s and of the problems that we experienced under Lord Lawson. But if we look at the figures in Red Book and at what is happening in the real economy, we can see very little chance of boom and bust in the current monetary environment.
  The monetary environment in the United Kingdom, like that in most G7 countries, is very subdued. Domestic demand in the United Kingdom is running at about 2.5 per cent., and overall growth is running at 4 per cent., but the major contributor to that overall growth level is a greatly improving exports position. About 1.5 per cent. of the total increase in GDP is due to excellent export performance. Domestic demand is probably growing at only about trend level—2.5 per cent., perhaps less—because part of that growth in domestic demand is due to current stock-building.
  I see no justification for trying to put up interest rates on the basis of trying to discourage domestic consumption or, as we have heard in the past, to restrain house prices, for instance. House prices and asset prices are very subdued. Domestic consumption is also subdued.
  I have some words of caution for the Chancellor in his meetings with the Governor. In the Red Book, we find that interest rate policy and monetary policy are supposed to be set according to expectations of inflation levels in two years. At the previous meeting of the Governor and the Chancellor, when the Governor requested an increase in interest rates, his forecast for inflation in two years—the forecast of the Bank of England—showed a falling expectation for inflation. In his discussions, the Chancellor certainly needs to be sceptical of further requests from the Governor for interest rate increases.
  The other aspect of the Lawson years was very effective taxation reform. Lord Lawson had a successful formula for taxation reform, and that was to establish lower rates and broaden the base. The Finance Bill has several tax reform measures, but I draw hon. Members' attention to changes in relation to capital gains tax in particular.
  On capital gains tax, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction from the Lawson principle of lowering rates and broadening the base. Capital gains tax remains high—40 per cent. Few of our competitor countries have fixed capital gains tax at 40 per cent. Treasury Ministers

  615
  also recognise that that is too high a level of taxation, because their strategy, rather than to lower the rate or fundamentally to reform capital gains, is to increase exemptions, backed up by tough anti-avoidance provisions.
  We see in the Finance Bill several measures to extend exemptions. There are now incentives for investing in quoted companies through personal equity plans. There are now incentives for investing in unquoted companies through venture capital trusts and through enterprise investment schemes. There are now arrangements whereby people can roll over capital gains between trading assets and also roll over capital gains into shares. We have a range of exemptions to the capital gains tax legislation.
  Hon. Members can justify all those changes and all those exemptions as having very worthy objectives, such as the objective of further investment, about which we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary this afternoon, but however worthy those objectives might be, certain fundamentals do not change.
  Risk does not change. At the moment, many people do not invest in venture capital because they assess it to be a high-risk sector of the market. Changing the tax regime will not alter the basic risks involved. Also, the more financial vehicles that one sets up to try to find exemptions and ways around the very high levels of capital gains tax in the United Kingdom, the more financial intermediaries are involved. Financial intermediaries want remuneration for their involvement. We need to see root-and-branch reform of capital gains tax.
  We are overtaxing capital gains, only to relieve certain favoured activities. That fundamental approach of overtaxing an activity as a whole but picking favoured activities that one wants to relieve from tax is very interventionist. It is an approach that Opposition Members often advocate. It does not fit altogether easily with a Government who are committed to the free market.
  I have a word of caution also on loopholes. We have heard much from the Opposition about loopholes and the enormous amount of tax they might raise. Conservative Members have certainly highlighted the fact that the Opposition are really talking not about loopholes but about extra taxes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, in his 1993 Budget, to some extent sought to steal the Opposition's thunder by bringing in—provisionsanti-avoidance legislation—which he claimed would increase the taxation take by about £2 billion. He thought that £2 billion extra over three years could be gained by bringing in legislation which, to some extent, blocked loopholes.
  My right hon. and learned Friend considered many of those loopholes to apply to capital gains tax. It is interesting to look at this year's Red Book and the figures that the Inland Revenue has provided for its estimate of the take from capital gains tax in the current year. We find that it has revised the estimated revenue down from last year's figure of £1.3 billion to £0.8 billion. For the subsequent year—1995–96—the figure is only £800 million. I suspect that the Inland Revenue's claims for substantial increases in revenue from blocking loopholes and putting in place significant anti-avoidance measures are not borne out in practice.
  616
  I urge Treasury Ministers to keep an audit of those projections for extra revenue from anti-avoidance provisions, because I do not think that they achieve the figures that were originally set out. I am sure that Ministers widely accept that, in today's global economy, people and capital are very mobile. If we seek to inhibit the way in which people undertake transactions in their attempt to obtain a little extra revenue, they often take advantage of mobility, do their transactions differently, or are less active in their investment procedures.
  Overall, a full reform of capital gains tax, based on a tapering system whereby those who invest in capital for the long term in this country are properly rewarded by having a reasonable overall level of taxation levelled on their gains, is the correct route to take.
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary highlighted some of the fine aspects of the legislation. Some of the reforms that he particularly highlighted are those in respect of self-assessment, which he believed would help the British economy. From a cursory look at the Finance Bill, I endorse many of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding and his concern about the standard of draftsmanship in the legislation and about the obscurity of some of the legislation. In looking at the Finance Bill, we must bear in mind the fact that the Government's policy is to deregulate.
  One must be very careful, when putting another 350 pages of taxation legislation on the statute book, that one is standing true to the overall principle of deregulation. Many of the provisions will have to be interpreted by Inland Revenue staff throughout the country, and there is no guarantee that they will be able easily to understand the detail and interpret those provisions properly. The process of trying to understand them will be a burden on British industry and business.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli told us a great deal about economic history in the UK. Those of us who have been in the House for a comparatively short time were grateful for his tour de force. He took us back over at least 20 years. I remember a spe
  ech by Sir Keith Joseph in 1979—the Stockton lecture, entitled "Monetarism is not enough".
  The centrepiece of the Red Book and the Government's financial strategy has some worthy elements—for example, low inflation, exchange rate stability, low national debt and, right at the heart, a declining public sector borrowing requirement. Those elements are at the core of the Government's strategy. The right hon. Member for Llanelli and other hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise them as the convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty.
  We cannot have a successful economy simply by looking at convergence criteria. They are not particular economic virtues in themselves; their whole purpose is to produce a certain level of fiscal stability, so that central bankers running a European central hank can set an interest rate policy across Europe in the knowledge of that stability in debt levels and fiscal policy. Basically, it is for their convenience that convergence criteria have been put at the forefront of economic policy both in the United Kingdom and in many of our EU partner countries. However, convergence criteria are not enough to ensure a healthy economy.

  617
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has introduced many supply side measures that will help the economy, but we must be very conscious of the overall level of public spending. I remind hon. Members of a statement by Lord Lawson in 1977:
  "The real evil of excessive Government spending, and the excessive taxation that must necessarily accompany it, lies … in the certainty of misallocation of resources, economic and social debilitation, excessive state power, and—very far from least—the erosion of personal freedom."
  Conservative Members are very concerned to guard against excessive state spending, which has often been made tolerable for many people in the productive economy by high levels of inflation. Governments have spent heavily on behalf of the state, but usually it has been at the same time running very large Government borrowing requirements, which have been financed by inflation. Those who bought Government debt in those circumstances have never received the returns that were originally implied.
  The world financial and economic environment today is different. Inflation is very subdued, with especially low levels in the United Kingdom. Running large budget deficits under those conditions is not sensible economics. In the United Kingdom and in many other countries people are having to pay much higher levels of taxation to finance high levels of public spending. There are limits to how much people are prepared to pay.
  The Red Book shows that the level of taxation is now moving up to 40 per cent. of gross domestic product. Clearly, there is resistance to further increases and to the tax base being spread even more widely. Western European countries have often taken that into account by switching their tax-raising powers from direct to indirect taxation, but even with indirect taxation, there are limits on how far a Government can go.
  If Governments increase indirect taxation excessively, people may stop buying goods or they may resort to the black economy. If taxation weighs especially heavily on the poor, or if it is perceived to do so, the Chancellor—as we have seen in recent weeks—may fail to get support from Parliament. Therefore, the overall levels of taxation caused by excessive Government spending need to be kept under review.
  Currently, middle England is suffering from an excessive level of taxation. The tax burden on many people has risen over the past few years, and there will be further rises in the next 12 months. To make that tolerable, the Government's commitment to containing public expenditure and driving down excessive levels must be renewed and strengthened. That priority must be at the centre of our economic policies, because it is a necessary ingredient to reinvigorate the confidence and enterprise of the British people.
  That is a clear divide between Conservative Members and Labour Members. The whole philosophy, strategy and policies of Labour Members, whether or not they wish to declare them, are driven towards ever higher levels of public spending. With that, and with low inflation, it is inevitable that the Labour party stands, and always will stand, for high levels of personal taxation. That is the charge which it must answer in this House and which, in due course, it will have to answer at the hustings.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) basically said that the Government need an economic policy that will work. He has told us what is wrong with their policy 15 years after it started. Those of us who have been in the House a few years have been on that roller-coaster a few times.
  The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), in his characteristically euphoric way, selected the good news. There is some good news and those of us with a genuine interest in the British economy welcome that. However, the hon. Gentleman showed a confidence that history suggests should be tempered with caution. In particular, he implied that inflation was now conquered. There is no question but that inflation is low and is staying at a low level, and that is welcome. However, when we talk, as most of us do, to business people, we do not find an underlying feeling that it will necessarily stay low or, indeed, that interest rates will stay low. In fact, real interest rates are high and rising, which possibly explains why Britain's investment climate is not good. It is certainly nothing like as good as the Government forecast. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding will acknowledge that those of us who serve on the Select Committee were sceptical about that forecast.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: There is no difference between me and the hon. Gentleman. We both agree that it is important that inflation is kept down. We both agree that inflation has been brought down to encouraging levels. We both agree that we must not be complacent about that.
  It is precisely because we must not be complacent that I commended the Government on taking several courageous steps. I specifically mentioned three—the decision to increase interest rates much earlier in the cycle than has previously been the case; the decision to increase taxation and reduce the fiscal deficit; and the decision to underwrite the soundness of monetary policy by publishing the minutes of meetings between my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England. The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to the points that I made.
  Mr. Bruce: I shall not make the mistake of giving way again to a repeat of the speech that I heard the first time. The hon. Gentleman will hear my argument develop, and perhaps he will get my point.
  We constantly hear Ministers and Conservative Members say that the Government's objective is to lower taxes and public expenditure. The reality is that, after 15 years, they have succeeded on neither count. They have not reduced public expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product. Nor have they reduced the tax take—in fact, they have increased it. From 1974 to 1979, the period of the previous Labour Government, when Denis Healey was Chancellor of the Exchequer, total taxes as a percentage of GDP amounted to 35.75 per cent. The Government predict that, by the end of this Parliament, the tax take will be 37.75 per cent. of the total. That is the prediction of a Government who not only say that they are committed to tax cuts, but pretend that they have delivered them. Not only have they not done so; they have presided over the biggest single increase in taxes in one year under any Government of any persuasion.
  I hope that the Government's record and their credibility are wearing impossibly thin. They will find it extremely difficult to persuade the British people that,

  619
  even if they have the genuine desire to deliver, they have the slightest idea of how to do so. They must be judged on delivery and not on their ambitions, which they have not fulfilled.
  Most people will remember that a major feature of the previous general election was the claim that people would face an enormous tax bombshell if there was a change in government. As a result of the previous three Budgets, the average family will pay more than £1,000 a year more in tax than they did before the previous general election. That resulted from electing a Government who specifically warned the public against the dangers of electing anyone else, saying that they should fear tax rises.
  Mr. John Townend rose—
  Mr. Bruce: If I may, I shall proceed because an important argument needs to be developed.
  The other problem that the Government ignore is the massive and apparently unshiftable increase in unemployment. Again, I am not speaking as an apologist for the Labour Government. In a sense, I am independent of their record, but the facts speak for themselves. Many of us remember the poster that read, "Labour isn't working". I seem to remember that unemployment at the time was 1 million. It is now running down from 3 million to 2.5 million. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) referred to the concern of the Governor of the Bank of England about structural unemployment. He says that he does not think that it can go much below 2.5 million. Other commentators say that that may be right, but perhaps it can go no lower than 2 million.
  The cost of unemployment is, fundamentally, making it impossible for the Government to get out of their economic bind. It is worth summarising that the total cost of unemployment is £25 billion. The difference between the net extra cost of unemployment when the Government came into office and the cost now is £15 billion a year. The benefits of receipts of £118 billion from North sea oil and £77 billion from the privatisation windfall have been wiped out by the cost of unemployment. It is not good enough for Ministers to say that they do not believe that there is an unemployment strategy. Alternatively, they believe that simply to lower inflation, to cut public expenditure and to cut taxes will solve the unemployment problem. Evidence suggests that the contrary is the case.
  The country is now entitled to say that, after 15 years of failed economic policies, however honestly pursued, the party in government has had 15 years too much credit. It really is time to start looking at alternative ways of prioritising our economic objectives and delivering them. Clearly, we must do something to achieve that.
  On the specifics of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget strategy, it was ironic that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West lectured previous Governments for having sometimes three Budgets in a year when the Government have just produced two Budgets in a week. That suggests that some people are standing in a pit and do not realise which way the mud is flying.
  A particular concern has been highlighted. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who opened the debate for the Opposition, drew specific attention to a paragraph in a Treasury and Civil Service Select
  620
  Committee report. I asked the Committee to include it and it agreed to do so. It is specifically relevant to the issue of duty on alcohol.
  I urge the Government to get to grips with the matter. The Chancellor made it clear in Budget No. 1 that he recognised that no justification existed for increasing the duty on alcohol. Ironically, he decided to cut the duty on sparkling wine. He acknowledged that an increase in duty would have two problems. First, it would aggravate the problem of cross-border shopping because of the differentials. Secondly, it would hit hard a major domestic industry, especially the spirits trade, but also the brewing industry. A week later, what did he do? He imposed taxes that widened the differential and that hit that important industry.
  I shall declare a clear constituency interest. I represent whisky distilleries. Boundary proposals affecting my constituency, assuming I am successful in winning under the new boundary arrangements, will mean that I quadruple the number of distilleries that I represent. It is an important Scottish industry and an extremely important British industry. It is ironic that no one ever speaks about this, but the gin industry is not unimportant either. We produce those two important export products. Those industries employ a great many people and earn a great deal of foreign exchange. We should treat them with sensitivity. They all require a strong and healthy home market to be successful in the export market.
  I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer—perhaps the Financial Secretary could respond to this—to say what he will do about that, or that he will do something about it before the next Budget, because the industry cannot be left in such uncertainty. I have spoken to a number of people in the industry and visited one or two of the distilleries in my constituency. There is real anxiety that they will lose out and a feeling that their competitors in other countries receive a somewhat more sympathetic hearing from their Governments, who understand the importance of the matter. I urge the Government to respond to that.
  Mr. John Townend: It is not just about having sympathy for those industries. If we are in the European Community, it is only right and proper that our industries should be able to compete on a level playing field. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the real dangers is not just the personal buying, but the smuggling that is going on at an increasing rate, and in which criminal elements are starting to appear? We all know what happened in America during prohibition. Does he agree that a danger exists?
  Mr. Bruce: I do and I have acknowledged that, although I am still puzzled by the Government's cut in Customs and Excise staff. It is essential that we attack and intercept smuggling, but the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that part of the incentive for the smuggling is the wide differential in prices. That is not an argument for eliminating that. We should try to persuade our European partners to recognise the public policy benefit of not having alcohol duties that are too low. They should be encouraged to increase them a bit. We cannot, however, worsen the position by widening the differential. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we must approach the matter at both ends—at the market as well as at the crime and smuggling ends. The Government picked a strange time to impose that saving.

  621
  I have another concern. I had an exchange with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he was giving evidence to the Select Committee, and he did not satisfy me that the Government are as rigorous as they make out in keeping public expenditure under control. In particular, the Liberal Democrats have identified a number of areas of Government extravagance and waste that should be dealt with. Government spending on advertisements and entertaining has increased by several times the rate of inflation, with no evidence as to how that could be justified. Massive amounts of money are spent on consultants. I am not against consultants in principle, but the Government's own evidence suggests that the net financial benefit is very small. That seems to be a clear waste of money.
  I found it interesting that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury took the view that it was unreasonable when the economic outturn was rather better than forecast for Government Departments to be expected to trim their budgets during the year. He said that it would create far too many management problems. Yet it is exactly what is imposed on local authorities and other agencies all the time.
  The Department of Transport has told the railway operating companies—I know about ScotRail in particular—that they must find savings in the current financial year of between 5 and 10 per cent. That, of course, is to pave the way for privatisation. Incidentally, the consequences of that for Scotland are extremely severe. There is only one profitable rail service in Scotland. As the management in Scotland has said, there is only one possible way for a company that only operates trains—it no longer owns the track—to achieve cuts. It is to stop running loss-making trains. As every service in Scotland is a loss maker bar one, the consequences for the Scottish transport system are potentially devastating. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the Government cannot do it to their own Departments, but they are prepared to do it to outside bodies.
  The Government suggested this year that they had achieved enormous savings, but those savings were achieved simply by errors in forecasting and because the economic outturn was better than anticipated. That is fine, but it is not a real saving in terms of rigorous attack on waste. In that sense, the Government have not been as credible as they would like us to think.
  Therefore, it is extremely important that the Government do not make the same mistake that was made during the Lawson years of talking about economic miracles and the fundamental transformation of the British economy. There is no evidence that we have achieved a position in which the British economy is capable of earning the increased amount that it needs to ensure that we can sustain our public spending programme and maintain our competitiveness. There are signs that the foundations are being laid. I hope that they are, but one would have to talk in terms of two, three, four or five years and the accumulated benefits of those five years before one could say that we had achieved a fundamental shift.
  It is a big mistake to latch on to the good figures when we are coming out of the recession and to claim something much more far-reaching that is not justified. The warning in that is that politically motivated tax cuts in advance of an election, which are not justified by the economic performance, will have a severe negative effect
  622
  subsequently. The Government should understand that the public will not be taken in twice. The public know what happened last time. The tax cuts were clawed back with interest and an awful lot of pain. Interest rates had to go up and we were knocked into a deeper recession than otherwise would have been necessary.
  The Government have to recognise that if they want to talk about responsible and sound public finances, they have to do so at election time as well and not only in the immediate post-election period when it is much easier to make bold decisions and stand by them in the hope that they will get away with it in the long run. That has been alluded to even by Conservative Members. I seem to recall that the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), in his own dry way, once or twice has pointed out to Ministers that this time they might not find it so easy to fool people because the people were not likely to be taken in so readily twice.
  As the Bill moves into Committee, we believe that the Government have either missed or failed to recognise opportunities on certain issues. As Liberal Democrats, we believe that certain reforms or changes in tax structure should be considered. I have already mentioned the duty on spirits. We shall certainly resist the Government's increases in duty on spirits in particular.
  We believe that our proposal for reforming vehicle excise duty would be environmentally beneficial and would be welcomed. We intend to promote that. Our proposal is essentially to tax people on the use of their cars rather than on the ownership. We would switch the burden away from vehicle excise duty and put it on to petrol duty. Our calculations suggest that the overwhelming majority of motorists, even in rural areas, would be better off and the environment would also be better off. The Government could readily adopt such a proposal.
  Several parts of the Government's new proposals for enterprise promotion and so on have already been mentioned. It is interesting that every time the Government introduce a new tax break, they by definition introduce potential new tax loopholes. The Government should at least respond constructively to any suggestions that potential abuses could be avoided before they have developed. We intend to make such suggestions.
  It has been suggested that another way to promote energy efficiency may be to alter the VAT structure for energy-efficient building materials. That could usefully be debated. One of the ironies of the new 8 per cent. VAT rate on fuel is that it could be used for other items. Energy-efficient materials are one such item that is well worth considering.
  We feel that several other proposals can and should be considered. Some of them have already been suggested from the Labour Front Bench and some have not. The Finance Bill is an enormously long Bill, with remarkably little in it. I echo the view previously expressed. Why do we have to say so little at such enormous length and tire ourselves out for so many hours in the process? I hope that we shall have some sharp and genuine debates on some real issues of tax policy, in which the Government might be constructive in recognising that there are some genuine ideas that come from outside their circle. If those ideas are not ready now, they will certainly be ready to be properly assessed and considered in Committee. We look forward to playing a constructive role in that process

  623
  Having said that, we have no confidence whatever in the economic policy that lies behind the Bill. In the circumstances, it is high time that the Government recognised that they have run out of steam and that it is time for other people and other ideas.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Before I say something about the economic background to the Finance Bill and the measures in it, I should like to comment on the interesting but slightly grudging speech of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). He talked in particular about the rate of unemployment in Britain, which is 8.8 per cent. It goes without saying that every person in the House wants to do all that he or she can to effect a reduction in that rate. It is significant that the unemployment rate in Britain has been reduced by about 450,000 in the past two years. Vacancies are now at their best levels for the past four years.
  As Britain exports some 30 per cent. of our manufacturing output, we do not live in isolation. We depend greatly on the worldwide trading environment. To that extent, it is worth comparing employment rates in Britain with employment rates elsewhere in the industrialised world. On those grounds, we fare rather better than the hon. Member for Gordon would have us believe. Our unemployment rate is 8.8 per cent. In Belgium, it is 14 per cent.; in France, 12.6 per cent.; in Italy, 11.9 per cent.; and even in Germany it is about the same as here, at about 8.2 per cent.
  The significant point to make is that those countries that have the lowest ratio of taxation to gross domestic product—the United States with 5.4 per cent. unemployment, Japan with 2.9 per cent. unemployment and Switzerland with 4.5 per cent. unemployment—have the most significantly reduced unemployment. That shows effectively that, so long as the tax burden is lifted from industry and it operates in as deregulated an environment as is humane and sensible, industry will produce the jobs that we and all our constituents want in Britain.
  The background to the Finance Bill was summed up rather accurately in the report on the Budget by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which was published a few days ago. The Committee said that the background was
  "the most encouraging economic environment for some years"
  and that the Chancellor, who had appeared before the Committee, was justified in saying that there were enormous grounds for encouragement.
  I happen to believe that our economy is right for a period of sustainable growth. We have relatively high and increasing productivity, a good export performance, low inflation, good industrial relations and the sort of supply side measures that lead to significant and sustained performance. That is borne out by business surveys. The latest west midlands business survey, for autumn 1994, said of the business climate that
  "65 per cent. of firms believe business conditions in the West Midlands will improve and only 11 per cent. expect them to worsen".
  The Confederation of British Industry survey for the west midlands, published at the end of last year, showed that 80 per cent. of companies polled expected that their sales
  624
  and output would increase during the next two years. About 60 per cent. expected net increases in their labour force over that period.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) described the effect of the Finance Bill on small businesses somewhat grudgingly, despite the fact that many of the measures will be of great benefit to small businesses, and I am not alone in thinking that. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), who is on the Opposition Front-Bench finance team, will be aware that the Durham university business school did a commentary on the 1994 Budget for small businesses, in which it said:
  "Small businesses will benefit more than most other sectors of the population."
  Although it said that the short-term benefits might be "marginal", it thought that the longer-term benefits would be significant. The commentary ended:
  "on reflection, this was a good Budget and entirely appropriate for the current economic circumstances".
  It also mentioned the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts and stated that the latter "can only be beneficial" for small companies. The Finance Bill and the Budget are entirely appropriate to the time and to the needs of small businesses, which produce so many jobs.
  We talk a great deal about the feel-good factor. Obviously, as politicians, we want that factor to emerge because it is often reflected in the opinion polls. In one sense, however, the fact that the feel-good factor is not as evident as we would like, although the retail environment has changed recently, is evidence of the success of policies that have changed aggregate demand from consumption to exports and investment, which are significantly improving in the present environment and will lead to sustainable growth. It is no coincidence that, although consumer spending is increasing by only 2.4 per cent. per year—the Christmas figures were slightly higher—in real terms, export performance improved on last year by about 14 per cent. That improvement will underpin future sustainable growth.
  I am not saying that we can be complacent, for example, about the effect of a slowly improving housing market on various sectors of the economy. I come from Kidderminster, which depends on the housing market for the sale of its carpets. Although we can talk of moving resources away from the housing market by reducing tax relief on mortgages, it is crucial for consumer confidence and for the building industry, which could employ about 750,000 people with an upturn in the market, that that improvement is maintained.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that the Finance Bill and the Budget were possibly predicated on too conservative—with a small as well as a large c—a view of the natural trend of growth in the economy. Between 2 and 2.5 per cent. is too low. In the late 1980s, we produced levels of 4 per cent. and, in one year, of almost 5 per cent. Provided the Government maintain a secure grip on public expenditure and are thereby able to reduce taxation, I do not see why we should not do so again. I want the Government to reduce taxes at the lower end and to move more people out of taxation, as well as adding to the 5 million people who pay tax only at the 20 per cent. rate. That would stimulate the economy and gain a natural growth rate significantly

  625
  higher than the rate which we are enjoying and one which would approach the growth level that we enjoyed in the late 1980s.
  I want to comment on three aspects of the Finance B ill—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but a certain amount of comment and conversation seems to be coming from Opposition Members. I hope that none of the hon. Members whom I have noticed engaging in those activities is expecting to catch my eye later.
  Mr. Coombs: I understand that there is a maiden speech next, Madam Deputy Speaker, and there might be a certain amount of anticipation about that.
  It is nonsensical for capital gains tax to take up no less than 365 pages of taxation literature. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) said, at 40 per cent., it is significantly higher than the general rate of income tax and it inhibits the movement of assets. Within the capital gains tax regime, there is no differentiation between long-term and short-term gains. Significantly, I think that it was the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), speaking for the Labour party during a previous Finance Bill Committee in 1992, who proposed that the tax should be tapered for longer-term gains. The present rate is counter-productive. Studies in the United States have shown that a rate of about 15 per cent. would maximise revenue.
  Although there are various ways of reducing the capital gains tax burden, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West said, increasing exemptions without decreasing the rate is not the way to go about it. An axe has to be taken to that Gordian knot and the rate of capital gains tax should be significantly reduced.
  During the past few days, other hon. Members and I have been lobbied by constituents who employ a significant number of people in amusement arcades—[Interruption.] That may be a matter of hilarity to Opposition Members, but between 90 and 120 people in my constituency rely on that business for their livelihood.
  Various other forms of gambling have been protected from the effects of the national lottery. The number of jackpot machines allowed in casinos has increased and concessions have been made to bingo clubs, the pools and even to betting shops—it is proposed that the latter should be able to have cash-only win machines. Despite those concessions, the gaming machine licence duty will increase by about 19 per cent. as a result of the Finance Bill and, for the first time, an amusement machine licence duty of £250 will be imposed on video machines.
  It is expected that that measure will take no less than £60 million out of the industry's profits because it cannot be offset by higher charges to consumers. Inevitably, as has been said by the leading firm of City accountants, Pannell Kerr Forster, which looked into the effect of the duty, it will lead to not only a reduction in employment and job losses of 4,600—that should be of interest to Opposition Members and everyone in the House—but a loss of £15.8 million a year in national insurance and pay-as-you-earn contributions, an increase in social security costs of £200,000 a week and, ironically, a reduction in corporation tax receipts to the Exchequer of 28 per cent., or £10 million a year, from amusement arcades and operators alone.
  626
  I shall finish on this point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members may be anticipating a maiden speech, but surely they are not anticipating it that much. I happen to think that the proposal to impose an amusement machine licence duty was brought about in an environment significantly changed by the advent of the national lottery. Although the Government may wish to pass enabling legislation in the Finance Bill allowing them to impose that licence duty, I urge them not to impose the duty until they have had an opportunity to consider proposals put forward by the British Amusement Catering Trades Association and the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions to mitigate the effects of that tax on an industry that has a significant effect on employment in my constituency.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Ian Pearson: It is with great pleasure that I make my maiden speech to the House as the new Member for Dudley, West.
  I begin by paying a generous tribute to my predecessor, the late Dr. John Blackburn. A man of great charm and courage, he radiated warmth and was popular and widely respected both within the House and throughout the constituency, where he was an energetic and effective Member of Parliament in dealing with constituents' problems. It is with a deep sense of responsibility that I succeed him in the task of representing the seat where I was born and have lived for most of my life.
  Dudley, West is situated on the western fringe of the west midlands. It contains a number of small towns and villages, including Sedgley, an old market town that was once part of the Norman barony of Dudley; Kingswinford where I grew up, which dates back to the Domesday book; and Wallheath and Wordsley. They all border on the green belt and rural fringe of south Staffordshire.
  The seat has changed radically over the 20 years since a Labour Member of Parliament was last returned to the constituency. Its population has grown enormously, with new housing developments, particularly in Amblecote and Gornal. Now, three quarters of those who live in the constituency own their own homes. Industrially, too, the seat has changed dramatically. The past 20 years have seen the closure of the steel industry and allied trades in Brierley Hill, Brockmoor and Pensnett. Recently, we have seen the growth of Merry Hill, a major retail and leisure complex. It is one of the biggest shopping centres in western Europe, with more than 2.5 miles of marbled malls attracting 23.5 million visitors a year. That prime retail site is more profitable than Oxford street. The area still produces the finest cut-glass crystal in the world and has some of the best pubs and beers to be found anywhere. My constituency has a strong and proud manufacturing tradition, with more than 2,500 small businesses, many of which are in specialist engineering and serve the motor industry.
  The people of Dudley, West are practical, hard-working, open and honest. They keep their promises and expect others to keep theirs. On 15 December they spoke for the nation. In massive numbers, they voted against a Government who they believe have lied to them and betrayed them and are completely out of touch, and for a Labour party which they know is more in tune with their needs and aspirations and is developing a growing bond of trust and confidence with the British people.

  627
  My principal reason for speaking, however, is not to report the strength of feeling in Dudley, West about VAT on fuel, broken promises and the growing appeal of new Labour—the poll result amply demonstrates that. It is that my background is in business finance and economic development. Until I joined the House, I was closely involved in helping small and medium-sized businesses to grow, and in helping local and regional economic developments to increase jobs, improve skills and raise prosperity.
  A burning issue in Dudley, West is the devastating impact of Merry Hill's success on town and village centres within my constituency and the neighbouring constituencies represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) and the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley). The seriousness of the problem is widely recognised and has produced a major change in ministerial guidance on out-of-town retail development. Nothing has been done, however, to alleviate the problems. Merry Hill's success owes as much to tax incentives for the site's development as to anything else, although I freely acknowledge the vision and entrepreneurial endeavour of the private developers who got the project off the ground. I want the affected centres in Dudley borough to be given special status in an amendment to a clause in the Finance Bill so that they can benefit from a package of tax reliefs and allowances similar to those on offer to Merry Hill when the site was developed. That would be natural justice.
  More broadly, there is significant scope for a more imaginative use of tax breaks in funding economic and infrastructure development. Tax breaks should be designed to attract institutional funding support and provide support for public-private partnership development through the issue of regeneration and renaissance bonds. The Budget has missed an opportunity to develop that possibility and the private finance initiative is singularly lacking in that respect.
  As a champion of small and medium-sized businesses, I welcome the purpose behind the establishment of venture capital trusts. My experience in the venture capital industry leads me to suspect that the Government's figures on the amount of funds that will be generated from it are highly ambitious, to say the least. I share the concerns and scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) that the scheme may degenerate into a tax avoidance mechanism for the very rich and produce no real benefit for businesses. That must not be allowed to happen. Neither VCTs nor business angels schemes—I presume that they are given greater support—will solve the problem of the equity gap that still exists. Nor is there an effective support programme for the vast majority of small and medium-sized businesses that do not want to go down the equity route but want to develop, grow and thrive.
  The Government have a major role to play in assisting companies to upgrade the sources of their competitive advantage. That is not to deny the role of the market, but our country should provide at least the same level of support for our businesses as that offered by other regional and national Governments.
  In the west midlands, our future prosperity is linked to the fortunes of the motor industry. We compete head to head with Baden-Württemberg in Germany and
  628
  Emilia-Romagna in Italy. We have had significant successes, but the simple fact is that the support available in other regions of Europe for businesses is far ahead of what we can offer in the west midlands. We can, and must, do better to provide such support if we are to compete successfully in future European and world markets. Providing tax relief to defray research and development costs of small companies is one mechanism of merit that should be discussed further in the House, but much more is needed.
  For a long time, I have been impressed by the way in which the German Government have supported growing businesses through the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau. There is a strong case for establishing and supporting regionally based business development banks and institutions in our country which could offer patient, long-term loan finance to companies. That matter should be considered in the Committee considering the Bill.
  I have been able to touch on only one or two issues relating to small businesses that are the lifeblood of Dudley, West's economy, just as they are vital to the future of Britain as an industrial and trading nation. I believe that it is not the purpose of a maiden speech to go into significant detail, but I would welcome an opportunity to expand on those issues and themes in more detail at a later date.
  I know that it is customary for a maiden speech to be heard in silence. I have been warned, however, that I cannot expect similar treatment ever again. I thank hon. Members for their courtesy this evening.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. John Townend: It is always a great pleasure and a privilege to follow a maiden speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) on his excellent maiden speech. I am sure that we will hear a lot more from him in future years.
  The hon. Gentleman has clearly had a significant effect on the Opposition Benches, because as one who has attended practically every debate on a Finance Bill in the past 15 years, I can tell him that at 6.31 pm there would normally be just five Opposition Members present. [Interruption.] I have to admit that, normally, there would not be all that many of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, either. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will those who are going out of the Chamber go quietly? Those who remain should also be quiet.
  Mr. Townend: My right hon and hon. Friends and I are very grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley, West for his kind remarks about his predecessor, Dr. John Blackburn. He was extremely popular on both sides of the House. Even though he was older than me, he would often address me as father or uncle.
  I believe that Madam Speaker must have done a lot of research when she put my name following that of our new colleague, the hon. Member for Dudley, West, on the list of speakers, because we have an awful lot in common. He has already told the House that he represents a seat in the area in which he was brought up and that he is a local Member of Parliament. I, too, represent an area of east Yorkshire in which I have lived all my life. There are not too many other hon. Members who can claim to be true

  629
  local Members of Parliament. It is a great advantage to represent the area in which one has lived all one's life, as the hon. Gentleman will discover over the years.
  The hon. Member for Dudley, West also spoke about his interest in public houses and beers, and the House is well aware of my long-standing interest in the alcohol industry. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) would join me in welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the lobby which is trying to persuade the Government to give the brewing industry a level playing field in Europe.
  In common with the hon. Member for Dudley, West, my occupation was in business finance. I started off as a chartered accountant and you said that one of your main interests—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Not the Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson).
  Mr. Townend: The hon. Member for Dudley, West said that his main interest was small businesses and he raised some relevant provisions in the Finance Bill which concern such businesses. I am also involved in small businesses.
  The hon. Gentleman has had a famous victory and we should not take that away from him. He follows a long line of hon. Members who also enjoyed famous by-election victories but who were not with us for too long. When we regain that seat, however, I hope that, in due course, the hon. Member will find a real safe Labour seat. I wish him well in his parliamentary career. I am sure that he has a valuable contribution to make. His experience in the business world in particular will be extremely valuable to his party, which is not well endowed with people experienced in business and, in particular, small businesses.
  I had the privilege to be called to speak during the debate on the Budget, when I spoke at some length about the excellent performance of our economy in the past year and the Government's enormous successes. They have been mentioned in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg). With inflation at a low level, unemployment falling month by month, a recovery that has surprised everyone by being export led, the balance of payments deficit falling month by month, the Budget deficit falling faster than expected and investment and productivity rates rising, the performance of the British economy in the past year has been the best that I can remember. On the economic front, the Achilles' heel of the Government is spending and taxation—my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be surprised to hear that.
  The size of the Finance Bill—it comprises 348 pages and contains 144 clauses and 29 schedules—suggests that my dear friends and colleagues at the Treasury have not yet got a grip on the Inland Revenue. We are supposed to be the party of deregulation; as such, there is absolutely no need to have a massive Finance Bill year after year, Bills that make our tax legislation more and more complicated. Whenever the Government come up with a good idea to encourage investment or to encourage business, the Revenue is so obsessed with tax avoidance that it hedges the idea around with so many qualifications, which run into hundreds of clauses and subsections, that no one can understand it. The purpose of a good proposition is, if not lost altogether, certainly weakened.
  630
  The Opposition talk about tax avoidance and how they would increase the tax yield, but how they can criticise the Government, when, year after year, they produce a Finance Bill of this size, I do not know.
  In the debate on the Budget I spoke at some length on the economy in general and tonight I would like to deal with one or two of the Bill's provisions that affect my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) has already raised one of them—tax on amusement arcade machines. As right hon. and hon. Friends will know, I represent three tourist and holiday towns—Bridlington, Hornsea and Withernsea—in which there are a considerable number of amusement arcades and operators. I have to say again that I think that those proposals have come from the Inland Revenue, and have not been especially well thought out.
  I am especially interested in the comment of the Paymaster General, in a letter which he wrote to me, that
  "Government policy, as stated by the Chancellor, is to widen the tax base where sensible rather than increase the rate of individual taxes, or raise the rate of income tax."
  I do not object to that in principle, but that is not the only choice. There is another, and that is not to widen the tax base, not to increase taxes at all, but to control and reduce public spending. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider that matter again. Even if they insist on obtaining that yield, it can be done more cost-effectively.
  I have had a long telephone conversation with, and a letter from, a distraught constituent who is a small business man. He tells me that, if the proposals are passed unamended, he will be out of business. He takes only about £8,000 a year out of his small, one-man business. He operates single-site machines, which he lets, and he shares the stakes with the site owner. The new tax will cost him £8,000 a year. The tax on a two-operator machine will cost £500 a year, or £10 a week, while that on a one-operator machine will cost £250 a year.
  If the measure is passed unamended, many of those machines will be withdrawn, so the Government will receive no income. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest said, the resulting loss in corporation tax, the increase in the costs of unemployment pay and social security to the people who lose their jobs and the loss in national health insurance contributions and pay-as-you-earn taxation makes one seriously wonder whether it is worth the candle.
  The British Amusement Catering Trades Association has made some interesting proposals which would ensure that most of the yield that it is hoped the changes will produce will be achieved by another means. It proposes to decrease the rate on those machines to £100 and to introduce a new band of tax on the all-cash pay-out machines. I strongly urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider those proposals carefully.
  I also urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, when they are preparing next year's Budget, to tell Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue that there will be no further new taxes.
  Another matter, which affects my rural constituency, is the proposal to end the present concession, which has been in force for many years, that vehicle excise duties should be exempted for owners of vehicles that are used for short journeys of up to six miles a week on public highways between different parts of land that those same people occupy. Many agricultural holdings have parcels

  631
  of land that are geographically close to one another but not integrated within a ring fence, and many more have contiguous parcels of land that are bisected by public roads. People need to cross the road simply to move a tractor from one side to the other.
  Under paragraph 2(h) of schedule 4 to the Bill, that exemption will be abolished. I do not know how much money will be gained as a result, but it seems to me that it is not a very sensible proposition, because such a road will be used only for very small distances, for convenience. That places another burden on agriculture. The measure will be especially burdensome to small farmers—and the Conservative party is the party that believes in and supports small businesses. I think that someone in the Department must have been trawling around, asking, "Where can we find an extra burden to put on various people?"
  I trust that the present Finance Bill will be the last one in the present Parliament under which the overall burden of taxation will increase. From now on, taxation must be reduced, but that must be coupled with fiscal rectitude. The Government must adhere to the programme, which they have set out clearly in the Red Book, to reduce the public sector deficit. There must be no weakening on that.
  I have stood in the Chamber year after year and said the same thing, and I say it now to my right hon. and hon. Friends: public spending at 42 per cent. of gross domestic product is far too much, and we should be ashamed of that level. However, the deficit may be reducing more quickly because revenues are increasing faster than forecast in the Red Book. If we succeed in reducing taxes—I think that we shall—we shall not put the future of the economy at risk if we reduce spending by an equivalent amount; there will be no effect on the fiscal stance.
  If my right hon. and hon. Friends go out into the country to listen to what people are saying, they will discover that the great dissatisfaction with the Conservative party at the moment, as expressed in the by-election that brought the hon. Member for Dudley, West to the House, has nothing to do with disputes about Europe; the dissatisfaction is about crime, law and order and the way that people feel about the money in their pockets. Therefore, we should take no notice of the hon. Member for Gordon, who said that, at the next Budget, the Government should be very careful about cutting taxation. Of course he would say that, because he wants the Government to lose the next election.
  We now have the platform and, if the Government do what they should do in the next year—if they do what their supporters want them to do—they will squeeze public spending sufficiently to give themselves ample resources to reduce taxes. That must be our first priority.
  If anyone believes what the public opinion polls are trying to say—that the majority of people now believe that a Labour Government would deliver lower taxes than a Conservative Government—he or she is in cloud cuckoo land. Does anyone seriously believe that Labour Members, if they were ever to sit on the Government Benches, would make proposals to reduce spending? Does anyone believe that they would make proposals to reduce taxation? Every Labour Government have taxed more at the end of the Parliament than they did at the beginning.
  632
  It is the Conservatives' failure to live up to our reputation as the party of low taxation—our failure, as far as publicity goes—that has allowed people to start to believe that, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), "that lot over there" would spend less and tax less. They are in cloud cuckoo land.
  I also wish to comment on the Opposition Members who continually claim that so much money can be saved for the Exchequer by closing loopholes. They do not mean closing loopholes; they mean closing concessions, so let everyone beware. [Interruption.] Yes; they mean closing concessions, such as the concession on inheritance tax that the Government introduced which allows family farms to go from father to son, and the concession that the Government introduced which allows family businesses to be carried on to the next generation, provided members of the next generation carry on the business and work in it.
  Let the public beware: when the Opposition speak about ending concessions, they will hit the farmers—the small farmers, the family farmers. Let the farmers' sons know that the family farm might not go to them if the Labour party comes to power. Labour will hit the small businesses that the hon. Member for Dudley, West said that he had come to the House to represent. Those are the concessions that the Opposition want to do away with. We curtail avoidance methods every year when we bring forward the great bible—the Finance Bill. If Opposition Members can give good examples of tax avoidance that should be stopped, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be only too pleased to know about them.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Now try to be coherent.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) was in his place when I made some observations about sedentary interruptions, so I shall repeat my comment: I deplore them.
  Mr. Townend: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, whom I have always considered to be a friend, would like to withdraw his remark, Madam Deputy Speaker. I served for many years on the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and I.always found the hon. Gentleman to be reasonable—the adjective which he used could be used of him, particularly when he was questioning a former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I support one of my hon. Friends who said that next year, when we consider how to disburse the great treasure that we have saved by cutting public expenditure and give people back their money, we should look carefully at capital gains tax. With a minimum of expenditure we could simplify what has become a not very productive and complicated tax. It is so complicated and yields so little that I respectfully suggest that it might be a good idea to think of abolishing a tax every Budget, as we used to do some years ago.
  As I said when we debated the Budget, I support the broad thrust of this year's Budget and the Finance Bill. I have every confidence that, as the year continues, the faces of the Opposition will become bleaker and bleaker as the recovery continues, the population feels better and better, unemployment continues to decrease, the budget deficit continues to fall and the balance of payments

  633
  moves into surplus. We shall deal with our Achilles' heel and at the next Budget we shall start a continuous programme of reducing taxation.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson), who made an extremely confident and fluent maiden speech. I congratulate him on paying such a warm tribute to his predecessor and on his knowledge of his constituency, particularly the pubs and beer. It is clear that he will bring expertise to our debates. His speech showed a great knowledge of small businesses and what can be done to help them. I look forward to hearing what he has to say in future debates. I have no doubt that he would be an extremely good candidate for the Finance Bill Committee—a fate worse than death which perhaps I should not wish on him.
  I shall devote most of my remarks to the Select Committee report on the Budget, which it is customary for us to consider on Second Reading of the Finance Bill. However, I shall first comment on the remarks of the Chancellor who, in a typically low key and modest way, said:
  "I come before a Select Committee which will find it extremely difficult to ask any kind of critical questions on the macro-economy."
  We also had some remarks in that vein from the hon. Members for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). It is true that there are some good signs about the economy. There is an economic recovery after the longest recession since the war. Inflation is still low and the balance of payments is improving, especially on exports. There are, however, a number of qualifications to be made.
  Some of the recovery does not have much to do with the Government. There was a devaluation, which is not often mentioned. As a supporter of the exchange rate mechanism, I have to acknowledge that. Fortunately, I have a good alibi as it was I who coined the phrase that we entered the exchange rate mechanism
  "at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong rate."—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 937.]
  I said that on the day that it was announced to the House of Commons that we had entered the ERM. Fortunately, my remarks were reported in the House, so I have an alibi. Some Conservative Members do not. We owe much of our success in exports to the fact that we devalued. As the report shows, that has been the main motor of our recovery, but it is not often mentioned by Ministers and certainly not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  We do not often hear about the fact that, as a consequence of the two recessions, we still have a small manufacturing base and do not have enough capacity in the economy. The nature of the recovery means that there is not a feel-good factor. There have been cuts in living standards and many people, particularly in the south, are suffering from negative equity as a consequence of the crash in the housing market.
  Having been in the House for some time and having heard successive Chancellors make grand statements about the economy, I warn that the use of hyperbole on the British economy has an extremely bad track record. We all remember the economic miracles associated with the 1980s—the boasts of Mrs. Thatcher, Lord Lawson and even the present Prime Minister. I remember the Prime
  634
  Minister's speech just before we entered the longest recession since the war. A certain amount of humility from Ministers on the subject of the British economy would be in order. We all know that improving the British economy is a long, hard road and there are no short cuts. My hon. Friends are right to say that long-term investment in education and training and in research and development is important, but it takes time and there are no easy answers.
  I wish to concentrate the rest of my speech on the subject of tax cuts. It is clear from the speeches of the hon. Members for Bridlington and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) that Conservative Back Benchers and those who voted for the Conservative party at the last election very much want to hear about tax cuts. In our report, we warned the Chancellor about the dangers of making tax cuts. Everyone in the House understands the attraction of cutting taxes. Even at the best of times our constituents are not wildly enthusiastic about paying taxes.
  It is part of Conservative mythology that the 1992 election was won on the promise to cut taxes. Following the tax-increasing Budgets of 1993, the Opposition are entirely justified in throwing that promise back in the Conservatives' faces. The Dudley, West by-election was basically won on the back of those broken promises and the fact that the Conservative party promised to reduce taxes and then did not do so. Instead, the Government increased taxes by the largest amount in one single year—as everyone now knows.
  We have just heard from the hon. Member for Bridlington that the Chancellor is under great pressure from many of his supporters to cut taxes as soon as possible, preferably in the 1995 Budget. It is clear why they want him to do that: they hope that it will restore their political fortunes. The question that my Labour colleagues and I put to witnesses at the Select Committee hearings—to the Government's economic adviser, the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor—was if and when it would be economically and not just politically justified to cut taxes. Their answers are of some interest to the House.
  The Government's economic adviser, Mr. Alan Budd, saw two reasons why it might be unwise to cut taxes: if such action threatened sound public finances—to be fair, the hon. Member for Bridlington also mentioned that point—and if the economy was at or above its full capacity. When asked the same question, the Governor of the Bank of England agreed that tax cuts could be inflationary if the economy was overheated or was growing above capacity. In answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), he also said that if tax cuts were made at a time when the economy was overheating he would have to consider his advice to the Chancellor on the subject of increasing interest rates.
  Not surprisingly, the Chancellor was less forthcoming in answer to our questions about tax cuts. He agreed—as he had to, because his economic adviser had just said it—that as well as the state of public finances he would have to consider the overall state of the economy before cutting taxes. He assured the Committee and the general public that he would not take risks with inflation, but he said little more; he has certainly not discouraged his

  635
  supporters, such as the chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench committee, from assuring Conservatives that, come the next Budget, the Government will cut taxes.
  Mr. John Townend: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. While cutting taxes in isolation could be dangerous for the economy, will the hon. Gentleman accept that if the tax cuts were balanced by spending cuts—if it were fiscally neutral—there would not be the same danger?
  Mr. Radice: It would depend on the economic situation at the time. One would also have to consider the underlying economic situation, as Alan Budd told the Committee.
  In considering the economic wisdom of tax cuts, the key issue is the extent of spare capacity in the economy—an issue on which we did not receive any clear answers. Last year the economy grew well above the so-called trend growth rate. Economic growth was 4 per cent., but the Treasury estimates the trend growth rate in the economy at between 2 and 2.5 per cent., which is about the growth rate that the economy has achieved in the past 10, 15 or 20 years. How long the economy will continue to grow above trend without overheating depends on how much spare capacity exists and whether there have been the supply side improvements about which Ministers and Government Members always boast but of which there is little hard evidence. The jury is still out on that question.
  With regard to capacity, the chief economic adviser told us that the output gap is anything between 1 per cent. and 4 per cent.—in other words, he does not really know. However, most advisers were sceptical about the size of the output gap despite the long recession. For example, Mr. Gavyn Davies told us that he is now seeing a sharp tightening in the labour market. Mr. Christopher Johnson talked about the risk of inflationary pressures, while Mr. Andrew Brittan, who has a Keynesian reputation, said that much of the capacity which one might imagine would be present in the economy was lost during the recession. Therefore, he said, the economy could grow above trend for only a couple more years at the most.
  The Select Committee concluded in its report that in view of the dangers of overheating, and given that we did not know how much spare capacity was left in the economy, it was correct to be cautious about the amount of spare capacity remaining and about the circumstances in which tax cuts would be justified economically. In his written evidence to the Committee, Christopher Johnson pointed out that the idea that taxes are being increased in this fiscal year only to be lowered in the following year
  "seems like a pointless 'Duke of York' exercise, marching the troops up the hill only to march them down again".
  One does not have to look at the crystal ball when one can read the book. There is a recent example of a Tory Chancellor cutting taxes when the economy was overheating and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bridlington remembers it very well. In March 1988 Nigel Lawson gave away £6 billion in a full year when inflationary pressures were already very strong. Partly as a consequence of that Budget, the economy went out of balance, interest rates had to be raised to record levels in order to balance it again, and the country suffered a prolonged recession from which we are only now recovering.
  636
  In his Budget speech, the present Chancellor told the House:
  "Those who bask in their short-term popularity and neglect the need for sound economic measures will live to rue the day hereafter."—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1080.]
  He should heed his own advice with respect to tax cuts.
  7.5 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am grateful to be able to take part in the debate as I have been privileged to speak in the two previous debates on the Budget, when I concentrated on an issue which is of particular interest to my constituency—the illegal importation of tobacco and alcohol products.
  The House will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to spend too much time repeating those arguments today, although my commitment to solving the problem by approximating—I use the word "approximating" and not "harmonising"—duties throughout the European Union remains as strong as ever. I will continue to encourage Treasury Ministers and others to make sure that Ministers in other countries are aware of the health implications of the illegal importation of cheap tobacco and alcohol, its effect on the rule of law and on Government revenues, and the costs of trying to prevent the smuggling of those products.
  Apart from that constituency point, I wish to address some broader issues, many of which have been mentioned already. I do not wish to repeat what has been said already, but I should like to pick up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). I am always fascinated by the debate on spare capacity as I am never sure exactly what "spare capacity" means, although one has an instant vision of empty and rusting factories and of many people in long-term unemployment.
  I believe that the fundamental problem of spare capacity is access to capital. If the pound is strong—as it is now—if there is a great deal of inward investment in the economy and, because of the expertise of the City and its international role, there is access to international capital at very competitive interest rates, it seems to me that capacity is limited only by our access to capital and our ability and desire to borrow it.
  We can always build factories. Modern technological developments mean that factories are no longer the huge, acre-gobbling monsters that they once were. We can compare today's factories with the original Longbridge site, the memorable Rootes in Linwood and the old ICI at Teesside. Today smaller, much more efficient plants produce many more goods. We have to erase old-fashioned attitudes about production and manufacturing.
  We must ensure, as the Government have, that we are able to access capital at a price that we can afford to pay. The key to achieving that aim is keeping down the inflation rate. One of the benefits of controlling inflation is the elimination of the short-termism that has plagued our country for the past 40 to 50 years, when investors could not rely on the fact that the pound would be worth exactly the same amount in two years' time as it was on the day they made their investment. If people cannot believe that their investments will retain their worth, they want high returns as compensation for that risk. If the pound is steady, our investments will become much more

  637
  attractive and we can build in long-term investment opportunities. That makes it a much more sensible proposition to invest long term, not just for the teenage scribblers in the City, but for those who are producing the wealth of the country. That will help our productive capacity enormously. The key to the Budget lies in our determination to keep inflation down and the pound stable.
  Other advantages flow from having a stable pound. We shall be able to develop the international competitiveness of our goods and services. When we talk about inflationary pressures, we have to ask where they came from. One source is increased input costs, but one of the most significant factors in output costs is the cost of labour. We shall be forced to keep our labour costs low because we are competing in an international market, trying to match the output of factories in the tiger economies of Asia and the highly skilled, highly educated and appallingly underpaid work force in eastern Europe. Those are our competitors. It has nothing to do with Germany, France or Italy. The wage rates in countries such as those in eastern Europe and Asia will be the principal motors of our costs in terms of competitive production. That is why we shall continue to invest in industry, looking towards the high-tech industries and the development of the brain and intelligence skills required to compete. Keeping inflation low and a strong pound are the keys to achieving that.
  I particularly support the development of venture capital that will provide investment in the smaller companies, which will be the real powerhouse of our recovery. I very much welcome the Budget proposals to help people wishing to invest venture capital. Those in high-tech businesses have long complained that they cannot get access to capital between £50,000 and £500,000. I hope that the venture capital trusts, which will allow people to invest and will reward them for investing, will be lean and mean enough to dodge the criticism from the larger venture capitalists, the banks and everyone else whose job it is to invest, that it costs just as much to invest £50,000 in a venture as it does to invest £1 million. We have to ensure that the venture capital trusts are sufficiently lean and mean to afford small investments as well as large ones. By encouraging venture capital trusts to be set up and encouraging the small investor who wants part of the action in venture capital, we shall have the potential to help those small businesses which so desperately need small loans.
  Venture capital will also encourage small businesses to start looking at equity facilities instead of overdraft and loan facilities. It is not just the City which needs to be sophisticated—so do people running businesses who hope in the long run to make not just their own fortunes, but several other people's fortunes as well.
  I come now to a national issue which is also particularly apposite in Hastings, where we have always had endemic long-term unemployment. I welcome the measures in the Budget to encourage employers to take on more of the long-term unemployed, but I should like to explore a slight tweak to the suggestion that employers get a national insurance holiday for employing the long-term unemployed. In principle, that is a very good idea, but the Confederation of British Industry conducted a survey of long-term unemployed people and one of its most significant findings was that 40 per cent. of those people are illiterate. With the best will in the world, no employer
  638
  will take on an illiterate person for the value of his national insurance. Perhaps the Treasury might like to consider a pilot scheme to see how successful the national insurance holiday could be for the long-term unemployed and for employers. It may be possible to get that up and running before the measure is introduced more generally. If 40 per cent. of the long-term unemployed are illiterate, more help is required for them than a national insurance holiday for employers.
  I come to another constituency issue that has been raised by a number of hon. Members. Hastings is a coastal town with significant tourist business. Like other hon. Members, I have been approached and lobbied by those running coastal amusements and leisure parks. One company has calculated that, net of VAT, the average weekly take in video games is £10. In the cranes, redemption and novelty category it is £62.93, and for kiddies' rides it is about £4.23. Those figures give us an idea of the problem faced by people who are trying to turn piers into places for family entertainment and who do not wish to replace everything by machines with money-only prizes. They do not wish to replace all the games of skill or competition with prize-only machines. It is in their interests if perhaps the Treasury could rethink and even take on board the BACTA recommendations.
  Finally, because my area has a very mixed constituency, I will pick up on vehicle excise duty on farm vehicles, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). It will hit some of the farming community quite hard. Many of ray farmers have land in different parts of a village. They need to travel on the roads and they are hard hit by the new measure.
  We have a sheep farming community in Hastings. The sheep farmers are in a state of flux and ferment for all sorts of extraneous reasons and it would help if we were more sympathetic to them than imposing excise duty on their vehicles. One suggestion from a local farmer is that perhaps farmers could apply for a licence at a higher rate than currently applies, but which could be used in the same way as licences are used by garages so that they could transfer one licences from machine to machine. They would be prepared to do that. They insist on having their machines roadworthy and they are happy and proud for them to go on the roads, but if each machine has to be licensed separately it will put exceedingly great pressure on people who already feel pressured, particularly in my part of the world.
  I commend the bulk of the Finance Bill—it certainly is bulky—and hope very much that the Treasury will take on some of the points that I and many of my hon. Friends are making.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Alan Milburn: Notwithstanding the last rather more critical remarks by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), she painted a fairly rosy picture of prospects for the British economy during the next few years. It is probably a picture that many of our constituents would not recognise. Some 11 million of them—that is 40 per cent. of the work force—have experienced unemployment during the past five years.
  Not surprisingly, many commentators, including Opposition Members, view the Finance Bill as a measure that promises much but delivers very little indeed, notwithstanding its considerable bulk. It will do nothing

  639
  to tackle the underlying sense of insecurity that is prevalent in many of our communities, and will do little to build the partnership economy that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House espouse—high investment, growth and, most importantly, employment. Some of the Budget's central measures will undermine the attainment of those objectives. It entrenches a Britain of double standards and unfairness.
  The Budget does nothing to put into reverse the failures of Conservative practices over the past 16 years. I noticed from earlier contributions that some Conservative Members are apparently getting cold feet about the approach taken in the past few years. Last year, I read the interesting economic lecture given by the current Secretary of State for National Heritage, in which he criticised the free market approach adopted in the late 1980s, which he said had been built on sand and led directly to the recessionary consequences that many of our constituents are suffering.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) spoke of the failures of the period when Lord Lawson was in charge of economic policy. The hon. Gentleman might have added that the current Prime Minister was at that time Chief Secretary to the Treasury and is equally responsible for the mess in which the British economy now finds itself.
  During the past decade, the Government have been responsible for low investment, inadequate training, unacceptably high unemployment and, to cap it all, unfair taxation—that from a party that promised year after year, election after election, low taxation. The Conservatives have provided no long-term growth, mismanaged public finances and broken their promises. The dogma that the free market is king has produced a United Kingdom ravaged by decline, division and increasing doubts among the electorate.
  When Conservative Members talk about their party being the party of financial rectitude and able economic management, they ignore the evidence of their own eyes. The past few years have been disastrous for the British economy and for the British people.
  Although recent falls in official unemployment, low inflation and some evidence of short-term growth are welcome, there is no proof that Britain has secured a permanently high level of sustainable economic expansion. Continuing low manufacturing investment and its decline in the past few quarters, falling employment paralleled by falling unemployment, the emergence even now of the beginning of skill shortages, and evidence of inflationary pressures, give little ground for hope that the recovery will be sustainable at the rate that Britain needs to make good the ravages of the past recession—let alone to put it on the road to full employment.
  The Finance Bill should have been geared to creating new job opportunities. Instead, it demonstrates total complacency towards the unemployment confronting 2.5 million of our constituents—1 million of them are suffering long-term unemployment. The number of very long-term unemployed, who have been out of work for two years or longer, is increasing and higher than two years ago.
  One of the Chancellor's central measures—the national insurance holiday to encourage employers to recruit the long-term unemployed—does not even warrant a mention
  640
  in the Bill, and neither will it be introduced this year. The long-term unemployed must wait until April 1996 before that measure takes effect. I hope that the Financial Secretary will answer this simple question when he winds up. What is the reason for that delay? If that measure is so central to Government objectives and to tackling the problems of the underclass that the Chancellor described in his Budget speech, why not introduce it now, or at least during this year? Why wait until April 1996? The unemployed need help now.
  A massive waste of talents, resources and skills is inherent in unemployment, but of equal importance is that it costs the taxpayer a pretty penny. The former Secretary of State for Employment, now Secretary of State for Education, told the Employment Select Committee a year ago that it costs £9,000 a year to keep each unemployed person out of work. Every family in the country pays £1,000 a year towards the cost of unemployment—and that, to coin a famous phrase, is not a price worth paying. It has divisive social consequences, which are to be seen in all our constituencies. Increasingly today, we see not just one generation but families in which successive generations have been out of work, which contributes to increasing inequality and growing poverty.
  For the first time this century, the gap between the rich and the poor is widening, not narrowing. One great achievement of politicians in all parts of the House in the 20th century has been the narrowing of social inequalities—until now. Today, those inequalities are growing. Sixty-eight per cent. of the work force earn less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold, and their numbers have grown by 1 million during the Tory years.
  A low-skill, low-wage, no-hope economy is no future for my constituents or those of Conservative Members. When one considers that 1 million people in work are in such desperate straits that they must take a second job to make ends meet, one wonders what sort of country we are living in. The Government must take action to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, produce a system of fair taxation and ensure that skills training is available to our unemployed constituents.
  It is little wonder that there is such a sense of insecurity, even among people in work. For example, home owners face additional monthly bills of £50 on average thanks to Government policy, increased interest rates and negative equity. To heap insult on injury, home owners who become unemployed are to be stripped of their right to housing benefit. It is regrettable that that measure—one of the most important to be announced in the Budget—is also missing from the annual Finance Bill. I hope that the Minister will address that issue in his winding-up speech.
  Many of the people who will suffer most grievously as a consequence of their loss of benefit when they become unemployed are precisely those whom the Conservative party claims to represent: small business men and women and the self-employed. How on earth will they take out insurance? What sort of price will they end up paying on their insurance premiums to insure themselves against the risk of being thrown out of work?

  641
  Mr. John Maples has become a friend of the Labour party during the past few months. He has become our friend because he managed to tell the truth. He said in his famous leaked memo:
  "While we trumpet the recovery, the voters do not think the recession has ended. They still fear unemployment, have no more 'money in their pocket' etc. What we are saying is completely at odds with their experience."
  He was right. He was right to say that living standards will not only fall this year, but will go on falling next year. It is not surprising that there is an absence of a feel-good factor.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Milburn: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He should say so directly to the vice-chairman of the Conservative party, because there it is in the Maples memorandum. Advice is offered directly to Ministers and, indeed, to the Prime Minister, to tell the truth, and make it clear that living standards are falling and that there is a growing sense of insecurity in all our communities. Perhaps most important of all, the increased tax burden that has been promulgated in successive Finance Bills is now beginning to bite, and beginning to bite hard.
  The extra taxes that have been introduced will mean that the net income of a typical taxpayer will be some £13.15 a week lower in April 1995 than a year earlier and £20.50 a week lower by April 1996.
  Sir George Young: We keep on hearing figures about the ave`rage family or the average household. The figures that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted apply to less than 1 per cent. of households. The figure for average households is £2.30 per week.
  Mr. Milburn: At least the Minister has the good grace to admit that the average family will feel the effect of tax rises and of economic failure where it hurts most—in their pockets. However, one thing is absolutely clear. The electorate understand that not only are tax bills rising but, as a deliberate matter of policy, the Conservative party is pursuing a policy of unfair taxation.
  In 1979, when the poorest fifth of households paid 31 per cent. of their incomes in tax, the richest fifth paid 38 per cent. By 1992, the last year for which figures are available, and incidentally, even before the big tax hikes that we have seen, the tax burden had shifted from the rich to the poor. The poorest fifth of households paid 39 per cent. of their incomes in tax compared with 34 per cent. paid by the richest fifth.
  All that takes place against a background of rising public anger about perks for those at the very top. We have heard much recently about the excessive boardroom salaries and perks that have been paid out, especially across the privatised utilities. To remind the House, 50 directors of the privatised utilities have already made more than £1 million out of privatisation. Since privatisation, chairmen of utilities have seen their salaries increase by an average of 220 per cent. But that is nothing to the chairman of BT, because his salary has increased by 700 per cent. At the same time, of course, more than 160,000 jobs have been lost since privatisation began.
  The Finance Bill offered Ministers an opportunity to put their money where their mouths were. It offered the Government the chance to advance a fairness agenda; to tackle those excessive rises in salaries and perks for those
  642
  serving in the boardrooms of the privatised utilities. Yet there is nothing in this Bill about such an approach. That is why my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will table amendments about executive share options and about regulators being required to disregard the costs of excessive executive remuneration when setting price ceilings in the privatised utilities.
  The Government's failure to act has obviously incurred a huge political cost. John Maples again made it very clear when he said:
  "Although in the 1980s the Conservatives seemed to promise a classless society of opportunity, the reality is now that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest, who are getting poorer."
  That recognition is shared by constituents up and down the country. There is political damage for the Government in that widening gap between rich and poor.
  However, there has been a far more damaging social and economic cost. The Government have failed to create the social partnership essential if everyone is to pull together for economic success and, indeed, share in its benefits. The Government could take a lead in ensuring that people become stake holders in their communities. They could take a lead in overcoming the divisions between rich and poor, between employers and employees. I take the view that Britain works best when it works together. But working together is inhibited by bumper pay and perks for the few and falling living standards for the many. The Government have done precisely nothing to tackle executive perks and pay.
  The Finance Bill is a missed opportunity. I very much hope that, during our deliberations not only this evening but in Committee, we shall put the Finance Bill on the right track and accommodate the concerns of all our constituents.
  Mr. Hartley Booth: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that, in fact, the hon. Member has completed his speech.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Hartley Booth: If I cannot intervene, perhaps I can put my point in the following short speech. First, I apologise for not having been present for the entirety of the debate. That has not been possible, but I have been present for the past few speeches, and I have heard how Labour Members have berated our mismanagement of the economy and said that we have not addressed a fairness agenda when we could have done.
  Of course, Labour Members have totally forgotten, in looking at this new, unified Budget and the economy overall, that Britain's economy at this time is more successful than it has been at any time during the past 30 years. Economists who lecture at university talk about two sorts of recovery. They talk about the recovery that we see on the high street, led by a boom, with endless spending and doubtless the spin-off of a feel-good factor, and they also speak about the holy grail. They talk about the export-led recovery. That commodity has very rarely been seen in the economic history of Britain over the past 50 years, but our current economic recovery is led by exports, and that is to be commended. The Government have achieved that through tough decisions, and the manufacturing and service sectors have combined to back the economy.

  643
  As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, backed by foreign investment, we have achieved what is, after the recession in recent years, a miraculous recovery. I commend the 348 pages of the Finance Bill, because it is built on the back of our current economic success, with its low inflation, low interest rates and falling unemployment.
  The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) was derogatory about our unemployment figures. When Opposition Members talk about the unemployment statistics, they always forget that huge force of people—which it is difficult to describe—known as the black economy. Those people are employed. They may not be paying taxes, but they are employed.
  If there is a fudge or a mistake in the official statistics, it goes the other way—in the direction that is inconvenient for the Opposition's arguments. There are probably far more people employed, as a result of the black economy, than people believe. The unemployment statistics have been miscalculated since 1945 and the Attlee Government. Until 1984–85, the unemployment statistics did not include the self-employed. Opposition Members who continue to berate us for fudging the unemployment statistics seem to be unaware that, for 30 or 40 years, those statistics were inaccurate, as they did not include reference to the black economy or the self-employed.
  Reference has been made to the absence of a feel-good factor. The hon. Member for Darlington referred to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury indicated dissent earlier. However, in economic language, there is no feel-good factor at this stage. We hope that the feel-good factor will return to our constituents—certainly before the next election.
  The hon. Member for Darlington referred to the gap between the rich and the poor. Opposition Members often raise that point. It appears from the statistics that the gap has been widening, but what kind of nation are we if our thoughts and debates are constantly driven by jealousy? That is the only reason for failing to deal with the appropriate factor—absolute poverty.
  Conservatives are concerned about absolute poverty. Absolute poverty has not been increasing. Over the past few years, poverty has been eliminated in many parts of the country. That is the quotient we should consider. We came to this House to ensure that absolute poverty was eliminated from all our people.
  We are concerned about poverty, but we are not concerned about mere gaps between one set of people who may have been fortunate and others who have not been fortunate. We want to ensure that the less fortunate are helped; that is why the Budget pinpoints the creation of jobs, particularly in relation to small businesses in respect of the work incentive initiatives.
  As a result of the prudent management of the economy, and despite the undeniable difficulties that we are experiencing in many parts of Britain, we have been able to raise spending on targeted items in the Budget. We heard from the Dispatch Box today how £1.3 billion extra has been found for the national health service. More spending will be forthcoming for local authorities, the police and law and order. More resources have even been found for European spending, but perhaps I will refer to that in a moment.
  644
  There have been prudent cuts, for good reason, in parts of the expenditure—for example, on housing. Before Opposition Members intervene to claim that that is simply terrible—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a former Housing Minister, is to respond to this debate—I must point out that there are 750,000 empty properties in Britain. As a party and a Government, we are interested in using the national assets and resources of this country efficiently. We want to ensure that houses and other property are used for the benefit of all our people, and particularly the homeless.
  I am happy that we have cut some aspects of housing expenditure, providing that, down in Marsham street in the Department responsible for housing, there are endless initiatives to harness the unused properties, particularly for our homeless people. I offer qualified support for that policy.
  I referred to European spending in the debate on the Queen's Speech, and I do not apologise for raising it again. When my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary replies to the debate, I hope that he will respond to an issue that is close to my heart. I am concerned about the fact that this country contributes £200 million to overall European spending of £1,000 million on black tobacco.
  Black tobacco is part of the common agricultural policy, so it is perhaps not directly related to this debate. However, I would argue that it is legitimate for me to raise the point today. The black tobacco regime is a heinous waste of £200 million of our money, which could be spent on no fewer than three hospitals in this country. That money is also spent wastefully and cruelly, because only about 40 per cent. of it is smoked in Europe. The balance is smoked in the developing parts of the world, and it kills people there because there are no warnings against its use.
  I hope for a specific response from the Treasury about my point. I understand that we are bound by European spending rules, but I hope that, the next time that Finance Ministers from this country go to the Council of Ministers on our behalf, they will raise that point about black tobacco. I hope that the table is punched, as we should not be wasting £200 million of British taxpayers' money in that appalling way.
  The hon. Member for, Darlington said that this Budget was not a Budget for employment, but I believe that employment is at the heart of the Budget.
  The Budget package helped by giving £680 million over the next year for work incentives. There were four measures to encourage employers to take on the unemployed. Employers' national insurance contributions will be cut by 0.6 per cent. for people earning less than £205 a week from April this year. Employers who hire someone who has been out of work for two years or more will be able to obtain a full NIC rebate for that person for up to one year, again starting in April. The work trial scheme is being expanded to 150,000 places. A further workstart pilot scheme will be developed, thereby helping 5,000 people.
  Four measures are introduced to ease the transition from unemployment to work. In last week's debate, there was an analysis of and support for them. There are two measures for people who want to find full-time work, and three measures to keep unemployed people in touch with the labour market.

  645
  Last week, I visited the employment office in Finchley, and I was pleased to hear of local people's success in going back to work. I am pleased to know that, time and again, through the host of initiatives in the Budget, including other initiatives, people are helped to get back to work. The hon. Member for Darlington asserted that we are not concerned about employment. On the contrary, at the very heart of the Budget is concern about and spending on unemployment, in a host of imaginative new policies.
  I also commend and support the widening of the 20 per cent. band. The second rise in VAT on fuel was not proceeded with. Opposition Members berated us for not conceding that point sooner, but that was yet another example of the democratic process working. Many Conservative Members loyally supported the Government's attempt to raise VAT on fuel. Indeed, the hypocrisy of Labour Members and of the Liberal Democrats was exposed because, for greenhouse, environmental or whatever reasons, they too would have taxed heating.
  Finally, when, as a democratic voice for people, Conservative Members rejected the second round of that VAT rise, I for one supported that rejection, as did many of my constituents. Far from a concession, that was a victory for democracy.
  The hon. Member for Darlington mentioned privatisation. Privatisation is not to be characterised just as a way in which the incomes of a few senior executives reach international standards. That is not the true test of privatisation in historical terms. We must look at how—I nearly said "curmudgeonly"—solid, old-fashioned national utilities are suddenly becoming sparkling young companies with a worldwide horizon.
  British Gas, electricity companies and water companies are looking around the world for new markets. I have been heartened by the activities of British Gas in Kazakhstan, where I was last summer. Such companies are now doing things for all of us that they would never have dreamt of doing before. They have been freed, thanks to our privatisation policies. We will not have Opposition Members saying that it is yet another excuse for the few to gain too much income.
  What is the Labour party's comment on the Bill? I was happy to go on television to make my modest contribution to supporting the Government's proposals in the autumn, and the Labour party spokesman, who was with me, could say nothing except that the Budget was against investment. Time and again, the Labour party spokesman said, "This Budget omits and ignores investment."
  Labour Members were unable to count the fact that, through our sensible management of the economy, we have attracted, like a magnet, investment from around the world, and that 40 to 50 per cent. of Japanese and American investment has come to this country. I have heard of double counting, but I have never heard of subtraction counting, which is what the Labour party is into. Labour Members would subtract such investment from around the world from total investment in the United Kingdom. That is wrong, and it should be exposed. I hope that the message will go out from the House tonight.
  What is the rest of the Labour party's opposition to our proposals and to the Bill? It is a Trojan horse. Labour Members wish to push their smart-looking wooden edifice into the heart of our citadel. At the heart of their horse
  646
  they have "spend, spend and spend again" shock troops, who will jump out of the horse at the appropriate time if the electorate ever give them the chance.
  On Monday morning, I read an interesting article by the former editor of The Times, Lord Rees-Mogg, in which he explained the nature of the dilemma under which Opposition Members labour. Their dilemma is that they have a certain constituency—the welfare constituency—which would drive them onward because it needs public expenditure. Opposition Members may keep their shock troops hidden in their smart-looking horse, but pressure from their constituency is so great that there will be more spending.
  That was exemplified in the recent curious happenings in the Labour party over education. While many hon. Members were enjoying their short Christmas break, it was suggested that the Labour party would abolish the VAT concession on education. That suggestion was withdrawn with alacrity, which raised several suspicions among Conservative Members, and not surprisingly.
  If the VAT concession was removed, what would happen? If we do our sums, we know that there would be an extra burden of £120 million on the Exchequer, because some people would find it impossible to pay private, broader education bills on top of their taxes. Probably about 20 per cent. of private schools would close. It was not surprising that, just days after it was uttered by the education spokesman, the word was withdrawn, so sincere are Labour Members in wanting to maintain their stance as the Trojan horse for spending.
  I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude. The Government's handling of the economy is exemplified by the Bill, by falling unemployment and by export-led recovery. It is to be commended.
  8 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: It is a curious and perhaps unique feature of the Bill that so many of the tax increases that will be introduced in the next financial year are not contained in it. It is bizarre that the tax increases announced in December are not yet included in the Bill.
  Many of April's tax increases were legislated for in previous Finance Acts, which is unusual. They include the reduction in the married couple's allowance, which will mean that a couple paying tax at only 20 per cent. will be £86 a year worse off after April, and the reduction in mortgage interest tax relief, which will mean that a family with an average mortgage will be £10 a month worse off after April.
  Other harsh Budget measures have not been included in the Bill, notably the stripping away of mortgage assistance for those on income support, which will mean that a family with an average mortgage will have to pay £20 a month more in insurance.
  Throughout proceedings on the Bill we shall remind Conservative Members of the broader picture and of the many tax increases that those on middle and low incomes have already had to endure. In our campaigning as we approach the general election, we shall remind people—not that they need much reminding—that under Finance Acts since the last general election they have endured the equivalent of a 7p increase in income tax. It is no use the

  647
  Conservative party expecting people to be grateful when the Government give back a proportion of that 7p in tax bribes over the next two years.
  Looking back, we shall remind the public that since the Tories took office almost 16 years ago the richest 1 per cent. of the population have cumulatively gained £75 billion in tax cuts, while the poorest fifth of the population have suffered a rise in their tax contributions from 31 per cent. of income in 1979 to 39 per cent. in 1992. That percentage has risen since, although we do not have a recent figure for it.
  Looking ahead, we shall remind people that next year they will be worse off when housing costs are taken into account: they will not need much reminding of that. We shall also drive home the point that next year those on low and middle incomes will have to pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than those on the highest incomes. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the middle deciles of the population will have to pay another 1.4 per cent. of their income, in tax increases while the top decile will have to pay only 0.7 per cent. Indeed, for some of the super-rich in that top decile, the figure will be even lower because of the tax loopholes in the Bill. Before Conservative Members become too excited about the term "tax loopholes", I should point out that I am drawing from an editorial in the Financial Times, which described venture capital trusts and the new arrangements for the enterprise investment scheme as tax loopholes.
  A broadsheet published by BESt Investment called "Tax Shelter Service" is well worth reading. It was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in an earlier debate, but it is worth repeating. That company gives advice on tax shelters and it cannot contain its joy about the measures in the Budget that will help those on high incomes.
  I shall quote a couple of sentences from the broadsheet. It states:
  "The Budget may have been regarded as 'boring' by most commentators but for the Tax Shelter business it contained arguably the most exciting combination of measures ever seen … investors will have no less than four opportunities for sheltering tax: EIS, Enterprise Zone Property, Reinvestment Relief and Venture Capital Trusts. As a result we cannot see why anyone should choose to pay CGT in future."
  Thereafter, it goes into the details. There is a liberal spraying of exclamation marks. I do not think that the company can believe its good fortune in having been given so many opportunities to shelter tax.
  Apart from the surprises mentioned in the broadsheet, it does not mention measures that have surprised some of us, such as the abolition of the interest-in-land rule for enterprise investment and other schemes. People put money into property under the business expansion scheme and made a killing, but we thought that at least that had now gone for ever. It appears that it has come back through the abolition of the interest-in-land rule. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point when he replies.
  Other measures in the Budget will help those at the very top end of the tax scale. For example, inheritance tax allowance has been fully uprated. The rate for those eligible to tax relief on private medical insurance will be maintained at 25 per cent., while the married couple's
  648
  allowance and mortgage tax relief have gone down to 20 and then to 15 per cent. There are new tax opportunities for those with PEPs and TESSAs.
  As the vice-chairman of the Conservative party said—it has been quoted many times before and will be quoted many times again:
  "the reality is now that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest, who are getting poorer."
  The same man invented the phrase "killer facts". I remind Conservative Members of a killer fact that, unfortunately, is quite literally true in some cases. It is that 14 million people in this country live on incomes of less than £115 a week. I am referring to one in four of the population, a rise from one in 10 in 1979.
  The problems of that group are not addressed by the Bill or by the other Budget measures that are not included in it. Those people are crying out for employment measures to help them into work or tax measures if they work and pay tax. The Budget contained only marginal employment measures, which are more than outweighed by the Budget's negative features.
  The Budget offers only crumbs in tax measures. The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) spoke about the widening of the 20 per cent. band by £200; even in last year's vicious tax-increasing Budget it was widened by £500. Many people do not benefit from that anyway. Those earning £6,000, £5,000 or £4,000 a year do not gain any advantage from the extension of the 20 per cent. band.
  What would have helped the poor people in society who pay tax would have been a very large increase in the personal allowance. The Government are proud of the fact that they have increased it by £80 this year. I suppose that that is an improvement on the last two years. The Government actually had to include clauses in previous Finance Bills to break the law of the land—the Rooker-Wise amendment—that laid down that personal allowances had to rise by the rate of inflation. Therefore, I suppose that this year we should be thankful for small mercies.
  A person paying tax at the 20 per cent. level will be £20 a year better off following the uprating of the personal allowance, but that does not compensate for the fact that he or she will be £86 a year worse off by the change to the married couple's allowance.
  The widow's allowance and the additional personal allowance will be cut, which will affect lone parents. The allowance for the blind has been frozen. The Budget contains no measures to help people on low or middle incomes. I was going to say that we were all grateful that the proposed increase in VAT to 17.5 per cent. was scrapped, but people's campaigning, led by the Labour party, achieved the change. We are pleased that that increase will not be enacted in April.
  New measures were introduced to replace the VAT proposal in the mini-Budget. I presume that they will creep into the Finance Bill in Committee. They will lead to increases in indirect taxes, which, again, will have a disproportionate effect on people on low incomes.
  I shall not go into details today but, as a Scottish Member, I am especially concerned about the extra tax on whisky. A nip of whisky contains the same amount of alcohol as a glass of wine, yet twice the amount of tax is charged on it. I hope to speak about that matter next week. It was scandalous that the price of beer and whisky went up but that the price of champagne went down. Those

  649
  matters must be dealt with in Committee, as must the increase in hydrocarbon oil tax, which many people have discussed in relation to making car ownership more expensive.
  The Bill affects public transport and, therefore, members of society on low incomes. In last year's Budget, the fuel rebate for public transport was frozen. This year, the price of diesel has gone up by 5 per cent., to which will be added inflation, plus the extra penny imposed in the December Budget. That will mean more expensive public transport. That will have to be dealt with in Committee.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his mini-Budget statement that there was no alternative, echoing one of his predecessors, but we know that many alternatives exist. A simple alternative for his extra £1 billion would have been a 45p tax rate for income of more than £50,000. Even that, however, would not have been necessary if he had gone much higher and taken money off the super-rich, which would easily have raised the necessary revenue.
  Labour Members have raised the issue of a windfall tax on the utilities, which since the beginning of the recession have made profits of £45 billion. The Chancellor somehow thought that that suggestion was unheard of, yet one of his predecessors, Lord Howe, imposed such a tax on banks in 1981. The same argument applies to the utilities today as applied to the banks then.
  The Chancellor said that a windfall tax could be only a one-off, so it would not do. We all know that the Conservatives' strategy is based on cutting taxes next year and the year after, so a windfall tax—a one-off for one year—would have adequately covered the shortfall in the Budget.
  Labour Members raised the executive share options issue. Share options are not taxed as income. Mention has already been made of the way in which capital gains tax can be avoided—the experts are saying, "Who needs to pay it anyway?" It is even more important, therefore, that executive share options are taxed as income. When shares that have been acquired in that way are sold on, they are liable to capital gains tax. When options are exercised, they should be taxed as income. People sitting on those executive share options are like people who fill in their national lottery card with a special dispensation to score off every single number: they cannot lose.
  Many examples have been given. For example, 63 electricity chairmen have £29 million worth of executive share options. The amount of money involved is massive. We know that it is a scandal and action should be taken.
  Mr. Booth: Would the hon. Gentleman also condemn share options for workers?
  Mr. Chisholm: I am against share options completely; the whole idea of share options is bad.
  Mr. Booth: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, time after time, when share options have been given to the work force, the performance of the company involved—National Freight comes immediately to mind—has improved dramatically and obviously?
  Mr. Chisholm: That may be true in certain examples, but we know that, in the vast bulk of examples, no relationship exists between the performance of the company and the share option issue. It may be possible to
  650
  consider the matter and to make a connection between the two, but in general I am against the principle of share options.
  There are other examples of how money could be raised. Last year, during discussions on the Finance Bill, Labour Members raised the issue of tax relief on private medical insurance. I am sure that we shall do so again: it is an easy way of raising £80 million or £90 million.
  The Conservative party, however, always looks after a certain section of the population. Nowhere was that made more clear than in the investigation into corporate taxation and how industry was to be financed, which was started by the previous Financial Secretary. Everyone knows that he was acknowledging a problem that we all know exists—the massive increases in dividend payouts. In the mid 1980s, they amounted to only £11 billion but now they amount to more than twice as much. They kept on increasing, even throughout the recession.
  Lord Hanson said that such an investigation was unacceptable and made the staggering accusation against the previous Financial Secretary that he was some sort of socialist, but the review of dividend taxation was dropped. There is nothing in the Bill about that crucial matter. As someone has said, it is the dog that did not bark. Something must be done about it and that is why the Labour party is urgently investigating the issue. It is connected with this country's poor investment record in the past year.
  Conservative Members have made glowing references to figures that suggest that the economy is doing well. It is certainly doing better than it was, which is not difficult. Last year, however, business investment was only 2 per cent. and, even this week, the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, which has a Conservative majority, told Labour's Treasury spokesmen that it cannot accept the investment predictions for next year.
  It is being suggested that I finish my speech, so I shall omit certain things that I wanted to say and raise them in Committee. I want briefly, however, to mention one other disappointing omission. Once again, the Bill says nothing about child care. We introduced a new clause on that matter last year. I notice that the industrial building allowance has been extended to new road building, which I am not happy about. We introduced a new clause last year to extend the industrial building allowance in relation to the provision of child care facilities in workplaces. The Government must certainly deal with the issue of the supply of child care. We shall return to it in Committee.
  I shall not go into details on the general economic situation because time is running out. The country's economic position has improved but there are still serious problems. Further problems for the economy are on the horizon because of rising interest rates, increased taxation and reductions in capital expenditure. Many problems exist that should have been dealt with, but unfortunately the Government do not have an economic strategy; they have only an election strategy. The Financial Times stated that
  "preparation for the mother of all bribes is well in hand."
  Everyone can see it but the British people will see through it and the Government will not be the Government much longer.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that, in the context of a quotation, even a quotation that I cannot attribute accurately, I may be excused for some unparliamentary language. I think that it was an American President who once observed that a lie is around the world while the truth is getting its boots on. Because of that, it is important that, once again, we reassert the context in which the Finance Bill is set.
  The Labour party constantly seeks to denigrate the extent of the country's economic success. We have had economic growth for two and a half successive years. Unemployment has fallen for two years and it is at the lowest rate of any major country in the European Union. We have low inflation—the lowest inflation that I can remember in my lifetime. We have low interest rates and strong exports. Productivity is growing sharply. That is a picture of an economy of which we should be profoundly proud. I certainly have deep pride in it.
  My local manufacturers are benefiting exceptionally well from the excellent macro-economic climate. Exporters are doing particularly well. I am glad to say that even my retailers are looking more cheerful than they did a year or two ago. The retail sector is not booming, but it is much stronger. We do not want a boom. We want steady, sustained growth. We do not want the boom-bust cycle from the past. How often we are told that by the Labour party. How good it is to see it being achieved in the British economy. It is fair to say that my construction sector is still a little depressed. However, I believe that the stable conditions that we are creating and the steady improvements that we are bringing about will lead to a steady revival in that sector, too.
  What my constituents are looking for from this Finance Bill is simple. They want it to maintain the favourable economic conditions that the Government have created, keep interest rates steady and keep the level of sterling steady so that our exporters can continue to succeed. They also want the Government—I make no apology for this—to reduce levels of taxation in the future. The Bill creates the conditions for precisely that.
  I do not say for a minute that I welcome the increases in taxation that are implied in the Bill. I accept them as necessary. In the almost three years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I can remember only one occasion on which I have been lobbied for a reduction in public expenditure. This week and last week I have been lobbied for more public expenditure for transport—for railway services—for the health service, for my education services, for my social services, for my fire service, for my police authority and for my local authority housing department. That is a staggering wish list, which I understand, but which has to be funded. It can be paid for only out of taxation.
  It is strange that the only representation on taxation that I have received from my county council, which is responsible for many of the areas of expenditure that I have identified and is run by a Liberal-Labour pact, was for a reduction in taxation. Time and again we hear from our political opponents the list of things on which they wish us to spend more money. Time and again they refuse to see that that money has to be found from the taxpayer. There is one political argument that the Conservative party has not yet quite won. It is the argument that there
  652
  is no such thing as Government money. There is only taxpayers' money. That simple lesson still has not been learnt, certainly by my county council.
  I sincerely hope that the Finance Bill will set the framework for further economic growth and so enable us to reduce public expenditure as a percentage of the gross national product. In that context, I feel that I must accept in the interim the provisions in the Finance Bill to increase taxation. I am tempted to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was recently a Minister in the Department of the Environment, that one way of getting round the pressure for public expenditure from our local authorities is to remove the capping limits on local authorities. That would enable them to raise taxes locally and discover how unpopular the business of raising taxes is. It might also enable us to differentiate between well-run Conservative authorities and profligate Labour authorities, but that is a debate for another day.
  What increases in taxation does the Finance Bill contain? It contains an increase in beer duty. As a member of the parliamentary beer club, I can only be well aware of the significant increase in cross-border shopping. I am grateful for the assurances that I have received from my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury about the steps being taken to counter that trend through increased surveillance by Customs and Excise. I hope that in future Budgets, reductions or stability in beer duty will be a major priority.
  We have seen an increase in the hydrocarbon oil duties. I accept that as part of the price that we must pay to meet our international obligations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to remember the effect that steadily increasing hydrocarbon oil duties can have on rural areas. I wonder whether in future Budgets we might consider the possibility of introducing a variable vehicle excise duty instead of simply loading duty on to petrol and diesel prices. We could penalise the larger, more expensive, gas-guzzling cars and give those who own the smaller, more economical and environmentally friendly cars an easier ride when it comes to paying vehicle excise duty. That may be an alternative mechanism to increasing hydrocarbon oil duties.
  Tobacco duty has been increased. I accept fully that we must cut consumption. I am not one of those who believe that advertising bans have any part to play in cutting consumption. The evidence is that they do not do that. I accept that the price mechanism is one of the best ways of cutting consumption, but we must keep the level of taxation under careful review. Concern has been expressed that the elasticity of demand among the poorer sections of our community may mean that the signals are less effective and the reductions in consumption are proportionally smaller for every increase in price. I have received a large number of representations from local confectioners, tobacconists and newsagents who are worried about the effect on their trade. We need to consider that carefully in future Budgets.
  The principle of broadening the tax base should be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I had my own difficulties with the order that we discussed last week to impose VAT on transport, particularly as it might have affected steam railways. I was grateful to receive a parliamentary answer, which specified in pretty

  653
  clear terms that the Severn Valley railway would be exempt from the provisions. I am glad that the matter was largely resolved.
  My insurance broker is not terribly thrilled about the insurance premium tax, but I support the principle of broadening the tax base. I hope that it will lead to an overall reduction in the general level of taxes in due course.
  When the Government explained their proposal to impose VAT on certain new transport facilities within amusement parks and museums, they justified it as closing a loophole. The Finance Bill does precisely that. I am told that it closes some £1.5 billion worth of loopholes over three years. I am pleased that the Government have declined to close one loophole referred to by the shadow Chancellor. He suggested that vast amounts of money could be raised by closing the alleged loophole in executive share options.
  I was in the private sector before I came to the House. I twice benefited from modest executive share option schemes. On both occasions I paid income tax on the exercise of those options. I find it difficult to accept that executive share options are anything other than carefully defined by the Inland Revenue and effectively taxed, as I know to my personal cost. Some loophole.
  It is a good thing that the Finance Bill does not seek to deal with executive share options because I believe in the principle of broadening share ownership. I was fascinated to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who is just leaving the Chamber to hand his notes to Hansard, admit that he was opposed to the principle of share options. There, we may be getting nearer the truth about the Labour party's position on the issue. It opposes the principle. I believe that share options are a vital part of a vibrant capitalist economy. They should be extended to more and more of the work force. Not only the so-called fat cats in the boardrooms, but a large number of the work force in many British businesses benefit from share options.
  I would be pleased if the Labour party moved amendments in Committee on executive share options. It would enable Conservative Members to expose the shabby politics of envy which still dominate so much of the Labour party's thinking and which would be so destructive of incentives in our society and economy.
  I welcome clauses 82 to 86, which deal with capital allowances or roll-over relief for shipping. The House will be aware of my interest in shipping. I have been involved in the Chamber of Shipping for many years, both before I came to the House and since I joined it. I am regularly lobbied in my constituency by ratings and officers in the Merchant Navy about the importance of assisting that industry to reinvest and employ British seamen. It is a tribute to the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor that the provision for roll-over relief for shipping is in the Finance Bill. It would be a shame if the Government spoilt the shipping provision for a hap'orth of tar.
  I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of extending the shipping provision from three to five years. There would be no cost to the Exchequer in doing so, but it would bring the cycle of the shipping industry more into line with the taxation treatment of the industry and enable more effective investment in shipping to take place than the three-year provision would allow.
  654
  There are two central tests for this Finance Bill. Does it help business and does it boost employment? The answer to both questions is: yes it does. It will certainly maintain the growing confidence of the business community because of the economic conditions that it will support.
  I especially welcome the £600 million worth of transitional relief from business rates. I cannot say that I have received many letters of thanks from my business community for that aspect of the Bill, but I can imagine the letters that I would have received had it not been included. The Government are to be congratulated on that.
  I also welcome the variety of schemes to help small businesses. The hon. Member for Leith described the venture capital trust scheme as "a loophole". I see it as one of those vehicles to encourage investment that he called for and I welcome it. I know that the small business community also welcomes the creation of the scheme as well as other aspects of the Bill—especially the fact that more businesses can move to quarterly payments of their PAYE and national insurance contributions, which will make an enormous difference to their cash flow.
  It is no wonder that business welcomed the Budget. The president of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce said:
  "Measures to stimulate investment in growing companies are constructive and timely, and broadly in line with what the business community had been seeking. We believe this will lead to growth in the small firms sector. Coupled with the reduction in employers' NICs, we can look forward to continued job creation by small firms".
  That is a pretty effective vote of confidence for the Budget and its effects on business.
  The Finance Bill will also do much for the unemployed. I welcome some of the provisions, including the fact that employers who take on someone who has been unemployed for more than two years will no longer have to pay national insurance contributions for the first year, which will save about £300 per employee and will be a real incentive to employers to take on the long-term unemployed.
  I welcome the fact that employers' national insurance contributions will be cut by 0.6 per cent. for employees earning less than £205 a week. I also welcome the work trial and workstart schemes, which are both part of the package that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor presented in his Budget and will do much to assist the unemployed.
  What is the alternative to this Finance Bill? It is clear that Labour has no coherent alternative proposals for the House, apart from its tried and trusted formula of envy and taxation. We have heard time and again from Labour Members about windfall taxes and excess profit taxes. I robustly dispute the fact that those so-called excess and windfall profits exist to be taxed and it is not good enough merely to dismiss the subject, as the hon. Member for Leith just did. If the Opposition are right, such windfall taxes are by their very nature temporary, one-off gains to the Treasury. They could not be regular or part of a coherent strategy for the effective management of the British economy.
  I have already discussed executive share options. The shadow Chancellor tries to convey the impression that there is a pot of gold waiting there. Leaving aside the incentive for the work force and the inherent merit of such

  655
  share option schemes, which his proposals would undermine, the money that he thinks is there would not exist if his proposals were implemented.
  Higher personal taxation and income tax are the constant cry from the Labour party. We know from experience that cutting the higher rates of personal taxation does not lead to a net loss in revenue to the Treasury. By encouraging people, providing incentives and enabling some people to return to this country who had left for more favourable taxation climates, cutting the higher rate would not decrease total revenue to the Treasury. In one year, higher personal taxation might produce some extra gain, but in the long term it would be a disaster for the country and for the Exchequer.
  The Opposition's alternative to the Finance Bill is not a strategy, but a series of cheap debating points and sound bites. What does the Labour party do when it comes to taking decisions on measures such as the Finance Bill? It opposed all our major revenue-raising proposals and public expenditure savings yet, despite its best endeavours, it has made more and more spending commitments. That is a profoundly dishonest approach to politics. It is dishonest to oppose tax increases and public expenditure cuts, while proposing more commitments, without having a strategy to pay for them, and I worry about it.
  Labour Members say that they want to tax the undeserving rich. Who are they and how much money would such a tax raise, even if they existed? It is shades of Lord Healey's famous phrase, "making the pips squeak".
  I share concerns about increasing differentials in our society. There is a case for saying that some of the differentials are becoming too wide. One can learn that from events in other countries. There is a strong case for saying that the Iranian revolution had as much to do with concern about differentials as with Islamic fundamentalism. That is why some of the other emerging Islamic democracies, such as Tunisia, are taking robust steps to control excessive differentials.
  How does one cope with such differentials, which breed jealousy and can undermine the strength and fabric of our society? One does so not by taxing the rich harder and harder, but by encouraging enterprise and job creation. Unemployment makes people poor and the Conservative strategy for coping with it is robust and intellectually coherent, unlike that of the Labour party. Quick-fix solutions, such as the minimum wage, sound good and ease the conscience. I wish that they would work, but they would not. They would destroy jobs, increase poverty and increase the very differentials that the Opposition claim to be attacking. Job creation is the route to ending differentials and this Bill takes a number of very important steps to help build on the Government's fine record—one of the best records in Europe.
  On a local note, I am glad that one other measure that the Labour party wants is not in the Bill—some punitive measure for independent schools. Labour Members do not mind terribly what it is. It could be the abolition of charitable status, the imposition of value added tax on fees, or the abolition of the assisted places scheme—anything to try to get at the independent sector. I welcomed Labour's plans to tax independent education at Christmas. I welcomed the plans to abolish the assisted
  656
  places scheme. They are excellent news and will make my task in my constituency much easier, and I am grateful to Labour for that.
  A Front-Bench Opposition spokesman highlighted the fact only today that one school in my constituency derives more benefit from the assisted places scheme than any other independent school in the west midlands. The Opposition thought that that was terrible news, but I welcomed it. It is marvellous news and it means that that fine school can continue to offer a valuable and different—it is not necessarily better—education to many people in my constituency who would not otherwise be able to use it.
  I welcome it every time the Opposition talk about taxing independent schools. The more they trumpet their hostility to the independent sector, the more I like it. I hope that they will do so in Committee. I hope that they will table amendments to the Bill along those lines, as that would be good news for me and for my party.
  I cannot pretend that I like every aspect of the Bill. Unlike Labour Members, no Conservative likes to increase taxes, but the Finance Bill lies at the heart of a strategy for Britain's continuing economic revival. The measures in it will enable the Government to continue to deliver economic success and export-led growth—that miracle or chimera for which we were looking throughout my childhood and my days as an economics student at university. We have actually achieved the chimera of export-led growth at last. The Bill will underpin the achievement of that miracle. The country has chased it for decades and we must not throw it away now. The Bill will not do so and I commend it to the House.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: First, I must associate myself with the remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) made about my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson). I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) on his tribute to our new hon. Friend. The warmth and sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's tribute were much appreciated by Labour Members. His tribute was generous, sincere and good to hear and I certainly associate myself with the thanks for those remarks.
  It would have been much better if some of the Conservative Members who spoke after the hon. Member for Bridlington had been here to hear the candour and honesty with which he accepted the fact that the Budget increased the overall tax burden. It would have done Conservative Members good to hear that, because some of their speeches have not recognised the fact that the Government are increasing the overall tax burden. If there is any doubt about that, let me say that the Chief Secretary honestly admitted it at the Dispatch Box.
  Governments should do their best to take the people with them. In so doing, they must exhibit a sense of fairness and try to accommodate people as much as possible. People must not feel that they have been unfairly treated and that the Government are selfish, encourage greediness and do not care about people who are less well off. This Government's actions do not inculcate a sense of fairness and society does not regard them as fair.
  I am pleased that the Labour party has said that it will table new clauses to the Bill to give privatised industry regulators new powers to cut prices for millions, where a

  657
  regulator thinks that boardroom perks to the fat cats are excessive. I also support the action in subjecting executive share options to income tax. I agree fully with the full disclosure of top salaries, perks and payments in company boardrooms, including encouraging pension funds to vote at company meetings on those issues.
  I also support the demand that private companies declare donations to the Conservative party. Everyone knows that donations can be made to various organisations, which then donate them to the Conservative party. No one would deny that.
  I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). When I study Conservative Members and the political spectrum within their party—the so-called drys and wets—I sometimes think that the wets are not too bad, until I listen to one of them. They are every bit as vindictive, hard line and intolerant towards people who they think do not meet their standards as the others. There are no such thing as drys and wets in the Tory party. They are all the same—hard-line right wingers.
  The hon. Member for Worcester mentioned costing, and Conservative Members often cry, "Labour should cost its policies." I remind Conservative Members of Lord Howe's comments when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Conservative Government. He is always praised as having been a successful Chancellor. He said that only a fool in opposition would cost a programme, because only Governments see the books. I am amazed that Conservative Members ask us to cost what we would do when we are not in full possession of the facts in the books.
  One item in the Budget demonstrates the vindictiveness to which I referred: the freezing of the blind person's allowance was a petty action. I know a number of blind people. The Government's reputation for helping the handicapped is bad enough. What a petty, vindictive move it was to freeze the blind person's allowance.
  Conservative Members claim that theirs is a tax-cutting party. The so-called "tax bombshell" of which the Tories accused the Labour party at the 1992 election was effective, as many of my constituents have told me that they were afraid of that. I do not know how the Government can look us in the face and say that they did not deceive the public at that election, because the Budget increased the overall tax burden. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said, that does not include the mini-Budget, which raised the price of beer by 1p, wine by 5p a bottle, and spirits by 26p a bottle, as well as the price of cigarettes and petrol.
  Although that is a more balanced approach to a Budget, it increases the ordinary family's tax burden. I shall not forget the sight of the Chief Secretary at the Dispatch Box defending the Government to the hilt and saying that the Budget would increase the household tax burden by only £2.30. Baroness Thatcher would be shocked to hear a Conservative Minister plead at the Dispatch Box that the Government were raising taxes by only £2.30. What a comedown for the Conservative party.
  Mr. Aitken: It is true that, in 1995, taxation for the average family will rise by £2.30 a week. Even after taking that increase into account, 1995 is also the year in which households' real disposable incomes will rise by £5 a week, so the hon. Gentleman should present both sides of the picture fairly. His constituents in Glasgow,
  658
  Rutherglen will have more real disposable income even after the tax increases introduced in the Budget before last.
  Mr. McAvoy: Although the Government claim that they have reduced direct taxes—we can all trot out the figures on that—since 1979 the overall tax take from all sources has increased under the Conservative Government. There can be no dispute about that if all indirect taxes are taken into account.
  I am aware of the constraints of time and, despite the fact that I have been sitting in the Chamber for five and a half hours, I shall be considerate towards other colleagues.
  I often hear Ministers mention the word "prudent". Since 1979, the proceeds of privatisation have amounted to £77 billion, which has been completely wasted on dole money and all sorts of other giveaways to chief executives of privatised industries. The wasted revenue from oil and the money spent on dole payments are an absolute disgrace.
  When I hear the word "probity", I think of a subject which I mentioned earlier—Health Care International, which is the private hospital on Clydebank. The figures vary, but between £15 million and £30 million of public money—or, as the hon. Member for Worcester would say, taxpayers' money—was completely wasted in that private hospital project. To compound the matter, we have now heard that the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering giving another £4 million to whichever company takes over that hospital, which has already cost taxpayers billions of pounds. The Chief Secretary was incautious enough to say that that was a misjudgment by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I doubt whether the Secretary of State for Scotland accepts that, and it will be interesting to see his reaction.
  If money were freely available and the Government were a success, there would be no problem. I speak only for my constituency, where I am currently fighting the proposed closure of a maternity hospital that is only 15 years old. It is a brand new hospital with top technology, fantastic staff and a great record, but the Greater Glasgow health board proposes to close it. The driving reason behind its proposal is cost.
  Like other hon. Members, I do not recognise the rosy picture that Conservative Members paint, nor do I see a recovery coming.. Roll on the next general election, when the Conservatives will pay the price.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Stephen Timms: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I add my congratulations to those that have already been expressed on both sides of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) on his thoughtful maiden speech. I must express some surprise at the considerable influence that is apparently wielded among Conservative Back Benchers by the British Amusement Catering Trades Association. I shall be interested to see how that influence is reflected in what happens in Committee.
  I should like to consider the fairness of the Government's tax policies—not just those proposed in the Bill but those pursued throughout the past 15 years. It is time for a radical change of direction. My greatest anxiety is shared by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), who drew attention to the widening chasm between the

  659
  best-off in our society and everyone else. That chasm is due largely to the taxation policies that have been applied in the past 15 years. We cannot allow it to continue to get wider.
  In 1979, the percentage of income paid in tax by the best-off 20 per cent. was 38 per cent. whereas the worst-off 20 per cent. paid 31 per cent. of their income in tax. Those proportions have now been more or less reversed, because by 1992—things have gone somewhat further since then—the top 20 per cent. were paying just 34 per cent. of their income in tax whereas the worst-off 20 per cent. were paying 39 per cent. of their income in tax. The worst-off were paying a significantly higher share of their total income in tax. I do not see how that can be defended. The gap is getting wider, because the income of the poorest 10 per cent. is less in real terms than it was in 1979.
  According to the Department of Social Security's study of households on below average income, the real income of the bottom tenth in Britain dropped by 17 per cent. between 1979 and 1991–92. The explanation for that and the other changes that have occurred rests with the tax cuts in the 1980s, which benefited the highest earners, while the tax increases of the past few years have hit those on low and middle incomes. The two sets of tax changes have, affected different groups—tax cuts affected the best-off whereas tax increases affected the worst-off. That has caused the difficulties.
  A survey of the tax winners and losers under the Government was published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in February 1994—perhaps it is the most authoritative source on the subject. It concluded:
  "The tax rises which will come into effect in the next two years will reverse many of the tax reductions of the late 1980s. But those who gained from the cuts of the 1990s are not the same people as those who will lose from the increases of the early 1990s.
  The total impact … will be to make the tax system less progressive. The rich will tend to have gained, the poor to have lost."
  The impact on an average family with one average income and two children and a mortgage is such that, in 1979, that family was paying 32.2 per cent. of its earnings in taxes, but following the Budget it will pay 35.6 per cent. That is what is so dreadful, because the tax burden has gone up and the money has overwhelmingly been taken from the least-well-off.
  People living in constituencies such as mine have been doubly hit in the past couple of years, because they have paid over the odds in tax increases and have been at the sharp end of the spending cuts. The cut in housing association investment programmes will be a particularly heavy blow to my constituents.
  Fifteen years ago, the Conservative party took the view that it could afford to ignore the interests of people living in constituencies like mine and shift more and more of the tax burden on to them. What is now becoming clear, not just to me and my hon. Friends but more widely, is the scale of the damage that has been inflicted on the community in which we live—the one nation of which we are all part, willingly or not.
  Much of the problem is due to the shift from direct to indirect taxation. There is a growing school of economic criticism of indirect taxation and few economists now accept that indirect taxation increases have less of a disincentive effect than direct taxation increases. Increases
  660
  in indirect taxation hammer families and the Government must recognise that their effect is deeply damaging. According to the economic trends survey of last year, Britain is unique among the G7 countries because it is the most heavily dependent on indirect taxation as a share of the total tax take.
  The effects of such tax changes are particularly grim when set alongside the well-publicised excesses enjoyed by the people at the top of the privatised utilities in particular. It is hard for people to understand how those who were attracted to senior positions in the gas or water industries at salaries of between £60,000 and £80,000 a year now have to be paid three to five times more because that is what they need in order to be kept by those industries. Why were they not paid those sums prior to privatisation? Why did they not move then to jobs that paid those salaries? The reality is that once people have the power to award themselves enormous sums of money, that is exactly what they will do. The market does not enter into it. Those salaries are the result of the straightforward operation of unfettered greed and are not mitigated by the somewhat unctuous justifications that are made by the beneficiaries.
  I am glad that the Confederation of British Industry is considering such high salaries, but I must express an element of scepticism when, as we have been told today, an investigation into that subject is to be carried out by someone who is paid more than £750,000 a year. My constituents and I are concerned that the rules are being made either by those who already receive high salaries or for their benefit. That is wrong.
  The taxation policies of the past 15 years have been in hock to wealthy people. They have been able to demand tax cuts for themselves at the expense of everyone else. The damage to our communities, the effect in terms of social alienation, division, crime, economic inefficiency and waste, and the growth of dependence on benefits have been immense. We desperately need a new approach that places justice and fairness at the heart of the system in place of avarice; only then will we start to see a healing of the obvious damage all around us today.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to colleagues on both sides of the House for not being present throughout the debate. I am unfortunately suffering from a nasty bout of' flu which seems to doing the rounds on the Isle of Wight. I should also declare that in the Register of Members' Interests I state that I advise the National Association of Holiday Centres.
  The Finance Bills of the past couple of years have followed an amalgamated Budget and have been coupled with the announcement of a control total for public expenditure. I commend my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on the way in which he has ensured that public expenditure has fitted in with that control total. Long before I came to the House it always puzzled me how it was possible for every other organisation in Britain to fix its expenditure and its revenue raising, except Her Majesty's Government. If one revolution has befallen the Treasury in recent years that will be to the benefit of all the citizens of our nation and lead to sounder finance in future, it is the amalgamation of expenditure and taxation Budgets and the new control total arrangements.

  661
  I was pleased to note that at long last we are to try to tackle benefit fraud by electronic means. That is long overdue; all of us who represent seaside constituencies know about the "green giro culture". The number of times that girocheques go missing in the lodging house system is a serious problem. There must be a better way of ensuring that public expenditure, where it is necessary, gets through to the individual claimants and is not misused, as has been the case with the existing system.
  I am also especially pleased to note that £600 million more is to be spent on the national health service, having been released through efficiency savings in the health service, and that the Government have honoured the election pledge to ensure that there is real growth in health expenditure.
  I wish to make specific mention of the first year's full national insurance rebate to employers for taking on anyone who has been unemployed for more than two years, which will be introduced in April 1996. I and Mr. David Guy, then acting chairman of the Isle of Wight training and enterprise council, visited my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) shortly after he had become Secretary of State for Employment and made that very proposal to him. Although we did not frame the proposal in precisely the details in which it is now set out, we suggested to my right hon. Friend that an opportunity existed to give a financial incentive to employers to take long-term unemployed people off the unemployment register. We presented him with a well worked out scheme. I am sure that the measure was not solely the initiative of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight or David Guy, although he is a respected and knowledgeable local business man, but I am pleased that we played a small part in suggesting it at an early stage. I am also pleased that there will be a back to work bonus, which will be tax free, and I am sure that it will be very worth while in trying to tackle the significant problem that we have as a nation—the core of long-term unemployment.
  With regard to vehicle excise duty, and the consultation paper to be issued in relation to its extension to the possession of vehicles rather than only those that are on the highway, it has long been a practice in this country that people sometimes license their vehicles for the summer only, for their runs to the seaside and days out, and lay them up in winter. It has always been the law that, provided that they are not on the Queen's highway, people do not have to purchase a vehicle excise duty licence for their vehicles. I am also amazed to find how many people in this country own a second vehicle, which is not regularly taxed and used on the highway. I have had considerable correspondence from my constituents about that, and I warn my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that we are playing with fire on that issue.
  It might be much more sensible if we went down the Swiss route and each had our own personal licence plates, which we carried with us from vehicle to vehicle, rather than persisting in the present rather outmoded form of taxation, if I may so describe it, which is incredibly costly to administer and falls into the category of unenforceable legislation along with dog licences and television licences. We have done away with the first of those, and the time is long overdue to reform the remaining two, which are also more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Anyone who doubts that has only to consider the amount of money that the Treasury took in during one of our
  662
  famous petrol energy crises and one had to produce a vehicle logbook with a current licence to obtain one's petrol rationing cards. The Treasury immediately took in a staggering amount of money—I believe that it was nearly £0.5 billion. I stand to be corrected on the ex act figure, but it was certainly an extraordinary amount of money.
  As we speak, our constituents throughout the United Kingdom are receiving the new rating valuations from the rating officer. I was pleased to note that transitional relief is continuing. I referred to that in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury long before the revaluation. However, I must tell him that, remarkably, after one of the most bruising recessions that British industry and business have ever experienced, some of the valuations are substantially greater than the previous figures. I hope to meet the Minister's colleague to discuss that matter as I wonder what is going on.
  Having had the honour, albeit briefly, to be Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, I can say that we look forward to the landfill levy. The Treasury cannot bring itself to call it a levy—it is a landfill tax. As always, the new tax brings with it a danger, and we shall have to keep a wary eye out for fly tipping in the countryside.
  I am pleased, both personally and for the venture capital industry, that we have extended reinvestment relief and taken away the nonsense about the percentage of property ownership within the qualifying companies. That is welcome, but the scheme has not had nearly enough publicity. I do not think that people, particularly small business men, understand that they can sell their businesses and not pay one ha'penny of capital gains tax. The message has not got through. Even some accountants do not seem fully to understand the mechanism, which will be extended by the Finance Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will address that point in due course. We shall also shortly see self-assessment—itself a revolution in taxation in this country.
  My final subject, which falls within schedule 3, has already been mentioned—that of amusement machines. That provision fulfils Field's first and second laws of legislation. Field's first law of legislation is that all legislation comes long after the event and long after the concern has passed into the mists of time. The fact that video games have only just penetrated the consciousness of the Treasury exactly fulfils my first law of legislation.
  Field's second law of legislation is that all legislation has absolutely the opposite effect of that intended. The taxation of video game machines will ensure that they are driven out of the amusement arcades along our seafronts. They will be replaced by more gaming machines—exactly the concern that people have about amusement arcades and their influence on young people. The effect will thus be the reverse of that intended. I have to declare an interest in that I have a space invader machine in my living room as I was a bit of an addict in my day.
  Mr. Roy Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of the proposed taxation system on video machines may not yield the revenue that the Treasury has predicted? Video machines are reputed not to produce sufficient funds to justify their continued existence, which may lead to their removal by many operators and therefore to the yield being substantially less than that anticipated by my right hon. Friend the

  663
  Chief Secretary. Does my hon. Friend think, therefore, that there is a case for reinvestigating that subject to see whether it would be appropriate to ease the taxation to ensure that it is set at a level which is justifiable and yields the expected sums?
  Mr. Field: Not only was that intervention timely, but it comes from a former chairman of the Association of District Councils and distinguished leader of Bournemouth council, which was one of the first seaside authorities in the United Kingdom to put specialist meters on the machines in its amusement arcades so that the authority could prove to the Customs and Excise precisely how much money the machines were generating. That was a revolution in the arcade industry at the time and one or two people who were taking a couple of shillings out of the back of the machines thought that it would be their undoing. It illustrates the point that a local authority in the United Kingdom has the information to prove to the Customs and Excise, and therefore the Treasury, just how little some of the machines yield. My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point when he says that the provision may have the opposite effect to that intended.
  I conclude by quoting the National Association of Holiday Centres Ltd, which includes Butlin's and similar organisations. It said:
  "The new tax will have a devastating effect on the industry reducing significantly the number of amusement machines sited in such places as amusement arcades, holiday and caravan parks, indeed putting some out of business. Far from generating the revenue for the Exchequer we believe the overall effect will be to reduce revenues taking into account loss of expected duty and existing VAT from machines sited, loss of corporation tax, PAYE and NI contributions from those companies making redundancies or going out of business and loss of duty on machines imported into this country".
  I point out that most of our resorts do not open all year round—they are fairly short-term operations. As knowledgeable as he is, I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend believes that United Kingdom resorts have done so well that they need a tax of this sort in the current economic climate and as they come out of recession.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: Like the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), I apologise for my absence during most of the debate today. Unlike him, my absence was due to attending to other parliamentary duties. I thank the hon. Gentleman for keeping his speech to a reasonable length. I also thank my two hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), who spoke before him, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Whips for enabling me to make a short contribution to the debate.
  When I spoke in the Budget debate, the Chief Secretary, who is in the Chamber, was kind enough to say that he thought that I had made a good speech, but that it was a little too long. I cannot guarantee the quality of my speech tonight, but I can assure the Minister that he will be well satisfied with the quantity.
  I wish to speak, more in sadness than in anger on this occasion, about only one subject: something is missing from the Budget, as it has been missing from the previous
  664
  three. The Government have not addressed the anomaly of charities being unable to redeem value added tax payments. That is a quite serious problem.
  Like many other people, I would like to live in a world where charities were not necessary. That would be wonderful, but it is never likely to happen. Indeed, the Government's policies have increased the pressure on charities that are subsidising services which should be provided by the state. Under those circumstances, I expected the Government to show a little more sympathy when considering the needs of charities.
  More than £300 million in VAT payments is collected—wrongly, in my view—from charities each year. Charities do not make profits; they provide services. They exist only because people are prepared to give either of their money or of their time. It is wrong that people who take a Christian attitude towards life should find themselves unwitting tax collectors for the Government. That is morally wrong, and I hope that the Government will address that issue in Committee.
  The services provided by charities are either exempt according to European Union legislation, or they fall outside the scope of VAT; yet we have a ridiculous situation whereby VAT is still being collected. At best, that could be described as a form of robbery.
  What is worse is that local authorities, health authorities, boards and trusts that provide contracted-out services can receive full recovery of VAT upon their services. Obviously, that is wrong. What applies for local authorities and health authorities should apply for charities, because there are many parallels.
  I accept that not all charities are what they seem. I believe that some charities are little more than extensions of certain vested interests. But that is a discussion for another time and place. The vast majority of charities—those which provide services for the disabled, the poor, the old and the disadvantaged—are admirable. As long as they are needed, they should receive preferential treatment, not inferior treatment from the Government. Up to 10 per cent. of what is collected by charities to carry out good works is being lost in VAT that is not recoverable. That is totally unacceptable, particularly at a time when there is no real increase in the amount of money being given to charities, and more pressure is being put upon them because of various constraints on public expenditure and local authorities and the NHS being unable to provide services. I hope that the matter will be examined more seriously. If people eventually decide not to give their time or money to charities, the taxpayer will have to pay much more.
  On 11 January, the House debated VAT on historic tramways and railways. I hope that it is muddled thinking on the part of the Government and nothing worse, but they are completely out of step with reality in their attitude towards VAT and those involved in providing charitable services.
  Mr. Thomason: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how he would seek to differentiate between the trading activities of charities, which are in direct competition with others who are paying VAT, and the non-trading activities of charities for which he would argue that relief was appropriate?
  Mr. Etherington: I am not trying to avoid the question, but I am short of time. I accept that the hon. Gentleman

  665
  raises a fair point. My answer is that I would do that with some difficulty. It is a problem, just as it is difficult to decide what is a bona fide charity on moral grounds rather than on strict legal terms. I cannot say much more than that. I agree that the problem needs to be addressed, but it could be overcome if the will were there.
  It was originally the intention to put VAT on private railways, almost all of which are based on a charitable concept. They are not profit-making organisations; they provide a service and keep part of our heritage intact. The national tramway museum at Crich is a national asset and should be paid for by the Government, but it is not. Because of their muddled thinking on VAT, the museum will have to find an extra £35,000 a year. If it were a railway and not a museum, or if it did not provide rides on trams, it would not have that problem.
  It is all part of the same muddled thinking. I wish to bring it to the Minister's attention to see whether some of the problems can be put right. We are not talking about vast sums of money. Relief from VAT for charities will not bankrupt the country. After the recent fiasco on VAT, one prominent Minister stated that it required only another 1p on income tax. I admired him for saying that. We are talking about a problem that is nothing like as large, but probably could be dealt with by consequential adjustment.
  I hope that the Minister will take on board the two points that I have raised and I thank you once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your tolerance.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) for being brief, and to other hon. Members who have curtailed their remarks so that all those who wished to contribute to the debate were able to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North made some useful points about charities, to which we will return in Committee.
  The Finance Bill should be the cornerstone of the Government's economic and, therefore, political strategy and we are entitled to examine it to see where they are going and to identify their sense of direction and purpose—if they have one any more. We look in vain, because the debate has told us what the Opposition already suspected—that the Government have only one objective: to win the next election at whatever cost. All their efforts will go into promoting the interests of the Conservative party; the interests of the country will take second place every time. It is a short-term aim from a short-term Government and their policy is what we have now come to expect.
  Conservative Members believe still that all they need do is cut the basic rate of income tax and they will win. That will not work. The Conservatives fought the 1992 general election on the specific pledge not to introduce in last November's Budget tax rises equivalent to 7p in the pound—the biggest in Britain's history.
  At the last election, the Government promised that they would not have to increase taxes. Until last autumn, the Chancellor told us that whatever he said on a wet night in Dudley did not matter. In December, he got a resounding answer from the people of Dudley. This afternoon, we heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the new Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson), who not only paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Dr. John
  666
  Blackburn, but showed that he has a substantial knowledge of business—a knowledge sadly lacking among a number of Conservative Members. I am glad that my hon. Friend has agreed to serve on the Committee that is to consider the Bill.
  As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, at a Conservative party event hosted at public expense at Downing street, all the Government's efforts are geared to 1996. Even their limited help for the long-term unemployed will not come into play until April 1996, because the Government want a drop in unemployment in the summer of that year—not in the summer of 1995, when the public might forget all about it. The needs of the long-term unemployed take second place to the cynical needs of the Tory electoral cycle. This tired and discredited Government have only one card left to play—cutting the basic rate of income tax by a few pence regardless of the consequences. That will not work either, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said.
  Let us examine some of the killer facts about which we have heard so much. Where better to start than the Maples report prepared by the deputy chairman of the Tory party. He said that
  "the reality is now that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest, who are getting poorer."s
  Reference to that growing division was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms). The killer facts about tax are simple and well understood. Killer fact No. 1 is that the British people have been landed with the biggest tax increase in Britain's history, equivalent to 7p in the pound, and that they pay value added tax on domestic fuel for the first time ever. The public will remember that the Conservatives threatened to increase that tax to 17.5 per cent. At the next general election, the public will have every reason to believe that if the Conservatives are returned to power, they will increase VAT again.
  It is no use the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend)—who is not in his place—moaning, as he does regularly, about the Government's tendency to increase tax and their failure to curtail public spending, because it is at the same level now as 16 years ago. The Tories never have been and are not the party of low tax. They tax for the wrong reason—economic failure.
  Killer fact No. 2 is that families pay more of their income in tax than at any time since the Conservatives first came to power in 1979, and they will have to pay more yet again from April.
  Killer fact No. 3 is that public spending is the same now as in 1979. The Secretary of State for Wales complained about that two weekends ago, yet he does not seem to realise that he has been supporting a Government who have not kept even that foolish promise made 16 years ago—all that from a Government who said that they would not increase taxes because they had no need to do so.
  The gap between the highest and lowest-paid worker is greater than at any time since records began in 1886. Unfairness is a hallmark of Tory tax policy. For all the criticisms that we hear from Conservative Members about a minimum wage, Government policy means that the taxpayer is subsidising bad employers. We pay for that, and there can never be any justification for it. The Government believe that there is no floor below which wages should not be allowed to fall.

  667
  No wonder the Maples report stated:
  "There is a feeling of powerlessness and insecurity about jobs, housing, health service, business, family values and crime."
  If the Tories plan a giveaway Budget in 1995, they will be quite prepared to increase interest rates before that to calm the markets. The markets remember the inflationary effects of the Lawson boom that started in 1988.
  The Chancellor, as is his wont, was disarmingly frank during the Budget debates towards the end of last year because he made it clear that decisions on interest rate rises would, among other things, depend on political considerations. There we have it. Despite all the talk of openness, of monetary responsibility and of publishing minutes and so on, at the end of the day, there is only one objective: Tory electoral gain.
  The Governor's advice on interest rates will be swept aside—that may please my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)—if it stands in the way of the Tory election strategy. The Chancellor has made it clear that he is quite prepared to do that because the Government have no strategy for the country. Their only strategy is self-interest.
  The Government have no strategy for investment. Of course the economy is beginning to recover, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said, 'people have yet to feel it. That is because the United Kingdom had the deepest recession of any European country in 1991 and 1992, which is why the UK's growth in the past couple of years has been stronger than it may otherwise have been—not because, somehow, the Conservatives have managed to manage the economy more effectively. It is because we are emerging from the deepest recession that we have experienced.
  When one considers the Tory record over 16 years, one sees that we have had the lowest growth rate of any major European country in G7 and we still have the fear of inflation. Those Conservative Members who claim that we live in a climate of low inflation and that somehow it is here to stay do not realise that there is a very real risk that inflation will start to rise as the capacity of the economy is used up because the Government have run down the manufacturing capacity of the economy over the past 15 or 16 years.
  Let us look at two more Maples killer facts. Output is now only 2.5 per cent. higher than it was before the recession began. Manufacturing output is still lower than it was at the beginning of 1990. Investment in plant and machinery, a key indicator, is 30 per cent. lower than at the start of 1990.
  What do the Government have to offer? In his speech, the Chief Secretary made a lot about tax loopholes and he claimed that the Chancellor was attempting to close some tax loopholes in his Budget. Indeed, the Chancellor closed some tax loopholes, just three weeks after the same Chief Secretary said that there were no tax loopholes to close. The fact is that there are tax loopholes to close if the Government choose to close them.
  Let us look at the flagship policy of the Budget—it must have been the flagship policy because it was the only policy which warranted a separate press release on the day of the Budget—which was the proposal to establish venture capital trusts: son of the discredited business expansion scheme, the granny farmers charter. Savings
  668
  should be encouraged because, without them, there will be no money for investment. But, if the Government are going to intervene to use taxpayers' money to encourage saving and investment, they should do it properly and effectively.
  Venture capital trusts will provide one of the biggest tax breaks that this country has ever seen. They will enable people, as has been said, to avoid paying tax, yet there is no guarantee that the investment will go where it is needed. Indeed, it is likely—all the experts and advisers say this—that it will go to the easy options, to the places where the investment would have gone anyway, regardless of any incentive. We the taxpayers will subsidise the granny farmers of this country. The hon. Member for Bridlington called it tax concessions. I do not care whether he calls it concessions or tax breaks; the fact is that we will pay for it.
  The Government's profligacy on tax relief beggars belief. Why, for example, did not they try to target that investment? They could have considered corporate venture capital trusts, which might have encouraged private investment and partnership with public money in rebuilding infrastructure or encouraged investment in high technology or in the high-risk areas that the country needs. No mention was made, for example, of regional development, which we think is so important. The Government's first thought was not for investment in the public interest but for those who want to avoid paying tax.
  We shall table amendments to ensure that investment goes where it is needed—into areas where there is a risk, the very areas in which Britain should be competing. Indeed, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) mentioned a proposal to taper capital gains tax to encourage long-term attitudes. We suggested that and we support it, yet we see nothing.
  What about the Government's private finance initiative? It seems to have run into the sand. Since the initiative was announced in 1992, only £500,000 of private capital has been levered into public sector projects. At the same time, however, Government investment is expected to be £4.5 billion lower than in the past two financial years. In other words, there is a cut in investment. In his Budget statement last autumn, the Chancellor announced reductions in capital expenditure, particularly in housing and road building. Rail investment, about which we have heard so much, has already been cut.
  The Government do not understand how to use incentives in the public interest, but they have a very sympathetic ear for those who are ready to exploit every incentive for private gain. They continue to turn a blind eye to the activities of a greedy minority of executives who insist on paying themselves more for doing less.
  The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) said that all that was happening in the privatised utilities—in the gas and electricity industries—was that people were bringing themselves up to world standards. When services come up to world standards and prices come down to world standards, those people can begin to consider paying themselves for effort. However, when we consider that the salary of the chairman of North West Water has risen 571 per cent., we wonder how on earth the Government can justify such figures.
  We welcome the CBI initiative to set up a working party to encourage better corporate governance. Effective corporate governance might be the best way to resolve the problem. We believe that those who work hard, and the

  669
  companies that grow, should be rewarded for their efforts provided that it is quite clear that they are being rewarded for increased effort and increased productivity. We believe that employees should be rewarded by share options, provided that those share options are earned and not simply given as a super-bonus. Those rewards should be available from the boardroom to the shop floor.
  It is typical of this Government that when the Institute of Directors, which is not normally an ally of the Labour party, the CBI and the Labour party call for action, the Government do absolutely nothing. What has happened to the Cabinet sub-committee that was set up to deal with that matter? It has still to report, but perhaps it has been wound up. Lord Hanson said that the dividend study set up by the previous Financial Secretary should be stopped; perhaps Lord Hanson has told the Prime Minister to stop the current exercise as well. Perhaps rather too many Ministers intend to sit in those same boardrooms and claim the bloated salaries and share options that we have seen in the privatised utilities.
  The Government have no strategy for growth. Let us consider another killer fact: the United Kingdom's growth record since 1979 is poor. It is lower than any other major European country or G7 country. What are the Government proposing? They do not propose to invest in education. Is it not ridiculous that, when we have 3 million unemployed people, we have skill shortages, which mean that inflationary pay increases are given to some while others go without work?
  Cuts in local government spending will undoubtedly mean cuts in education and in the number of teachers in schools. The hon. Member for Bridlington should bear that in mind. We will see savage cuts in local authority spending, of which the Government will wash their hands.
  That is no way in which to invest in the future. Without growth, public spending will never be reduced. The fact that we have high unemployment is one reason why Government borrowing has been so substantial.
  The Government's competition policy is equally blinkered and confused. Mention has been made of the tax consequences on the brewing and whisky industries, which are major employers and major revenue earners for this country. The illegal importation of drink and the bootleg trade are flourishing, yet the Government have cut the number of people employed in Customs and Excise.
  The Government talk about deregulation, but the Bill proposes to extend vehicle excise duty in a way that will strangle businesses in red tape. The proposals for self-assessment of tax, which we welcome in principle, appear to be drowning in volumes of paperwork and confusion. If the proposals simplify matters, then all to the good. However, with confusion and uncertainty will come scope for evasion.
  People will also make honest mistakes. There seems to be no procedure for resolving those mistakes and misunderstandings. We need simply look at the forms in circulation from the Department of Social Security to see the complications that the Government have managed to create for people.
  I hope that the Government will take to heart hon. Members' criticisms about the need to try to simplify future Finance Bills. Much legislation that is now going through Parliament has not been sufficiently scrutinised simply because of the volume of it and the lack of time available.
  670
  The Government have no realistic strategy for the country. They should know that we cannot compete in this world on low wages and low skills. We can compete on excellence and on goods that offer added value. The financial services industry pays well and it competes around the globe, as do the car manufacturing and electronics industries. Inward investors are looking for motivated and skilled work forces. We will not have them by driving down wages and depending heavily on casual labour. To succeed, we need a highly motivated and highly skilled work force.
  The Government have no policy for maintaining the social fabric of this country. They are keen to lecture others on their behaviour and they are keen to lament falling standards, yet they turn a blind eye to the consequences of their policies over the past 16 years.
  We believe that economic efficiency and social justice go hand in hand. We all live in the same society—what happens to our neighbour matters in social and economic terms—yet, in the past two weeks, the Secretaries of State for Social Security, for Employment and for Wales, all of whom increasingly appear to see this country from a different planet, have been repeating their message that, in order to succeed, expectations must be suppressed, standards must fall and society and the idea of it must be denigrated. They say that people are no different from any other commodity at the disposal of the market.
  It is no wonder, therefore, that most people see the Government as out of touch with reality and their own experience of life. We see that in the Government's attitude to helping those who have lost their jobs and who cannot pay their mortgages. They do not seem to realise the cost of insuring mortgage repayments and the fact that, increasingly, insurers will either not insure people or will demand premiums that are out of the reach of ordinary people.
  We see the same blinkered attitude with the proposal to use the tenant as the battering ram against high rents. It will take more than a small reduction in the basic rate of tax to win back support for the Government. People are uncertain and fearful; they fear for their jobs. Everyone knows someone who has lost his or her job and who has little prospect of finding another. We have a new generation of young people who have never known a long-term, steady job in their lives. Sadly, it appears that, under the Government, they never will.
  We see a new phenomenon of people in middle management who have been laid off in their 40s and who are unlikely ever again to find a full-time job. We know the consequences of that not just in social tension but in economic terms and what it will mean in terms of pension contributions and support that might be necessary in future. People fear for their jobs. They see full-time jobs become part-time jobs, or even no job at all. They fear for their pensions and security in their old age. They fear for their children and for their education. Increasingly, people fear for their safety at home. Nearly everyone now knows somebody who has been a victim of crime.
  People see Cabinet Ministers who regard the country as a test bed for ever more unpleasant and fanciful ideology. They see a country that is increasingly run by a rotten state of quangos stuffed with Tory nominees. They do not trust the Government. They do not believe anything that the Government say and, deep down, the Government and their supporters now know that. The Government have no sense of direction. They have no

  671
  purpose in remaining in office. They live for the moment, and they have run out of steam. The Finance Bill shows that, and it deserves to be rejected.
  9.38 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): Much has already been written and spoken about this year's Finance Bill. Perhaps the most cryptic comment was that of a tax partner reported in The Daily Telegraph of 7 January, who commented:
  "the Bill is too long but also too short."
  Another tax partner was even blunter:
  "I opened the Bill, blinked, and shut it. Then I looked again and saw clause 3 which was about alcoholic ingredients relief. Clause 4 was about denatured alcohol. At that point I decided what was needed and disappeared."
  Hon. Members have added their own comments in today's debate, and I shall try to deal with some of them, but the debate has also been useful in highlighting specific issues on which I am sure that the Standing Committee will want to focus.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) started by saying that the Bill was damaging and divisive, but his speech did not sustain that remark. He mentioned two issues and I want to deal with both. The first was the blind person's allowance, but what he did not mention was that it was doubled in 1990–91 from £540 to £1,080 and then further increased to £1,200 in 1994–95.
  Before the hon. Gentleman presses us to far on that allowance, he might like to reflect on the fact that it is of no benefit to blind people whose incomes are not high enough. It is also somewhat restrictive in that it does not help the partially sighted. There may be better ways to help the blind and partially sighted than focusing exclusively on the blind person's allowance. It is more conventional to use the social security system to help people with that sort of disability.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point was on the impact of the deep discount provisions in clauses 76 and 77. He conceded that there were good grounds for closing the loophole, but he was worried about the impact on housing associations. I have received and am carefully considering representations from housing associations whose borrowing is a very small percentage of the borrowing that will be affected by the clauses.
  I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of simplifying the tax system; indeed, that has been a theme throughout the debate and I shall say a word or two about that in a moment. He was wrong in what he said about those who did not want to go the whole distance with self-assessment. They have the option of not calculating the liability and instead completing their tax returns broadly as they do at the moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) again spoke about the complexity of legislation. One significant development in that area is the formation of a high-level committee—the tax law review committee—by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. That committee brings together a wide range of talent, with members drawn from industry, commerce, academia, the judiciary and retired civil servants, under the presidency of Lord Howe but with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) also a member.
  672
  The committee has set itself an initial programme of three projects all going to the very structural foundations of the present tax code. Perhaps of most relevance to our debate is its project to rewrite part of the existing code in shorter, simpler, more user-friendly terms. That is designed to test whether it would be feasible to recast all or most of the current tax code in that way. The Government are following that work with close interest and the Inland Revenue is giving the committee its full, active and enthusiastic support.
  I do not think that there are any easy answers. It has taken more than 100 years to build up the existing body of tax law and any wide-ranging rewrite will be a major task. However, I hope that there is real potential for some worthwhile changes in the way that tax provisions are formulated.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made a rather nostalgic speech. He spoke of the good old days of fine tuning, domestic credit expansion and monetarism. He needs to reflect on the outcome of those policies, especially those that ended in 1979, compared with the policies that were so commendably described by the Select Committee in its report published a few days ago.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I simply made the point that we were still in the era of fine tuning. Every month, the Chancellor sits with the Governor of the Bank of England fine-tuning the British economy.
  Sir George Young: Another point on which the right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate was when he said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor had handed over control to the Governor of the Bank of England. He has not—my right hon. and learned Friend makes the decisions. However, it is now a much more open process than previously and the Governor has some discretion on timing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and others of my hon. Friends referred to capital gains tax and pressed the case for reform. With a Budget that is broadly neutral there would be difficulties in making a major radical change in CGT. My hon. Friends should remember that CGT performs an essential role in preventing tax avoidance. Without it, or even with it at a very low rate, there would be a strong incentive for artificial schemes to convert income into capital gains. The CGT rate is 40 per cent., in line with the higher rate of income tax. There is no significant anomaly in that.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that the tax level was too high, but he made no real suggestion on how he would make significant cuts in public expenditure. He can examine the Government's hospitality expenditure, but there are no major savings to be made there. He said that he would vote against the Government because of—in his words—their failed economic policies. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the following words? It is stated that
  "the economy is now recovering strongly. Inflation is at its lowest level since the 1960s, and relatively stable. The PSBR is falling and there has been a substantial improvement in the current account. GDP has been growing above its trend rate for over a year, and is forecast to continue to do so for some time without exerting upward pressure on prices. Registered unemployment has been falling since the winter of 1992–93."

  673
  The quote is from the third report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. The hon. Gentleman added his name to that report. It is difficult to understand how he sustains the argument that a week ago it was all so good but somehow today it is all so bad.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) paid tribute to the small business measures in the Bill. He rightly made the point that the shape of the recovery is different from that of other recoveries in that it is investment and export led.
  We then had the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson). He paid a generous tribute to John Blackburn which was well received by hon. Members on both sides of the House. He described the changing demographic and industrial nature of his constituency. A few years ago, I worked with the hon. Gentleman on the urban trust, which helped to fund small, worthwhile projects in inner cities.
  It was clear from the hon. Gentleman's speech that he retains an interest in the promotion of small businesses. I do not want to cause him any difficulties on the occasion of his maiden speech, but the tone of his description of venture capital trusts was significantly different from that of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central. The hon. Member for Dudley, West said that he welcomed the purpose behind the establishment of VCTs. One would not expect him in his maiden speech to launch a frontal attack on his Front-Bench spokesman, but he has some useful ideas on the role of tax incentives in promoting business and partnerships. We would welcome him if he were to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill.
  Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is being a little bit unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson). All of us welcome the idea of encouraging investment and of saving. Our complaint about the VCT device is that it simply provides a tax break and that it will not channel investment where it is needed.
  Sir George Young: I hope to say more about venture capital trusts in a moment, but the Labour party is making a big mistake in launching its frontal attack on VCTs, which offer the potential to help growing businesses and to create more jobs. Everyone who has considered the issue agrees that a funding problem exists for small businesses that want to get out of the nursery. VCTs are the result of much consultation. They have been broadly welcomed. The Labour party is ill advised to come out against them at this early stage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said that public expenditure was too high and that the Bill was too long. He will recognise that, in the past two public expenditure rounds, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor have taken some £42 billion off planned public expenditure. On shorter Finance Bills, a moment ago I mentioned the possibility of simplifying the legislation.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who is not in his place at the moment, gave us a lecture on how and when to cut taxes. As the Labour party voted against nearly all the tax cuts in the 1980s, I am not sure that that is a subject on which it can give lectures. We treat the advice with some caution.
  674
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), a Member representing a coastal region, spoke about cross-border shopping. As she knows, cross-border shopping is closely monitored. More than 250 customs staff are on single market duties, the majority acting against smuggling. The Government will continue to work with their European Union partners towards closer approximation of duties. The forthcoming review of EU-wide excise duties will give us the first opportunity.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir George Young: No. I do not think that my hon. Friend has been here during the debate and, out of courtesy to hon. Members who have asked specific questions, I should like to make some progress.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye made the point that venture capital trusts should be focused on smaller companies. She will know that we have put a £1 million limit on subscriptions to achieve that objective.
  A number of hon. Members, mainly Opposition Members, asked about work incentives. They said that there was nothing in the Bill to create jobs, but there is—the venture capital trusts. The major work incentive proposals, however, are working social security proposals. That is why they are not in the Finance Bill.
  The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) asked why measures to help the long-term unemployed were not introduced sooner, but his concerns were overstated. The 0.6 per cent. cut in employers' national insurance rates for the low-paid starts this April. The extra £10 per week for family credit claimants who work full time starts in July. Together, those two major measures are worth £340 million in 1995–96. Extra provisions are also being made in 1995–96 for more work trials, new workstart pilots, more jobmatch pilots and the national extension of other schemes. The cost of the one-year holiday in national insurance contributions is £45 million. That is relatively small compared with the other measures. It is not the case that we have held back the more expensive measures; they were delayed because primary legislation was needed.
  Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr: Coombs) and me about the problem of increasing the licence fees on amusements and the removal of the vehicle licence concession for farmers?
  Sir George Young: On the first point, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has agreed to meet, in the near future, trade associations that are worried about those proposals. The committal motion provides an opportunity to debate in more detail on the Floor of the House the vehicle excise duty measure.
  The hon. Member for Darlington wrongly implied that the better-off were making a lower contribution to the income tax burden. He is wrong. The top 10 per cent. are now paying 44 per cent. of the overall tax take compared to some 35 per cent. in 1979.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) spoke about absolute poverty. He was right so to do. If he looks at the fortunes of those in the bottom decile in terms of car ownership, access to a telephone, access to decently heated houses and ownership of video recorders, he will see that they enjoy a higher standard of living now than

  675
  in 1979. That is the point that really matters. I should like to write to my hon. Friend about black tobacco when I have consulted my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Much of the debate has focused on tax. Opposition Members have quoted some rather selective figures. Real personal disposable income is expected to rise by 1.5 per cent. next year; that should mean that, on average, households will be about £5 a week better off after taking account of both tax and inflation. Real household disposable income per head has risen by almost half since 1979. The real take-home pay of a one-earner couple on average earnings with two children has risen by more than £80 a week since 1978–79.
  One point has not come out so far in the debate. The difference between us and the Labour party is that our instinct is to cut taxes and we will make cuts when they can be afforded. We know, and everyone outside knows, that the Opposition are, by nature, high spenders and high taxers. They are also high borrowers. They borrowed on average almost 7 per cent. of national income a year when they were in office. Since 1979, borrowing has averaged 2 per cent. Borrowing undermines confidence. It is simply a means of deferring taxation.
  The Government believe in a more principled approach. We take tough decisions to increase taxes when it is necessary to sustain growth and help reduce unemployment. The Labour party preferred to increase borrowing, which disguised rather than dealt with the problem and stored up difficulties for the future. Of course, the Labour party voted against almost every Conservative tax cut in the 1980s. It presided over a top rate of tax of 98 per cent. It has no credibility on the tax issue. It is in no position to challenge the Government.
  I wish to say a few more words about venture capital trusts. Some firms with high growth potential are sometimes unable to access normal sources of finance such as the stock market or the clearing banks. They have special characteristics which the financial system is unable or unwilling to accommodate; hence, there is a funding gap which the industrial finance initiative has identified. It has also been recognised by most serious commentators on the United Kingdom scene.
  Our approach, through venture capital trusts—encouraging investment in risk capital—is a better approach than the idea of regional development agencies using public funds and run by civil servants, which was the Labour party's response. The proposals for venture capital trusts in the Bill are the result of painstaking consultations that have taken place during the past year. It is fair to say that the balanced package that we proposed has been widely welcomed by the venture capital industry.
  The measures will undoubtedly encourage the setting up of new businesses and new investment in expanding smaller firms. They will bring investment in private companies within the grasp of ordinary investors. There is a high risk in that area, however. It is a higher risk than investment in brand-name, quoted companies. Potential investors in venture capital trusts will need to be aware of those considerations. The proposed tax reliefs are designed to reflect the risks, not to afford a scam for higher rate taxpayers. I have tried to describe the scheme and why the Government propose it. It is a serious response to a serious problem and the Labour party is misguided in its attempt to oppose it.
  676
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) gave the game away on the "Today" programme last Thursday. Speaking with candour, if not with tact, he said of the Labour party:
  "Nobody really knows what our policies are."
  That concern was shared by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Writing in The Observer on Sunday, he said:
  "The Labour leadership has to decide if it is going to welcome serious argument and shepherd it towards a constructive conclusion, or simply stall—promising as little as possible for as long as possible."
  It is clear from today's debate which option the Labour party has chosen. Today is the eighth day in two months when we have debated the economy and on each occasion we Conservatives have asked the same questions: would a Labour Government spend more or less than a Conservative Government; would a Labour Government tax more or less than a Conservative Government; and, would a Labour Government borrow more or less than a Conservative Government? Would their inflation target be higher or lower than ours? We are no wiser than we were at the beginning of the debate, two months ago.
  I read in The Guardian last Thursday that the Leader of the Opposition told the shadow Cabinet last week:
  "All public spending and tax questions must be referred to the shadow Chancellor's office."
  I must tell members of the Opposition Front-Bench team who are thinking of submitting their questions for an answer that the system simply does not work. One does not get any answers. We are standing, respectfully, at the head of the queue with our questions. The questions that we ask are not difficult. They do not require a detailed look at the books before they can be answered. They are questions of broad principle that any aspiring Government ought to be able to answer. As the leader of the Labour party said when he emerged from his fraternal meeting with Members of the European Parliament last week:
  "It is important to be frank with people."
  Indeed; and in no area is it more important than in economic policy.
  We would understand it if the Opposition said, "We can't give you the details, but here is the strategy. This is what we believe in. We'll fill in the policies later." We would accept that, but they have done exactly the opposite. They have given us a lot of little details—for example, they would reduce the maximum pay-out of the national lottery and introduce a levy on cinema tickets—but they have no strategy. There is a total vacuum, within which the policies float around. They are all dressed up and have nowhere to go.
  It is no good referring to the shadow Budget, because it was not a Budget at all. It did not say how much should be spent or how much should be raised in taxation. It was a random collection of uncosted ideas, which fell foul of the Trades Descriptions Act 1968 by being called a Budget. As a result, there is confusion and suspicion about Labour's plans.
  Mr. Bevins wrote:
  "The Observer has now been told by a senior party source that at the very least Labour would promise to keep taxes lower than Mr. Clarke's Red Book projections."
  Is that true? Opposition Members would like to know, as would we. If it were true, it would represent, in Mr. Bevins's words,

  677
  "a clear break from Labour tradition, which has always defended the need for strong tax revenues to finance the welfare state."
  If the Labour party wants to underbid us on taxes, it must underbid us on spending. That would be not so much a clear break from Labour's tradition as its total burial.
  Labour's economic policy is one of grudge and fudge. It is no substitute for well-thought-out, relevant, effective policies that bring hope and help to the unemployed, foster an enterprise culture, attack the burdens on small businesses, bring public finances back to balance and build on and sustain recovery. Such policies are included in the Bill, which I urge the House to support.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 277.

  Division No. 38]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Alexander, Richard

  Coe, Sebastian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Colvin, Michael

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Congdon, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Conway, Derek

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ashby, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkins, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

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

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Baldry, Tony

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Day, Stephen

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bates, Michael

  Delvin, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dicks, Terry

  Beggs, Roy

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dover, Den

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan, Alan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dunn, Bob

  Booth, Hartley

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Boswel, Tim

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon virginia

  Elletson, Harold

  Bowis, John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evennett, David

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Faber, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Burns, Simon

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Burt, Alistair

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Butcher, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Butler, Peter

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Butterfill, John

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Cash, Wiliam

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  French, Douglas

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Churchill, Mr

  Gale, Roger

  Clappison, James

  Gallie, Phil

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  678

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Madel, Sir David

  Gill, Christopher

  Maginnis, Ken

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Malone, Gerald

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mans, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hague, William

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Merchant, Piers

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mills, Iain

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Harris, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hawkins, Nick

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawksley, Warren

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hendry, Charles

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hicks, Robert

  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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

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

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jack, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Powel, William (Corby)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Key, Robert

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kilfedder, Sir James.

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knapman, Roger

  Ross, Wiliam (E Londonderry)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  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 Timothy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Legg, Barry

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Skeet Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Luff, Peter

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Soames, Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  679

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Trotter, Neville

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spring, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sproat, Iain

  Viggers, Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Walden, George

  Steen, Anthony

  Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

  Stephen, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stern, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart Allan

  Ward, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sumberg, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sweeney, Walter

  Watts, John

  Sykes, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wilkinson, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Willetts, David

  Thomason, Roy

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thumham, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Yeo, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tracey, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. David Lightbown.

  Trimble, David

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark Dr David (South Shields)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clelland, David

  Allen, Graham

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Coffey, Ann

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cohen, Harry

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Connarty, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barron, Kevin

  Corbett, Robin

  Battle, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corston, Jean

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cox, Tom

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dafis, Cynog

  Berry, Roger

  Dalyell, Tam

  Betts, Clive

  Darling, Alistair

  Blunkett, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Denham, John

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

  Dewar, Donald

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dixon, Don

  Burden, Richard

  Dobson, Frank

  Byers, Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Caborn, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Eastham, Ken

  Caravan, Dennis

  Enright, Derek

  Cann, Jamie

  Etherington, Bill

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Chidgey, David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Fatchett Derek

  Church, Judith

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Clapham, Michael

  Fisher, Mark

  680

  Flynn, Paul

  McCartney, Ian

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McFall, John

  Foulkes, George

  McKelvey, William

  Fraser, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fyfe, Maria

  McLeish, Henry

  Galbraith, Sam

  Maclennan, Robert

  Galloway, George

  McMaster, Gordon

  Gapes, Mike

  McNamara, Kevin

  George, Bruce

  MacShane, Denis

  Gerrard, Neil

  McWilliam, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Madden, Max

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Maddock, Diana

  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

  Meacher, Michael

  Gunnel, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hain, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hall, Mike

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hanson, David

  Milburn, Alan

  Hardy, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Harvey, Nick

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Henderson, Doug

  Morley, Elliot

  Heppell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mudie, George

  Hoey, Kate

  Mulin, Chris

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Hara, Edward

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Olner, Bill

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  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)

  Powel, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Johnston, Sir Russell.

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Randal, Stuart

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jowell, Tessa

  Reid, Dr John

  Keen, Alan

  Rendel, David

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Salmond, Alex

  Litherland, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Short, Clare

  McAllion, John

  Simpson, Alan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  681

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Vaz, Keith

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

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wallace, James

  Snape, Peter

  Walley, Joan

  Soley.Clive

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wareing, Robert N

  Speller.John

  Watson, Mike

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Wilson, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Straw, Jack

  Wise, Audrey

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Turner, Dennis

  Mr. John Cummings and Mrs. Barbara Roche.

  Tyler, Paul

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That—
  (1) the following provisions be committed to a Committee of the whole House—

  (a) Clauses 2, 5, 8, 15, 52, 64 and 91 and Schedules 1, 4, 11 and 14, and

  (b) any new Clause first appearing on the Order Paper not later than 19th January and designed to continue the statutory effect of any of the Ways and Means Resolutions of the House of 13th December;

  (2) the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;
  (3) when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.—[Sir George Young.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  Chechnya
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Harold Elletson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise tonight the subject of the United Kingdom's policy towards the crisis in Chechnya. I am also grateful to the Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), for agreeing to reply to the debate.
  The war in Chechnya presents the international community with a number of serious problems. The ferocity of the Russian assault on the capital of Chechnya, Grozny, involving bombardment by air and by heavy artillery on the ground, is of a scale unparalleled, even in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. We certainly cannot ignore it, nor can we ignore the potential for the conflict to spread across the Caucasus and beyond or the possible repercussions of the war in Moscow itself.
  The war might be seen as yet another crisis in a far-off country of which the west knows nothing, but it is happening in a region that is every bit as complex, volatile and dangerous as the Balkans.
  I think that I am possibly the only Member of Parliament to have visited Chechnya, which I did one long winter weekend a year ago. On that occasion, I met General Dudayev, the Chechen leader, and discussed his rather odd plans and ambitions with him. Although he clearly sees himself as a reincarnation of Shamyl, the tribal chief who harried Russian troops in Dagestan in the last century, he struck me as a dangerous, irresponsible fanatic who has the potential to destabilise the entire Caucasus and clearly intends to interfere in the domestic affairs of some of his neighbouring states.
  He was clearly sponsoring and profiting from the growing worldwide activities of the Chechen mafia, and he was determined to forge alliances with Islamic fundamentalist regimes in other parts of the world. The week before my visit, he had been to see Saddam Hussein and, a few months earlier, he had met Colonel Gaddafi. He was also clearly disliked by a large percentage of the Chechen population, particularly by the ethnic Russian community, who were regularly harassed and attacked by his supporters.
  However, none of that explains, excuses or mitigates the Russian Government's attempt to solve the problem by force. Russia's response has been unconstitutional and illegal. It has resulted in a barbaric and indiscriminate assault upon the civilian population of Chechnya. It has forced the Russian army—a conscript army of wretched, virtually unpaid recruits—to accept outrageously high casualties.
  A friend in the Duma told me that the unofficial figure is 4,000 Russian military casualties. The Russian Government have succeeded in uniting the clans of Chechnya, and possibly of the whole north Caucasus, behind General Dudayev. It has been a repellent display of military blundering, political incompetence and old-style panzer communism.
  The response of the international community has been curiously restrained and cautious. Perhaps the reason for that is a lack of understanding or knowledge of the

  683
  area. Perhaps it is because Governments see in this challenge to the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation the ghosts of 1991, when the west consented to the break-up of another sovereign, internationally recognised federal republic, Yugoslavia, despite the advice of our own envoy, Lord Carrington.
  As I am sure the Minister will readily agree, there is a certain logical inconsistency in our willingness to accept the destruction of the Yugoslav federation and its replacement with artificial states whose borders were imposed by Tito, but to ignore the challenge to the territorial integrity of another federation, Russia, by an autonomous republic whose borders were imposed by Stalin.
  I do not wish to dwell on the mistakes and tragedies of the past, but if we are to preserve anything from the ruins of the idea of a new world order, we should at least try to be consistent. I hope that our response to the Chechen crisis—which, although muted so far, is none the less the right one—will be maintained undiluted and clearly stated, along with our absolute condemnation of the methods that Russia has used.
  I hope that the silence of the west when Russian tanks first moved into Chechnya did not result from a fear of upsetting President Yeltsin and provoking Russia into turning its back on the west. If that was the reason, it was based on a misunderstanding of the political situation in Russia and the probable effect of the Chechen crisis on it. We should understand that the most likely consequence of the war in Chechnya for the Russian political system could be a strengthening rather than a weakening of democratic institutions.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I receive many letters from my constituents about this matter, which is unusual, as it is a foreign affairs issue. They are deeply concerned by the scenes that they see on television, and by the bombing that is going on in Grozny in particular. Although they wish President Yeltsin well in the reforms that he is instituting in Russia, they wish to see a solution in Chechnya which does not involve the bombing of innocent women and children.
  Mr. Elletson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand his constituents' concern. They are seeing some horrific atrocities, as are the Russian public for the first time, on their television screens. This war takes place against a background of struggle within the Russian Government—particularly in the President's own circle—between the various factions which are competing for succession.
  Vested interests, such as the military-industrial complex and the so-called power Ministries of defence and security, have been jockeying for a greater hold on the levers of power. All the time, government has been increasingly concentrated in the hands of the President and his Security Council, while the state Duma—the Parliament—has little or no control. One of the consequences of the present crisis will be to create the political impulse for a more effective parliamentary system where the Executive is properly accountable.
  We have misunderstood the Duma for too long, and seen it purely as a threat to President Yeltsin and his circle of reformers. Now it is the centre of activity for
  684
  those who protest against the war in Chechnya. Several Duma members—most notably Sergei Kovalyov, Russia's human rights commissioner—have shown great bravery by visiting Chechnya under fire in order to report on the appalling situation there. Yegor Gaidar, Duma member and former Prime Minister, has led the campaign against the war.
  We need to support such people—to encourage them, and not to fear the consequences of being forthright in our criticism of President Yeltsin, however good a friend or democrat he may have been in the past. We will do Russia no favours if we assume that the war in Chechnya can be ignored and that Russia's relations with the west can remain unaffected by it.
  Unfortunately, the first and most obvious consequence for our relations with Russia will inevitably be to call into question western aid and investment. That will happen, because the economic costs of the war will be enormous and probably sufficient to derail the Russian Government's budget this year.
  Given the scale of western financial support, there are bound to be calls for a reappraisal unless the fighting ends soon. That will be very sad, and it is an issue that needs to be handled carefully, but unless the Russians adopt a more reasonable course of action, and unless Prime Minister Chernomyrdin commits his Government clearly and unambiguously to a ceasefire and peace negotiations, it will be unavoidable.
  Sadder still will be the effect on Russia's position in the international community. The Chechen crisis cannot but have a effect on the negotiations about Russia's new relationship with the European Union, NATO, the Council of Europe, the International Monetary Fund and other international organisations.
  All the good work that has been done over the past five years to draw Russia into the heart of Europe and to make her once again part of the international community of nations is now in jeopardy. If the position does not change soon and there is no serious attempt to abandon force in favour of negotiation, the west's response to Russia will have to be as firm as it was to China over Tiananmen square. That will be a sad day for all of us who believed in the new Russia and Boris Yeltsin.
  What concerns me most about the crisis is the effect on the wider Transcaucasus. I do not know whether one of the motives for the Russian Government's actions was their concern to secure oil supply routes and facilities in Chechnya. The Russians take extremely seriously the potential for development of energy resources in and around the Caspian sea.
  I visited the area on a number of occasions with BP Exploration, and I must declare an interest as an adviser to that company. The region's energy resources have stirred up an intense amount of feeling and disagreement in Russia, the Transcaucasus and central Asia. They have also been the cause of a serious disagreement between Britain and Russia over the status of the Caspian sea.
  In Moscow, opinions on the issue are divided. There are those who see western involvement in the development of the energy resources of former Soviet republics as an unacceptable attempt by the west to steal oil and gas which is basically Russia's. Others feel that Russian industry will profit by the development of such a large market on its doorstep.

  685
  In any event, both groups understand the importance of secure transportation routes of energy from the region. Some people suggest that that is the real reason for the conflict in Chechnya, and that it is yet another war about oil. I do not believe that oil is anything other than an incidental and peripheral consideration for the Russian Government in the present fighting, but I am sure that it has been a motive for Russian actions in the region in the recent past. We must help to ensure that it does not become the cause of a much greater escalation of the conflict beyond Chechnya's borders. We must make absolutely clear our commitment to the independence and sovereignty of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Kazakhstan. We must be vigilant in guarding against Russian interference, particularly in countries where there is a significant commercial interest. We should protest strongly at Russia's recent decision to seal the Azeri border, which is severely damaging Azerbaijan's economy.
  We must point out that, although western companies are keen to co-operate with Russian business in the area, the confidence of international investors in possible pipeline routes through Grozny to the Russian Black sea has been severely damaged, together with investor confidence in Russia itself.
  At the same time, we must commend countries bordering Chechnya for their responsible action in refraining from interfering in the conflict. We should recognise that now is the time to ensure a proper British presence in the region. There is already an embassy in Baku, but surely we should have full diplomatic representation also in Georgia and Armenia. A decision to open embassies there would further demonstrate at this important time our commitment to the independence of those states.
  We ought to consider the effect of the Chechnya crisis on the region's other major security problem—the Nagorny Karabakh conflict. It is difficult to see how Russia could conceivably provide now the substantial troop contribution to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe peacekeeping operations in Nagorny Karabakh that was envisaged at the Budapest summit. However, it is vital not to lose the opportunity to establish a credible international peacekeeping operation in the region.
  I hope that the Minister will ensure that Russia's difficulties do not jeopardise OSCE operations in Karabakh. Although I realise the extent of our other commitments, I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to consider with some of our allies the provision of logistic and other military support if that would help to ensure that the momentum of the peace process in Karabakh is not lost.
  The war in Chechnya has exposed an extreme form of Russian nationalism. It has diminished Russia in the eyes of the world, shown the Russian army to be a paper tiger, and undermined Moscow's claim to he a credible force for stability in a volatile region—creating a dangerous vacuum that other powers may soon seek to fill.
  These are troubled times. We must urge Russia back on to the proper path. We must seek calm and restraint from all those with an interest in the region. In that, Britain has an important role to play. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will ensure that we do our part to bring peace and prosperity to the Caucasus.
  10.32 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) for this timely opportunity to debate a topic of major concern to the international community. My hon. Friend's special knowledge of Russia and of the former Soviet Union makes him unusually well qualified to introduce this Adjournment debate.
  The suffering in Chechnya is the latest tragedy in a list of events since the collapse of the former Soviet Union that includes other conflicts in the Caucasian region. The Chechens are proud of their warrior tradition. During the 19th century, there was frequent fighting between Russia and the tribesmen of the northern Caucasus. In 1859, Chechnya became part of the Russian empire, although that did not end the conflict.
  Subsequently, Chechnya, together with the rest of the Russian empire, was incorporated into the Soviet Union. During the second world war, Stalin ordered the forced deportation of the Chechen people, and thousands died. The consequences of that act of barbarism are with us today.
  Alone among the leaders of the Russian Federation, General Dudayev was unwilling to negotiate seriously with Moscow on the republic's status within the federation. In November 1991, the general unilaterally declared independence, which received no international recognition. I will say a few words about General Dudayev's regime, to which my hon. Friend specifically referred.
  Clearly, General Dudayev is no democrat. He stamped out opposition and stifled freedom of speech. Under that regime, the economy collapsed and crime escalated. Between 100,000 and 150,000 non-Chechens fled the republic, and even some of his closest supporters turned against him. The threat to regional stability—already fragile—grew, and all attempts to negotiate foundered on the general's insistence on sovereignty. Fighting broke out between pro-Moscow opposition forces and those of Dudayev.
  None of that justifies, as my hon. Friend has said, the suffering that is occurring, but it helps to explain why President Yeltsin decided to use force. He saw it as the only way in which to preserve the integrity of the federation. Now we watch with mounting distress as the modern army uses the immense firepower at its disposal against those who are its fellow citizens. Casualties, Chechen and Russian, run into thousands, and many are civilians. According to the UNHCR, an estimated 150,000 people have fled to neighbouring areas and, in addition, there are an estimated 260,000 displaced people in Chechnya itself.
  In formulating our approach to this tragedy, we have to be clear about the status of Chechnya. Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation. That is the view of the British Government. That is the view of the international community. Against that background, we have identified three priorities.
  First, the fighting must end as quickly as possible and with the minimum of civilian casualties. Secondly, immediate humanitarian relief must reach those in need. It is important that international agencies, especially the International Committee of the Red Cross, are involved

  687
  in that. Thirdly, no agreement will last unless it finds an effective way of enabling the Chechen people to express their identity within the framework of the constitution of the Russian Federation.
  We have used every opportunity, here and in Moscow, to make our views known. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out our views in a letter to Foreign Minister Kozyrev. He reinforced that on 10 January when Ambassador Adamishin was summoned to the Foreign Office.
  In addition, we believe that the OSCE may have a special role to play in bringing the crisis to an end. We have urged that on the Russians bilaterally, and together with our European Union partners, in joint approaches to the Russian foreign ministry. The Russian reaction to a possible role for the OSCE has been positive, and we welcome that. For the Russians, the status of Chechnya is a matter of great importance. They emphasise that Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation and, as I have said, the international community accepts that fact.
  But equally, in view of the commitments that Russia has made in the OSCE, what is happening in Chechnya is a matter of legitimate international concern. As the chairman of the Russian Parliament's foreign affairs committee said on 10 January:
  "The OSCE is insisting on sending in observers and I must say that under the agreement signed by us, it is fully entitled to do that."
  The OSCE's involvement should be seen as co-operation. We look to Russia to live up to her OSCE commitments. It is in the interests of all that she should do so.
  Some have seen the Russian action in Chechnya as a precursor of wider military action in the region and the resurgence of Russian imperialism. The British Government do not believe that that is the case. The Russian goals are to restore its authority in part of its own territory, and so far the fighting has remained in the confines of Chechnya. Indeed, there is no intrinsic reason why it should spread. We welcome the fact that, in neighbouring countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia, to which my hon. Friend referred, where there has been internal strife, ceasefires are now in place, and the international community is actively engaged in helping to work out peaceful settlements.
  The most pressing need, therefore, is for an end to the fighting, as my hon. Friend has said. The ceasefire announced last week failed to hold. To achieve one will doubtless be hard. Both sides are now heavily committed militarily. General Dudayev has so far shown no signs of compromising on his basic demand for sovereignty. In any case, his is not the only Chechen voice. We must continue in our attempts to persuade both sides that a long-term solution must come from negotiations that take their respective views into account.
  There are signs that the Russians are developing their thinking on that. First Deputy Prime Minister Soskovets said on 14 January that, after the restoration of constitutional order in Chechnya, the new republican authorities will be exempted from fiscal obligations to the centre, and they will be granted autonomy in all fields except foreign affairs and defence.
  688
  The Russian Prime Minister, Chemomyrdin, has also begun a wide-ranging series of contacts with the leading members of the Chechen diaspora. Other senior figures are meeting clan leaders in Chechnya itself. The latest development, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin's call for immediate negotiations with a simultaneous ceasefire, is a further positive step. He envisages elections, followed by a discussion of Chechnya's status within the Federation. He has proposed that, before elections, there should be wide-ranging consultations on the formation of a transitional Government who would represent the interests of all Chechens. That appears to be a constructive approach, and we understand that Chechen negotiators have travelled to Moscow today. If that is true, it is welcome.
  While fighting continues, we must try to ease suffering. Thousands need assistance. The international agencies are mobilising their resources. We welcome the fact that the Russians are allowing those agencies to act and have sought the help of the ICRC, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Organisation for Migration.
  We are actively involved in offering humanitarian assistance, and the European Union has already provided the ICRC with around £250,000 to pay for medicines and shelter. Further requests will doubtless come, and we stand ready to help if and when they do.
  I refer now to our relations with Russia, an issue that was specifically referred to by my hon. Friend. Now is not the time for threats and sanctions. We have devoted much energy and resources over the past few years to encouraging the spread of democracy in Russia.
  I have been struck by the freedom that the Russian people have exercised in criticising the decisions of their leaders. The media—written and broadcast—have brought home the true horror of this intervention, and the people have made their feelings quite plain. This is no Afghanistan, where events were shrouded in secrecy, and only a restricted and carefully controlled selection of information reached the public domain. Chechnya demonstrates that, in that respect at least, democracy is taking root in Russia.
  The people regard their leaders as accountable. That is as it should be. We would regard any attempt to stifle that debate with the utmost concern. Vigorous democratic debate in Russia of the type that we are now seeing is helpful for us all.
  The longer-term implications of the Chechnya crisis remain unclear. Despite much speculation, there does not so far appear to be an imminent threat to Russia's nascent democracy, but we must be alert. Damage has doubtless been done, and there is much uncertainty about the future.
  Some liberal politicians in Moscow fear a return of authoritarian rule and Russia's international isolation. So far, events have not borne out those fears. Russia must live up to what is expected of a modern democratic state, and we look to her to do that. Our policies will take account of what happens within Russia, but now is not the time to exclude Russia from international organisations, or otherwise to heap penalties upon her.
  To summarise, I record my gratitude to my hon. Friend; this is an important issue, as is marked by the fact that many hon. Members have attended the debate,

  689
  which itself is unusual in such a debate. We should, in substance, avoid hasty decisions. The priorities are and should remain to put an end to the fighting, to allow humanitarian relief, and to work for a political agreement which allows the Chechen people to express their identify within the Russian Federation. We must
  690
  encourage the Russians to allow the international community and, in particular, the OSCE to co-operate in the implementation of those objectives.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mediation Service
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to establish a comprehensive national mediation service; in what way mediators will be trained and accredited; and how much he expects such a service to cost each year.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has no plans to establish a comprehensive national mediation service. The Lord Chancellor is currently looking at arrangements for the training and accreditation of mediators, the funding of local mediation services and a national quality assurance system.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to improve the accounting system at the Legal Aid Board so that it provides a more detailed statistical breakdown of the relative costs of different types of case.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board is currently developing new information systems which will, among other things, provide a more detailed breakdown of the costs of different types of case.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what(a) classes of plaintiff and (b) types of case which currently qualify for legal aid the Lord Chancellor envisages making ineligible for legal aid in the future; and how much public expenditure he expects to save with such measures.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor does not envisage removing either classes of plaintiff or types case from the scope of the legal aid scheme in the future. Under new proposals on which he will be consulting later in the year, it may be that, because of greater emphasis on assessments of local needs and priorities, some individual cases brought under the present system might not be brought. However, the proposals should mean that more people are assisted under legal aid than at present because of a more effective use of resources.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to publish a report on the results of the pilot projects in the use of citizens advice bureaux, law centres and other advice agencies as a means of dispensing legally aided services currently being undertaken in conjunction with the Legal Aid Board.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board expects to publish the results of its non-solicitor agencies franchising pilot in the spring of 1996.
  378
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what costing analysis he has done of the proposals for the reform of the legal aid system announced at the Social Market Foundation on 11 January; and when he expects to publish this analysis.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In his speech to the Social Market Foundation, the Lord Chancellor made it plain that he was outlining his preliminary ideas in advance of a more detailed consultation paper. No costings, therefore, have as yet been done.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of the total civil legal aid budget is currently deployed through citizens advice bureaux, law centres and other such advice centres.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In 1993–94, the last complete financial year, £4.8 million was paid to law centres, citizens advice bureaux and other independent advice agencies in respect of work carried out under the legal aid scheme. This represents 0.3 per cent. of the gross amount expended on legal aid in that year.

  Multi-party Actions
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to publish and to implement new rules governing the conduct of multi-party actions in the English courts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department is fully aware of the problems arising in multi-party actions and we are considering whether, and in what way, they might be mitigated by amendments to court rules and procedures. Any proposals for change will be put out to public consultation in the usual way.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has of the cost to the legal aid budget over the last five years of multi-party actions that(a) have come to trial and (b) have not come to trial.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Limitation Review
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to complete the review of the limitation legislation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  We have been looking at the rules on the time limits in proceedings for non-accidental personal injuries and have reached the conclusion that it would not be advisable to revise this aspect of the law in isolation. We are now considering whether a comprehensive review of the law of limitation generally should be undertaken.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Two of the individuals appointed to the Lord Chancellor's Department's public positions were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  War Criminals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the special unit set up at Scotland Yard to hunt for suspected Nazi war criminals living in Britain will be disbanded when funding ceases at the end of March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The future of the Unit is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Fines
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the total number of warrants issued for the non-payment of fines which were issued for the first time by(a) the Central Gateshead magistrates court in 1993, (b) the Central Gateshead magistrates court in 1994, (c) the Central Newcastle

  Fines1 data for Gateshead and Newcastle magistrates courts 1993 and 1994

  Gateshead

  Newcastle

  1993

  1994

  1993

  1994

  Number of warrants issued

  5,714

  7,632

  23,143

  17,592

  Number of distress warrants issued

  3,420

  4,256

  13,915

  12,716

  Number of fines imposed

  10,616

  10,556

  21,758

  19,699

  Amount of fines imposed

  £1,175,145

  £1,301,044

  £2,122,020

  £1,955,879

  Number of fines unpaid2 at end of year

  14,211

  11,274

  14,949

  14,581

  Amount of fines unpaid2 at end of year

  £1,055,528

  £1,057,376

  £1,141,760

  £1,283,425

  1 'Fines' includes fines, compensation, fixed penalties and costs.

  2 Unpaid fines may include those where there is 'time to pay'.

  Source:

  Gatesheas and Newcastle magistrates courts

  Nationality Applications
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British nationality are currently outstanding for(a) more than one year, (b) more than two years and (c) more than three years; what is the current average length of time taken to process applications; and what were the figures over the previous (i) 12 months, (ii) 24 months, (iii) 36 months and (iv) 48 months.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  As at 31 December 1994, the number of applications for British nationality outstanding for more than one year was 9,630 broken down as follows:

  Number

  more than one year (but less than two years)

  7,717

  more than two years (but less than three years)

  1,428

  more than three years

  485

  Comparable figures for 1990–1993 are not available. Average waiting times, in months,are shown in the following table:
  380
  magistrates court in 1993 and (d) the Central Newcastle magistrates court in 1994; and what is the total number of warrants for arrest for non-payment of fines issued for the second and subsequent time by (i) the Central Gateshead magistrates court in 1993, (ii) the Central Gateshead magistrates court in 1994, (iii) the Central Newcastle magistrates court in 1993 and (iv) the Central Newcastle magistrates court in 1994;

  (2) if he will list (a) the total numbers of fines issued by (i) the Central Gateshead magistrates court in 1993, (ii) the Central Newcastle magistrates court in 1993, (iii) the Central Gateshead magistrates court in 1994 and (iv) the Central Newcastle magistrates court in 1994, (b) the total amounts of fines issued for those periods and by those courts, (c) the total numbers of fines remaining unpaid in those periods and to those courts and (d) the total amount of fines remaining unpaid in those periods and to those courts.

  Mr. Maclean
  The detailed information requested is not collected centrally but inquiries have been made of the two courts and information is given in the table.

  Naturalisations

  Registrations

  All

  December 1994

  13

  7

  12

  December 1993

  16

  12

  15

  December 1992

  22

  15

  20

  December 1991

  30

  18

  26

  December 1990

  35

  22

  31

  Hong Kong Citizens
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Hong Kong citizens were granted entry into the United Kingdom(a) temporarily and (b) permanently in (i) 1992 and (ii) 1993; and how many Hong Kong citizens he estimates will be granted permanent residence rights in the United Kingdom before 1997.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information on British dependent territories citizens and British nationals (overseas) from Hong Kong given leave to enter the United Kingdom is given in the table. The numbers of such persons accepted for settlement—that is, allowed to stay indefinitely—were 1,590 in 1992 and 1,520 in 1993. No estimates have been made of the corresponding numbers up to 1997.
  381

  Admissions to the United Kingdom of BDTCs and BN(O)s from Hong Kong

  Admission category

  1992

  1993

  Spouses, fiance(e)s, children, parents, grandparents1

  380

  190

  Other categories2

  91,400

  90,400

  91,800

  90,600

  1 Seeking, or accepted for, settlement in the United Kingdom.

  2 Some of whom subsequently become eligible to apply for settlement.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently being held in detention in police stations in(a) North Yorkshire, (b) South Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire and (d) Humberside broken down by (i) police station and (ii) nationality of asylum seeker; how many are being held in total in those areas, broken down by nationality; and what were the figures as at 15 January for each year since 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  As at 12 January 1995, no persons who had sought asylum were being held in police cells in North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire or Humberside. However, five persons who had sought asylum are being detained at Her Majesty's prison, Armley, West Yorkshire consisting of two Indians and one Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese; another one Pakistani was being detained at HMP The Wolds in Humberside. This figure includes people awaiting the setting of directions for removal following refusal of the application, as well as those whose application was under consideration or subject to appeal.

  Information on the number of persons who had sought asylum and were detained in these areas on 15 January, in 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 is not available.

  Calf Exports
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many protestors have been arrested to date at Shoreham in connection with calf exports; and how many have been charged;

  (2) what police forces have been involved in policing the current series of protests at Shoreham;

  (3) what has been the average number of police officers on duty each night during the current campaign against the export of veal calves at Shoreham;

  (4) who took the decision for police officers to wear full riot gear at Shoreham; and what were the reasons stated.

  Mr. Maclean
  Up to 11 January, 76 people were arrested, of whom,66 have been charged. Sussex police have been aided by the following forces in policing the disturbances at Shoreham; City of London police, Essex police, Hampshire constabulary, Kent county constabulary, the Metropolitan police, Surrey constabulary and Thames Valley police. Since 4 January about 1,000 officers have been deployed on each occasion that lorries carrying calves have driven to the harbour. The decision to deploy officers with public order protective equipment was taken by the chief constable of Sussex on operational grounds.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people detained at the behest of the immigration service last year spent more than(a) 24 hours and (b) 48 hours in a police cell; and what was the longest continuous period spent by an individual detainee.

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

  Seamen
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what resources he has allocated for the enforcement of regulations governing the contract employment of seamen on vessels normally plying between two or more United Kingdom ports; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will give details of all breaches of the regulations relating to the employment of contract seafarers plying between United Kingdom ports in the last three years.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that regulations relating to the contract employment of seamen on vessels plying between two or more United Kingdom ports and normally not leaving the United Kingdom waters are properly enforced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I have been asked to reply to the third question as well.

  Administration of the regulations relating to the employment of contract seamen on board ships plying between United Kingdom ports is a matter for the Department of Employment. However, there is power in the Immigration Act 1971 to enforce the removal of those seamen under contract to join vessels in the United Kingdom who fail to comply with the conditions on which they were given leave to enter or who are reasonably suspected of intending to do so. The immigration service has dealt with 49 seamen under these powers in the past three years.

  Specific resources are not allocated by the immigration service to the enforcement of the immigration laws relating to contract seamen.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to discuss with European parties the extension of immigration regulations relating to contract seamen on board vessels plying between two or more member states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None; we have no plans to alter our policy, which is not to require work permits for crews serving on ships on international voyages, including voyages to other member states of the European Union., where the crews are not living in the United Kingdom.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the inter-departmental group on domestic violence will next meet; and what policy decisions arose from the last meeting.

  Mr. Maclean
  At its last meeting, the ministerial group on domestic violence endorsed proposals in respect of a public awareness campaign on domestic violence, and the preparation of an inter-agency circular to encourage local
  383
  statutory and voluntary agencies to co-ordinate responses to domestic violence. It also decided that the issue of a centrally co-ordinated policy on refuge provision would be considered further at its next meeting, a date for which will be settled shortly.

  Young Offenders Report
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his report on young people and crime following the recent survey of youth lifestyles and self-report offending.

  Mr. Maclean
  Neither I nor my ministerial colleagues have yet had an opportunity to consider this report, which is still in preparation, but nearing completion. I expect the report to be published later in the year, once it has been finalised and arrangements for its publication agreed.

  Voting
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British citizens living overseas are registered for voting in each constituency in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on overseas electors is published in table 1.4 of "Electoral Statistics 1994" published by HMSO—series EL No 21—a copy of which is in the Library.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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 worldwide web server "open.gov.UK" or any specific departmental server.

  Mr. Howard
  We are considering using the Internet to provide access to information, including in particular published statistics. The option of making this information accessible via the worldwide server "open.gov.UK" will be assessed. Home Office press notices are already available via the Internet from a number of commercial information providers.

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

  Mr. Howard
  I appreciate that there are great benefits to be derived from the use of electronic mail and its associated technologies. Electronic mail is already used extensively within. my Department and its use for communications outside my Department is under review.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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.
  384
  Mr. Howard
  Many of my Department's telephone systems have been converted to cope with the national code change without cost to the Department. For others a charge has been incurred, amounting to about £200,000 across about 300 sites, including executive agencies. Changes to stationery and published material have been incorporated at negligible cost.

  Stolen Vehicles
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) to what factors he attributes the fall in stolen vehicle recovery rates between 1992 and 1993;

  (2) what information is currently available for the number of stolen vehicles and the recovery rate in 1994; and when the full calendar year figures will be available;

  (3) what recovery rate has been achieved in each police authority area for stolen vehicles in 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not yet available for 1994. The next statistics to be published will be for the calendar year 1994 and will be available in the spring of 1995. Figures for 1992 and 1993 are published in table 2.14 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales". It is not possible to attribute the fall in stolen vehicle recovery rates between 1992 and 1993 to any particular factor.

  Ethnic Minorities, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce his decisions on applications by local authorities for financial assistance under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 as soon as possible, possibly on a phased basis; when he intends to announce his decision on applications submitted by Bradford council; what representations he has received from local authorities and others for decisions to be announced as a matter of urgency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Well over 800 project applications have been received. The deadline for applications was deferred to 30 December to take account of my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that the funding available was being doubled. Nevertheless, we hope that it will still be possible to make the outcome known to all applicants in accordance with our original target of the end of February. As available funds have been oversubscribed, decisions could not be taken and announced on a phased basis without prejudicing the position of other bids.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Mr. Howard
  Of the 366 individuals appointed or reappointed to public positions in the Home Office in the last year, 55 were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many speed cameras have been in operation each year since their inception; how many
  385
  speeding charges have been made annually as a result of their evidence and what percentage of all speeding charges annually have been made on the basis of evidence from speed cameras, in each police authority.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of speed cameras in operation is not available centrally in the form requested. However, a survey by the Department of Transport in early 1994 stated that 27 speed cameras were in use in England and Wales at the end of 1993.

  Fixed penalities and prosecutions for speeding offences detected by automatic cameras

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Police force

  Fixed penalties

  Prosecutions

  Camera offences

  As a percentage of all offences

  Camera offences

  As a percentage of all offences

  1992

  1993

  1992

  1993

  1992

  1993

  1992

  1993

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  71

  —

  2

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  9,241

  —

  66

  6

  910

  —

  40

  Dorset

  —

  1,129

  —

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  659

  —

  8

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  95

  —

  4

  Metropolitan

  —

  3,804

  —

  9

  283

  3,225

  2

  24

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  218

  —

  9

  South Yorkshire

  —

  46

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  11,547

  —

  54

  —

  1,196

  —

  30

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  —

  2

  Total

  —

  25,767

  —

  7

  290

  6,390

  —

  6

  Police (Electric Shields and Batons)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what authorisation he has given for(a) the testing and (b) the use of electric shields or electric batons by the police.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. Chief officers are responsible for deciding what equipment to obtain, and except for the Metropolitan police, where my right hon. and learned Friend is police authority, do not require his authorisation. No chief officer possesses or, so far as the Home Office is aware, is considering the introduction of such equipment for use against people. My right hon. and learned Friend would certainly expect to be consulted about any such proposal. I understand that some chief officers have obtained electric shock equipment to protect officers against ferocious dogs in pre-planned operations.

  Police
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have left the service in each of the past 15 years because of(a) retirement, (b) sickness and (c) other reasons.

  Mr. Maclean
  Detailed information is not available in the form requested. The available data on wastage for the years 1979 to 1989 are contained in the annual reports of HM chief inspector of constabulary. I shall write to the hon. Member with information for the years 1990 to 1993.

  Policing, Caerphilly
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future policing arrangements for the new unitary district of Caerphilly.
  386
  Information available to me shows that 290 speeding prosecutions were brought in England and Wales in 1992 following evidence produced by automatic cameras and 6,390 in 1993. In addition, 25,767 fixed penalties notices were issued in 1993. Figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  The following table shows the proportion of fixed penalty notices and prosecutions resulting from evidence from speed cameras.

  Mr. Howard
  I have consulted the forces, police authorities and local authorities in the area on the future policing arrangements for the new unitary district of Caerphilly. I also asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary to report on this issue.

  In the light of the replies received and of the professional views of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, I have decided that the Gwent constabulary shall be responsible for policing the whole of the new district from 1 April 1996.

  An order will be made in due course, under section 21 A of the Police Act 1964—as inserted by section 14 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994—to give effect to this decision, following discussions with the police authorities and forces concerned on the details of its content.

  Disclosure Requirements
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the prosecution are to be required to provide the defence with advance copies of witnesses' statements in summary only proceedings.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am considering the issues raised by the current disclosure requirements generally, and will take this point into account as part of that consideration.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the costs to the Child Support Agency of employing bailiffs for each of the last two years.
  387
  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter From Ann Chant to Ms Dawn Primarolo, dated 16 January 1995:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the costs to the Child Support Agency of employing bailiffs.

  In accordance with the contract awarded in January 1994, bailiff services are provided at no administrative cost to the Agency.

  Strathclyde Flooding
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the most up to date figures in relation to Benefits Agency activity in each parliamentary constituency affected by the floods in Strathclyde during December 1994 for(a) the number of claims for community care grants, (b) the numbers accepted and paid as per claim, (c) the value of grants claimed expressed as (i) a total and (ii) an average, (d) value of grants paid expressed as (i) a total and (ii) an average, (e) the numbers of claims for crisis loans, (f) the numbers accepted and paid as per claim, (g) the value of applications claimed expressed as (i) a total and (ii) an average, (h) the numbers of claims for community care grants refused expressed as (i) a total and (ii) a percentage, (i) the number of claims for crisis loans refused expressed as (i) a total and (ii) a percentage, (j)

  Community care grant applications made by Strathclyde flood victims as at 12 January 1995

  District

  Number of applications received

  Number awarded

  Percentage award

  Amount awarded (£)

  Average award (£)

  Number refused

  Percentage refused

  Renfrew

  421

  400

  95.0

  70,340

  175.85

  21

  5.0

  Glasgow South-west

  14

  14

  100.0

  17,712

  1,265.14

  n/a

  n/a

  Glasgow Laurieston

  4

  4

  100.0

  1,978

  494.50

  n/a

  n/a

  Glasgow East

  1

  1

  100.0

  520

  520.00

  n/a

  n/a

  Springburn and Cumbernauld

  4

  2

  50.0

  2,139

  1,069.50

  2

  50.0

  Totals

  444

  421

  —

  92,689

  —

  21

  —

  Crisis loan applications made by Strathclyde flood victims as at 12 January 1995

  District

  Number of applications received

  Number awarded

  Percentage awarded

  Amount awarded (£)

  Average award (£)

  Number refused

  Percentage refused

  Renfrew

  102

  94

  92.2

  10,868.00

  115.62

  8

  7.8

  Glasgow South west

  2

  2

  100.00

  1,760.00

  880.00

  n/a

  n/a

  Glasgow Laurieston

  3

  3

  100.00

  221.24

  73.75

  n/a

  n/a

  Glasgow East

  1

  1

  100.00

  1,000.00

  1,000.00

  n/a

  n/a

  Springburn and Cumbernauld

  1

  1

  100.00

  69.00

  69.00

  n/a

  n/a

  Totals

  109

  101

  —

  13,918.24

  —

  8

  —

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average cost of processing a claim for disability living allowance when it goes to appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.
  388
  the number of community care grants reduced from claim as (i) a total and (ii) a percentage and (k) the number of crisis loans reduced from claim as (i) a total and (ii) a percentage; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 16 January 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Community Care Grant (CCG) and Crisis Loan (CL) applications received by the Benefits Agency (BA) from people affected by the recent flooding in the Strathclyde area.

  BA District boundaries do not correspond with county or local authority boundaries and information relating to Strathclyde has, therefore, been provided for the five BA Districts serving Strathclyde; Renfrew, Glasgow South West, Glasgow Laurieston, Springburn and Cumbernauld, and Glasgow East.

  Information relating to the amounts requested and the number of awards made which did not meet the full amounts requested can only be obtained at a disproportionate cost. This is because this information could only be obtained by examining every application made by the flood victims. However, the Districts keep simple separate records relating to applications by the flood victims in respect of the amount paid and category of application. I have, therefore, provided at Annex A and Annex B information on the total number of CCG and CL applications received, the number and amounts awarded and the numbers refused for each District as at 12 January 1995, the latest information available.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Alex Salmond, dated 16 January 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the average cost of processing a claim for Disability Living Allowance when it goes to appeal.

  Information regarding the overall cost is not available in the exact format required.

  Benefits Agency (BA) staff are responsible for preparing an appeal which is then submitted to the Independent Tribunal Service

  389
  (ITS). The papers are returned to the BA once the appeal decision has been given. The estimated cost to the BA of preparing an appeal for submission to the ITS is £10.93 per case. This figure does not include the cost to the ITS in hearing the appeal.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Mr. Hague
  There were four such appointees in the year ended 31 December 1994.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average cost of unemployment benefit and income support for a couple with two children of school age, where there is no other income apart from child benefit, and no capital resources available to them at the latest date for which figures are available.

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

  Benefit in payment

  Average amount £

  Unemployment Benefit and Income Support

  112.29

  Income Support only

  115.46

  Overall Average

  115.04

  Notes:

  1. School-age children have been assumed to be those between five and 16 years of age. There may be other children included in the benefit unit.

  2. Amounts are rounded to the nearest penny and include any Unemployment Benefit paid to the partner in his/her own right.

  3. Amounts are derived from the Income Support Statistical Enquiry, February 1994.

  Young Carers
  Mrs. Golding
  To aks the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent research his Department has done into the number of children acting as carers for adults or other children; and what plans there are to do so in the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are currently testing questions in the Office of Population Census and Surveys omnibus survey, to see whether reliable information may be gathered on young carers.

TREASURY

  Royal Properties (Tax)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the difference in the tax arrangements in respect of the treatment of(a) Buckingham palace, (b) Windsor castle, (c) Sandringham and (d) Balmoral.

  Mr. Nelson
  Buckingham palace and Windsor castle are treated as being occupied by the Crown. Both properties comprise domestic and non-domestic accommodation. The domestic accommodation is valued 390
  for council tax. Because the Crown is exempt from rating, a contribution in lieu of rates is paid in respect of the non-domestic accommodation.

  Sandringham house and Balmoral castle are occupied by Her Majesty in person. In each case, the property is valued for council tax.

  Public Limited Companies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to penalise public limited companies which fail to pay their bills promptly.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is for individual suppliers rather than Government to seek redress from business customers who fail to honour agreed credit terms. There are therefore no plans to introduce any system of penalties. The Government announced a package of measures, in the White Paper on competitiveness in May 1994, to address late payment. One of the measures is the implementation of proposals to require public companies to state their payment policies in the directors' reports.

  VAT (Charities)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) hon. Members and (b) organisations outside the House, during the past 12 months relating to making exempt from VAT repairs to public buildings owned or run by charitable organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have received a small number of representations for repair and maintenance to charity buildings to be exempt from VAT. Such an exemption would not be permissible under the EC sixth VAT directive.

  Amusement Machines
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had with the British Amusement and Catering Trades Association with regard to the proposed amusement machine licence duty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As announced in the Budget, implementation of this new duty will not take place until November 1995. This will allow Customs and Excise to consult with the trade on the scope and coverage of amusement machine licence duty. I am aware that BACTA is collating information from its members and will be making representations to me in a meeting on 23 January.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the duty on amusement machines is to be imposed on the basis of the number of players per machine; and how he expects the imposition of duty to affect employment prospects within the industry at all levels.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The proposals contained in the Finance Bill for the duty on amusement machines provide that the number of chargeable machines equates to the number of simultaneous playing positions. This mirrors the existing provisions for gaming machines. I am meeting representatives of the industry on 23 January and will give careful consideration to any representations they make about employment prospects as a result of the introduction of this new duty.

  Blind Persons' Tax Allowances
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have taken place in the blind persons' tax allowances in each year since 1989; what was the cost thereof; and if he will make a statement on his decision in the November 1994 Budget.

  Sir George Young
  The blind person's allowance is not subject to statutory annual indexation. However, it was doubled in 1990–91 from £540 to £1,080 and further increased to £1,200 in 1994–95. At 1995–96 income levels, the cost of the allowance is expected to be about £3 million greater than if the allowance were available only at its 1989–90 level of £540. Between 1989–90 and 1995–96, the allowance has increased by almost 70 per cent. in real terms.

  Investor's Losses
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much compensation has been paid out directly by insurance companies regulated by the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation to investors who have suffered losses in respect of life and pensions business as a result of bad advice and fraud in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Nelson
  I regret that this information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In the first instance, investors' complaints go directly to the life office involved. Where agreement is reached at this stage, firms are not required to publish details. If agreement cannot be reached, the Insurance Ombudsman Bureau can intervene. The ombudsman does not publish a breakdown of awards made to investors in the form requested.

  Value Added Tax (Transport) Order
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that the hon. Member for Wellingborough receives a written reply to the questions he asked the Paymaster General during the debate on the Value Added Tax (Transport) Order on 11 January concerning the Confederation of Passenger Transport's query on exclusive tours and the effect of the sixth VAT directive M/388 EEC on the implementation of the order.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall be writing to him in reply to the questions that he asked.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect of the Government's proposals in clause 140 of the Finance Bill 1995 on(a) the public expenditure new control total and (b) the total tax revenue in (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1995–96.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: Clause 140 will put right a defect in existing law and does not represent any change in existing practice. The recent "Financial Statement and Budget Report" does not show it as having any effect.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions the Treasury has had with(a) the Department of Health and (b) representatives of the
  392
  private medical insurance providers, regarding extending tax relief to all people with private medical insurance.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: The Treasury receives representations from, and has discussions with, a wide range of organisations with regard to taxation issues. These have included both the Department of Health and representatives of private medical insurance providers.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the principal reasons for the reduction in forecast receipts from the insurance premium tax in 1994–95 and 1995–96 contained in table 4A.1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96" compared with the equivalent figures in table 4.1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95".

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: Revision to the forecast for insurance premium tax for 1994–95 reflects the decision made after the publication of the 1994 FSBR to change from monthly to quarterly tax returns. This is expected to delay some receipts from 1994–95 into 1995–96. The revision to receipts for 1995–96 is well within likely forecasting error, but reflects a revised view of the likely trend of lower premiums.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the insurance industry in response to the consultations he announced on 29 November 1994 on his proposals to extend the powers of Customs and Excise in connection with the collection of insurance premium tax.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: Representations were received from the Association of British Insurers, which represents insurance companies that will account for the vast majority of insurance premium tax. Representations concerned the implementation and application of the tax and they have been taken into account in drafting legislation.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cable Franchises
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the initial cash bid received from each cable franchisee awarded a cable franchise under the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The initial cash bids for the West Kent and the Blackpool and Fylde franchises were £1,600,210.75 and £762,000 respectively.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cable franchises have been awarded under the Broadcasting Act 1990 in each year since the Act became law.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Two local delivery franchises have been awarded since the Broadcasting Act became law. Both were awarded during 1994, the first for the West Kent franchise, awarded on 19 May, and the second for the Blackpool and Fylde franchise, on 15 September.
  393
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much revenue has been derived from cable franchisees in(a) application fees and (b) tender payments in each year since the enactment of the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The application fee for the two franchises which have so far been awarded was £15,000 each. No tender payments have yet been made.

  Development Initiatives, Northern Region
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what economic development initiatives his Department has undertaken in the northern region in 1994; and what initiatives are planned for 1995.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In 1994, Government offices began to implement the measures contained in the competitiveness White Paper in consultation with the northern regional business community. In addition, my Department's programmes of assistance continue to operate in the region—for example, regional selective assistance in assisted areas—and a range of economic development projects will be funded through the single regeneration budget. For 1995, the focus will again be on the competitiveness White Paper and establishing full regional business link coverage by the middle of the year. A significant proportion of the region will also benefit from European structural funds as well as the continuation of the full range of other programmes.

  Civil Servant Travel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which airlines have been granted preferred carrier status for civil servant travel to overseas destinations.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The preferred carrier for any particular civil servant's travel will depend on the circumstances of the journey concerned and value for money. My Department has non-exclusive arrangements with British Airways, British Midland Airways, Virgin Atlantic Airways, Cathay Pacific Airways, Sabena Belgian Airlines, Air UK, Manx Airlines (Europe), Teeside Aviation and Air France.

  Prison Labour
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action is being taken to control the import of raw materials produced by prisoners or those kept in similar conditions.

  Mr. Needham
  With limited exceptions, the importation into the United Kingdom of any goods produced in any foreign prison or like establishment is banned by the Foreign Prison Made Goods Act 1897, as amended in 1988. Enforcement is a matter for HM Customs and Excise, which is dependent on receiving sufficient evidence, specific to the consignment concerned, of prison-made origin.

  Inward Investment, Northumberland
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what role his Department has played in assisting inward investment by Taiwanese manufacturing companies in Northumberland.
  394
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department has provided regional selective assistance grants to the following projects:

  (i) £8.25 million to Europa Magnetics Corporation of Cramlington to create 550 new jobs manufacturing floppy disks;

  (ii) £250,000 to Synpac Chemicals Ltd. of Bedlington to create 57 jobs manufacturing chemicals; and

  (iii) £90,000 to Lite-On Ltd. of Ashington to create 85 jobs manufacturing customised power supply component; for electrical and electronic equipment.

  In addition, my Department is working closely with the Northern Development Co., the local authorities, Northumberland training and enterprise council and others to provide a full aftercare service to all inward investors in the county, including those of Taiwanese origin.

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of companies which are founded in the United kingdom go bankrupt within two years.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Professional Football
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider setting up an inquiry into the trading and competition practices within professional football.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Under competition legislation, responsibility for considering and, if appropriate, investigating allegations of anti-competitive behaviour lies with the Director General of Fair Trading in the first instance. If the hon. Member has any evidence of business practices within professional football which may merit investigation under competition legislation, she should pass the evidence to him.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department spent supporting academic research into the applications of biotechnology in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of the total public research and development budget this represents.

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

  Some £102 million was spent supporting academic research into biotechnology by the research councils in 1992–93. This was 1.9 per cent. of the total public civil and defence research and development budget.

EDUCATION

  Higher Education Students
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total number of full-time students in higher education in each of the last five years.
  395
  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Full-time higher education student enrolments (all domiciles) in England—1989 to 1993

  Year

  Number

  1993–94

  1839,000

  1992–93

  763,000

  1991–92

  671,000

  1990–91

  593,000

  1989–90

  544,000

  Source:

  USR, DFE (FESR).

  1 Provisional.

  Nursery School Places, Northumberland
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many nursery school places are currently available in Northumberland.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the number of nursery school places is not collected centrally. The number of pupils being taught in maintained nursery schools in Northumberland local education authority in January 1994 was 128.

  Primary Schools, Northumberland
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the total number of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-to-teacher ratio in primary schools in Northumberland for each year since 1988 to 1994.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Pupils and pupil: teacher ratios in maintained primary schools in Northumberland LEA 1988–94

  Position in January each year

  Pupils (FTEs1)

  Pupil:teacher ratio2

  1988

  19,382

  22.8

  1989

  19,168

  22.5

  1990

  19,505

  23.0

  1991

  19,468

  23.5

  1992

  19,710

  23.2

  1993

  20,131

  23.8

  1994

  20,243

  24.3

  1 Counting each part-time pupil as 0.5 full-time equivalent.

  2 Including the full-time equivalent of part-time teachers.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils in the Northumberland education authority from families currently on income support or the family credit scheme will be entitled to free school meals.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Only income support entitles pupils to a free school meal, although there is cash assistance within family credit. On census day in January 1994, the number of pupils known to be eligible for a free school meal in maintained schools in Northumberland education authority was 7,950–15.4 per cent. of day pupils.

  Grants for Education Support and Training
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what amount of GEST funds was available at the original introduction of the national curriculum; and what amount is available to local education authorities now;

  (2) if she will list the amount of GEST funds allocated to each education authority at the original introduction of the national curriculum and for each subsequent year.

  Mr. Forth
  The GEST programme in 1988–89, when the national curriculum was introduced, supported LEA expenditure of £322.5 million, of which £9 million was for activities related to the national curriculum. In 1995–96, the GEST programme will support LEA expenditure of £251 million, of which £40.1 million will be for national curriculum related activities. The Department pays grant on this expenditure at the rate of 60 per cent. in most cases.

  This information sought for each education authority for each year since 1988–89 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  General National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list by individual school and further education college in England the total budget allocated to each participating institution to fund GNVQs in each year since 1991; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not available to the Department. The great majority of the funding allocated to schools and colleges by local education authorities, the Further Education Funding Council and the Funding Agency for Schools is unhypothecated and total funds for the support of GNVQs are not therefore identified separately.

  As part of the GNVQ part 1 pilot scheme announced by the Minister of State on 21 December, 118 schools will receive specific support for part 1 GNVQ in 1995–96 under the Government's GEST programme or through other special grants. A table concerning the allocations made for individual schools has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what resources were specifically allocated in order to fund general national vocational qualifications in schools and further education colleges in England in each year since 1990; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the Government's specific grant programmes, the following allocations have been made for vocational qualifications since 1990–91. Since 1992–93, these have focused on GNVQ support in schools, following the introduction of GNVQs in September 1992.

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  2.0

  1991–92

  2.1

  1992–93

  3.0

  1993–94

  5.5

  1994–95

  5.2

  1995–96

  13.3

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between her departmental Ministers and agencies.

  Mr. Forth
  In the case of the Department's one next steps agency, the Teachers' Pensions Agency, the respective responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the chief executive are set out in the agency's framework document of 1 April 1992, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Residential Care Pupils
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils in residential care are excluded from local authority schools in(a) Kirklees, (b) in all Yorkshire council areas and (c) nationally.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available centrally.

  State Nursery Schools, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of(a) three-year-olds and (b) four-year-olds were attending state nursery schools in Leeds in each year since 1985.

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

  Percentage of pupils aged 3 and 41 in maintained nursery schools in Leeds LEA 1985–94

  Ages at previous 31 August

  Pupils aged 3

  Pupils aged 4

  1985

  2

  2—

  1986

  2

  1

  1987

  2

  1

  1988

  2

  2—

  1989

  2

  2—

  1990

  2

  1

  1991

  2

  1

  1992

  2

  1

  1993

  1

  1

  1994

  1

  2—

  1 Excluding pupils who became 5 years of age by 1 January.

  2 Less than 0.5.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment her Department has made of the differential growth rates across colleges of further education; what measures she has taken or intends to take in order to reform the method of funding further education colleges in England; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Further Education Funding Council has developed a new funding methodology after wide consultation; its proposals gained a high degree of acceptance. The new methodology was introduced for the academic year 1994–95. Refinements to the methodology, and examination of information about the sector to assess the sufficiency and adequacy of further education provision, are matters for the council.

  Student Loans
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students are eligible to apply for student loans; and how many receive mandatory grants.
  398
  Mr. Boswell
  In 1993–94, there was estimated to be around 752,000 students who were eligible to apply for a student loan in England and Wales, compared with a figure of around 688,000 in 1992–93. In 1992–93, the latest year for which information is available, there were 666,100 mandatory award holders in England and Wales. The coverage and conditions of eligibility for student loans differ from those for mandatory awards.

  Pre-school Provision
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many three and four-year-olds there are in nursery classes, nursery schools or primary reception classes for each local education authority; and what percentage this represents of the population in those age groups in January 1994.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information about the number of pupils under five years of age being taught in maintained nursery and primary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1994 is shown in the table.

  Pupils under five in maintained nursery and primary schools in each LEA in England January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils1

  Percentage of Population

  Camden

  1,979

  49

  Greenwich

  4,267

  62

  Hackney

  3,170

  52

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,179

  58

  Islington

  3,261

  69

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,264

  38

  Lambeth

  3,457

  49

  Lewisham

  3,763

  52

  Southwark

  5,167

  73

  Tower Hamlets

  4,897

  84

  Wandsworth

  4,089

  62

  Westminster

  1,671

  44

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,340

  74

  Barnet

  4,751

  57

  Bexley

  2,475

  40

  Brent

  4,662

  68

  Bromley

  2,491

  33

  Croydon

  4,376

  47

  Ealing

  5,816

  73

  Enfield

  3,999

  54

  Haringey

  4,394

  76

  Harrow

  2,633

  50

  Havering

  2,435

  43

  Hillingdon

  3,278

  48

  Hounslow

  4,189

  72

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,172

  61

  Merton

  3,683

  75

  Newham

  4,563

  58

  Redbridge

  2,443

  40

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,887

  44

  Sutton

  1,885

  40

  Waltham Forest

  3,635

  54

  Birmingham

  20,363

  66

  Coventry

  5,097

  58

  Dudley

  5,636

  69

  Sandwell

  7,509

  90

  Solihull

  3,707

  71

  Walsall

  6,808

  92

  Wolverhampton

  6,012

  85

  Knowsley

  4,334

  88

  Liverpool

  10,904

  87

  St Helens

  3,210

  68

  Sefton

  4,967

  64

  Wirral

  5,188

  57

  Bolton

  5,632

  72

  399

  Pupils under five in maintained nursery and primary schools in each LEA in England January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils1

  Percentage of Population

  Bury

  3,165

  61

  Manchester

  9,875

  73

  Oldham

  4,653

  70

  Rochdale

  4,133

  64

  Salford

  5,541

  88

  Stockport

  4,363

  57

  Tameside

  4,731

  73

  Trafford

  3,942

  69

  Wigan

  4,971

  57

  Barnsley

  3,959

  66

  Doncaster

  6,187

  74

  Rotherham

  4,337

  60

  Sheffield

  8,230

  63

  Bradford

  10,243

  70

  Calderdale

  3,637

  68

  Kirklees

  7,732

  72

  Leeds

  14,534

  75

  Wakefield

  6,438

  72

  Gateshead

  3,456

  68

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5,039

  72

  North Tyneside

  4,195

  87

  South Tyneside

  3,555

  86

  Sunderland

  6,024

  74

  Avon

  13,259

  53

  Bedfordshire

  8,115

  49

  Berkshire

  7,077

  33

  Buckinghamshire

  5,906

  32

  Cambridgeshire

  8,078

  43

  Cheshire

  13,995

  53

  Cleveland

  14,481

  90

  Cornwall

  5,242

  45

  Cumbria

  6,954

  56

  Derbyshire

  15,235

  60

  Devon

  6,946

  27

  Dorset

  5,655

  37

  Durham

  12,050

  77

  East Sussex

  6,772

  39

  Essex

  9,208

  22

  Gloucestershire

  4,467

  32

  Hampshire

  15,098

  36

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,044

  22

  Hertfordshire

  13,880

  50

  Humberside

  14,567

  62

  Isle of Wight

  1,087

  39

  Kent

  15,102

  36

  Lancashire

  20,212

  53

  Leicestershire

  9,922

  38

  Lincolnshire

  6,205

  43

  Norfolk

  6,254

  34

  North Yorkshire

  8,861

  49

  Northamptonshire

  8,471

  50

  Northumberland

  5,405

  71

  Nottinghamshire

  15,688

  57

  Oxfordshire

  4,033

  25

  Shropshire

  4,026

  36

  Somerset

  4,466

  37

  Staffordshire

  15,928

  56

  Suffolk

  5,595

  32

  Surrey

  7,622

  29

  Warwickshire

  6,344

  49

  West Sussex

  3,901

  22

  Wiltshire

  3,829

  24

  England2 3

  674,596

  52

  1 Excludes pupils who became 5 years of age by 1 January 1994

  2 Includes the Isles of Scilly

  3 Includes the Corporation of London

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many of the individuals appointed by her Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Mr. Boswell
  In the past year, six individuals appointed by the Department to public bodies had been first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Adult Literacy
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if the Government have concluded their review of the adult literacy and basic skills unit; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government have concluded their review of the adult literacy and basic skills unit. I am writing today to the chairman of ALBSU, Mr. Peter Davis, to inform him of our conclusions.

  The basic skills of literacy and numeracy are fundamental to the United Kingdom's future competitiveness. Too many people have inadequate basic skills for the modern world. ALBSU plays an important role in tackling that problem.

  Earlier this year, ALBSU published proposals in its document "Making it Happen" that it should be redesignated as a general basic skills unit with a wider remit. ALBSU argued that this would allow the unit to.develop a more coherent national basic skills strategy and tackle the problem of poor basic skills more effectively.

  In the light of ALBSU's proposals, and of the Government's review of the unit's effectiveness and efficiency, the Government have decided that ALBSU should remain as an independent basic skills unit funded by the Department for Education and the Welsh Office, but working closely with the further education funding councils and the Further Education Development Agency.

  We have also decided that ALBSU's remit should be extended so that it becomes a more general basic skills unit, with responsibilities extending to basic skills training in the workplace, for the unemployed, for young people and between generations.

  These decisions represent a vote of confidence in ALBSU. They also demonstrate the Government's commitment to improving the basic skills of the whole population, as part of our broader commitment to achieving the national targets for education and training.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

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

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public
  401
  positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  The Prime Minister
  Recommendations for appointments are made from a number of sources. It is not practicable for my Office to detail those first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Strathclyde Floods
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to visit the victims of the Strathclyde floods.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer Monday 16 January 1995]: My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Local Government for Scotland visited the victims of the flooding, on my behalf, on 12 December 1994 and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made a private visit on 27 December 1994.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  The Attorney-General
  No such appointments have been made in the last year.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between the next steps agencies and Ministers.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The division of responsibilities and the relationship between the chief executive of an agency and the Minister in charge of the Department is set out in the individual agency's framework document. A copy of the framework document for each of the 102 agencies now in existence is available in the Library of the House.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between his departmental Ministers and agencies.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The division of responsibilities and relationship between Ministers and agencies in my Department is set out in the framework document of each agency. Copies of these framework documents, a number of which are undergoing review at present, are in the Library of the House.

  Executive Agencies
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he will set out the principal division of the annual budgets of each of the next steps agencies for each year since their formation.
  402
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Information on the budgets of each of the next steps agencies can be found in their published annual accounts, which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out for each of the next steps agencies, whether they have acquired their own headquarters buildings and, if so, at what purchase cost or annual rental; how many support staff they have required which were not required when their operations were within their parent Government Department; how many of them publish periodical journals and at what annual cost; how many have fleets of executive cars or single executive cars and at what annual cost; how many have specially designed logos and at what cost; how many have corporate clothing and at what cost; and what is the cost of specially designed and printed corporate stationery.

  Mr. David Hunt
  These are matters for individual departmental Ministers and their agency chief executives.

  Agencies operate within the framework of demanding quality standards and tight control of civil service running costs and other financial targets, as set out in the White Paper "The Civil Service—Continuity and Change", Cm 2627. In the usual way, their expenditure is subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. As tasks are delegated to agencies, staff in departmental headquarters previously performing the task are reduced. Staff in agencies remain, of course, civil servants—total civil service manpower has reduced at the same time as more next steps agencies have been established. The record of agencies in improving effectiveness and efficiency in government is summarised in the "Next Steps Review 1994", Cm 2750.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  One.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Subsidiarity
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the instances since the treaty of Maastricht when the principle of subsidiarity has been applied to Community decisions.

  Mr. David Davis
  The principle of subsidiarity applies to all Community decisions. Article 3b of the Maastricht treaty makes this clear, as do the conclusions of successive European Councils since Lisbon in June 1992, and the October 1993 inter-institutional agreement.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the instances when Her Majesty's Government have sought to have the principle of subsidiarity applied since the ratification of the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. David Davis
  We examine closely the subsidiarity implications of all Community decisions, and have done so since long before the Maastricht treaty entered into
  403
  force. The incorporation of subsidiarity into article 3b of the treaty and the undertakings by the Council, Commission and the European Parliament in the 1993 inter-institutional agreement to ensure that subsidiarity checks form an integral part of their internal procedures have helped to entrench subidiarity further into all Community business.

  Caribbean
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to encourage incremental constitutional development suited to the needs of each territory in the dependent territories in the Caribbean.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our policy is to consider constitutional development in the light of the needs of individual dependent territories and ourselves, but such development is subject always to the good government of the territories concerned.

  Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy in respect of an increase in the allocation of financial resources to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our policy is to seek to restrict the annual increase of the budgets of international organisations to zero real growth. In the case of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, we distinguish between administrative and operational expenditure. Administrative expenditure should be subject to ZRG. Operational expenditure is more difficult to foresee and requires more flexible treatment, although it, too, must be cost-effective.

  Since the end of the cold war, the OSCE has increased its activities in conflict prevention and crisis management. These include OSCE missions presently operating in eight OSCE countries and an expansion of the preventive diplomacy work by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the High Commissioner on National Minorities. We fully support these activities.

  The United Kingdom delegation to the OSCE plays an active role in the negotiation of the OSCE' s annual budget and ensuring value for money.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The number of individuals appointed in the last year by this Department who were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit are as follows:

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  None

  Overseas Development Administration

  One (1)

  Iran
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made 404
  of the compatibility of FCO sponsorship of a seminar organised by the Society for Contemporary Iranian Studies on the political economy of contemporary Iran at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, on 18 and 19 January with present Government policy towards Iran; and what is the estimated cost of the seminar to public funds.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our support for the forthcoming conference on Iran is in line with our policy of critical dialogue with Iran. This conference is aimed at promoting understanding of the Iranian economy and strengthening academic and economic contacts with Iranian professionals. We are contributing £1,500 towards conference costs.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Private Members' Bills
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council which private Members' Bills in the current parliamentary Session have been or are being drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Council, wholly or in part; and on whose instructions the drafting is or has been undertaken in each case.

  Mr. Newton
  To date, Parliamentary Counsel has provided drafting assistance for the following Bills on the-instructions of the Departments shown and acting on the authority of Ministers.

  Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill (Trade and Industry)

  Charities (Amendment) Bill (Home Office)

  Proceeds of Crime Bill (Home Office)

  Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill (Transport)

  Olympic Symbol Etc. (Protection) Bill (National Heritage)

  Dogs (Fouling of Land) Bill (Environment)

  Prisoners (Return to Custody) Bill (Home Office)

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what would be the current value of the financial assistance available to private Members for the drafting of balloted bills if it had been increased in line with inflation since its introduction.

  Mr. Newton
  A resolution of the House in 1971 authorised the payment of up to £200 to hon. Members securing one of the first 10 places in the ballot for private Members' Bills, to assist in the cost of drafting. The equivalent sum at 1994–95 prices would be £1,454.

  Laptop Computers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if he will request a copy of the report of the California Senate into the use of laptop computers for hon. Members in the House and Chamber; and if he will make a statement on whether a similar scheme could be analysed by his Department for implementation in the Commons.

  Mr. Waller
  I understand that the computer officer has requested a copy. I shall ask him to circulate it to the Committee when it is received, and to inform the hon. Member.

  Upper Waiting Hall Exhibition
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an
  405
  application for an exhibition relating to the Shaftesbury Society 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 27 March to Friday 31 March 1995.

ENVIRONMENT

  Fire Services
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will review the standard spending assessment formula in respect of the Staffordshire fire services;

  (2) what was the standard spending assessment formula relating to fire service work for (a) inland and (b) coastal fire service authorities relating to fire service work for (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94, (iii) 1994–95 and (iv) proposed for 1995–96.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We are considering representations from local authorities about the proposed settlement for 1995–96, including one dated 6 January 1995 from Staffordshire county council, which asks for a change to the proposed methodology on the fire element of SSAs.

  The same formula is used for inland and coastal authorities. The formulae for 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 are published in part 4 of the local government finance report for the relevant year and for 1995–96 in the draft local government finance report 1995–96.

  House Renovation Grants
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses in Lewisham are in a condition which would qualify them for repairs or renovation grants; and what is the average cost per household of such grants.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department has not made estimates of numbers of properties which would qualify for renovation grants in individual London boroughs. Qualification depends both on the condition of the property and the circumstances of the owner.

  The London borough of Lewisham commissioned the Lewisham private sector house condition survey in 1993. This estimated that 9,500 private homes—14 per cent.—in the London borough of Lewisham did not meet current fitness standards. It does not estimate how many of these homes would qualify for renovation grants if their owners applied, or the cost of such grants.

  Mandatory renovation grants made by the local authority to households in Lewisham in 1994–95 are expected to average around £12,300 each, while discretionary minor works grants are expected to average around £600 each.

  Blyth Valley
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent on industrial investment and environmental improvements by the 406
  northern development company in the Blyth Valley constituency in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Nil. The Northern Development Co. is essentially a promotional organisation co-ordinating inward investment activities in the region.

  Damping Grant
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what damping grant is allocated to Nottinghamshire county council in(a) actual and (b) real terms; and what level in each case is allocated to the average shire council.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  "Damping" or SSA reduction grant was introduced in 1994–95 to assist local authorities which experienced a reduction of more than 2 per cent. in their standard spending assessment as a result of the revision of SSA methodology in 1993 or by the incorporation of 1991 census data. No county council experienced such changes and none therefore received SSA reduction grant. Nottingham city council did and received £1.146 million in 1994–95.

  Under the proposed settlement, reduction grant in respect of the changes in 1994–95 will continue to be paid in 1995–96 with an increase in the threshold for payment up to a further 2 per cent. to 4 per cent. The amount of SSA reduction grant that Nottingham city council will receive under the proposed settlement is £348,000.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what redundancies have been made at the Building Research Establishment; what plans he has for the future of the centre; what assistance is provided by the centre to developing countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There have been no redundancies at the Building Research Establishment.

  The establishment's policy and resources framework is under review; this includes consideration of whether executive agency status is the most appropriate basis for BRE's future operations. My right hon. Friend will make a statement in due course.

  I have asked the chief executive of BRE to write to the hon. Member about the establishment's work in developing countries.

  Letter from R.G. Courtney to Mr. George Foulkes, dated 13 January 1995:

  BRE ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

  The Minister for Construction has asked me to reply to the part of your Parliamentary Question which concerns the assistance BRE provides to developing countries. This currently takes various forms which I outline below.

  Research and associated advice

  Medium-term programmes of research, carried out over a period of three years or so, have addressed many issues relevant to construction in developing countries. They are normally funded by the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) and often includes joint research undertaken with organisations in developing countries. A current ODA-funded programme is demonstrating the value of energy-efficient refurbishment of domestic apartments in China. In this, we are working with the Chinese Academy of

  407
  Building Research. BRE recently concluded a project on low-cost housing in Malaysia carried out with the Universiti Sains Malaysia and the University of Wales. This was partly funded by ODA, with further assistance from the British Council.

  Commissions

  BRE receives commissions, often through ODA or other aid agencies but sometimes directly from the countries concerned, to undertake short-term research-based work to meet specific needs. Examples of this during 1994/95 have included assistance to the timber industry in Honduras, and to the Ministry of Construction in Vietnam. We have also assisted developing countries establish their own building research organisations. For example, BRE advised the Ministry of the Interior in Taiwan on the development of its Building Research Institute, and now continues to provide advice and training to the Institute, at present in fire research and testing.

  Attached workers

  BRE has 'attached workers' from developing countries, for periods of training or to gain research experience. The enclosed BRE Overseas Information Paper explains the scheme. At any time there are usually two or three attached workers at BRE. They are generally in receipt of a scholarship from an aid agency or from their own government.

  Advice to enquirers

  Provision of advice to enquirers from developing countries is funded by ODA at a cost in 1994/95 of nearly £20k. Enquiries are usually concerned with the design of low cost housing and community buildings, the use of alternative building materials and the principles of construction suitable to withstand natural forces such as earthquakes and hurricanes. They are replied to individually, but are often answered by sending an Overseas Building Note. This series of publications has been funded by ODA although no funds are currently available for its development.

  Distribution of research reports

  BRE distributes a limited number of free copies of research reports, and other publications to similar organisations in developing countries, usually on an exchange basis but sometimes as gifts to develop international co-operation.

  International collaboration

  In its main programmes, BRE collaborates with universities and technical institutions from many countries, including developing countries. For example, BRE has an agreement with the Sichuan Institute of Building Research in China, under which the Institute assists BRE by carrying out a small programme of masonry research under a sub-contract.

  In total, BRE received £141k from ODA programmes in 1993/94.

  I hope this information will be helpful; please let me know if you would like me to expand on any aspect of our work.

  River Quality
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many rivers in Britain were found not to be conforming to the basic European standards of hygiene in the last year for which information is available; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Atkins
  No rivers in the United Kingdom are subject to European Union hygiene standards.

  Nottingham City Council

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total

  £k

  £k

  £k

  £k

  £k

  £k

  Urban Programme

  4,178.0

  3,783.0

  3,790.0

  2,694.0

  1,582.0

  16,027.0

  Urban Partnership Fund

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  370.0

  0.0

  370.0

  Derelict Land Grant

  25.0

  139.0

  600.0

  360.0

  104.0

  1,228.0

  Charging (Water and Sewerage)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the expected date when he will announce his decision on the future charging arrangements for water and sewerage.

  Mr. Atkins
  In due course.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between his departmental Ministers and agencies.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for six executive agencies: Ordnance Survey; the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre; Security Facilities Executive; Building Research Establishment; the Buying Agency; and the Planning Inspectorate. The division of responsibilities and relationship between the Secretary of State and each of these agencies is set out in their respective framework documents. Copies of these documents are available in the House of Commons Library.

  BATNEEC
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 1104, if he will qualify what' constitutes BATNEEC, best available techniques not entailing excessive costs; when his Department first instigated this acronym; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Chapter 7 of the "Integrated Pollution Control: A Practical Guide", available in the Library of the House, provides guidance as to the meaning of BATNEEC. Guidance is issued by the Secretary of State and the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution as to BATNEEC standards for industrial processes falling within the local authority air pollution control and integrated pollution control systems respectively. The acronym derives from section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, but has its origins in the concept of best practicable means first set in national legislation in the Alkali Act of 1874.

  Regeneration Funding
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total resources made available to(a) Nottingham city council and (b) Nottinghamshire county council for regeneration in each of the last five years by central Government programmes.

  Mr. Curry
  The following resources were made available to Nottingham city council and Nottinghamshire county council specifically for regeneration purposes in each of the last five years:
  409

  Nottingham City Council

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total

  £k

  £k

  £k

  £k

  £k

  £k

  City Challenge

  0.0

  0.0

  7,585.0

  8,420.0

  7,580.0

  23585.0

  Estate Action

  934.0

  5,527.0

  5,083.0

  5,702.0

  7,108.0

  24,354.0

  Flats over Shops Scheme

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  92.0

  80.0

  172.0

  Compacts

  0.0

  3.5

  77.8

  124.5

  104.9

  310.8

  Teacher Placements

  0.0

  2.4

  27.6

  37.7

  5.2

  72.9

  Education Business Partnerships

  0.0

  0.0

  19.0

  11.9

  4.8

  35.7

  Total

  5,137.0

  9,459.9

  17,182.5

  17,812.0

  16,569.0

  66,155.4

  In addition, the city council has received approval to £8.96m European regional development funds over the five-year period.

  Nottingham County Council

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total

  £k

  £k

  £k

  £k

  £k

  Urban Programme

  672.0

  1218.0

  947.0

  531.0

  227.0

  3595.0

  Urban Partnership Fund

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  65.0

  0.0

  65.0

  Derelict Land Grant

  1200.0

  1728.0

  2631.0

  2134.0

  2970.0

  10663.0

  Coal Area Fund

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  384.0

  0.0

  384.0

  1GEST 19 (for raising standards in Inner City Schools)

  0.0

  0.0

  300.0

  508.0

  173.0

  981.0

  Compacts

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  50.0

  22.1

  72.1

  Teacher Placements

  0.0

  0.0

  20.8

  27.3

  18.9

  67.0

  Education Business Partnerships

  0.0

  0.0

  38.8

  93.9

  55.7

  188.4

  Total:

  1872.0

  2946.0

  3937.7

  3793.2

  3466.7

  16015.5

  1GEST = Grant for Education Support and Training.

  In addition, the city council has received approval to £8.96m European regional development funds over the five-year period.

  Desulphurisation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the number of days in 1993 and 1994 that power generation desulphurisation plant was switched off.

  Mr. Atkins
  Drax and Ratcliffe-on-Soar are the only two power stations fitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment; installation of FGD at these stations is still in progress.

  The first two FGD units at Drax have been operational since February 1994. From then until the end of 1994 they have operated for 98 per cent. of the time that the boilers to which they are linked were operating. The FGD units were off-line for the remainder of the time primarily due to a shut-down for a planned inspection.

  The first FGD unit at Ratcliffe-on-Soar has been operational since March 1994. From then until the end of 1994 it has operated for 95 per cent. of the time that the boilers to which it is linked were operating. The FGD unit
  410
  was off-line for the remainder of the time for inspection work and running repairs-fault rectification.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by power station the funds received from the European Economic Community for desulphurisation plant.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am not aware that the two generating companies in England and Wales have received any such funds.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which coal-burning power stations currently have desulphurisation plants.

  Mr. Atkins
  At present, flue gas desulphurisation equipment operates, or is under construction, for 4 GW of capacity at National Power's Drax power station and for 2 GW of capacity at Powergen's Radcliffe-on-Soar power station.

  Dog Fouling
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the recommendations of the advisory group on litter concerning dog fouling; and what is his response.
  411
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The recommendations of the litter advisory group concerning dog fouling were published as a consultation document on 20 July 1994. The Government's response was set out in the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright) on 14 December 1994,Official Report, column 664.

  Tyne and Wear
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made with the creation of an enterprise zone in the catchment area of the former Swan Hunter's shipyard following the Minister for Industry's statement to the House on 12 May 1993,Official Report, columns 801–809.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Progress on proposals for new enterprise zone sites on Tyneside has been necessarily delayed during the period of uncertainty over the future of the Swan Hunter shipyards. The three local authorities concerned and the Tyne and Wear development corporation have now submitted a package of sites for consideration and this is being examined by the Government Office for the North East.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of a new enterprise zone in Tyne and Wear on(a) the work of the existing city challenge projects in inner west Newcastle and North Shields and (b) employment levels in the former shipbuilding communities of east Newcastle and Wallsend.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No decision has been taken on the sites to be included in the proposals for a new enterprise zone in Tyne and Wear. As soon as agreement is reached, the relevant planning authorities will be asked to submit detailed economic analyses of their proposals.

  Water Supply Disconnections
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many domestic properties had their water supply disconnected in Walthamstow in 1994; and how many of these were in properties which had water meters.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on disconnections by local authority district and by charging method is not available centrally. The Director General of Water Services publishes information on disconnections twice a year, by water company area and by domestic and non-domestic customer. Information on disconnections in the six months to 30 September 1994 was published in an Ofwat news release on 15 November 1994, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Erosion Review
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his review of erosion, deposition and flooding in Great Britain.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is expected that the review of erosion, deposition and flooding in Great Britain, commissioned by my Department, will be published in May 1995.
  412

  Civil Servant Travel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which airlines have been granted preferred carrier status for civil servant travel to overseas destinations

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has not granted preferred carrier status to any airline.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the absenteeism rate for the Building Research Establishment in each year since 1991.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information available is:

  Year

  Proportion of working days lost through sick absences per cent.

  1991

  2.0

  1992

  2.0

  1993

  2.1

  1994

  2.1

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the absenteeism rate for the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in each year since 1991.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of staff employed

  Number of sick days

  1991

  67

  268

  1992

  66

  1582

  1993

  64

  1356

  1994

  64

  1314

  1 These figures are distorted by the following individual sick records:

  Year

  Number and reason

  Days

  1992

  1—Depression

  124

  1—M.E.

  106

  1—Pregnancy problems

  98

  1993

  1—Heart bypass

  119

  1994

  1—Depression

  80

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the absenteeism rate for the Security Facilities Executive in each year since 1991.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Security Facilities Executive was established as an executive agency in October 1993. In its first year of operation the average sick absence rate to the nearest whole number of days was eight per person.

  Geevor Tin Mine
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the pollution threat caused by the flooding of Geevor tin mine in Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The National Rivers Authority has monitored closely the level and quality of water in Geevor mine. In its view, the water now flowing from the mine has had a localised and limited impact, and is easily dispersed by the coastal waters.
  413
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who currently owns and has responsibility for maintaining Geevor tin mine in Cornwall.

  Mr. Atkins
  The surface freehold of Geevor mine is owned by Cornwall county council. I understand that the underground workings of the mine were abandoned in 1991.

  Dog Registration
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him since the 1992 general election in favour of the introduction of a dog registration scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department regularly receives representations on this issue. For example, in response to the advisory group on litter recommendations on dog fouling last year, we received 104 letters which supported the idea of dog registration.

  However, the Government's view has consistently been that dog registration would be bureaucratic and difficult to enforce and that the irresponsible owner would be very unlikely to register. Dog control legislation related to specific problems, as in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and elsewhere, is, we believe, the most appropriate way of tackling these issues.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No central record is maintained of the sources of names of appointees and in some cases they may have been nominated from more than one source. However, from the information readily available, it appears that three of the individuals appointed during 1994 were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Albert Dock Development
  Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to visit the Merseyside development corporation to investigate complaints by residents about the Albert dock development; and if he will make a statement.
  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have no plans to visit the Merseyside development corporation for this purpose.

  I am aware of the concerns of the residents of the Albert dock on some points and have written to the hon. Member. The corporation is continuing to work with the residents, long leaseholder and developer to find a way to resolve problems. In particular, the MDC has liaised with the leaseholder and the residents on the question of the unsatisfactory windows and is hoping to set up a meeting with the two parties on the other issues. A meeting between the developer and the residents has also enabled progress to be made on the question of the further development of residential accommodation.

  Grand Regatta Columbus
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he plans to take with respect 414
  to the chairman and chief executive of the Merseyside development corporation following the publication of the third report of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1994–95, HC 94, on the grand regatta Columbus.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have no plans to take action. I have every confidence that the chairman and chief executive of the Merseyside development corporation will take the necessary action to address the shortcomings in financial management highlighted in the PAC report. Indeed, they have been co-operating with the Department to that end since the publication of the NAO report on the grand regatta Columbus and fanfare for a new world concert in March 1995.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the impact of a significant event affecting the valuation of properties on valuation of properties for council tax purposes.

  Mr. Curry
  For council tax purposes, all dwellings are allocated to valuation bands according to the price that they might reasonably have been expected to have fetched had they been sold, subject to certain assumptions, on 1 April 1991. The listing officer will be prepared to review the banding where there has been a change in the physical state of its locality, for example where a major new road is opened, which has the effect of reducing the value of the dwellings in that area. The impact of such a "significant event" on the housing market will, of course, vary from case to case.

TRANSPORT

  Merchant Navy Veterans
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement in respect of travel, accommodation and light refreshment expenses payable to Merchant Navy veterans for 1995–96; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The extent of future funding for Merchant Navy representatives on Remembrance Sunday has not yet been decided, but the Department will continue to meet reasonable travel and subsistence costs incurred by MN wreath layers.

  Selby Bypass
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many objections have been identified to the draft compulsory purchase orders for the projected Selby bypass; what public inquiry proceedings are expected in relation to the objections received; and when the inquiry will be held.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Michael Alison, dated 17 January 1995:

  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the draft Compulsory Purchase Order for the proposed A63 Selby Bypass scheme.
  415
  To date, 10 objections to this draft Order have been received. Arrangements are being made for these to be dealt with, along with the 14 objections to the draft Supplement Side Roads Order, at a Public Inquiry starting on 30 May this year.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Roads
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of (i) motorway and (ii) trunk roads are currently(a) open, (b) under construction, (c) at the planning inquiry stage or (d) under active consideration as part of the roads programme either (1) as new motorway-trunk road or (2) as existing motorway-trunk road being widened; if he will identify in each case the location and parliamentary constituency; which projects will now be subjected to further review arising out of his response to the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report; and what new assessment will be used.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information, which covers England only, is in the following table:

  Miles of motorway

  Miles of all purpose trunk road

  a) Open

  1,905

  9,465

  b) Under construction

  (Start of works to completion)

  New

  59

  24

  Widening

  14

  89

  c) Planning Inquiry Stage (Orders Published to Start of Works)

  New

  30

  43

  Widening

  193

  55

  d) Under active consideration as part of the Road Programme

  New

  99

  798

  Widening

  598

  176

  The location of schemes in the national road programme is shown in the "Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review" published by my Department in March last year. Copies are in the Library of the House.

  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to send the hon. Member details of the parliamentary constituencies in which those schemes fall. A copy of those details will be placed in the Library.

  All schemes at the planning stage will be reviewed against the guidance issued to the Highways Agency with the Government's response to the SACTRA report.

  Rail Track Sale (London)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was raised from the sale of rail track from the area south-west of London Underground Leyton Central line station; what organisation received the profits from the sale; what has happened to the proceeds of the sale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  The Secretary of State is acquiring by compulsory purchase land and rights over land to the south-west of Leyton underground station extending to some 12 acres of former railway land in and around the Temple Mills area. Negotiations over the terms of purchase and compensation settlement continue.

  Double-decker Buses
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what EC regulations apply to the manufacture and use in the United Kingdom of double-decker buses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 require certain systems and components in vehicles to comply with the performance requirements of EC directives or United Nations Economic Commission for Europe regulations. We are currently awaiting an EC proposal for a draft directive on bus and coach construction.

  A15 (Telephones)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work to install emergency telephones on the A15 Barnetby Top-Humber Bridge section will commence; and when it will be completed.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Michael Brown, dated 17 January 1995:

  John Watts, the Minister for Roads and Railways, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about when work will begin, and be completed, to install emergency telephones on the A 15 between Barnetby Top and Humber Bridge.

  Work will start at the end of January and will take four weeks, subject to good weather.

  Commercial Vehicles (Safety)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many commercial vehicles were stopped and inspected; how many were found to be defective; and how many of those defective had defective brakes in(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c)

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

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 January 1995:

  Vehicle Spot Checks.

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of commercial vehicles stopped and inspected, how many were found to be defective and how many of those defective had defective brakes in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  The information requested is not available by calendar year and has been provided for the financial years (April to March) 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 and is shown in tabular form below.

  Number of Vehicles Inspected during Roadworthiness Spot Checks

  Heavy goods vehicles

  Trailers (HGV)

  Buses and coaches

  1991–92

  90,118

  22,565

  21,106

  1992–93

  100,337

  26,033

  24,895

  1993–94

  93,690

  26,645

  24,521

  The inspections above revealed that the following number of vehicles had serious roadworthiness defects which resulted in prohibition action being taken.
  417

  Number of immediate and delayed roadworthiness prohibitions

  Heavy goods vehicles

  Trailers (HGV)

  Buses and coaches

  1991–92

  14,075

  3,557

  2,552

  1992–93

  14,678

  3,354

  2,289

  1993–94

  14,888

  3,882

  2,419

  The number of these vehicles inspected during roadworthiness spot checks, which had defective brakes, is not available for these inspections alone or in the form requested. The information available, provided below, shows recorded brake related defects as a percentage of all defects recorded from prohibition notices. The data is taken from roadworthiness spot check inspections and roadworthiness inspections done for operator licensing purposes. Data for 1991/92 is not available.

  Heavy goods vehicles per cent

  Trailers (HGV) per cent

  Buses and coaches per cent

  1991–92

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  30.5

  42

  19

  1993–94

  32.5

  43

  19

  The information on inspections does not include:

  (i) roadworthiness enforcement activity on light goods vehicles; and

  (ii) limited roadworthiness spot checks confined to vehicle lighting or exhaust emissions.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to remove any commercial vehicles found to have defective brakes from the roads(a) for three months for the first offence, (b) for 12 months for a second offence and (c) confiscation for the third offence by the same owners/operators.

  Mr. Norris
  No. Sanctions are properly a matter for the courts and the traffic commissioners.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Marine Safety Agency will complete its survey of those ports which have facilities to accept chemical contaminated waste; if he will list the ports so designated; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 January 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about ports which have facilities for accepting chemical contaminated wastes.

  The Marine Safety Agency has a policy of constantly reviewing the provision of waste reception facilities at ports. This is in part to meet our commitment to ensure that the facilities are adequate under the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, know as MARPOL. The Department of Transport is also assessing the provision of facilities to assist in the development of measures following the recommendations in Lord Donaldson's report into the prevention of pollution from merchant shipping "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas".

  At the moment we have two surveys in hand: a questionnaire survey of the types and capacity of reception facilities and an independent assessment of the adequacy of those facilities. The responses from the questionnaire survey were received in late 1994 and are currently being analysed. We also hope that the team of consultants carrying out the second assessment will have finalized
  418
  their reports shortly. I will send you personal copies of both reports when they are available.

  Vehicle Checks
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he currently assesses the roadworthiness of cars, heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles; and what plans he has to vary the present requirement for the production of MOT certificates as a prerequisite for the purchase of vehicle excise duty tax discs.

  Mr. Norris
  Vehicles are assessed for roadworthiness at annual tests. They are also checked at the roadside by the police and examiners from the Vehicle Inspectorate.

  I have no plans to change the current check of MOT test certificates when vehicles are relicensed.

  Concessionary Travel, London
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Transport what plans he has to impose a concessionary travel scheme for pensioners and disabled people across London for the coming year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  None. The provision of travel concessions for elderly and disabled people is a matter for the London local authorities. I understand that the boroughs have agreed a scheme for London Transport services for the coming year, but are still considering the arrangements for London rail services.

  Wrightington Hospital Mobility Centre
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding assistance his Department will give to the accredited mobility centre at Wrightington hospital in Lancashire when its grant from the regional health authority ends.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport mobility advice and vehicle information service has provided support to the mobility centre at Wrightington over a number of years through loans of vehicles and equipment and the services of its peripatetic driving adviser. The Department has no means to provide funding assistance.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Mr. Norris
  Two.

  Cones Hotline
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest calculation of the total number of calls to the cones hotline that(a) required the removal of cones and (b) did not justify action; and what was the total loss of cones hotline.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  419
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 17 January 1995:

  You asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest calculation of the total number of calls to the Cones Hotline that (a) required the removal of cones and (b) did not justify action; and what was the total cost of the Cones Hotline.

  As this is an operational matter for the Highways Agency, I have been asked to reply.

  The Cones Hotline has currently received 12,100 calls since its inception in June 1992. Of these, 6,100 cases have been complaints about observations on cones and traffic management at roadworks which have been followed up by the relevant regional office. As a consequence of this follow up action, there have been 5 cases where it has been necessary to remove the traffic management. The remaining calls have comprised general enquiries and requests for information which have been dealt with immediately.

  Since March 1994, the Cones Hotline has operated on a dedicated local call rate number. The cost of running the Cones Hotline is approximately £5000 per annum, including call charges. Other running costs are not separately identifiable since they have been, and are still being, met from within budgets agreed before the Hotline was established.

  I hope this information is helpful.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Speeding
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for controlling excessive speeding by vehicles along the Shore road, Ballyhalbert; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  The Department is not aware of a speeding problem at Shore road, Ballyhalbert where a 30 mph speed limit exists. However the matter will be brought to the attention of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is responsible for enforcing speed limits.

  RUC
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number and names of the groups and organisations which are to be consulted by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland with regard to changes in the structure of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and what is the estimated cost of this exercise.

  Sir John Wheeler
  This is a matter for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. However, I understand that, in pursuit of its statutory obligation to make arrangements for obtaining the views of people about policing, after consulting the Chief Constable the authority wishes to give as many individuals, community groups and organisations as possible the opportunity to have their say about future policing needs and priorities in Northern Ireland. Accordingly, the authority plans to provide information about the consultation exercise to each household in Northern Ireland. Accordingly, the authority plans to provide information about the consultation exercise to each household in Northern Ireland and to invite views from political and religious groupings, business and trade union organisations, justice, peace, legal, community, sporting, social, charity and youth bodies. Including newspaper advertisements, printing and postage, the cost of the project is estimated at £70,000. The authority is seeking responses by 2 May 1995.

  Eggs
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the expected impact of the compulsory user of heat-treated feed on Northern Ireland egg production; whether the Northern Ireland Egg Producers Association was consulted prior to the decision to make this feed compulsory; whether the use of heat-treated feed is compulsory for egg production in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the future prospects for the Northern Ireland egg industry.

  Mr. Ancram
  There is an additional cost in the use of heat-treated feed. Although some egg producers are concerned about possible adverse effects on egg quality, this has not been substantiated in the experimental work carried out by the Department of Agriculture. A significant number of egg producers in Northern Ireland are using heat-treated feed successfully.

  The heat treatment requirement was introduced in 1991 following consultation with the egg and poultry industry to protect the industry against the introduction of Newcastle disease through a feed source. The Northern Ireland Egg Producers Association was not in existence at the time.

  The use of heat-treated poultry feeding stuffs is not compulsory in Great Britain.

  The Northern Ireland egg industry, which has a reputation for producing quality eggs, can maintain its. position on the export market and look forward with confidence to the future.

  Maze Prison
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many firearms are under the control of prisoners at Her Majesty's prison at the Maze; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners at Her Majesty's Maze prison have access to mobile telephones; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Prisoners are not permitted mobile telephones. There are reports about the supposed availability of mobile telephones in HMP Maze and these are subject to investigation and regular searching procedures.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new jobs have been provided in the boroughs of(a) Ards and (b) Castlereagh in each of the past five years as a result of assistance from the Industrial Development Board; and when the IDB last arranged a visit to each of these boroughs by a potential inward investor.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on jobs promoted with assistance from the Industrial Development Board in the Ards and Castlereagh district council areas is set out in the table. The last visit by potential inward investors, arranged by IDB, was on 15 September 1994 in the case of Ards district council and on 14 December 1994 to Castlereagh district council area.
  421

  Jobs promoted with IDB assistance

  Ards

  Castlereagh

  1990–91

  50

  68

  1991–92

  149

  84

  1992–93

  49

  —

  1993–94

  41

  —

  1994 (April to December)

  —

  14

  Total

  289

  166

  AIDS
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have died as a result of AIDS or illness associated with AIDS in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Moss
  The number of persons known to have died in Northern Ireland as a result of AIDS, or illness associated with AIDS, in each of the past five years is given below:

  1990: 91

  1991: 5

  1992: 4

  1993: 31

  1994: 5 (provisional)

  1Includes one case diagnosed in England

  Cattle
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current number of cattle aged 30 months or under with enzootic bovine leucosis; what the figure was 12 months ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  None. There has never been any recorded outbreaks of enzootic bovine leucosis in Northern Ireland. In 1991 Northern Ireland was recognised as an EBL free region of the EC.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants are employed by the Northern Ireland Office(a) in Stormont and (b) in Whitehall.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of civil servants employed by the Northern Ireland Office on 30 December 1994 was 1,556.

  Of this total, 486 are employed in Stormont, 104 in Whitehall and the remainder at other locations throughout Northern Ireland.

  Terrorists (Educational Background)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies have been carried out by his Department into the educational attainments of persons convicted of terrorist-type crimes in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not normal practice to conduct general studies of prisoners' attainments regardless of their convictions. However, the prior educational attainments of individual prisoners are assessed when they are being advised about the opportunities available to them during their imprisonment.
  422
  Records of examination results achieved in prisons are included each year in the annual report of the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

  Vehicle Registration Numbers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the ranges of the vehicle registration numbers in Northern Ireland which have not been issued; what arrangements he has made for the sale of those numbers; when he now expects to dispose of them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  Registration marks in the following series have not been issued:

  Marks 1 to 99 in each of the following series:

  ABZ, BBZ, BDZ, CBZ, DBZ, DDZ, DUI, EDZ, FDZ, FIL, GDZ, IIW, IXI, JJI, JIW, JXI, KIB, KJI, KXI, LIB, LJI, LXI, MIB, MXI, NXI, OXI, WIJ, XIJ, CDZ, JIB, YIJ.

  Marks 1 to 999 in each of the following series:

  AAZ, BAZ, CAZ, DAZ, EAZ, EBZ, EUI, FAZ, FBZ,GBZ, GIL, GUI, HBZ, HUI, IBZ, IDZ, IIL, JBZ, JDZ, KBZ, KDZ, KIW, LDZ, LIW, MDZ, MIW, MJI, NDZ, NIB, NIW, NJI, OIB, OIW, OJI, PIW, PDZ, PIB, PXI, RDZ, RIB, RIW, RJI, RXI, SDZ, SIB, SXI, TIB, TJI, TXI, UIB, UXI, VIB, VXI, WIB, WXI, XXI, YXI.

  Marks 1 to 1999 in the following series:

  JIL, HIL, LIL.

  The series FUI and KIL were not issued since it was considered that their use might give rise to offence.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland—the agency with responsibility for the registration of vehicles in Northern Ireland—is considering the administrative arrangement, including the need for legislation, which would be required to enable these marks to be offered for sale to the public. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement in a few months about the introduction of a sale of marks scheme in Northern Ireland.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 25 November 1994,Official Report, column 403, what percentage of total admissions was represented by emergency hospital admissions.

  Mr. Moss
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Emergency admissions as a percentage of total admissions

  1989–90

  45

  1990–91

  42

  1991–92

  40

  1992–93

  37

  1993–94

  37

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the individuals appointed
  423
  by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Sir John Wheeler
  None of the individuals appointed to public positions in the last year was first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Stormont (Fire)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the cost of repairing and restoring the Parliament buildings, Stormont; when he expects the work to begin and end; and if he will ensure that the building will be repaired to the standard existing before the fire of 2 January.

  Mr. Moss
  No estimate has yet been taken about the restoration of the former House of Commons Chamber. I will, however, be reviewing options in the light of prevailing circumstances.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the fire and smoke detection equipment installed in the Parliament buildings, Stormont, and whether any fire suppression or control equipment including sprinkler systems were in place;

  1991

  Class

  Killed

  Alcohol principle factor

  Alcohol contributory factor

  Speed principle factor

  Speed contributory factor

  Pedestrians

  45

  8

  3

  6

  0

  Pedal cyclists

  9

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Motor cyclists

  17

  4

  0

  4

  3

  Car passengers

  49

  6

  1

  17

  0

  Car Drivers

  57

  14

  0

  15

  9

  HGV drivers

  5

  0

  1

  2

  0

  HGV passengers

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Others

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Scar belt usage for fatalities in 1991

  Class

  In use

  Not in use

  Not known

  Exempt

  Car passengers

  23

  16

  9

  1

  Car drivers

  33

  13

  8

  3

  HGV drivers

  Category

  Exempt

  —

  —

  HGV passengers

  Category

  Exempt

  —

  —

  Others

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992

  Class

  Killed

  Alcohol principle factor

  Alcohol contributory factor

  Speed principle factor

  Speed contributory factor

  Pedestrians

  47

  13

  0

  2

  2

  Pedal cyclists

  7

  3

  0

  1

  1

  Motor cyclists

  11

  2

  0

  4

  1

  Car passengers

  29

  8

  0

  5

  4

  Car drivers

  43

  10

  0

  13

  9

  HGV drivers

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  HGV passengers

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Others

  9

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Seat belt usage for fatalities in 1992

  Class

  In use

  Not in use

  Not known

  Exempt

  Car passengers

  12

  11

  5

  1

  Car drivers

  20

  10

  11

  2

  424
  what was the distance between the building and the nearest fire hydrant; and if he will make a statement on the fire of 2 January.

  Mr. Moss
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on 13 January,Official Report, columns 235–36.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have died in road accidents in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years; in each year how many were(a) pedestrians, (b) drivers, (c) motor cyclists, (d) car passengers, (e) car drivers, (f) heavy goods vehicle drivers, (g) heavy goods vehicle passengers and (h) others; and in regard to each such category how many of the deaths were attributable in some degree to (i) alcohol, (ii) speed and (iii) not wearing a seat belt.

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not possible to state whether or not fatalities are attributable in any degree to failure to wear a seat belt. Seat belt usage information for fatalities is provided for information.
  425

  Seat belt usage for fatalities in 1992

  Class

  In use

  Not in use

  Not known

  Exempt

  HGV drivers

  Category

  Exempt

  —

  —

  HGV passengers

  Category

  Exempt

  —

  —

  Others

  0

  8

  1

  0

  1993

  Class

  Killed

  Alcohol principle factor

  Alcohol contributory factor

  Speed principle factor

  Speed contributory factor

  Pedestrians

  42

  11

  0

  0

  0

  Pedal cyclists

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Motor cyclists

  16

  4

  0

  3

  2

  Car passengers

  21

  5

  0

  8

  2

  Car drivers

  54

  16

  1

  14

  8

  HGV drivers

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  HGV passengers

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Others

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Seat belt usage for fatalities in 1993

  Class

  In use

  Not in use

  Not known

  Exempt

  Car passengers

  9

  1

  11

  0

  Car drivers

  18

  11

  24

  1

  HGV drivers

  Category

  Exempt

  —

  —

  HGV passengers

  Category

  Exempt

  —

  —

  others

  0

  0

  0

  3

  The provisional road traffic accident fatalities figure for 1994 is 157. A breakdown is not yet available.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Swimming Teaching
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidelines he has issued in respect of minimum levels and standards of swimming teaching in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Detailed advice on safe practice in the teaching of swimming is included in the handbook "Safe Practice in Physical Education" which was first published in 1985 by the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education. A revised edition of the handbook was published in 1990 with the approval and recommendation of the, then, Department of Education and Science.

  The advice includes details about recommended teacher/tutor qualifications, supervision, pupils' behaviour, pool safety and equipment.

  Precise teaching methods are a matter for individual schools, and it is for schools to satisfy themselves that those who teach swimming are suitably qualified.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will visit James Brindley high school and Tunstall swimming pool to discuss the operation of the standard spending assessment formula applied by the Department of Environment in respect of the teaching of swimming to school children.
  426
  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage nor I has any immediate plans to visit this school or swimming pool. The Government have set the overall totals for local authority spending in a way which allows all authorities to increase their spending in 1995–96. But each council is solely responsible for determining its spending priorities between and within services, in deciding the amount to be spent on schools swimming.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what assessment he has made of the teaching resources required to ensure adequate levels of swimming teaching for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure adequate provision is made for swimming teaching in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Surveys carried out by this Department have shown a considerable commitment from schools and local education authorities to swimming in schools. Implementation of national curriculum physical education began in August 1992. However, because of the difficulty which some schools might have had in providing swimming tuition, the implementation of the swimming requirements of the PE curriculum were deferred until August 1994. This allowed those schools which needed it another two years to make the arrangements necessary to provide swimming tuition.

  Second World War Commemoration
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how he proposes to fund the programme of events in Hyde park, from 6 to 8 May, to
  427
  commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end in Europe of the second world war.

  Mr. Dorrell
  During the current financial year it will be necessary to make payments to Messrs Unusual Industries, which has been contracted to provide the specified service. Consultancy payments will also be made to a programme project manager. Parliamentary approval for this new service is being sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department of National Heritage vote for film, tourism, sport and broadcasting—class XI, vote 5.

  The associated costs of the Department's support team will be met from the Department of National Heritage administration vote—class XI, vote 7—within existing provision.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the charities that have so far benefited from the Government share of the national lottery.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No applicants, including charities, have yet received funding from the proceeds of the national lottery. The proceeds will remain invested until the distributing bodies are ready to pay grants to good causes.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with Camelot plc on measures to ensure that the operation of the national lottery reflects the policy of equal validity of the Welsh and English languages; if he will make it his policy to ensure implementation of the policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for the Director General of the National Lottery. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to encourage more general practitioner practices to become fundholding.

  Mr. Malone
  We have recently announced a major extension of the options for general practitioner fundholding. Our aim is to extend the benefits for patients as widely as possible.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 December 1994,Official Report, column 401, if she will now publish information for 1993–94 on general practitioner fundholders' savings.

  Mr. Malone
  Final audited information is not yet available.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total administrative costs of general practitioner fundholding in 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: General practitioner fundholding practices receive additional allowances for directly managing their funds and purchasing care on their patients' behalf. These costs represent about 2 per cent. of budgets set and amounted
  428
  to £14.1 million in 1991–92, £29.5 million in 1992–93 and £49.5 million in 1993–94. Figures for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  It is not possible to disaggregate other administration costs from total costs.

  Patient Services (Charges)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those trusts that are charging for television use and other patient services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Guy's Hospital
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning the proposed closure of Guy's hospital accident and emergency unit.

  Mr. Malone
  South East London health authority is currently consulting on future services at Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals and all representations received by the Department have been passed to SELHA to be taken into account.

  Patient Treatments, North West Region
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients were treated in the north-west region in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the figure in the previous year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of finished consultant episodes in the general and acute sector purchased by the national health service for patients from the former north-western region was 782,000 in 1993–94 compared with 748,000 in 1992–93—an increase of 4.5 per cent.

  Ward Running Costs
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are estimated to be the respective costs of running the average(a) single sex and (b) mixed ward; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available. The cost of maintaining a bed for a patient depends more upon the specialty than on the sex of the patient. However, when properly used, mixed-sex accommodation can lead to a more efficient use of hospital beds, and better quality care for patients.

  NHS (Private Sector Involvement)
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to further involve the private sector in the NHS; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government welcome cost-effective co-operation between the national health service and the independent sector. NHS managers and general practitioner fundholders are encouraged at a local level to seek improved quality, better value for money and best use of resources, irrespective of whether it is from the public or private sector. Such co-operation is to the advantage of patients and the NHS.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health
  429
  if she will make a statement on her Department's plans to contract with the private sector to design, build and run district general hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for local decision.

  Capitation Funding Formula
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to issue a simplified explanation of the new needs-driven formula of capitation funding for health authorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  A booklet entitled "HCHS (Hospital and Community Health Services) Revenue Resource Allocation: Weighted Capitation Formula" has been placed in the Library. It gives a simplified explanation of the modified weighted capitation formula.

  Hospital Trust Boards
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the criteria for appointment to hospital trust boards.

  Mr. Malone
  Non-executive directors of national health service trusts are appointed for their personal qualities and the knowledge and skills which they can bring to the post and not to represent any particular body or interest.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of district health authorities in England; what was the number in March 1991; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  There are 110 district health authorities in England. In March 1991 they numbered 189.

  The reduction in the number of district health authorities is part of our programme for achieving more effective and efficient health authorities which link primary and secondary care, for streamlining management structures and improving the health of the population.

  Health Services, Northumberland
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the provision of health services in south-east Northumberland; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Northumberland health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chief executive, Mrs. J. Axelby, for details.

  Health Information
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to improve the provision of information on health matters for NHS patients and the wider public.

  Mr. Malone
  The patients charter sets out the right of every citizen to be given information on local health services, including quality standards and maximum waiting times. In January 1993, a national freephone health information service was launched which puts callers in contact with their local regional health information services. The service can be contacted free of charge on 0800 665544. It provides information in confidence about local national health services; patients 430
  charter standards and waiting times; common diseases, conditions and treatments, including details of self-help groups; how to complain about NHS services; and how to maintain and improve personal health. Health authorities produce annual reports for the public on hospitals' patients charter performance, and hospitals publicly display information to patients about their services, including their own patients charter performance, and a named person to whom complaints should be made. In June 1994, the first set of annual NHS comparative performance tables were published, showing the public how their local health services were performing under six main headings based upon patients charter information.

  In addition, NHS trusts are required to publish an annual report and accounts, which includes information about the principal activities of the trust together with details of any activities in research and development with a comparison with that of the previous year. Recent measures have been taken to increase the information published in this document and from 1994–95, the report will include information on the trusts performance against a number of local-national patients charter standards.

  NHS Waiting Times
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the average NHS waiting time since March 1988.

  Mr. Malone
  The average waiting time for hospital treatment has fallen from 9.2 months in March 1988 to 4.6 months in March 1994.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS patients are seen(a) within five weeks and (b) within three months; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  In 1992–93, the latest year for which information is available, 56 per cent. of national health service patients admitted to hospital were admitted within five weeks, and 73 per cent. within three months.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to make further progress in reducing the amount of time patients have to wait for hospital treatment.

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service has already made huge strides in reducing waiting times. In all but a handful of cases no one now waits more than two years for treatment, and the average waiting time has been cut from over nine months in 1987 to less than five months now. We expect to see further progress and from 1 April 1995 the maximum length of wait for in-patient or day case treatment for all patients will be reduced from 24 to 18 months. We will also introduce two new standards—a maximum waiting time of 12 months for patients waiting for coronary artery bypass grafts and some associated procedures and also, for the first time ever, a standard for the maximum wait for a first out-patient appointment.

  Blood
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate has been made by her Department of the current shortfall in blood stocks at the present time.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority has sufficient stocks to meet the needs of hospitals for blood at the present time.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health
  431
  when she expects to make a decision about the future of the blood transfusion service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority has announced that it will ask an independent panel consisting of Professor A. Bellingham, president of the Royal College of Pathologists; Professor A. Breckenridge; Professor in Pharmacology, university of Liverpool; Dr. H. Gunson; previous medical director, National Blood Authority; and Mr. P. Griffiths; director, King's Fund college, to ensure that the authority, in coming to its final decisions, has given due and objective consideration to the comments received during its recent consultation. The authority will publish its final proposals in due course.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what her Department's policy is on meeting the needs of younger people with Alzheimer's disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for the local health and social services authorities to assess the needs of younger people with Alzheimer's disease and to arrange to provide the appropriate services.

  Community Care
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to assess unmet community care needs.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities have the responsibility of assessing individual needs under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1989 and to decide with the individual concerned how best to meet these needs.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from the Association of Directors of Social Services on the practice of cost-shunting of vulnerable elderly people between health authorities and local councils; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  As part of the new community care arrangements in England, local authorities have been required to reach agreements with health authorities on their respective responsibilities for continuing care and procedures for hospital discharge. These arrangements are being repeated for 1995–96 and local authorities have been asked to provide evidence of joint strategies to address any operational problems which have been identified. Arrangements in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  New-born babies
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new-born babies died in(a) the Cheviot and Wansbeck trust hospitals and (b) Ashington hospital in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  No reliable figures are held centrally on this subject. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the trust, Mr. Roger Baker, for details.

  Drug and Alcohol
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what purposes the drug and alcohol specific grant is intended to be put.
  432
  Mr. Bowis
  The purposes of specific grant are:

  1. to assist local authorities to develop the voluntary sector's contribution to improving the adequacy, quality and suitability of the social care elements of services for alcohol and drug misusers;

  2. to support residential, day and domiciliary services as appropriate, according to local needs, especially for "hard to reach" groups;

  3. to contribute to the planned provision of services for alcohol and/or drug misusers within local community care plans.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the amounts of drug and alcohol specific grant awarded to each London borough since 1990–91.

  Mr. Bowis
  The amounts of specific grant awarded at the start of each financial year since 1990–91 are shown in the table.

  Name of borough

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Barnet

  —

  —

  5,274

  5,387

  Bexley

  —

  6,048

  —

  —

  Brent

  —

  —

  43,458

  79,067

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  7,161

  24,360

  31,360

  Camden

  22,600

  10,044

  7,984

  47,420

  Corporation of the City of London

  —

  —

  —

  61,788

  Croydon

  7,350

  5,325

  8,883

  16,310

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  24,358

  Greenwich

  5,500

  6,000

  6,125

  —

  Hackney

  —

  21,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  35,706

  31,006

  42,321

  15,165.50

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  63,000

  Harrow

  —

  —

  8,520

  —

  Havering

  —

  7,161

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  —

  7,025

  Hounslow

  17,505

  16,862

  21,490

  61,888

  Islington

  34,009

  50,030

  73,289

  91,688

  Kensington and Chelsea

  102,492

  135,812

  126,910

  63,888

  Kingston

  11,666

  18,500

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  17,500

  21,000

  39,746

  18,630

  Lewisham

  12,527

  47,599

  15,619

  14,619

  Merton

  —

  —

  10,066

  —

  Newham

  —

  7,161

  —

  93,842

  Redbridge

  —

  19,761

  —

  —

  Richmond

  7,700

  7,700

  15,400

  —

  Southwark

  41,548

  105,957

  65,910

  35,641

  Sutton

  —

  18,512

  18,512

  124,212

  Tower Hamlets

  104,062

  166,660

  117,165

  100,500

  Waltham Forest

  50,505

  65,225

  62,841

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  44,882

  49.666

  49,866

  Westminster

  42,000

  18,340

  79,552

  109,091

  Cheviot and Wansbeck Trust
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many audited accounts she has seen for the Cheviot and Wansbeck trust; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will instigate an inquiry into the accounts of the Cheviot and Wansbeck trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  Accounts for the Cheviot and Wansbeck trust's first year are not due to be audited until the summer of 1995. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not see the accounts until the audit is complete.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions serious conditions were later discovered to have been misdiagnosed in the
  433
  Wansbeck and Cheviot maternity unit and the Northumberland health authority in each year since 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Cheviot and Wansbeck national health service trust and Northumberland health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the trust and the vice-chairman of the authority, Mr. Roger Baker and Mr. David Wright, for details.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to provide additional funding for the Cheviot and Wansbeck trust; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service trusts receive no direct funding from the Department of Health. They derive their income principally from contracts with purchasers—health authorities and general practitioners fundholders—to provide health care.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received relating to financial irregularities at the Cheviot and Wansbeck trust; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the waiting list(a) for out-patient examinations and (b) for in-patient surgery in the Northumberland health authority and the Cheviot and Wansbeck hospital.

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the waiting time for first out-patient appointments will be published shortly.

  Information on waiting times for in-patient and day case treatment by national health service trust and non-trust hospital is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Forensic Psychiatry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, for each regional health authority, how many doctors have been trained each year for the last five years in forensic psychiatry; and how many qualified in forensic psychiatry are practising by region in the national health service.

  Mr. Malone
  The tables show the numbers of registrars, senior registrars and consultants in forensic psychiatry.

  Table 1: Forensic psychiatry: numbers as at 30 September each year: senior registrars and registrars

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  England

  31

  28

  46

  40

  40

  Total for all regions listed below:

  32

  28

  46

  40

  40

  Northern

  1

  1

  —

  3

  1

  Yorkshire

  2

  —

  1

  2

  2

  Trent

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  East Anglia

  1

  —

  2

  2

  2

  1993

  1994

  Transplant

  Heart

  Heart/Lung

  Lung

  Heart

  Heart/Lung

  Lung

  Freeman Hospital

  35

  3

  29

  46

  4

  20

  Northern General Hospital

  22

  —

  1

  22

  —

  2

  Papworth Hospital

  44

  16

  20

  49

  21

  20

  Harefield Hospital

  70

  9

  30

  83

  14

  51

  Great Ormond Street Hospital

  9

  5

  —

  12

  5

  —

  434

  Table 1:Forensic psychiatry: numbers as at 30 September each year: senior registrars and registrars

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  North West Thames

  1

  —

  2

  3

  4

  North East Thames

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  South East Thames

  1

  2

  2

  3

  2

  South West Thames

  2

  2

  3

  1

  —

  Wessex

  1

  2

  3

  1

  2

  Oxford

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  South Western

  2

  2

  3

  2

  3

  West Midlands

  6

  7

  13

  5

  2

  Mersey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Western

  2

  2

  3

  4

  2

  SHAs

  4

  2

  2

  3

  3

  Special hospitals

  7

  8

  10

  7

  13

  Notes:

  Some staff are counted in more than one region. Hence the total for all regions may exceed the corresponding figure for England. There were slight undercounts in the censuses for 1990 and 1991. It is not known whether these affected the data for forensic psychiatry.

  Forensic psychiatry: numbers as at 30 September each year: consultants

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  England

  75

  71

  68

  80

  82

  Total for all regions listed below:

  77

  74

  71

  83

  85

  Northern

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Yorkshire

  5

  3

  3

  5

  5

  Trent

  4

  3

  3

  4

  4

  East Anglia

  3

  3

  3

  2

  3

  North West Thames

  3

  3

  3

  4

  1

  North East Thames

  4

  2

  2

  3

  3

  South East Thames

  7

  6

  6

  4

  3

  South West Thames

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Wessex

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Oxford

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  South Western

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  West Midlands

  4

  5

  5

  6

  6

  Mersey

  3

  5

  3

  4

  3

  North Western

  4

  4

  5

  5

  5

  SHAs

  5

  5

  5

  4

  5

  Special hospitals

  25

  25

  22

  33

  36

  Notes:

  Some staff are counted in more than one region. Hence the total for all regions may exceed the corresponding figure for England.

  There were slight undercounts in the censuses for 1990 and 1991. It is not known whether these affected the data for forensic psychiatry.

  Heart and Lung Transplants
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each designated heart and lung transplant unit the numbers of(a) heart, (b) lung, single or double and (c) heart and lung transplants carried out in the calendar years 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for England is shown in the table. The figures for 1994 are provisional. Responsibility for such provision in Scotland rests with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  435

  1993

  1994

  Transplant

  Heart

  Heart/Lung

  Lung

  Heart

  Heart/Lung

  Heart

  St. George's Hospital

  45

  —

  —

  37

  —

  2

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital

  26

  1

  —

  21

  6

  1

  Wythenshawe Hospital

  29

  2

  16

  26

  3

  21

  Total

  280

  35

  96

  296

  53

  117

  Figures provided by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority.

  Health Trusts and Authorities
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the differences between(a) a health trust and (b) a district health authority (i) statutory and (ii) management accounts; and which accounts are used to assess the financial position of the trust or authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  Management accounts are produced during the financial year by trusts and health authorities for performance management purposes. They provide internal information based upon unaudited figures, including some estimates and forward forecasts. This internal management information is succeeded by the statutory annual accounts which are subject to full audit and are therefore not available until after the end of the year.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish by national health service trust for 1993–94 the expenses paid to the chairman.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the names of NHS trust chief executives who resigned or whose contracts were terminated in 1993–94 stating, in each case, the name of the trust involved and the amounts paid for loss of office.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between her departmental Ministers and agencies.

  Mr. Sackville
  Next steps agency framework documents, copies of which are available in the Library, set out the relationship between Ministers and agencies and their respective responsibilities.

  Maternity Units
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time mothers spend in maternity units in(a) the Northumberland health authority and (b) the Wansbeck and Cheviot hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1992–93, the latest year for which information is available, the average length of stay for mothers in maternity units was 4.3 days in both the Northumberland district health authority and the former Wansbeck and Cheviot unit.

  Management Allowances
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will call for a report on the level of management 436
  allowance given to general practitioners in Sunderland who are (a) fundholders and (b) non-fundholders.

  Mr. Malone
  No. Management allowances reimburse fundholding general practitioners for costs incurred in directly managing their funds and purchasing care on behalf of their patients.

  Non-fundholders do not have such additional responsibilities and do not receive management allowances.

  Bed Statistics
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what has been the change in the number of beds in Northumberland district health authority in each year since 1987;

  (2) what were the numbers of beds available to the national health service in each since 1988 in (a) the Northumberland health authority, (b) the Cheviot and Wansbeck hospital and (c) the Ashington hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for 1987 are published in "Summary of KHO3 Pt. II Wards open overnight England, National, Regional and District Summaries for the financial year 1987/88"; figures for years since 1988 to March 1994 are published in "Bed availability for England". Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Dementia
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total cost of providing health care services to support people with dementia and their carers; and what estimates her Department has made of future costs.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not collected in such a way that we can identify costs specifically for dementia services.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS research and development funds are spent on dementia care.

  Mr. Bowis
  The national health service funds a range of research and development work into dementia care. Detailed information on the amount and proportion spent is not available centrally.

  Mattress Covers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking with respect to the use by national health service trusts of mattress covers which have antimony and phosphorous in the tire retardant material.

  Mr. Sackville
  The chief medical officer has set up an expert working group chaired by Lady Limerick to undertake a new investigation of the claims and hypotheses recently made which link these two chemicals
  437
  with cot deaths, and to report as soon as possible. The 1991 Turner report said such claims were unfounded. Further action will depend on the advice of the expert group.

  Merit Awards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number and total cost of merit awards currently made to consultants for each health authority in England.

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the number of consultants in receipt of distinction awards employed by each health authority in England is shown in the table. Data on the total costs of these awards could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Consultants' Distinction Awards: Awards held by consultants employed by regional and district health authorities and by the London special health authorities

  Number

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Northern and Yorkshire RHA

  8

  Northumberland HA

  0

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  0

  Sunderland HA

  0

  North Durham HA

  0

  South Durham HA

  0

  Tees HA

  0

  South of Tyne HA

  0

  North Cumbria HA

  2

  East Riding HA

  2

  United Health (Grimsby and Scunthorpe) HA

  0

  North Yorkshire HA

  2

  Bradford HA

  1

  West Yorkshire HA

  0

  Leeds HA

  17

  Wakefield HA

  0

  Trent

  Trent RHA

  4

  North Derbyshire HA

  0

  South Derbyshire HA

  0

  Leicestershire HA

  3

  Nottingham HA

  2

  Barnsley HA

  0

  Doncaster HA

  0

  Rotherham HA

  0

  Sheffield HA

  9

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  0

  Lincolnshire HA

  4

  Anglia and Oxford

  Anglia and Oxford RHA

  11

  North West Anglia HA

  1

  Huntingdon and Cambridge HA

  0

  Suffolk HA

  1

  East Norfolk HA

  0

  Bedfordshire HA

  0

  Berkshire HA

  3

  Buckinghamshire HA

  1

  Northamptonshire HA

  2

  Oxfordshire HA

  8

  North Thames

  North Thames RHA

  14

  Hertfordshire HA

  0

  Barnet HA

  1

  Hillingdon HA

  0

  Brent and Harrow HA

  1

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  0

  Kensington Chelsea and Westminister HA

  2

  North Essex HA

  17

  438

  Consultants' Distinction Awards: Awards held by consultants employed by regional and district health authorities and by the London special health authorities

  Number

  South Essex HA

  0

  Barking and Havering HA

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  0

  East London and The City HA

  43

  New River HA

  2

  Camden and Islington HA

  4

  South Thames

  South Thames RHA

  7

  Bromley HA

  0

  East Sussex HA

  3

  East Kent HA

  1

  West Kent HA

  1

  Bexley and Greenwich HA

  0

  South East London HA

  4

  East Surrey HA

  1

  Chichester HA

  0

  Mid Downs HA

  1

  Worthing HA

  2

  Croydon HA

  2

  North West Surrey HA

  0

  South West Surrey HA

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  19

  Mid Surrey HA

  3

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  0

  South and West

  South West RHA

  7

  Dorset HA

  2

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  1

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  0

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  0

  Wiltshire and Bath HA

  1

  Isle of Wight HA

  0

  Bristol and District HA

  2

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  0

  Exeter and North Devon HA

  1

  Plymouth and Torbay HA

  2

  Gloucestershire HA

  0

  Somerset HA

  1

  West Midlands

  West Midlands RHA

  3

  Herefordshire HA

  0

  Worcester and District HA

  0

  Shropshire HA

  0

  North Staffordshire HA

  0

  Coventry HA

  0

  Dudley HA

  0

  Sandwell HA

  3

  Solihull HA

  8

  Walsall HA

  1

  Wolverhampton HA

  1

  South Birmingham HA

  110

  North Worcestershire HA

  0

  South Staffordshire HA

  1

  Warwickshire HA

  0

  North Birmingham HA

  1

  North West

  North West RHA

  12

  Chester HA

  0

  South East Cheshire HA

  0

  North Cheshire HA

  0

  Liverpool HA

  1

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  0

  Sefton HA

  1

  Wirral HA

  0

  Stockpot HA

  0

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  1

  North West Lancashire HA

  1

  East Lancashire HA

  0

  439

  Consultants' Distinction Awards: Awards held by consultants employed by regional and district health authorities and by the London special health authorities

  Number

  South Lancashire HA

  0

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  1

  West Pennine HA

  1

  Manchester HA

  2

  Salford and Trafford HA

  26

  Morecambe Bay HA

  1

  London SHAs

  National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery

  45

  Eastman Dental Hospital

  16

  Mixed Wards
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS beds are currently in mixed wards; and what proportion this is of the total.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Nursing Education
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to maintain records centrally by regional health authority on the number of entrants to initial pre-registration nursing education(a) by course of study and (b) by academic qualification; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Data on the number of entrants to initial pre-registration nursing education are collected by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. Copies of the board's annual report for 1993–94 are available in the Library.

  Waiting Lists, Northumberland
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current waiting list for each specialty in the Northumberland health authority; and what is the number of people who have waited(a) for over one year and (b) for over two years in each speciality.

  Mr. Malone
  Information on waiting times by trust and district health authority is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library. The latest published data are for September 1994.

  Consultants, Northumberland
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant posts in the Northumberland district health authority there are at present; and what was the figure in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Malone
  The numbers of consultant posts have up to now been collected either by region or teaching district. This is not a teaching district and therefore no figures are available at district level. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority, Mr. John Greetham, for details.

  Midwives
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives in the Northumberland 440
  health authority are in the intensive midwifery training programme.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Northumberland district health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the vice—chairman of the authority, Mr. David Wright, for details.

  NHS Finance, London
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the figures for the deficit or surplus of each London NHS trust and district health authority at the end of the last financial year according to those trusts and authorities' management accounts.

  Mr. Sackville
  Management accounts information is unaudited information used for internal performance management purposes. As such, it is not suitable for publication.

  Rural Community Hospitals
  Mr Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to maintain records centrally on returns of hospital activity data under the classification of rural community hospitals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to do so.

  Nurses, Northumberland
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects nursing clinical grading appeals in Northumberland health district to be completed.

  Mr. Sackville
  Over 60 per cent. of the outstanding appeals in the former Northern region have been resolved since last April. The four outstanding appeals in Northumberland will he cleared as soon as possible.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the full cost of implementing those sectors of the Disabled Persons, (Services, Representation and Consultation) Act 1986 which are in force.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Cancer
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently suffering from cancer in the United Kingdom; what is the projection for 2015; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 November 1994,Official Report, column 791.

  Hospital Death Rate Tables
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to ensure that publication of hospital death rate tables does not result in NHS trusts refusing to admit seriously ill patients.

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service treats, and will continue to treat, patients on the basis of clinical need.
  441

  Medical Records
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidelines ensuring that the rights of access by patients to their own medical records shall extend to the school and community health records as well as hospital and general practitioner records; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Access to Health Records Act 1990 gives individuals the right of access to health records compiled by or on behalf of health professionals in connection with their care. Records kept by the school health service or community health service are covered by the provisions of the Act. Guidelines issued in August 1991, HSG(91)6, apply equally to these records. Where the records are held on computer, the right of access is provided by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where she lists her priorities for in video fertilisation treatment within the NHS; and if she will make a statement on IVF treatment within the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 5 December 1994,Official Report, columns 91–92.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has received further representations from the public about the possible closure of Edgware general hospital since the new year; and if she will make a statement on the future outlook for this hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received a number of representations. Barnet health authority and Brent and Harrow health authority are considering the results of public consultation on proposals for the hospital.

  Mobility Centres
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how she intends to continue the funding of accredited mobility centres whose funding from regional health authorities has ended.

  Mr. Bowis
  The main source of national health service funding is and will continue to be local health purchasers who place contracts for assessment. In some cases, regional health authorities have made grants to such centres under their medical innovations budget. The future of such budgets beyond the reorganisation of RHAs under the Health Authorities Bill anticipated for April 1996 is currently being considered by the national health service executive.

  Toxocariasis
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are taken to(a) prevent and (b) deal with eye damage caused by toxocariasis; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health provides a grant to the charity Community Hygiene Concern, which produces information for the public on toxocariasis, and also supports the work of the Department of the Environment to encourage responsible dog ownership.
  442
  If patients with toxocariasis present early enough drug treatment may be useful. Eye damage caused by toxocariasis is treated on a case-by-case basis.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the individuals appointed by her Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Public Appointments Unit provides names of suitably qualified candidates for consideration for a wide range of appointments. Information on the source of names of individual appointees to public bodies could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nurse Inspectors
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms exist to monitor at national level the work of nurse inspectors operating under the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Mr. Bowis
  None. The registration and inspection of nursing homes under the Registered Homes Act is wholly delegated to health authorities.

  Accident and Emergency Provision, Liverpool
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the present situation in respect of progress towards the restructuring of accident and emergency provision in NHS hospitals in Liverpool.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a local matter. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. D. H. Tod, chairman of Liverpool health authority, to establish the latest position.

  Lynfield Mount Hospital, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will instruct the Bradford community health trust to publish in full the recent report of the external review team on matters relating to the secure unit at Lynfield Mount hospital in Bradford, with particular reference to the escape from the unit of Mr. Raymond Pemberton; if she will place a copy of the report in the Library; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  No. The report's 35 recommendations have been published by the Bradford community health national health service trust. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 10 January,Official Report, column 127.

  Departmental Openness and Accountability
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what ways openness and accountability are promoted An her Department and the services for which she is responsible.
  443
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is as follows:

  National Health Service

  accountability through Ministers to Parliament.

  annual reports and audited accounts from health authorities and national health service trusts.

  health authority meetings open to the public.

  NHS trusts' annual public meetings.

  summary business plans by NHS trusts.

  reports by local directors of public health on health needs and services.

  clear patients' rights and national and local standards under the patients charter, and reports on results.

  power to patients through general practitioner fundholders to ensure more accountability of service providers.

  annual plans and reports by GP fundholders.

  first ever performance ("league") tables giving comparative information for the public on their hospitals and ambulance services.

  codes of conduct and accountability for the members of NHS bodies.

  audit and remuneration committees to strengthen the role of non-executive members of NHS bodies.

  registers of members' interests.

  external, independent scrutiny by the Audit Commission.

  statutory obligations to consult on substantial changes to services.

  consultation documents on major proposals, with background and options.

  statutory rights for community health councils to be consulted on substantial changes to services and to obtain information.

  published strategies and plans for the purchase of health services for local people.

  public contracts between the purchasers and providers of health services, including the quantity and quality of services to be provided.

  statutory rights of access to personal health information.

  published information on complaints.

  Further plans include a code of practice on openness in the NHS, now out for consultation, setting out the public's right to information except in clearly defined circumstances; an accountability framework for GP fundholders; new procedures for appointments to NHS bodies, including advertisements, independent sifting panels and published criteria; a response to the Wilson review on NHS complaints; and a new and expanded patients charter.

  Social services

  statutory obligation on local authorities to publish information on children's services

  statutory obligation on local authorities to publish community care plans and reviews of day care for children

  local inspection units with a lay element, and published reports

  national framework for local community care charter issued

  statutory rights of access to social work records

  statutory requirement for complaints procedures

  Social Services Inspectorate's national programme covering all local authorities in England, with reports published and accessible to the public

  444
  Department of Health

  accountability of Ministers to Parliament

  a comprehensive overview of priorities, progress, expenditure and activity in the annual departmental report

  National health service annual report, containing more information on developments and performance

  detailed financial information contained in estimates and appropriation accounts, scrutinised by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee

  annual report from the social services inspectorate on its activities and programme

  annual report from the chief medical officer on the state of the public health

  5,649 replies to parliamentary questions in 1993–94

  over 84,000 letters dealt with in 1993, including more than 25,000 for ministerial reply

  a commitment to make information available except in clearly defined circumstances under the code of practice on access to Government information

  detailed quarterly, six-monthly and annual statistical information in bulletins and reports, including a comprehensive annual compendium on health and personal social services in England

  accountability to select committees, including the Select Committee on Health, the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

  framework documents and published reports from the Medicines Control Agency, the Medical Devices Agency, the NHS Estates agency and the NHS Pensions agency; and reports and accounts from the youth treatment service

  statements from all agencies adopting citizens charter principles

  a charter for scheme members being produced by the NHS Pensions agency

  NHS Estates agency accreditation for British standard 5750 on quality assurance and customer service

  Health Education Budget
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was her Department's budget for health education in each of the last five years; and what is the projected budget for the next three years.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: Expenditure on health education falls to a number of budgets. Apart from funding for the Health Education Authority in 1994–95—to date, £36,984,000—and expenditure on health education publicity campaigns run by the Department, there is other, unquantifiable, expenditure on a variety of services and programmes which involve elements of health education, run by health authorities, trusts and other agencies.

  Insulin
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's assessment of the qualities and advantages of human and animal insulin, respectively.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: The assessment of the qualities and advantages of human and animal insulin is a matter for the clinical judgment of individual doctors.

WALES

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many intensive care beds there are in each of the health trusts in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  At 30 June 1994—the latest date for which information is available—the number of staffed beds allocated to intensive care was as follows:

  Number

  NHS Trusts:

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  9

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  3

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust

  6

  Glan Clwyd General Hospital NHS Trust

  6

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  7

  Gwynedd Hospital NHS Trust

  7

  Llandough Hospital NHS Trust

  5

  Morriston Hospital NHS Trust

  7

  Nevill Hall and District NHS Trust

  6

  Pembrokeshire Trust

  3

  Swansea NHS Trust

  9

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  6

  Other Health Units:

  Merthyr/Cynon Health Unit

  4

  UHW/CRI Group of Hospitals

  22

  West Glamorgan East Health Unit

  7

  Source:

  QSI return.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to provide the resources for more intensive care beds in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  It is for individual health authorities and hospitals to agree on its provision of intensive care beds in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Greenfield Bypass
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Clwyd county council to discuss funding of the Greenfield bypass, A548; and if he will make a statement with regard to his view on a start date.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. His officials meet regularly with the county council to discuss potential transport grant schemes.

  It is for Clwyd county council to take forward the scheme.

  Dobshill Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of Dobshill hospital, near Buckley, Clwyd.

  Mr. Richards
  The future of Dobshill hospital is a matter for the Clwyd health authority and the Clwydian Community Care NHS trust at this stage.

  Schools (Information Technology)
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to develop information technology in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  446
  Mr. Richards
  We have undertaken a substantial programme of investment in information technology in both primary and secondary schools. Under the grants for education support and training programme, it is estimated that £1.9 million will be spent in 1994–95, and expenditure of a similar amount is planned for 1995–96.

  Developing a sound knowledge of information technology and its implications is an essential part of children's education. Information technology is, therefore, a compulsory element of the revised national curriculum for all pupils aged five to 14 in maintained schools in Wales. It will also be a common requirement, for all subjects, that pupils should be given opportunities, where appropriate, to develop and apply their information technology capability in their study of all national curriculum subjects.

  North Wales Police Force
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has been given by the North Wales police force and by Gwynedd and Clwyd county councils concerning the reduction in the number of police officers in North Wales which will follow from the budget for 1995–96 which has been provided for the North Wales police force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Mr right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary met a deputation from the North Wales police authority on 20 December. The authority estimates that it will have to make a reduction of 60 officers in 1995–96 on the basis of the provisional police settlement. I am considering the representations made by the authority and I will announce my final settlement decisions at the end of January.

  Community Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will increase the budget of the Clwydian community trust to enable it to meet its overall commitments with specific reference to the responsibilities it has for community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The Clwydian community NHS trust secures its income through contracts negotiated with commissioning health authorities.

  Meadowslea Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of Meadowslea hospital, Penyffordd, Clwyd.

  Mr. Richards
  The future of Meadowslea hospital is a matter for the Clwyd health authority and the Clwydian community care NHS trust at this stage.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Mr. Redwood
  One. The Public Appointments Unit holds a register of candidates for appointment nationally. The Welsh Office maintains its own register of candidates for public appointment to which people interested in appointment to bodies in Wales may apply.
  447

  Trans-European Rail Network
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which Welsh rail links are included in the proposed trans-European network; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The European Commission's proposal for a trans-European transport network, as currently drafted, includes the following railway lines:

  Holyhead-Crewe

  Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton-Birmingham

  Fishguard-Cardiff-London

  The Government have proposed to the Commission a number of additional rail lines. These include:

  Clarbeston Road-Milford Haven

  Whitland-Pembroke Dock

  Newport-Hereford-Shrewsbury-Crewe

  Cardiff-Birmingham

  Local Government Code of Conduct
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the relevance for councils in Wales of the code of conduct for local government employees published by the Local Government Management Board.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for individual local authorities to decide whether they wish to adopt the code of conduct for local government employees.

  South America (Trade Links)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to encourage Welsh trade links with south American countries.

  Mr. Redwood
  The economies of south America are now potentially attractive markets for Wales-based companies, with Argentina and Chile providing a broad range of opportunities. The Welsh Office intends to organise a trade mission there in May this year.

  Brynglass Tunnels Scheme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish details of the reasons for every delay in the work on the Brynglass tunnels scheme and the explanation of the hiatus planned between its completion and opening.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is commercial in confidence between the parties to the contract. However, main delays were caused by the discovery of contaminated fill at Glebelands, service diversions at the Harlequin and the collapse of a cofferdam in the River Usk.

  The A4042 section of the scheme is expected to be opened to traffic in a few weeks' time. The contractor has advised that the remaining works should be completed in the summer of 1995.

  Non-Christian Pupils
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the schools he has visited in the past year in 448
  which a substantial proportion of their pupils were from families of non-Christian faiths.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally.

  Lobbying Organisations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to eliminate the use of lobbying firms by local authorities and in support of all communications to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have made it clear to my department that if a local authority asks to meet me via a Member of Parliament, I or a Welsh Office Minister will usually see it. There is no need to employ a lobbying firm. I want local authorities to concentrate on providing services for their taxpayers.

  A483 (Pool Quay)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a speed limit on the A483 trunk road at Pool quay, Powys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 December 1994]: My Department has again considered a reduction in the national speed limit at Pool quay. It has been concluded that the effective way forward is to continue to try to reduce speeds by improving the driver's perception of the developed area. Additional signing and road markings have recently been provided but further traffic management measures are being considered.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Surplus Stocks
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made since the publication of Cmnd. 6003—"Membership of the European Community-Report on Renegotiation"—in discouraging the creation of surplus stocks and enacting measures to discourage surplus production of milk products and cereals; and what was the tonnage of surplus stocks in 1974 and 1993 together with the annual cost of storage and the losses incurred on their disposal for export or industrial use.

  Mr. Jack
  Since 1979, the common agriculture policy has seen a number of changes, including, in 1984, the introduction of milk quotas. The other most notable change was the 1992 CAP reform agreement, which was a major development in moving the CAP closer to the market and reducing dependence on intervention. The agreement included significant reductions in support prices for major commodities and other measures to cut excess production, such as a limit to the total arable area eligible for direct support, coupled with a requirement to set land aside, and livestock premium quotas.

  Tables showing levels of all produce held in intervention within the EU, including cereals and milk products, are deposited in the Library of the House monthly, most recently on 5 December. The information currently held in the House Library goes back to January 1985. Figures for earlier years were not prepared on the same basis.
  449
  The budgetary cost of intervention in the cereals and milk sectors which would include storage costs and losses on resale, for the years 1974, EC9 and 1993, EC12 are:

  1974

  1974

  1993

  1993

  mua

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  Cereals

  323.6

  163.6

  2,724

  2,142

  Milk products

  342

  168

  294

  231

  Exchange rates:

  1974: 1 ua = £0.491712

  1993: 1 ecu = £0.78627

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. Jack
  The amendments to our telephone exchanges required as a result of the code changes have been made by the maintainers free of charge with the exception of five small exchanges that required total expenditure of approximately £3,500. Changes will also be required to ancillary items such as stationery, signs and fax machines. No information is available centrally on the cost to change these items, but they are being managed within existing budgets.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has that the spread of bovine tuberculosis is caused by badgers.

  Mrs. Browning
  Experimental control areas in Dorset and Gloucestershire, set up in 1975, provided evidence of the causal link between infection in badgers, and cattle herds. After removal of the badgers, there were no further cattle TB herd breakdowns in these areas for many years. Two independent reports, by Lord Zuckerman in 1980 and Professor Dunnet in 1986, concluded from the evidence obtained under laboratory conditions at the Central Veterinary Laboratory and from the field that badgers can and do harbour bovine tuberculosis and represent a potential threat to cattle. All cattle tuberculosis breakdowns are the subject of detailed epidemiological investigation by MAFF veterinary staff. These show that badgers are implicated in at least three quarters of cattle herd tuberculosis breakdowns in south-west England.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many badgers he estimates have been culled as a result of bovine tuberculosis in each of the last three years(a) in England and (b) in Nottinghamshire.

  Mrs. Browning
  The number of badgers killed in Ministry removal operations as a result of bovine tuberculosis in England in the last three years is as follows:

  1992: 1,054

  1993: 1,094

  1994: 1,674

  None of these operations took place in Nottinghamshire.

  Veal Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to require all veal products to be labelled according to the method of production.

  Mrs. Browning
  No. The food advisory committee considered the question of labelling relating to methods of production during a wide-ranging review of food labelling and advertising practices, which it conducted in 1990. The committee did not recommend imposing any requirements to indicate animal rearing methods on food labels and the Government have accepted this advice. This does not prevent the voluntary inclusion of such information, providing it is true and not misleading.

  Enzootic Bovine Leukosis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current number of cattle aged 30 months or under with enzootic bovine leukosis; what was the figure at 31 October 1993, and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  The information on the number of animals under the age of 30 months confirmed as being infected with enzootic bovine leukosis is not available, but the number would be low as infection has been confined in a total of only 90 animals on 33 premises since October 1992, of which 29 animals were found on 10 premises since 31 October 1993. It is often not possible to classify young animals as either infected or not infected until they are at least two years of age, by which time many of the animals which might be suspected of being infected have been slaughtered.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Mr. Jack
  Our officials regularly consult the public appointments unit for names of suitable, qualified candidates for public appointment. Of the appointments made by my right hon. Friend in the last year, 13 were made from names supplied by the unit.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he now has to prevent Albert Hall Farms from exporting calves.

  Mrs. Browning
  We have no such plans. The powers available to prevent the transport or further transport of animals can be applied in circumstances where breaches of the legislation are disclosed in respect of particular consignments.

DEFENCE

  Redundancies
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table showing the cash sums
  451
  allocated for (a) civilian and (b) military redundancies in each service in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98; what additional annual costs will fall to his Department in each of those years as a result of accruing superannuation liability changes associated with the early payment of lump sum benefits and annual pension payments to redundant service personnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The costs of service redundancies and those civilian redundancy costs which fall to my Department will be met from within the planned defence budget totals announced on 29 November 1994. Those plans contain some £220,000,000 in 1995–96 and £310,000,000 in 1996–97, more in real terms—at 1993–94 prices—principally to meet the costs of service redundancies which I announced in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 870. No additional costs will fall to the defence budget in the years in question to meet the costs associated with the early payment of lump sum benefits and annual pensions to redundant service personnel.

  Aircraft (Falling Materials)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of all incidents in the past three years in which stores, weaponry, equipment or other material have unintentionally fallen from military aircraft in flight.

  Mr. Soames
  Full details of all incidents could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Excluding inadvertent weapons releases inside range areas, however, the total number of incidents involving inadvertent releases of stores, weaponry, equipment and other material in the past three years is 310.

  RAF Leuchars
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the visit of three Danish F16 aircraft to RAF Leuchars from 12 to 14 December 1993; which RAF unit hosted the exchange visit; how many sorties were flown by the aircraft on each of the days of their deployment; and how many of these were at low level.

  Mr. Soames
  The aircraft deployed to RAF Leuchars, which hosted the visit, to conduct low flying training. Following their arrival at the station on 12 December, no sorties were flown that day. Five sorties were flown on 13 December, none of which were booked at low level. The aircraft departed on 14 December and, as the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces made clear in his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 389, to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), flew part of their sortie without authorisation within the United Kingdom low flying system. Details of that incident were passed to the Royal Danish air force for appropriate action.

  Military Aircraft (Birds)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many collisions have occurred between military aircraft and birds within five miles of the wildfowl and wetlands trust site at Caerlaverock, Dumfries, within the last five years: what species of bird was involved in each 452
  incident; and what was the altitude at which each collision occurred.

  Mr. Soames
  Although my Department's computerised aircraft incident records do include details of all reported birdstrikes by service aircraft, they are not held in a form that would allow easy retrieval, and the information requested could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Harry Mills
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will de-classify and publish the report of the Deputy ARP Controller Newport on the death of Harry Mills aged 12 in Newport, Gwent, on 2 January 1943.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department does not hold a copy of this report.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the safety of the decontamination and re-use of all sites used during the 1939–45 war for the storage of and exercises involving chemical weapons; when each site was last inspected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  During world war two there were a large number of sites concerned with the development, production, storage and testing of chemical weapons. Sites which were subsequently disposed of were checked to ensure no residual chemical contamination was present. It has not been possible to identify when each of these sites was inspected, but there is no evidence to suggest that there have been any subsequent contamination problems. We are aware of our duty of care responsibilities and thus sites remaining in my Department's ownership are subject to review to ensure there is no risk to the public.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will de-classify and publish full details of all reports of wartime casualties of civilian and military personnel attributed to mustard gas and other chemical weapons poisoning.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department holds no central collation of information on such incidents. Medical records relating to individuals are at present withheld from the Public Record Office as medical in confidence.

  Second World War Secret Documents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for all previously secret reports on Britain during the second world war that are now available for public inspection in the United States to be de-classified in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  In accordance with the initiatives set out in the White Paper on open government, Cm 2290, my Department, in common with other Government Departments, has been re-examining records closed for more than 30 years. To date, more than 6,500 such records have been released, most covering the events of the second world war. Not all the material now de-classified in the US has survived in British archives.

  Civil Servant Travel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which airlines have been granted preferred carrier status for civil servant travel to overseas destinations.
  453
  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has not granted preferred carrier status to any airline.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Mr. Soames
  Although the Cabinet Office's Public Appointments Unit may be consulted for appointments to a range of MOD or MOD sponsored public positions, nominations may also be made from a variety of other sources. Additionally, candidates are sought through various professional and group organisations. My Department does not maintain central records about the means by which individuals were nominated or identified for such appointments.

  Crown Housing Trust
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the total cost to his Department of establishing the Crown housing trust to manage MOD service quarters; and if he will make a statement about its future;

  (2) how many people are employed by the Crown housing trust; and what has been the total cost in salaries to its employees since its inception.

  Mr. Soames
  Work has been under way in my Department since 1991 on new arrangements for the married quarters estate, at a total cost to date of some £5 million. This figure includes salary costs, to the end of November 1994, of approximately £160,000 for eight staff initially recruited for a housing trust and now engaged on setting up the defence housing executive, as announced by the Secretary of State for Defence on 17 November 1994,Official Report, column 1.

  David Hart
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the possibility of conflict of interests arising by his employment of Mr. David Hart as his special adviser in relation to his Department's plans for married service quarters; whether Mr. Hart has played any role in the development of the plans for married service quarters or has seen them; and what interest Mr. Hart has shown in the purchase of married service quarters.

  Mr. Freeman
  Mr. David Hart, as special adviser to my right hon. Friend, is one of several independent advisers who have contributed to the development of plans for the married quarters estate. His involvement has been, and continues to be, very productive. The need to ensure that there is no conflict of interest in the involvement of advisers in the next phase of the privatisation of the married quarters estate is fully recognised; this will be subject to the provision of formal undertakings.

  Vacant Dwellings
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to dispose of the vacant dwellings currently owned by his Department.
  454
  Mr. Soames
  Not all vacant dwellings are surplus to our requirements. The majority are undergoing or awaiting major maintenance, held for future deployments, or form part of the management margin needed to ensure that accommodation is available for entitled service families. However, empty properties which are surplus to requirements are sold. Properties which are not surplus to long-term requirements but which are not needed immediately for service families are, wherever possible, leased to local authorities, housing associations or civilians.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for the implementation of the United Kingdom's obligations under article VI of the 1968 treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Soames
  We are committed to work towards nuclear disarmament in the context of general and complete disarmament, and have played and continue to play an active role in a wide range of non-proliferation and arms control negotiations. We have also reduced our holdings of nuclear weapons, eliminating our surface maritime and ground tactical capability and substantially reducing our stockpile of nuclear free-fall bombs.

  Electro-shock Batons
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks of electro-shock riot batons his Department possesses; and what tests his Department have conducted on electro-shock riot batons.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if electro-shock riot batons were part of the Al-Yamamah arms deal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No electronic shock weapons have been supplied under the Al-Yamamah programme.

  Faslane
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether changes were made to the safety plans for the Faslane nuclear site following discovery of seismic problems; what was the total cost of these changes; and when they were carried out;

  (2) what frequency his Department assumed when planning the Faslane nuclear site for earthquakes measuring 0.2 G or more horizontal ground acceleration;

  (3) what steps his Department took to ensure that. appropriate (a) seismic surveys and (b) geological structure surveys were conducted in the planning stage of the Faslane nuclear site;

  (4) what technical changes were made to the shiplift facility for the Trident system at Faslane following lessons learnt from the Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion; and what was the total cost of these changes;

  (5) what is the maximum horizontal ground acceleration that the Faslane nuclear site is able to withstand from an earthquake.

  Mr. Freeman
  Safety plans for the Clyde submarine base, Faslane, are kept under continuous review and amended as necessary in the light of all relevant information. During the planning stage of the Trident
  455
  support facilities at Faslane, a number of geotechnical reports on the site were commissioned on behalf of the Ministry of Defence from distinguished academics and other experts. These included one specifically on geology and seismicity. Planning also drew on the British Geological Survey's national database of fault lines and seismic events. The support facilities were designed in accordance with the relevant national standard, namely, that a reactor plant must be capable of being shut down and maintained in a safety shut down condition following an earthquake of a severity with a probability of occurrence not exceeding one in 10,000 years. For Faslane the design peak horizontal ground acceleration of such an earthquake is 0.2 G. In the event, the Ministry of Defence achieved a more demanding criterion for the shiplift in the light of developments in United Kingdom civil practice which had followed the Chernobyl incident.

  It is not possible to identify separately the financial effects of the changes in the design of facilities during planning and construction nor of past and prospective refinements to safety plans.

EMPLOYMENT

  City Challenge
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the unemployment figures for each area which successfully bid for city challenge(a) at the time the bid was accepted and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on claimant unemployment in those local authority areas and wards which are covered by the city challenge scheme can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Redundancies (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies were notified in Walthamstow in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is not available.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) prosecutions and (b) enforcement actions were taken by the Health and Safety Executive in each year from 1980 to 1994 against employers who have imposed on their employees excessive working hours or shift patterns in contravention of section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Income Support
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the policy of refusing travel claims for income support recipients who have applied for positions of less than one year in duration.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The rules of the travel-to-interview scheme have been reviewed recently and the Employment Service is at present testing changes to the 456
  scheme in its north-west region. One of the changes is a more flexible approach to the rule that the prospective job must be expected to last for more than a year. However, this relaxation does not include seasonal jobs, or very short-term temporary jobs.

  If the test shows that the changes are effective and can be paid for within the resources available, we would hope to introduce the revised scheme nationally in the autumn.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled(a) men and (b) women in the Doncaster and Mexborough area were registered unemployed (i) at the last date for which figures are available and (ii) on the same date for each of the previous four years.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on the number of disabled people claiming unemployment-related benefit is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Occupational Asthma
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department is taking following the findings of Professor Anthony Newman on the relationship between the amount of workplace exposure to respiratory sensitisers and the development of occupational asthma.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive was aware of the emerging findings of Professor Newman Taylor's research when it launched its "Breathe Freely" campaign last April. The campaign focuses on preventing occupational asthma by raising awareness of the dangers of respiratory sensitisers and reminds employers of their duty under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 to control exposure to these substances. The results of Professor Newman Taylor's research, which was jointly funded by HSE and the National Asthma Campaign, underline the message of the "Breathe Freely" campaign: controlling exposure to respiratory sensitisers will reduce the prevalence of occupational asthma.

  Gas Explosions
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will commission a report on gas explosions since mid-December.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive has been investigating four separate incidents since mid-December 1994. Any lessons to be learned will be discussed as a matter of urgency with British Gas and will be more widely available under the terms of the Health and Safety Commission's policy of openness.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the percentages of youth training leavers(a) nationally and (b) in London obtaining full qualifications at NVQ levels, 1, 2, 3 and 4 or their equivalents; and what is the percentage obtaining no qualification for each of the years since 1990 for which data are available.
  457
  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is given in the following tables. Information on qualifications in

  Highest NVQ equivalent gained whilst on YT

  Table 1: 1990–91 all leavers

  Per cent.

  Level 4

  Level 3

  Level 2

  Level 1

  Scotvec

  Other

  Did not gain a qualification

  Great Britain

  1—

  3

  11

  11

  4

  12

  49

  England and Wales

  1—

  3

  13

  12

  n/a

  13

  49

  London

  1—

  2

  10

  13

  n/a

  11

  53

  Table 2: 1991–92 all leavers

  Per cent.

  Level 4

  Level 3

  Level 2

  Level 1

  Scotvec

  Other

  Did not gain a qualification

  Great Britain

  1

  5

  14

  10

  1—

  4

  49

  England and Wales

  1

  5

  15

  10

  n/a

  4

  48

  London

  1—

  4

  12

  11

  n/a

  4

  51

  Table 3: 1992–93 all leavers

  Per cent.

  Level 4

  Level 3

  Level 2

  Level 1

  Scotvec

  Other

  Did not gain a qualification

  Great Britain

  1

  5

  15

  6

  1

  4

  50

  England and Wales

  1

  6

  16

  6

  n/a

  4

  50

  London

  1

  5

  14

  7

  n/a

  4

  51

  Table 4: April 1993 to August 1993 all leavers

  Per cent

  Level 4

  Level 3

  Level 2

  Level 1

  Scotvec

  Other

  Did not gain a qualification

  England and Wales

  2

  8

  20

  6

  n/a

  3

  44

  London

  1

  5

  17

  8

  n/a

  3

  49

  Source:

  YT national follow-up survey.

  Notes:

  n/a—not applicable

  1less than 0.5 per cent

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of jobs gained and lost since 1972, as a result of Britain's membership of the EEC.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 7 December 1994,Official Report, column 218.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the enhanced range of labour market help to those affected by the closures referred to by the Minister for Industry in his statement on 12 May 1993,Official Report, columns 801–809, as being provided by the Tyneside training and enterprise council and local employment service following the receivership of Swan Hunter Shipbuilders.
  458
  Scotland is available only on a comparable basis up to 1992–93.

  Mr. Paice
  Tyneside training and enterprise council and the local employment service provided a range of additional job search assistance and training opportunities following the receivership of Swan Hunter Shipbuilders. This included:advice and guidance on retraining, further and higher education, self-employment and resettlement assistance, leading to appropriate employment opportunities;
  a training hotline between jobcentres and the TEC, a dedicated job shop and canvassing or employers;
  a drive in respect of apprentices to secure the opportunity to finish their training programmes with a new employer, or exceptionally wholly within a TEC supported training centre;
  immediate access to training courses, with particular emphasis on adapting and developing existing skills to suit alternative employment opportunities;
  a partnership with North Tyneside city challenge to provide extra support for any "high cost" skills training for North Tyneside city challenge area residents;

  459
  the offer of training vouchers to each individual to help them secure jobs with new employers. Employers can then use the vouchers to implement customised training for these new recruits;
  business skills training for those preparing for entry into self-employment.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the measures taken by his Department in the northern region in response to redundancies and closures in the shipbuilding, ship repair, offshore technology, heavy engineering, mining, utility and construction industries.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A range of measures has been introduced in response to redundancies and closures in north-east traditional industries. These have focused on helping those affected to find jobs and access training, further and higher education opportunities and, in appropriate cases, enter self-employment.

  Tyneside training and enterprise council and the Employment Service have worked closely with local authorities, Tyne and Wear development corporation, further and higher education institutions and local employers in developing and implementing the measures.

  The measures cover:
  advice and guidance about employment opportunities, training opportunities and further and higher education opportunities;
  efforts by ES to build up job banks and find vacancies for redundant workers;
  provision of additional training opportunities: additional funds have been allocated to Swan Hunter and coal closures;
  further and higher education institutions have responded readily to requests for information from redundant workers.

  Tyne and Wear development corporation and local city challenge companies have also been involved in the creation of new opportunities for redundant workers. In the wider context of the Government office for the north-east, the Employment Department works closely with the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry in ensuring that the needs of redundant work people are taken into account.

  In addition to the above specific measures, efforts have been made to ensure that people affected by redundancies have ready access to the existing range of TEC and ES services. In particular, arrangements have been made to ensure the speedy processing of claims for unemployment benefit and advice on benefit entitlements and the normal eligibility conditions for access to training for work have been waived for redundant employees.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what special initiatives he has undertaken to respond to high levels of male unemployment in Newcastle, East and Wallsend following the closure of Swan Hunter and further redundancies at NEI Parsons.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Following the receivership of Swan Hunter, Tyneside training and enterprise council and the local employment service have provided a range 460
  of additional job search assistance and training opportunities:
  advice and guidance on retraining, further and higher education, self-employment and resettlement assistance leading to appropriate employment opportunities;
  a training hotline between jobcentres and the TEC, a dedicated job shop and canvassing of employers;
  a drive in respect of apprenticeships to secure the opportunity to finish their training programmes with a new employer, or exceptionally wholly within a TEC supported training centre;
  immediate access to training courses, with particular emphasis on adapting and developing existing skills to suit alternative employment opportunities;
  a partnership with North Tyneside city challenge to provide extra support for any "high cost" skills training for North Tyneside city challenge area residents;
  the offer of training vouchers to each individual to help them secure jobs with new employers. Employers can then use these vouchers to implement customised training for these new recruits;
  business skills training for those preparing for entry into self-employment.

  Following the announcement of the redundancies at NEI Parsons, Tyneside TEC and the local ES have given those people affected immediate eligibility to their range of job search assistance and training opportunities.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the Blyth Valley constituency, for each year since 1988, had been unemployed(a) for less than six months, (b) for six months to one year, (c) for one year to two years and (d) for over two years.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Unadjusted claimant unemployment statistics by duration are available for the months of January, April, July and October and can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people are currently seeking work but receive no unemployment benefit because of the length of their period of unemployment, and no social security payments because of the income of a spouse or partner in work.

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

  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 17 January 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of unemployed people who are currently seeking work, but have exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit (UB) and who do not receive social security payments because of the income of a spouse or partner in work.

  Unfortunately this information is not fully available.

  There are 641,000 people who are currently seeking work and have exhausted their entitlements to UB, but continue to sign at an Employment Service (ES) local office. While most clients registered with the ES would be entitled to and in receipt of some form of social security payment such as Housing benefit, family credit or National Insurance contributions credits, 97,099 of the above figure were not receiving any payment in respect of Income Support.

  Social security data are not held on the reasons why a person does not receive an income related benefit so I am afraid I am unable to be more helpful.
  461
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of unemployment in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Unemployment statistics on both the claimant count basis and on the internationally recognised standard definition of the International Labour Organisation can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the current(a) unemployment rate and (b) number of persons unemployed among black people under 25 years of age in (i) London and (ii) Tottenham, in each case breaking the total rate down by gender;

  (2) what is the current (a) unemployment rate and (b) number of persons unemployed among black people in (i) London and (ii) Tottenham, in each case breaking the total down by gender.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: The following table gives the latest information available from the labour force survey:

  ILO unemployed people in London from the black ethnic group summer 1994 (not seasonally adjusted)

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  ILO unemployment rate (per cent.)

  28

  34

  22

  Numbers unemployed (000s)

  72

  46

  26

  Of which aged 16–24

  ILO unemployment rate (per cent.)

  48

  62

  1

  Numbers unemployed (000s)

  21

  15

  1

  1 Estimates below 10,000, therefore not shown

  Training
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage of those leaving youth training schemes who progressed to(a) full-time work, (b) part-time work, (c) self-employment, (d) further education and training and (e) unemployment, in Southampton, Itchen, in Southampton and in Hampshire in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library. Claimant unemployment statistics by duration are only available, only on the unadjusted basis and for the months of January, April, July and October.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what are the results of the youth training leavers survey for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for the period December 1992 to January 1994, for all leavers and separately for male and female, for each ethnic group and for those with a disability or health problem, the number and proportion of trainees who six months after leaving were(a) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) employed in their own business, (d) in a part-time job, (e) in voluntary work, (f) on another Government training programme, (g) on a full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and
  462
  claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) in a jobclub and (k) doing something else;

  (2) what are the results from the training for work leavers survey for the period December 1992 to January 1994 for each training and enterprise council area in England and Wales and each local enterprise company area in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of leavers who had (a)been entered for a vocational qualification, (b) obtained a vocational qualification, (c) had failed to obtain a vocational qualification and (d) were awaiting their results; and what is the number and proportion of training for work leavers who, six months after leaving, were (i) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (ii) in a full-time job with another employer, (iii) employed in their own business, (iv) in a part-time job, (v) in voluntary work, (vi) on another Government training programme, (vii) on a full-time education or training course, (viii) unemployed and claiming benefit, (ix) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (x) in a jobclub and (xi) doing something else, and the number and proportion of training for work leavers who had completed the training agreed in their initial action plan;

  (3) what are the results of the youth training leavers survey for the period December 1992 to January 1994 for each training and enterprise area in England and Wales and each local enterprise council area in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of youth training leavers who were (a) in full-time work with the same employer, (b) in full-time work with a different employer, (c) in part-time work, (d) on a full-time course at a college/training centre, (e) on another youth training scheme, (f) doing something else, (g) who were unemployed and (h) who had obtained a vocational qualification; and what were (i) the number of questionnaires issued, (ii) the usable percentage response rate and (iii) the percentage or respondents who were early leavers;

  (4) what are the results of the training for work leavers survey for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for the period between December 1992 and January 1994, for all leavers and separately for male and female, for each ethnic group, and for those with a disability or health problem, the number and proportion of training for work leavers who had (a) been entered for a vocational qualification, (b) obtained a vocational qualification, (c)had failed to obtain a vocational qualification and (d) were awaiting their results; and what was the number and proportion of training for work leavers who six months after leaving were (i) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (ii) in a full-time job with another employer, (iii) employed in their own business, (iv) in a part-time job, (v) in voluntary work, (iv) on another Government training programme, (vii) on a full-time education or training course, (viii) unemployed and claiming benefit, (ix) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (x) in a jobclub and (xi) doing something else, and the number and proportion of training for work leavers who had completed the training agreed in their initial action plan.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 8 December 1994]: I have recently written to the hon. Member and placed a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1994, 23 individuals who were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit were appointed to the public bodies which are the responsibility of the Employment Department group.

  Minimum Wage
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what independent evidence is available which examines the employment effects of the minimum wage.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: There is a large body of evidence which examines the effects of minimum wages on employment. This includes most recently the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's jobs study, the International Monetary Fund's world economic outlook, and the European Commission's White Paper on competitiveness.

  Details of earlier studies and reports were given in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), on 4 November 1992, Official Report, column 299.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Universities
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the number of students attending Scottish universities in the academic year 1994–95; and if he will give the figures for attendance at the same institutions in 1984–85 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Lang
  Information for 1994–95 is not yet available. Figures for universities alone would not be directly comparable because five higher education institutions in Scotland have been awarded university title since 1992.

  For the other academic years requested and for 1993–94, the numbers of students undertaking higher education courses in higher education institutions in Scotland, by mode of study, are as follows:

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1984–85

  71,030

  13,333

  84,363

  1989–90

  81,496

  17,043

  98,539

  1993–94

  112,167

  20,306

  132,473

  Sea Freight Subsidies
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the 1994 KPMG report on sea freight subsidies to the Scottish islands.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  After full and careful consideration, my right hon. Friend concluded that as the 464
  report was commissioned to inform consideration of policy options by Government and contains a considerable amount of commercial confidential information, it would not be appropriate to publish it.

  Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homeless applications to local authorities in Scotland there were in 1978 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The most recent information on homelessness applications for 1992–93 is published in statistical bulletin HSG/1994/3. The 1978–79 figure was published in the "Scottish Housing Statistics" No. 6. Copies of both can be obtained from the House Library.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what were the levels of(a) new build starts and (b) new build completions by (i) Scottish local authorities, (ii) new towns and (iii) Scottish Special Housing Association-Scottish Homes in 1978 and in the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) what were the levels of new build starts and completions by housing associations and co-operatives in Scotland in 1978 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The most recent information is published in the Scottish Office statistical bulletin HSG/1994/9. The 1978 figures were published in "Scottish Housing Statistics". Copies of both can be obtained from the House Library.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the levels of Government financial support for housing associations and co-operatives in 1978 and in the latest year, expressed in 1994–95 prices.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The levels of Government financial support to housing associations and co-operatives in 1978–79 and 1993–4, expressed in 1994–95 prices, were £91.9 million and £268.3 million respectively.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of(a) local authorities, (b) new town and (c) Scottish Special Housing Association dwellings in Scotland in 1978, and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The most recent information is published in the Scottish Office statistical bulletin HSG/1994/9. The 1978–79 figures were published in the "Scottish Housing Statistics" No. 6. Copies of both can be obtained from the House Library.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the total capital spend by(a) Scottish local authorities, (b) new towns and (c) Scottish Special Housing Association-Scottish Homes was (i) new build and (ii) modernisation in 1978 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information for new towns and SSHA-Scottish Homes is contained in the tables. Figures for capital expenditure by local authorities on new build and modernisations in 1978–79 and 1993–94 are published annually in "Scottish Local Government Finance Statistics" which is available in the Library of the House.
  465

  Table 1: (New Towns)

  New build Per cent.

  Modernisation Per cent.

  1978–1979

  Unavailable

  Unavailable

  1993–1994

  48

  52

  Table 2: (SSHA—Scottish Homes)1

  New Build Per cent.

  Modernisation Per cent.

  1978–79

  68.5

  31.5

  1993–94

  —

  100

  1 Own stock expenditure only.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the total capital spend and (b) the total revenue spend on local authority, new town and Scottish Special Housing Association housing in

  Local Authority

  SSHA/Scottish homes

  New Towns

  1978–79 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  1978–79 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  1978–79 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  Revenue Expenditure

  —

  1,064.0

  156.0

  89.5

  142.6

  70.8

  Capital Expenditure

  683.3

  580.4

  94.6

  51.7

  99.2

  35.3

  Central Government Grants

  451.2

  36.6

  79.9

  Nil

  105.1

  21.7

  All figures are expressed in 1994–95 prices.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the total number of residential property sales in Scotland for each of the complete years since 1982–83 indicating for each year how many were as a result of public sector tenants exercising their right to buy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: Statistical information is not held centrally on residential property transactions in Scotland.

  School Inspectors
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if all inspectors of schools have personal, practical experience of teaching in the sector and subjects they are inspecting.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Posts as Her Majesty's inspectors of schools are open to applicants who have distinguished service and occupied senior posts in education or who bring relevant experience gained elsewhere which can be applied within education. All Her Majesty's inspectors currently inspecting schools, colleges of further education and community education services have appropriate personal and practical experience relevant to the sectors and subjects they inspect. An extensive programme of staff development

  NHSIS—Emergency Hospital Admission1 by Health Board Area of Treatment; Years ending 31 March 1990–1994

  Discharge in Year ending 31 March

  Health board area of treatment

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19942

  Argyll and Clyde

  29,507

  30,124

  31,021

  32,497

  33,864

  Ayrshire and Arran

  21,949

  22,653

  24,571

  26,617

  28,881

  Borders

  7,188

  7,614

  8,099

  8,351

  8,534

  Dumfries and Galloway

  9,350

  10,538

  10,773

  10,933

  11,317

  Fife

  18,041

  18,347

  19,164

  19,310

  19,937

  Forth Valley

  16,316

  17,790

  18,242

  19,255

  20,395

  Grampian

  36,383

  38,769

  38,825

  39,309

  40,387

  Greater Glasgow

  75,624

  78,661

  79,312

  89,012

  96,772

  Highland

  14,944

  14,839

  15,782

  17,027

  14,444

  466
  Scotland in 1978 and in the latest year, expressed in 1994–95 prices; and how much of the total revenue spend in each year was financed by direct central Government grant.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the following table. Comparable information on local authority revenue expenditure in 1978–79 was not readily available and I shall write to the hon. Member.

  The reduction in revenue and capital expenditure between 1978–79 and 1993–94 largely reflects the substantial reduction in size of the public sector housing stock. The reduction in central Government grant is in line with the policy of moving away from indiscriminate general subsidies and targeting tenants in greatest need through the housing benefit system. The expenditure attributed to Scottish Homes is on its own stock and excludes support for housing associations.

  allows updating and extension of their expertise and experience across sectors.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to outline the Government's proposals on homelessness following the responses to the consultation paper "Tackling Homelessness", and when he intends to resume the planned consultation exercise on amending the 1991 code of guidance on homelessness.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We are still considering the nearly 160 responses received to "Tackling Homelessness", and we will announce our decisions in due course. A revised draft code of guidance on homelessness, taking account of these decisions, will be issued for comment later this year.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many emergency admissions were recorded for each health board for the last five years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the following table.
  467

  NHSIS—Emergency Hospital Admission1 by Health Board Area of Treatment; Years ending 31 March 1990–1994

  Discharge in Year ending 31 March

  Health board area of treatment

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19942

  Lanarkshire

  36,114

  37,224

  38,306

  39,566

  41,237

  Lothian

  57,648

  58,934

  60,638

  63,428

  63,884

  Orkney

  1,026

  1,160

  1,158

  1,175

  1,204

  Shetland

  1,301

  1,324

  1,190

  1,221

  1,525

  Tayside

  34,237

  34,778

  34,942

  35,201

  37,692

  Western Isles

  1,988

  1,927

  2,102

  2,127

  2,476

  Scotland

  361,616

  374,682

  384,125

  405,029

  425,549

  Notes:

  1 Discharges from non-obstetric and non-psychiatric specialities. Excludes patients transferred between hospitals, specialities or consultants.

  2 Provisional

  Source SMRI

  Ref Unit2/950I4

  Date 13 December 1995

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1994,Official Report,column 336, what percentage of total admissions was represented by emergency hospital admissions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table below shows emergency admissions as a percentage of total in-patient admissions for Scotland for the calendar years 1989 to 1993.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  48.8

  49.5

  50.3

  50.4

  51.6

  Supermarket, Anstruther
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 26 October,Official Report, columns 724–25, when he now expects to announce his decision in the public local inquiry into the provision of a supermarket in Anstruther.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend expects to announce his decision by the end of this month.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office maintains its own public appointments list and therefore makes limited use of names from the Public Appointments Unit. The Scottish Office public appointments list is used as a source of names of suitably qualified candidates for consideration for a wide range of appointments which I make. From time to time the Public Appointments Unit passes names to the Scottish Office for the public appointments list, and vice versa. No central records are kept of the source of names of those who are appointed to public bodies.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1994,Official Report, columns 336–37, if he will now publish information, for 1993–94 on general practitioner fundholders' savings.
  468
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested relates to GP fundholder savings which are retained by the health board on the fundholder's behalf to be used for the benefit of patients. These figures are available only for those years for which audited health board accounts have been completed. The audited accounts for 1993–94 have still not been finalised but it is estimated that savings will be about 4 per cent.

  NHS Helpline
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the distinction between an interactive and non-interactive phone call made to the NHS helpline; how many calls were made to it in each month since 25 October 1994; and what were the costs of administering and operating the helpline since his parliamentary answer of 26 October 1994,Official Report, column 727

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Interactive calls are those which are answered by the NHS helpline and information is provided by the adviser about the NHS in Scotland. Non-interactive calls are those which are hoax calls; those which are from people who remain silent when put through to the adviser; or those who have dialled the wrong number.

  Expenditure on administering and operating the NHS helpline between 25 October and 16 January totals £61,987.50. This includes additional resources totalling £16,000 in order to extend the hours of operation of the helpline and the number of telephone lines available to meet public demand for information during the measles-rubella immunisation campaign. The number of calls, both interactive and non-interactive, each month since 25 October 1994 is as follows:

  Date

  Number

  26 October-18 November

  5,066

  19 November-16 December

  2,431

  17 December-12 January

  1,080

  Total

  8,577

  Ophthalmic Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which health boards in Scotland operate remote area schemes under the General Ophthalmic Services Regulations; when these services were introduced in these areas; what was the cost of
  469
  providing this service in the health board areas in each financial year for each health board; which areas are covered by the remote area schemes; what are the numbers of opticians employed by each health board to provide this remote area service; and how many patients are seen as part of these schemes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Provisions permitting the operation of remote area schemes within general

  General Ophthalmic Services: Remote areas schemes

  Health Boards

  Date of introduction

  Argyll and Clyde 1976

  Highland 1976

  Orkney 1989

  Shetland 1976

  Western Isles 1976

  1991–92

  Cost1

  £2,764

  £1,104

  £1,142

  —

  —

  No. of Opticians

  3

  1

  1

  3n\a

  n\a

  No. of Patients seen2

  293

  142

  191

  —

  —

  1992–93

  Cost

  £2,375

  £862

  £949

  —

  —

  No. of Opticians

  3

  1

  1

  n\a

  n\a

  No. of Patients seen

  291

  98

  164

  —

  —

  1993–94

  Cost

  £2,405

  £878

  £700

  4—

  £1,849

  No. of Opticians

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  No. of Patients seen

  295

  92

  151

  21

  135

  1 Cost includes the expenses of the optician but does not include the cost of sight tests performed as vouchers dispensed.

  2 The same patient may be counted more than once if he/she was seen on more than one occasion.

  3 Information not readily available: could only be provided at excessive cost.

  4 No claim for expenses made by optician.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money each development corporation in Scotland has spent on the establishment of housing associations within their areas; and if he will list these associations and the amounts of money received.

  Mr. Stewart
  Expenditure up to 31 December 1994 is set out in the following table.

  Development Corporation

  Housing Association

  Amount £

  Cumbernauld

  Abronhill Housing Association

  10,500

  East Kilbride

  East Kilbride and District Housing Association

  64,923

  Glenrothes

  Glenrothes Community Housing Association

  25,782

  Irvine

  Irvine Housing Association

  1301,000

  Livingston

  Almond Housing Association

  62,782

  1 Irvine Development Corporation has seconded two staff to Irvine Housing Association and their costs are included. Scottish Homes is expected to make a contribution towards the costs of setting up the association after the deduction of the costs of the secondments.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many properties in each development corporation in Scotland have been transferred to housing associations as a result of(a) trickle transfer and (b) lease of new build properties since the inception of this policy.

  Mr. Stewart
  As at 31 December 1994, Livingston development corporation had transferred 63 vacant properties to housing associations under trickle transfer. No other corporations have transferred properties under trickle transfer and no corporations have transferred properties following the lease of new build.
  470
  ophthalmic services were introduced in 1975. Health boards can apply to the Secretary of State to operate a scheme in any area where this is required to meet the needs of residents. Under such schemes opticians may be reimbursed for their expenses incurred in travelling to remote locations to provide general ophthalmic services. Information about current schemes for the last three financial years is in the table.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedure exists for the long-term transfer of housing to the housing associations within each of the development corporation areas which currently lease these properties.

  Mr. Stewart
  The only leasing arrangement is between Irvine housing association and Irvine development corporation. The association has made an offer to purchase 160 of the 183 homes it presently has on lease. This offer is being considered by the corporation.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial agreement has been reached between Irvine development corporation and the Irvine housing association as regards the properties leased to it by the Irvine development corporation.

  Mr. Stewart
  The terms of the agreement require Irvine housing association to collect the rents for Irvine development corporation.

  The association recovers separately from the corporation the costs it incurs in managing and maintaining the homes.

  Royal Visits
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing each royal visit to Scotland since 1984, giving details of the(a) date, (b) location, (c) purpose and (d) participating Scottish Office Minister or Ministers.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: Where possible, I or one of my ministerial colleagues accompanies, Her Majesty the Queen as Minister in attendance when she is carrying out public engagements in Scotland. Members of the royal family are conscious of the demands on Ministers and it has been the practice

  471
  for many years that Ministers are not, as a matter of course, in attendance on all visits. Ministers do not normally accompany other members of the royal family on visits to Scotland.

  The Scottish Office information directorate acts on behalf of the press secretary to Her Majesty the Queen in making media arrangements for visits to Scotland by Her Majesty the Queen and immediate members of the royal family and, in this capacity, is present on such visits.

  While the date and location of visits by Her Majesty the Queen and immediate members of the royal family are available, no central records are held as to the purpose of a visit or whether or not a Minister was present. The available details are being extracted and will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Scottish Office(a) Ministers and (b) civil servants accompanied His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on his visit to Strathclyde flood sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: Representatives of the Scottish Office information directorate assisted with the media arrangements during the visit by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to the flood sites.

  The answer to a question about ministerial attendance at royal visits, which I gave to the hon. Member today, explains the practice followed for many years. On this occasion, no Minister was present.

  Flooding, Strathclyde
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on how the Bellwin formula will apply to(a) Renfrew district council and (b) Strathclyde regional council in relation to the floods in December 1994; what will be the trigger levels; what is his latest estimate of the total relevant costs in relation to the formula and the amount likely to be payable to each authority by his Department; what these amounts will cover; and what these amounts will exclude;

  (2) in what ways the Bellwin scheme might be utilised to (a) defray the costs of repairing and/or reinstating housing stock owned by local authorities, (b) defray the costs of repairing and/or reinstating housing stock owned by housing associations, (c) defray costs of repairing and/or reinstating houses owned by individual owner-occupiers and (d) pay the costs of replacing houses which are deemed to be technically or economically unviable.

  (3) what is his latest estimate of the direct costs of the flooding in December 1994 to (a) the Scottish Office, (b) Strathclyde regional council, (c) Renfrew district council, (d) affected tenants and (e) affected owner-occupiers; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will detail the expenditure his Department has committed to dealing with the problems created by the floods of December 1994, excluding additional borrowing consent for local authorities and moneys payable through the application of the Bellwin formula; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: Under the Bellwin scheme, each authority will receive grant at 85 per cent. of all eligible expenditure above its threshold. The threshold for Renfrew district council is
  472
  £46,490 and for Strathclyde regional council £3,591,706. I do not yet have sufficient information from the authorities to estimate what may eventually be payable. However, all eligible expenditure above the thresholds will qualify for support. My officials are in contact with those authorities, but I do not want to press them for estimates before they are ready and while their priority must be to deal with the remaining effects of the flooding. The scheme on this occasion gives authorities until 31 May this year to prepare and submit their claims.

  In order to be eligible for grant, expenditure must be incurred by a local authority in providing relief and carrying out immediate works to safeguard life or property or prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to affected communities. Expenditure by local authorities on repairing their own housing stock could be eligible for grant in as much as it met these criteria, but expenditure on reinstating stock would seem less likely to be so. The cost of longer-term repair and restoration of local authority housing stock, and the cost of constructing new houses to replace any houses made permanently unusable, would be of a capital nature and therefore not eligible for grant under the Bellwin scheme. Under the scheme, grant is payable only to local authorities, and therefore costs incurred by housing associations and individual owner-occupiers would not be eligible for grant.

  The direct costs of the flooding to the Scottish Office will be those arising from Government support under the. Bellwin scheme for the expenditure incurred by local authorities. Strathclyde regional council has given me a preliminary estimate of £10 million for the costs of emergency action, including around £4 million for damage to the rail network. The regional council's capital costs falling in 1994–95 are estimated to be £1.365 million, for which I have already issued a supplementary allocation. I have said that I am prepared to consider further requests from the council for capital allocations arising from the flooding and if necessary will take these into account in setting the council's allocation in 1995–96. The Scottish Office is presently awaiting Renfrew district council's assessment of the extent of the damage to the housing stock, both public and private sector, and to other council property, and the costs likely to be involved in repair works.

  Excluding the additional housing and non-housing capital allocations which have to date been made available to the local authorities affected, of some £100,000 and £1,365,000 respectively, and the Government's open-ended commitment to 85 per cent. grants under the Bellwin scheme, the other expenditure so far committed by the Scottish Office is £10,000 which is to he paid to the Clyde River Purification Board to help meet the costs of a hydrological study into the flooding. The Scottish Office is prepared to support other joint studies into the flooding. Should Strathclyde regional council, as the flood prevention authority, decide in the light of that study, or following its general consideration of the issues arising from the flooding, to carry out flood prevention schemes, grant of 50 per cent. will be payable on the cost of any such schemes which may be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was(a) the date and (b) the purpose of each visit by a Scottish Office Minister to the areas in Strathclyde which suffered flooding in December 1994; what were the main issues arising from each of these

  473
  visits; what specific action followed each visit; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on his visit to (a) the Park avenue and (b) the Collier street area of Johnstone following the recent flooding;

  (3) if he will make a statement on his visit, and those of his ministerial colleagues, the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), to the Stockholm crescent and Barterholm-Thrushcraigs areas of Paisley following the recent floodings.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: I visited areas affected by flooding on 12 December and my right hon. Friend made visits to affected areas in Irvine on 24 December, Kirkintilloch on 26 December and Paisley on 27 December, accompanied by the local Members of Parliament.

  The purpose of these visits was to convey our sympathy, and that of the Government, to those who had suffered loss and disruption of their lives, to express our thanks to the members of the emergency services and others, and to assess how the Government could help. As a result, we instructed our officials to ensure that all possible sources of assistance were made available to the councils involved and to explore various related matters.

  My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for education and housing later visited Renfrew district council on 6 January to see for himself the areas of local authority housing which had been most affected by the recent flooding in advance of making decisions concerning local authority housing capital allocations for 1995–96 in the next few weeks. He had a useful discussion with the council and we await its further assessment of the repair costs and implications for its housing programme. My hon. Friend confirmed that the Government would look sympathetically at the council's case for additional housing capital resources in 1995–96 to tackle flood damage.

  Strathclyde regional council will also wish to review its flood prevention policy. Developers and planners will also wish to give careful consideration to flood risks for new developments. Scottish Office Environment Department officials are currently working on, as a matter of priority,

  Households affected by floods damage—December 1994

  Uninhabitable

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (c)

  Total

  Remaining partially habitable

  2 days or less

  > 2 days but < 2 weeks

  > 2 weeks

  Renfrew District

  Paisley North constituency

  177

  nil

  47

  59

  71

  Paisley South constituency

  102

  nil

  nil

  nil

  102

  West Renfrew/Inverclyde constituency

  54

  nil

  53

  nil

  1

  Eastwood constituency

  1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1

  Strathkelvin District1

  255

  nil

  10

  6

  4

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun District

  19

  7

  5

  5

  2

  Cunninghame District

  29

  13

  nil

  nil

  16

  1 Breakdown in categories (a)—(d) is available for local authority stock only.

  1. In Glasgow and Falkirk districts some houses required repair but remained habitable throughout. The figure for Glasgow was 2,800. Most of these were not affected by flooding, and 32 were uninhabitable for between 2 days and 2 weeks and 23 for over 2 weeks. The figure for Falkirk was 17. None of these houses was uninhabitable.
  474
  a new national planning policy guideline on planning and flooding for publication by the spring.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, in descending order of severity, the worst floods recorded in Scotland in terms of(a) average depth, (b) greatest depth and (c) the number of houses affected since 1965.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: This information is not held centrally. However, the January 1993 Tay floods and the recent floods in west central Scotland were more extreme than any previous floods in the period of record. The return period of both of these flood events is estimated at more than 100 years on the major rivers, and possibly 200 years on the Clyde.

  In the 1993 Tay floods, about 1,500 houses were inundated, over 1,100 in North Muirton, while in December 1994, 450 houses were inundated in Strathclyde. The total number of houses suffering damage was much greater in both events, some 3,500 in the recent flooding.

  Previous major flooding events affected mainly agricultural land with few houses being flooded. Nevertheless, there have been many cases of localised flooding of housing in areas such as Langside on the White Cart water and adjoining the Brock burn.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the total number of households in each relevant parliamentary constituency which were affected by flood damage in December 1994; which of these(a) remained partially habitable, (b) were uninhabitable for two days or less, (c) were uninhabitable for more than two days but less than two weeks and (d) were uninhabitable for more than two weeks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: The table sets out the information in the form requested, and is based on provisional information provided by the local authorities concerned. In some cases, particularly Glasgow, the figures include houses which remained habitable but required some repairs attributable to flood damage. Where the information was not available on a parliamentary constituency basis, the relevant district council area has been used.

  NHS Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the costs of redundancy payments to NHS staff in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally in Scotland.

  Natural Disasters (Scotland) Bill
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the hon. Member for Paisley, South to discuss the provisions of the Natural Disasters (Scotland) Bill to(a) avert natural disasters including floods and (b) assist victims of such disasters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: I will be happy to meet the hon. Member, and I have asked for this to be arranged as soon as possible.

  Hospital Closures
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 19 December,Official Report, column 951, what information is collected from health boards by his Office regarding hospital closures.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: The Scottish Office receives information from health boards on which hospitals have closed. My reply of 19 December on this subject refers to that subject.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the operation of the assisted places scheme in ensuring the continued operation of the independent schools sector.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: The aims of the assisted places scheme are to enable children to attend independent schools which would otherwise be beyond their parents' financial circumstances and to widen parental choice. The scheme is not intended as a means of providing financial assistance to the independent schools sector. Currently, some 3,000 children receive assistance under the scheme. An independent survey report, published in 1992, provided clear evidence that it was meeting its objectives.

  Manual Handling Operations
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) improvement notices, (b) prohibition notices and (c) prosecutions have been issued by the Health and Safety Executive to NHS trusts in Scotland in relation to breaches of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 since 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  No enforcement notices were issued or prosecutions initiated by the Health and Safety Executive against health services in Scotland in relation to breaches of the Manual. Handling Operations Regulations 1992 during the period 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1994. Figures for the current financial year are not yet available.

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

Landfill Tax Revenue: Use
The Earl of Bradford The Earl of Bradford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to use revenue raised by the imposition of the proposed tax on waste disposal in landfill for the benefit of environmental projects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, revenue from the proposed landfill tax will form part of general government receipts. The case for public spending on environmental projects must be made on its own merits and judged against competing claims on public expenditure.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that all those with an interest in environmental matters will applaud Her Majesty's Government for raising the cost of landfill as that will encourage people to recycle and to incinerate waste? However, is he also aware that there will be an inevitable environmental cost on the countryside as those who unfortunately seek to avoid paying the new tax will dump their rubbish on the countryside and create an enormous problem as a result? Will he encourage Her Majesty's Government to make available some of the funds raised by the new tax to solve the problems created for the countryside?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is certainly something that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will consider after they have published their consultation document on the proposed new tax.
As regards the problem of fly tipping, to which my noble friend referred, my advice is that the level of fly tipping has decreased over the years since the introduction of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Obviously, that is difficult to measure and we should be very interested to receive further evidence from interested parties as to levels of fly tipping in the consultation period. However, the experience of those countries which have already introduced taxes of this type is that it has not led to an increase in fly tipping.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that while it is right that the Government should try to discourage less desirable ways of disposing of waste, at the same time they should be encouraging more desirable methods, which is the purpose of the Question? In particular, does the noble Lord agree that further assistance and encouragement should be given to local authorities, which have already gone some way to finding novel ways of recycling and separating
528
materials? Does he also agree that there should be encouragement for developing the market for recycled materials, which has inhibited developments in this direction for many years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Question relates in particular to discouraging landfill. That is the problem on which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to concentrate. However, no doubt the further matters to which the noble Lord referred could be considered during the consultation period by my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the charges levied will relate to the administrative cost of dealing with licences and will not be used as a means of raising taxation generally as an indirect form of taxation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot confirm or deny anything at the moment because my right honourable friend has said he wishes to publish a consultation document on these matters. In his Budget speech my right honourable friend said that he did not want to damage our competitiveness by increasing the tax burden on business but that he wished to alleviate the extra costs imposed on business as a result of the tax by examining compensatory reductions in, for example, the level of employer national insurance contributions and by that means broadening the tax base.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are opposed to the hypothecation of taxes in principle or simply in this case?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can answer simply by saying that there has to be a strong presumption against hypothecation.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, will my noble friend tell me whether there is any difference between the proposed tax as announced by the Chancellor in his Statement and the landfill levy as announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made quite clear, those are matters which both my right honourable friends will consider following publication of the consultation document.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, will my noble friend encourage his right honourable and noble friends to consider seriously an alternative to disposal of waste by landfill sites in the form of incineration of that waste in order to create novel and beneficial fuels for power generation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, at present landfill is used to dispose of some 100 million tonnes of waste a year, representing approximately 70 per cent. of all our waste. That is a much higher proportion than in most other countries. That is one of the reasons why my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and

529
the Secretary of State for the Environment would like to discourage landfill. The tax could be one way of doing that.

Countryside Council for Wales
2.42 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why their grant-in-aid for the Countryside Council for Wales for 1995–96 has been reduced by £3.37 million from that provided for 1994–95, and what the effect on the work of the council is expected to be.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we consider that there is scope, following the financial management and policy review, for improving the efficiency and focus of the Countryside Council for Wales through a reduction in its overheads, management restructuring and a reassessment of some of its other programmes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is continuing to discuss the council's detailed plans with it and has agreed to provide an additional £0.5 million to secure the future of Tir Cymen. He is meeting the council again next week, and it is expected that detailed plans will be issued shortly thereafter.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I particularly welcome what he said about the future of Tir Cymen. However, will he explain why the Welsh agency has been singled out for a substantial cut of 16.3 per cent. while no comparable cuts have been made in the funding of English Nature or Scottish Natural Heritage? Will not a cut of that magnitude make it difficult for the Countryside Council for Wales to fulfil its statutory duties to help conserve the Welsh countryside and Welsh life, and to make its proper contribution to the Joint Nature Conservation Council? In particular, how can the council fulfil its responsibilities in carrying out regulations implementing the habitats and species directive which we discussed in this House on 17th October last? As I pointed out at the time, at col. 102, those were new duties which would require the statutory agencies to be given additional funding. Are we not making it just about impossible for the Welsh agency to carry out its duties?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to answer the second question first, there is no question but that the Countryside Council for Wales will carry out all its statutory duties. In particular the implementation of the habitats directive is a priority which will be accommodated within the grant-in-aid provision.
As to the overall reduction in resources for the Countryside Council for Wales, that is a matter which has been decided by looking at the Welsh council as a Welsh entity and not by comparison with its equivalents in England and Scotland. We have seen opportunities for improving the efficiency and focus of the Welsh agency. I cannot today offer the noble Lord any suggestions as to whether there are similar opportunities in the other countries.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, how can the noble Lord expect the Welsh council to perform its
530
whole range of statutory duties with a reduction in resources of this magnitude? Is he aware that there is considerable disquiet in the Principality about the way in which it is being treated in this and in other ways? It has come to the conclusion that perhaps the best solution would be for us to have the Secretary of State for Scotland in Wales and to send Mr. Redwood to Scotland.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Countryside Council for Wales is confident that it can perform all its functions despite the reduction in its resources. It is a question of improving efficiency and of cutting out expenditure which is no longer considered necessary.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord make the charge against the Welsh council that it is less efficient than the English and Scottish councils? I have been informed for several years that the Welsh council is very efficient indeed. Does he use such an argument to justify the cut?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no. There is no question of comparison. My right honourable friend is looking at the Countryside Council for Wales as a Welsh entity and not by reference to its national equivalents.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the population of Wales is about half that of Scotland, and that the population of Scotland is about 10 per cent. that of England?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the answer he gave about some work being considered no longer necessary will cause great anxiety? For example, work continues at present on rights of way and improving access in parts of Wales. Is that one of the casualties that we may expect? A joint programme is being undertaken with the RSPB monitoring bird species; it is important work. Will that be one of the casualties?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should like to be helpful to the noble Baroness but I am not in a position to be so today. As I said, the detailed matters are still under discussion. An announcement can be expected within the next few weeks. Until then I do not believe that it would be helpful for me to speculate on exactly what will occur.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, bearing in mind that your Lordships' House commended the Tir Cymen programme, do I understand the Minister to say that the department is guaranteeing the ring-fencing of funding of Tir Cymen so that schemes can remain open to new applicants for the full five years of the scheme?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should not like to speculate that far. However, I can say that the funding for 1995–96 will represent an increase on the previous year.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the period does not include the fifth year of the Tir Cymen scheme? The scheme was approved in glowing terms in the 14th report of the European Communities Select Committee. Will the noble Lord

531
use his best endeavours to ensure that his ministerial colleagues in the Welsh Office read and digest the 14th report, and in particular paragraph 53?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord at least part of the comfort he seeks. He can be certain that the Government have not made this announcement in relation to Tir Cymen believing that it is just another programme. It is one of the most successful programmes to come from the Countryside Council for Wales. It enjoys full support within the Government. However, I shall read Hansard to see whether I can add anything to what I have said today to assist the noble Lord.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister has explained that part of the reason for the reduction in expenditure is that the Countryside Council for Wales no longer needs to do some things which it did in the past. Noble Lords have asked whether particular programmes come into that category. Can the noble Lord advise the House what the Countryside Council for Wales will no longer do or what the Government believe it needs no longer do which contributes to the savings of which the Minister spoke?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have already answered that Question. As soon as the decisions have been taken, an announcement will be made

Scottish Environment Protection Agency
2.50 p.m.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have been invited to give evidence before the Scottish Select Committee on the proposed Scottish environment protection agency.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the proposed Scottish environment protection agency, which is also known by the acronym SEPA, has not been chosen as a subject for inquiry by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I add that it is not for the Government to determine the issues to be examined by Select Committees.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply—unsatisfactory though it may be. If there is a change and the Government are invited to give evidence to the Select Committee, would it be made clear what the responsibilities of the Secretary of State are? Would they be for the whole operation of the agency or would it be claimed that he is responsible only for broad policy and that devolution of everything else should be left to the agency?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, if my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is invited to attend and give evidence about SEPA, he will certainly do so. Contained in that evidence would be references to accountability. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the policy framework in which the agency operates and that includes any guidance or directions that he issues to it. It includes its
532
overall performance, specific aspects of its work relating to his responsibilities and the appointments which he makes to it.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, perhaps I may correct an omission. I should have congratulated the noble Earl because I understand that this is the first time on which he has answered a Question. It is appropriate because I gather that his appointment increases the number of Scots on the Front Bench by 20 per cent.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I believe that the Scots are carrying out ethnic cleansing on the Front Bench at the moment and we shall soon have 100 per cent. Scots there!
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I also wish to congratulate the noble Earl, although he took part in our debate last week when I had the pleasure of hearing him. We shall discuss the whole matter of SEPA and its composition today and on Thursday. This is a point on which it would perhaps have been wiser if the Secretary of State had arranged a meeting and spoken to the Scottish Select Committee before the Bill had gone as far as it has.
One point which is worrying the Scots and, I am sure, people in other parts of the country is the gradual diminution of direct control and direct representation on the boards. The tendency is for the Secretary of State to appoint the board, unless in the broadest way he washes his hands of responsibility and that is a reduction of democracy which is, in some ways, going too far.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord on the issue. As he knows, there is provision for SEPA to establish regional boards and Schedule 6 to the Environment Bill contains the details. The Government will, however, be keen to secure the services of effective board members from all sources. We envisage elected councillors playing a full part on regional boards.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will agree that the work of the Select Committees, particularly the Scottish Select Committee, enhances the operation of Parliament as a whole. Will the Minister ensure that arrangements are made so that if the Select Committee does not meet in the Palace of Westminster, parliamentarians who wish to witness the work of the Select Committee are able to do so without financial loss?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I think that that is beyond the scope of the Question. However, the changes in the way in which the Grand Committee operates are being brought forward in this Session of Parliament.

GP Fundholders: Scottish Office Reception
2.54 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the circumstances in which the Minister of State at the Scottish Office gave a reception on their behalf in Edinburgh on 25th November for general practitioner fundholders; how many people attended this function; and what was the total cost to the taxpayer.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the purpose of the reception which I gave in Edinburgh on 25th November was to thank general practice fundholders in Scotland for the significant contribution they make towards achieving a patient-centred health service; and to make an announcement about important changes to the fundholding scheme. One hundred-and-twenty people were invited and around 70 attended, at a total cost of just over £1,000.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. Can he inform the House why the reception was held in Edinburgh Castle? Does the total cost indicated by the Minister include the cost for extra heating at this time of year? The castle tends to be draughty. Will the noble and learned Lord further explain to the House why, at a time of increasing stringency in government expenditure going right down to the nooks and crannies of government, it was decided to give this form of entertainment to a restricted class of doctors in the medical profession?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I should explain to the noble Lord that we regularly use Edinburgh Castle for receptions attended by all types of domestic groups and in particular when we have foreign visitors. The gatherings can be very large or of the size I indicated. The figure I gave represents, so far as I can ascertain, the total cost of holding the event. I hoped that I had explained in my original Answer to the noble Lord why I held the reception. Not least, my purpose was to thank those people; but also, importantly, it was to indicate that changes were to be introduced which would be attractive to those wishing to expand their service in the best interests of their patients.
On expenditure, the noble Lord may recall that in November last year the Mail on Sunday reviewed hospitality expenditure by government across Whitehall. I am sure that he is as pleased as I am to see that the Scottish Office achieved a reduction of some 2 per cent., compared with other departments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the ministerial team of the Secretary of State for Scotland frequently gives receptions in Edinburgh Castle? It is a very attractive venue. The receptions are for various groups of people who are helping to develop public policy in Scotland. Does my noble and learned friend agree that the functions are widely appreciated? Not only that, but
534
those of us who have had the privilege of attending the receptions will guarantee that not much money is spent on central heating.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we in the Scottish Office would like to have a reputation for frugality in our expenditure on hospitality, without reinforcing the national stereotype of being mean. It is absolutely correct to say that we use the castle regularly. The last function I attended before the one we are discussing was held to thank people the length and breadth of Scotland who had helped the police catch criminals and the like. That is the kind of occasion for which we make use of Edinburgh Castle, and I believe it to be appropriate.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I saw the Question on the Order Paper, I felt obliged to turn to my noble friend Lord Stoddart and ask him what conceivable relationship it had with Brussels? I am delighted to hear from the Minister that there is none.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall ensure that if I hold a reception which has any European connection, there will be no publication of the event in The Times.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that many Members of this House are envious of the fact that Scotland has a location like Edinburgh Castle in which to hold such entertainments?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Very much so, my Lords. It has always been my experience that, curiously, such a reception in the winter months is even more impressive. Once our guests reach the courtyard at the centre of the castle—particularly if there is mist from the east coast swirling—I have the impression they realise they have arrived somewhere rather special. After that they particularly enjoy the limited hospitality we offer.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, what way is this to treat the general practitioner service in Scotland? Seventy general practitioners are told that if they join the Government's fundholding scheme they will receive an invitation to Edinburgh Castle and a lollipop from the Minister of State while many hundreds of other general practitioners doing marvellous work for their patients are totally ignored. Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that the work of all general practitioners the length and breadth of Scotland is appreciated by the Government and that the Government are not trying to drive a wedge between GP fundholders and non-fundholders?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am very happy to offer that reassurance. I recognise, as I believe the noble Lord knows, that the focus of our attention within the National Health Service during the past year has been on primary care. We require the active participation of general practitioners across Scotland to achieve that; I acknowledge the great work they do. The scheme I announced that evening seems to have

535
attracted the attention of general practitioners in Scotland. I am very pleased to say that, since 25th November, there have been no fewer than 80 expressions of interest in the new primary care purchasing initiative that I announced.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I have no objection at all to Edinburgh Castle. It is an admirable place in which to hold receptions; I much enjoyed doing so myself when I was a Minister. I want to follow the point made by my noble friend Lord Ewing. Why was it decided that the reception should be just for fundholders? Why was it not open across the board to general practitioners, or to general practitioners from some particular area of the country? Does the Minister agree that the role of general practitioners in our primary health care services is extremely important? Does he accept that any thought of a special bonus for those who are fundholders requires an explanation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I have said more than once, the central aim of the evening was to announce to an audience with a specialist interest a number of changes that we proposed to introduce. I have acknowledged that general practitioners across Scotland do a very important job in the National Health Service. If I am not to be criticised for offering hospitality to doctors, I would be glad to hold receptions for general practitioners not only in Edinburgh Castle but throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, can the Minister give any idea of the percentage of Scottish general practitioners who have become involved in the fundholding group? The impression I get—some of the university research work by Hagger and McAteer suggests this—is that there is resistance and even a fundamental objection among a very large number of Scottish GPs to becoming fundholders? Can the Minister give the House an idea of the percentage? Was that not one of the reasons why the party was held; namely, as a recruiting drive? Finally, have the changes that the Minister announced been published anywhere?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there are currently 107 operating fundholders in Scotland. They cover something like 20 per cent. of the Scottish population. As I indicated, since the changes to the scheme were announced we have received a further 80 expressions of interest. We anticipate that something like 30 per cent. of the population will be covered by fundholding practices during the year 1995–96.
The fundholders have made improvements in health care in Scotland. I single out Grampian where their combined pressure has brought about important changes in the way that patients have their X-rays done—by direct access on six days of the week. That was of
536
advantage, not just to the patients of fundholders, but to all National Health Service patients within the health board area.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, if the reception had not been restricted to fundholders, would it not have cost a good deal more?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, following the appreciative remarks that fell from the lips of my noble friend Lord Richard on my own Front Bench, will the noble and learned Lord note that there is substantial opinion in all parts of the House that the Scottish Office should be congratulated for having avoided the gross excesses that take place in Brussels, which some noble Lords appear to wish to condone? In accepting my congratulations that he should have had such an enjoyable evening personally, will the noble and learned Lord guarantee that Scotland will continue to compare favourably with the Commission in Brussels?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his ingenuity. I am sure that his noble friend wishes that he had not been so cheeky as to attempt to distract our attention. When it comes to excesses, I can only reflect that the official Treasury calculation would be that it has cost something like £300 to answer this Question. I hope that we shall not find ourselves indulging in greater excesses in the future.

Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for the inadmissibility of evidence in civil proceedings in Scotland of information as to what occurred during family mediation. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—
(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 18th January
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton set down for tomorrow shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of the Lord Howell set down for the same day to 2 hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Norriemoved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Enhancement of environment
It shall be the duty of all Government Departments, Ministers and agencies, when carrying out their statutory purposes, to do so in a manner which does not damage and, where this is compatible with their statutory purposes, which furthers the conservation and enhancement of the environment and of natural resources.").
The noble Lord said: It is certainly a privilege to be the first to move an amendment on this very important and welcome Bill. Characteristically, I seek more from the Bill than the Government have yet provided. However, I have high hopes that they will consider my points in a positive way.
It would be true to say that no Bill with an environmental dimension has gone through this Chamber in the past six years to which I have not proposed an amendment extending environmental duties to the bodies and decision makers affected by the legislation. This has not been an idle pursuit. There is a longstanding tradition—started, I believe, by my noble friend Lord Renton in the 1950s—of assigning environmental duties to Ministers, government departments and public bodies in order to ensure that environmental issues should not be ignored. Such early duties are to be found in the Electricity Act 1957; the 1958 coal Act; and the Countryside Act 1968. More recently, the Government have either introduced or accepted similar duties—in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; its 1985 amendment Act; and the Agriculture Act 1986.
When I became involved in environmental matters in the late 1980s with the support of many Members on all sides of this House, happily I was able to persuade the Government to accept duties on Ministers, and others in the Water Act 1989, whose successor clauses we shall discuss later, the Electricity Act 1989, and the Coal Industry Act 1990. Those duties represent an important, if specific, recognition that every person or body, no matter what they are in business to do, has a responsibility for the environment.
The need for such responsibilities has, since the Rio earth summit in 1992, become clearer. The jargon phrase for it is "environmental integration" but it means no more and no less than bringing the environment to the centre of decision-making. I have frequently regretted the fact that there has not been an opportunity to bring together all those duties into a single simple
538
legislative device capable of ensuring that all Ministers, government departments and public agencies adopt a similar approach.
At last such an opportunity is with us. This Bill is the Government's first general environmental Bill since they accepted the obligations placed on them by the outcome of the earth summit. It provides the perfect opportunity to reinforce in statute the case that they accepted in the 1990 White Paper on the environment; namely, that all government departments should bring the environment into the heart of their decisions.
Therefore, I believe that the Government will welcome what I am trying to achieve in principle. As ever, I am ready to be told that I do not have the drafting of the amendment quite right, in which case I shall be quite happy to discuss alternative forms of words with my noble friend the Minister. But my amendment is practical. It recognises that not every task of every public body or public servant can be made to further the interests of the environment and the conservation of natural resources. But where that is possible, it should be done. At the very least, the environment should not be damaged by the actions of other government departments.
I recognise that some may feel that my amendment goes too far, but I hope that the Committee will understand that I am simply trying to ensure that the environment receives the attention that it deserves. The Government have already introduced an informal system to deliver those objectives; namely, the system of green Ministers, which was established after the 1990 White Paper on the environment. But so far as the public is concerned I am afraid that the green Ministers are invisible. What they do happens behind closed doors. How do we know that it makes any difference? My amendment will bring those responsibilities out into the open. Placing a statutory duty on Ministers along the lines of my amendment would make a genuine difference both to the weight given to environmental concerns and to the public's understanding of what the Government are doing. It would not diminish the importance of economic and social concerns; but, in the manner agreed at Rio, it would ensure that economic and social objectives were pursued in ways that give proper recognition to the environment.
I can make the case for environmental integration at length, but I do not believe that I need to do so. The Government have accepted it and there are eloquent exponents of the concept within their own ranks, with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr John Gummer, being prominent among them. Therefore, I look forward to the positive response that my noble friend the Minister will give to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: This amendment is an extremely good one. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for having tabled it. It is very important to write into the Bill at the very beginning the positive things that it seeks to achieve, results which are rather more positive than setting up an agency which will merely do what it is told in particular situations.

539
As the noble Lord said, the Government have accepted the whole principle of the Rio declaration and have been trying ever since to implement it within the ranks of various departments. I must congratulate them on what I understand is the progress that has been made.
Those Members of the Committee who sit on your Lordships' Committee on Sustainable Development—most of whom are upstairs at exactly this moment doing just that while I am delinquent in this Chamber—heard recently from representatives of the Green Alliance who gave evidence tending to show that the initiatives of the Government were working. It is not entirely certain that all areas are working as well as they should do. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned the green Ministers and their committee, which I believe has met only two or possibly three times so far. We are told, obviously rightly, that not all work has to be done in committee but is done by telephone, memoranda and all kinds of other ways. We accept a great deal of that. But in this particular area there is a lack of transparency and nothing but good would result if it were done away with.
Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, I can see no reason why the Government should not accept this amendment. I believe that it would make a very good first clause for the Bill if they were to do so.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: I too support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Norrie. It is very much a strategic amendment. In a sense, it only puts forward what underlies the whole purpose of the Bill and the new agency. For many reasons it is probably too late for the environment to move centre stage. But that is the way in which governments have operated throughout the ages and across parties. People wake up too late to what is needed. Therefore, stronger environmental legislation and practice are needed. When the dire consequences of not considering the environment are taken on board—consequences which were spelt out at Rio and on other occasions—we must see that in future almost all acts of government must take into account the environmental dimension.
There have been other occasions when governments have woken up relatively late to the need to do things very differently. Perhaps I may take just one example which will, perhaps, be much more familiar to many Members of the Committee than it is to me; namely, the whole system of controlling public spending. The Committee will remember that in the early 1950s the Plowden proposals were put forward for controlling government spending by putting together one year with another and having a consistent long-term plan which was intended to get a more effective pattern of expenditure. That was a big innovation and a great advance. Gradually inflation crept up and what was a good practice became something of a disastrous practice.
Under that practice the other place was asked to vote unlimited sums of money as supplementary estimates, merely to pay for the volume of programmes which had earlier been voted for. Suddenly it was realised that matters could not go on any longer in that way. So cash limits were invented, which was another big advance.
540
To give another example, when it was realised that the number of staff employed in the public sector was having a bad effect on the economy as a whole, Ministers and departments were required to take account of the implications on manpower of the proposals that they brought forward.
My noble friend's amendment seeks to introduce that dimension into government practice in this country. I hope that it would be in government practice at least in other EU countries and gradually take root throughout the world. We know that it is a very hard task but at least it can be there on the agenda, so that when the Government are making decisions about what they will do they take into account the environmental dimension. That must be desirable.
I recognise that the wording of the amendment may not be ideal and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ullswater will be able to make suggestions for a better way to achieve the objective. But I believe that the objective must unite us all because the basic purpose of the Bill unites us all. I support the amendment.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may utter a brief word of caution, which is not weakened at all by what my noble friend Lord Marlesford said. The amendment asks us to enjoin on every Secretary of State, every Minister of State, every Parliamentary Under-Secretary, every Permanent Secretary and so forth a duty to observe a good principle, and that would have effect upon the operation of every other Act of Parliament already on the statute and to follow. I am sure that that is an admirable thing to aspire to. But are there not other equally admirable things to aspire to? I refer to such things as the preservation of law and order, the integrity of the United Kingdom or the avoidance of giving undue offence to religious minorities and so forth.
When I started out on the road of putting my favourite causes into statute I was reminded of the lawyer's tag, inclusio unius, exclusio alterius. That means that if you put in one thing you exclude another. If we put in this good cause, we make every other good cause subordinate to it if it is not already mentioned in statute. If we are to preserve all those good causes they too must be mentioned in statute and the statute book eventually bursts. I hope that the Committee will take care.
Lord Bridges: Perhaps I may venture to give an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We are dealing with an environmental Bill. It is therefore appropriate to mention the environmental duties and obligations of all who seek to implement it. The other causes could appropriately be mentioned in other Bills dealing with other subjects.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I too may add to that in response to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Is there not a place for regulation in changing our culture? The noble Lord mentioned sexual and racial discrimination. Perhaps it is now automatic—it certainly should be—in each of us to consider those matters. That was not so a few years ago. We introduced legislation—for instance, we now have legislation dealing with racial

541
discrimination—and our culture and outlook changed. Legislators have an obligation to lead that cultural change.
I believe that it is a good amendment, whatever the merits or demerits of the wording. But, in leading the way, we must ensure that those who frame our laws and take executive action consider the environmental effects of what they do. It may perhaps then become part of the way they automatically do things and in a few years it will not be necessary to remind them quite so specifically.
Lord Crickhowell: I have every sympathy with the object that the agency, government departments and Ministers should always take account of the desirability of protecting the environment. But, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, a word of caution is called for.
I am concerned not with the specific job of Ministers elsewhere or other departments; I feel a certain anxiety about the agency, which is being given a wide range of statutory duties. From time to time it may not be strictly possible to carry out another statutory purpose without doing some damage. The proposed clause says, "does not damage". For example, the agency has a flood protection responsibility. I can think of occasions when it would strive manfully to carry out its flood protection duty in the most sympathetic environmental manner possible; but it could still be argued that in order to protect life and property it was necessary to do some damage which may be thought harmful to the environment.
The agency has a difficult task in weighing up the balance of its duties. While I sympathise with the clause which says that it must be a prime consideration of the agency, I have anxieties about a clause which says,
"It shall be the duty … when carrying out their statutory purposes, to do so in a manner which does not damage".
I fear it may prevent the agency from doing other things which this Chamber feels are equally important.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps at this point I may express the views of the Opposition. I fully sympathise with the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and, indeed, with the expression in the White Paper that he quoted; that is, that environmental considerations should be at the heart of all government decisions. I also fully sympathised with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, when he said that this was a strategic amendment. I am quite prepared for a strategic amendment to appear at the beginning of the Bill. But I have the same reservations as the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Crickhowell, about the actual wording.
I see several difficulties. First, if it is to be a duty on all government departments, Ministers and agencies when carrying out their statutory purposes, then, as I read it, there can be no public transport; there can be no defence training; and, if the extension of the environment is beyond the United Kingdom, we could not engage in the Gulf War, which is obviously a deterioration of the environment. Ministers would be prohibited from doing all sorts of things if it were a duty, enforceable in law, on Ministers and government
542
departments to do what they do in a manner that "does not damage" the conservation and enhancement of the environment and natural resources.
Secondly, I accept the spirit of the amendment, but it inhibits the public sector. It talks of,
"Government Departments, Ministers and agencies, when carrying out their statutory purposes, to do so in a manner".
It does not say that a private company has a similar duty to do so in the same manner. Therefore, if the amendment is accepted in its present drafting, any organisation—let us take the example of British Rail, which is for the moment in public ownership but, alas, there may come the day when it is in private ownership—in public ownership would simply have to stop; but an organisation in private ownership could continue. Therefore I find the drafting produced by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, somewhat defective.
Nevertheless, I accept that there should be—as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said—a strategic amendment at the start of the Bill. To a certain extent I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, when he says that this matter concerns the environmental agency. This Bill concerns the environment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was right in saying that we should have a strategic amendment. But please, not this one.
Lord Northbourne: If the amendment were to be put on the face of the Bill, would it not also require a definition of "environment"? I understand that at present "environment" is defined in the Environmental Protection Act, Part I, as follows:
"The 'environment' consists of all, or any, of the following media, namely, the air, water and land".
It goes on to say,
"the medium of air includes the air within buildings and the air within other natural or man-made structures above or below ground".
I am not sure, but does not the Bill refer to the environment in a much wider context? For example, do we not include plants or animals in the environment? Do we or do we not include buildings? I suggest that this is an aspect of the amendment which perhaps needs some thought also.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: At the start of this long Bill it is important to have a statement of what the Government feel about the amendment moved by my noble friend. The Government fully recognise that the protection of the environment cannot be left to the sole concern of environment and territorial Ministers. Indeed, one of the central themes of the Government's approach to sustainable development is that it can be achieved only through the involvement of all parts of government and sections of society. The arrangements we established following the Rio conference are designed to reflect that.
My noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and I are at one in acknowledging the importance of ensuring that environmental considerations are taken into account by all government Ministers, departments and agencies. It

543
is to help ensure this objective that the Government have appointed a green Minister in each department, which is what my noble friend Lord Norrie alluded to.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the proposed amendment would go much further by placing all government Ministers, departments and agencies under a statutory duty not to damage the environment. My noble friend put his finger on that difficulty. It would additionally place them under a duty to further the conservation enhancement of the environment and of natural resources where that is compatible with their statutory purposes. That would not simply integrate environmental considerations in other government policies but would in many cases override those policies in ways which I believe would clearly be unacceptable. My noble friend Lord Elton pointed out some of the dangers in that method of approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, quoted defence as an example. It is one thing to ensure that defence arrangements avoid unnecessary damage to the environment where that can be done without undermining the successful delivery of defence policy. But it is frankly unacceptable to require that those arrangements must not damage the environment even where that could seriously weaken our defence capabilities or put life at risk. Nor would it be acceptable to require defence Ministers to devote scarce defence resources to furthering the conservation enhancement of the environment, wherever that is not incompatible with their statutory purposes, irrespective of costs and priorities.
Good government involves balancing the need for many different desirable policy objectives and finding ways of delivering those so as to maximise the overall benefit. I believe that the intention behind the amendment—to ensure that environmental considerations are properly integrated throughout government—is in line with government policy and requires no new legislation in the Bill. But by imposing overriding environmental duties on all government Ministers, departments and agencies, the proposed amendment is incompatible with the kinds of judgments which are required for good government.
I hear very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, says about having some form of strategic amendment, but what I have been at pains to do is to indicate that there is no need for a new form of legislation in the Bill on those lines. I cannot believe that my noble friend is seeking to impose this statutory duty not to damage the environment. I hope therefore that he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the Minister saying that under no circumstances whatever would the Government and Members of the Committee accept a strategic amendment which we could draft together and which would be along the lines suggested by the White Paper and by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford? Is it the Government's position that they would not accept such an amendment? On the other hand, if at the Report stage
544
there were general agreement among noble Lords that such an amendment was desirable, would the Government even then turn their face against it?
Viscount Ullswater: My initial reaction is the one that I gave to the Committee earlier. I do not see the need for such a strategic amendment to be placed on the face of the Bill. I was at pains to underline that the policies of the Government are there in other legislation. I would not turn my face so hard against the very reasonable proposal put forward by the noble Lord, but I have to say that that would be without any commitment to agreeing. The noble Lord was almost asking me whether I would agree that a strategic amendment could be placed on the face of the Bill. I would certainly be pleased to look at it, but with no commitment to agree to put a strategic amendment on the face of the Bill.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, makes up his mind what he is going to do about the amendment, perhaps I may make one point which goes to the heart of the Bill. Although on the face of it the Bill is just about the environment, it is in fact about something much deeper. We all know that it stems from Rio and from the whole question of sustainable development. That means that the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, do not apply. If law and order in this country collapse over the next 50 years, perhaps they can be built up over the next 500 years. The same is true of almost everything he was talking about. It would be a disaster and a tragedy but it would be mendable.
What we are talking about in the realms of sustainable development, and therefore in this Bill, is whether or not this planet is to become uninhabitable. Therefore, there are ways in which it can be right to say that it would take priority over any other duty. I am not deploying my argument at this moment merely to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, should press home the amendment. I entirely see that there are reasons why it might be right to withdraw it today. But the principle that this is an overriding and major problem, probably the most important problem in the civilised world over the past 2,000 years, should not be glossed over.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful for the Minister's reply and I am grateful to those who have supported me in the amendment and also to those who have expressed concern. I shall look at Hansard very carefully to see what has been said. I shall then come back to the Minister and decide what to do at the next stage. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [The Environment Agency]:
Lord Nathanmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, after ("of") insert ("furthering the protection of the environment and of").
The noble Lord said: This amendment arose in my mind in the first instance out of surprise at reading the Bill and finding that there was no objective or purpose for the environment agency, which constitutes the main

545
purpose of the first part of the Bill. It is surprising that the purpose of the exercise should not be explicit on the face of the Bill right at the beginning.
The prime reason for putting forward Amendment No. 2 is to make it clear that the overriding purpose of the environment agency will be the protection of the environment. That becomes much more important when one considers the extraordinary breadth of the responsibilities being imposed upon the agency. It is not appropriate to catalogue them all—we shall no doubt be going through them in the coming hours and days—but they are extremely wide and varied. In support of the point which I am putting before the Committee it is only necessary to refer, for instance, to the extent to which it is prescribed that the agency shall conform to guidance given by Ministers. That is made quite clear in Clause 4(1):
"The Ministers shall from time to time give guidance to the Agency with respect to aims and objectives which they consider it appropriate for the Agency to pursue in the performance of its functions".
More particulars are given later in that clause.
It seems to me invaluable that there should be a statement of the overriding purpose of the environment agency in the terms which I have indicated. That does not mean that there cannot be other purposes which may also be imposed on the agency in carrying out a particular function. There is also the emphasis laid in other parts of the Bill on sustainable development. That is a very important matter which, I believe, is central to the thoughts of the draftsman. I do not in the least object to that, but support it.
One needs something which is quite clear right at the beginning as regards the overriding purpose of the agency which is furthering the protection of the environment. It will not only be helpful to the reader to know what its purpose is, but also to a minor extent, though not in practice, it may place a constraint on Ministers. I do not believe that they will feel it as such because I believe that they accept that that is the main purpose; namely, to protect the environment.
It seems to be more and more frequent with the passing years that there are more questions. The appropriateness of government decisions in particular will be questioned in the courts as to whether the guidance given is in accordance with the terms of the Act. It seems to me extremely helpful that this very brief statement of the overriding purpose shall appear clearly here. For those reasons I commend this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: When we were discussing the last amendment I quoted the evidence of the Green Alliance to the Sustainable Development Committee. I would like now to quote from that evidence. The spokesman for the Green Alliance said:
"The main anxiety that myself and many of the other environmental groups have is that the clauses as they stand do not give the Agency as many powers or duties in relation to environmental protection as some of the existing legislation, particularly on the water side, and in particular put a great deal of emphasis on ministerial guidance. I think we have come to the view that it may not be appropriate to give the Agency itself an objective of achieving sustainable development because that is or will be, as
546
we have been discussing, a set of trade-offs between environmental and other goals in the last resort. The Agency's job, in our view, is really quite straightforwardly environmental protection. I think many of us have come to a view that the Agency should have its own clear objective of furthering environmental protection, but at the moment it has no clear objectives of its own".
I believe that that evidence is absolutely valid. That is the reason why I support the noble Lord's amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for moving this amendment. Again, although I like to support amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I find this a rather restrictive amendment. As I said at Second Reading, in our view the object of the agency is enhancement rather than mere protection.
If it is the case that the Committee accepts this amendment then I would regret that the agency's objectives are confined in Clause 1 to the protection of the environment. It is our belief that the agency should go much better and further in promoting the protection of the environment. It should go to restoring pieces of the environment which have been lost. At a later stage we shall be talking about clauses relating to remediation of contaminated land. I believe that the agency will have a role to play in England, Wales and Scotland on those aspects. I believe that it will also have a role to play in ensuring that not only the environment, as it stands at the moment in aspic, is protected but that it is developed and rehabilitated in many aspects.
Therefore, I would be reluctant to assent to the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has moved unless the Government say—and I have to add this caveat—that that is really what the agency is about. I hope very much for a positive reply from the noble Viscount. That is not what the agency is about. It is not about pure protection, but about protection with development, enhancement and furthering the development of the environment and all that comes with it. If the noble Viscount can join with me in that respect then at least we shall be making some progress in the early Committee stage of this Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Milverton: I support this amendment. I was ready to support the first amendment especially if the Government had said that they would consider it and do whatever necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said. As the noble Lord said, if protection is being given in a proper and positive way, rather than in a negative manner, I should have thought that in protecting the environment, nature and creation, one would be involving oneself in restoring and rehabilitating in the work of protection.
As I see it, one is not just protecting negatively in order to stop something, but one is doing it in a positive way where one enables oneself to do restoration work and rehabilitation of the land as much as in anything

547
else to do with life. I believe that there is a place for this amendment especially as the first amendment may not be put into effect.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, I should like to draw attention to the fact that in the Title of the Bill one agency is known as the "Environment Agency" and another is known as the "Scottish Environment Protection Agency". Does that mean that the environment agency can, so to speak, take a positive role whereas the Scottish one cannot because it is limited to protection? I believe that they should be the same. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, it is much better to leave the word "protection" out.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I believe that within the general consensus of many of those who would identify themselves as being interested and concerned with the environment, the future debates which we shall have on the clauses of this Bill will do a great deal to clarify and reveal precisely what we do mean about the concept of sustainability. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, made a very good point; that is, if we are to achieve through this Bill the high aim of defining and controlling sustainable development, its impact and associated effects on the environment, we shall have to look carefully at the language we use. The concept of enhancement has to be written in as regards sustainability. It is not enough simply to protect what we have in the way of present resources.
Lord Ennals: I support the view expressed by the previous two speakers. When we reach Amendment No. 5, we shall be talking about,
"integrated environmental protection, management and enhancement",
about which I hope to say a few words because I think that that is extremely important.
As my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said, although "protection" is an important concept, it is also a negative one. We have to have protection and management together as a policy. If we find ourselves choosing whether to put the emphasis on "protection" or on "management and enhancement", I would certainly be in favour of the second, which is much more ambitious and, as I shall say later, in the spirit of the Rio conference.
The Earl of Onslow: We have got into terrible semantic difficulties. We must ask ourselves what we are talking about when we refer to "the environment". Everything that we see around us in this country is man-made—from the Scottish Highlands down to the tip of Cornwall. It will be extremely difficult to freeze the hedges about which Cobbett complained in the enclosure Acts, to give just one example. What we have to do is to manage the countryside properly so that it looks nice.
I suspect that what we are talking about—and groping to find words for—is the attempt to ensure that we are responsible gardeners and gamekeepers, keeping a perpetually moving but civilised countryside or urban landscape. I am trying to avoid using the word "environment". It is rather a modern word and we are
548
not totally sure what it means. It can mean too many things to too many people. Therefore, we have great difficulty in knowing exactly what we are talking about. We can see what we want to do—sometimes. And we can see—sometimes—how we want to do it. But it is difficult to define. I do not think that there have been any constructive contributions to the debate. We have all been slightly negative. I am trying to grope towards something which all of us, I believe, want to achieve.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope for once that the Committee will accept the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and that my noble friend the Minister will therefore decide against supporting the amendment. It is a perfectly simple point. The amendment suggests that the duties of the body should be to protect the environment—that is, to maintain the status quo. Surely, the purpose of the Bill, and of the Government in introducing it, is to enhance the condition of the environment—not merely to protect it, but to improve it. That is the short and simple point with which I thought the noble Lord, Lord Williams, blew the amendment out of the water.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendment deals with the overall purpose of the agency, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, explained. It would make an explicit provision that the agency is set up for the purpose of furthering the protection of the environment. Environmental protection and enhancement are, indeed, the main purposes for which the agencies are being established. We shall no doubt debate that further when we discuss their specific powers and duties as set out in other parts of the Bill. However, I do not believe that this amendment, or the attempts in other amendments to which we shall come, represent a complete statement of the purposes for which the agencies are being set up. Furthermore, I do not think that any such attempt recognises the risk of attempting to encompass within a few select words the full range of functions of the environment agency, however tempting it may be to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, to include them at this stage.
It is essential that we avoid possible inconsistencies between any such description in this Bill and the provisions of the existing legislation on which the agencies will need to rely. That is where I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Under the Bill, the agency will inherit a very long list of functions which are painstakingly prescribed in existing statutes. Many of those provisions are set out in Clause 2(1). Any attempt to write overriding statutory functions and purposes on top of those existing provisions risks creating duplication or conflict.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, drew our attention to the different names of the two agencies, one north and one south of the Border. It is true that the remit of the Scottish agency is more limited, so they are two different agencies with different responsibilities, as their names reflect.
As I shall explain when we consider Clause 4, we think it right to give guidance to the agency and the SEPA on their aims and objectives. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will push me to give "further enhancement" a special place in that. We have set out

549
our initial views in the note on the scope of guidance for the environment agency which I have made available to your Lordships. In some ways, the aims and objectives are similar to formulations such as those in Amendment No. 2 and others which noble Lords have proposed as purposes for the agency. Although the agency is required to have regard to such guidance, in doing so it can exercise a degree of judgment. My noble friend Lord Onslow drew attention to the fact that much of this is a matter of judgment, built on decades of so doing. Unlike the effect of the amendment, the guidance does not risk the agency having to deal with rigid legislation which is inconsistent or perhaps unintentionally over-prescriptive. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Nathan: I shall, of course, be happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am also happy that practically every Member of the Committee has indicated agreement with the view that something should be inserted somewhere in the Bill on the object of the exercise. The problem is precisely that identified by the Minister—that the functions, duties and inheritances of the environment agency are so varied and wide that it needs some focus to enable those responsible for its conduct to determine how they are to formulate policy. At the moment, it would be extremely difficult for them to do so sensibly, except in accordance with guidance.
It is a matter of some concern to quite a number of people that the guidance to be given by the Government under the Bill is not constrained. There is to be regard for sustainable development as an essential element but beyond that the provisions are wide-ranging. Therefore, I would support an amendment along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which might include "enhancement" if that were thought appropriate. I considered that. It seemed to me that my amendment had the merit of brevity but obviously it does not commend itself to the Committee. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
4 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 13, after ("out") insert ("integrated environmental protection, management and enhancement throughout all").
The noble Baroness said: In many ways my arguments in favour of Amendment No. 5 have already been made by Members in all parts of the Committee. Nevertheless, I should like to pursue the importance of having the purpose of the environment agency clearly outlined. We are talking here about overriding strategic purposes, not about specific functions. Therefore, I do not think that it would be as restrictive as the Minister suggests if we were to write that into the Bill at this stage.
550
In speaking to Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 33, 41, 42, 78 and 130. The amendments seek to impose upon the EA the specific purpose of doing much more than just protecting the environment so that it is frozen in its present state: to manage and to enhance it for the benefit of future generations. It is important that the EA has a clear, strategic and integrated purpose. If that is not spelt out in relation to the agency at this early stage, it is in danger of becoming no more than a cumbersome bureaucratic machine, subject to central regulatory control and the whim of Ministers.
It is also important—this is what Amendment No. 33 seeks to address—to set the strategic purpose clearly within the duties and obligations to the EU. As many Members of the Committee have said, the environment in this country is in serious danger. Things in our countryside are not well. It may look extremely neat and tidy but it is increasingly sterile and devoid of wildlife. In the past 25 years alone many of our birds have suffered a catastrophic decline. For example, 19 common species have declined by over 15 per cent. That includes, for instance, tree sparrows, skylarks, partridges and turtledoves. Other species are also threatened. There has been a 50 per cent. decline in our 18 species of butterflies. Fish are not just diminishing and being affected in rivers and ponds but also in the sea where, for example, 50 per cent. of our stock of cod has vanished in the past 25 years. Amphibia (frogs and toads) are also seriously affected.
Grants are given for drainage. Ponds that we knew as children no longer exist in the countryside. Due to set-aside, we now have a golden opportunity to increase habitats and food sources for many of our wild species. If the agency had as its clear purpose that it was to enhance the environment and not merely to freeze it in its present state, that would go some way towards setting a positive purpose for the agency from the start.
Of the consequential amendments grouped with Amendment No. 25, Amendment No. 41 gives Ministers the power to advise the agency as appropriate; and Amendment No 130 extends the purpose to the Scottish agency.
I urge the Government to insert at this early stage of the Bill a clear purpose for the agency along the lines proposed in the amendment, which has already been supported by Members in all parts of the Committee. It is not sufficient to leave the agency without a clear strategic purpose which will provide high quality, integrated environmental protection, management and enhancement.
At the moment the agency does not appear to have a clear, definitive purpose. It is merely to carry out functions transferred or assigned to it by or under the Bill. That is not the commitment that was heralded by the Government—that the agency would be a guardian of the environment. The legislation establishing the NRA clearly defined its direction and purpose. In the amendment we seek to have a similar clear direction and purpose for the EA. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: Perhaps I may take the opportunity to support my noble friend as energetically as I can. I had

551
the privilege of being at the Rio conference. I was mainly representing NGOs, but the Government kindly invited me to join the delegation. I greatly appreciated that. I came away an enthusiastic environmentalist, but not just in the sense of protection. That is why I appreciate so much the wording of the amendment which deals with management and enhancement.
Protection and enhancement can be done only by effective management. One of our main tasks over the next few years will be to ensure that local authorities and other agencies (national, regional and local) have the facilities to provide effective management. Obviously they will look to the agency for leadership. It must make things better than they are.
My noble friend referred to butterflies, birds and hedgerows, so I need not do that. I want to say just a word about air. There is no doubt that air pollution is worsening rapidly. I am married to a lady who suffers seriously from asthma. She is almost crippled by it. There is no doubt that over recent years her condition, and that of many other asthmatics, has become much worse as air pollution seems—I shall not say that it is in no way controlled because that would not be right—to be inadequately controlled. We shall have a growing problem with air measurement unless we have a national strategic plan for improving air quality.
In each of the fields at which we are looking, we must be interested in improvement and not just protection. I should have said that I speak—I shall not do so much more in Committee—as the chairman of the Round Table on Health and the Environment of the UK Environment and Development Committee. The committee is extremely interested in the work that is being done here in, we hope, strengthening an important Bill.
I want to support my noble friend in a positive way, because these provisions need to be in the Bill early so that it can be seen—in a sense this is a campaign—that there needs to be a strategy that can be carried out. Resources need to be found to enable that strategy to be fulfilled.
Lord Crickhowell: We now begin to get into the kind of difficulty that I suspect we shall face continually in Committee of discussing a group of amendments, all of which have different objectives. As a result, it may not always be easy to have a coherent debate.
I do not want to go over the ground covered by the debate on Amendment No. 2 because my noble friend the Minister raised a number of legitimate points of concern, which I share, about not finding ourselves with some contradictory and mutually incompatible objectives. I have a slight anxiety about the way in which these general clauses are added at the beginning of the Bill. We should look back thoroughly at the wording of previous legislation to ensure that we have a Bill that hangs together sensibly.
There is a word in Amendment No. 5 that causes me anxiety because it seems at least to hold out the possibility, perhaps even the threat, that the agency should get into the job of managing the environment. The only occasion upon which the NRA found itself in that unenviable position was when it was faced with the
552
serious discharge of mine water pollution from the Wheal Jane mine in Cornwall, which breached EC regulations. There was no one else to take on the job of tackling that problem. The NRA has had to carry out an extensive research and development programme and the job of managing the water coming out of the mine. If we reach the position of the new agency having to do that often, we shall be on dangerous territory. Before we accept wording that includes "management" we need to ensure that we are not hanging a pretty heavy rock around the new agency's neck.
I come then to Amendment No. 33, which has the support of the CPRE. I have some sympathy with its objectives because it seeks to address them in a way that does not too tightly constrain and restrict the agency. The amendment tries to avoid the kind of conflict to which I have referred. I have not studied with sufficient thoroughness or enthusiasm all the other legislation and therefore I am unable to form a judgment one way or the other, but I believe that the intentions are sensible.
As regards Amendment No. 36, I am in difficulty. I make that comment now before we reach the following group of amendments when the difficulty will become severe. I understand that today my noble friend's department has circulated some kind of guidance on sustainable development and that it was supposed to be placed in the Library of the House. About an hour ago my noble friend Lord Mills made inquiries. Those in the Library could not lay their hands on the document but copies were later to be rushed into the Chamber. I was told that one would be passed to me when it arrived. Our debate on the next group of amendments will be constrained because I shall find difficulty in talking about sustainable development when we do not have the guidance that is circulating. That is not a satisfactory way of treating Members of the Committee who are debating an important subject.
In Amendment No. 42 the noble Baroness may be attempting to pick up a topic that I raised on Second Reading. It is the desirability of having environmental quality objectives. I referred to the fact that the National Rivers Authority expected to have the job of introducing water quality objectives. I expressed disappointment that five years down the road it has not yet received from the department the guidance and regulations that will allow it to do so. It is a good idea to seek to introduce wider quality objectives and therefore I have sympathy with the noble Baroness's attempts.
However, her new clause states:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations establishing standards, objectives or requirements in relation to environmental protection".
That is the wrong way of doing it. I believe that the regulations, if we are to have them, should seek to establish the process and not the standards and objectives. If one is to have objectives one needs to consult widely about them. One needs to discover whether they meet the cost benefit requirement that is introduced in the Bill in a later clause. One needs to be able to propose the objectives and to learn of their consequences on industry, agriculture and a wide range of people who might be affected. One also needs to have

553
a consultation process and to be in a position where the Secretary of State can set the objectives and the agency can enforce them.
I have refreshed my memory about the provisions of the Water Resources Act. Section 82, which introduces the classification of quality of waters, provides that:
"The Secretary of State may … by regulations prescribe a system of classifying the quality of those waters".
If we are to look at the topic at all we should not accept this amendment but return to the issue with an amendment that introduces a system rather than seeks to introduce the particular objectives.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I wish to address my remarks to Amendment No. 130, which deals with Clause 20 and the Scottish environment protection agency. Perhaps I may add to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Ennals in relation to asthma. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that for the past few years the number of cases of asthma and its related illnesses has been the fastest growing.
Recently I spoke to a gentleman who is involved in running youth football teams. He told me of his astonishment at the number of 14 and 15 year-olds who attend training and Saturday matches carrying the inhaler prescribed for them by their general practitioners. If ever there were an indication that we urgently need to do something about the environment it is the spread of asthmatic conditions, in particular among young people.
As regards Amendment No. 130, in an earlier debate the noble Viscount was kind enough to say that the powers of the English and Welsh authority were wider and greater than those of the Scottish environment protection agency. I wish to make it clear at the outset that I want the Bill to succeed. I do not want us to miss the opportunity that the legislation presents of extending the powers of the new Scottish environment protection agency.
It is an astonishing fact that the environment protection agency for Scotland will take its powers from an Act that is now 44 years old—Section 17 of the 1951 Act. Events have moved on significantly since then. When the Secretary of State published his consultation paper evidence was given by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Forth River Purification Board and the Worldwide Fund for Nature. Rightly or wrongly, the impression was gained that the environment protection agency for Scotland would preserve the environment in the round. Indeed, that phrase was used. However, when we examine the powers to be given to the Scottish environment protection agency we see that they relate only to pollution control.
I believe that that approach is misconceived and shows a belief that damage to the environment is caused only by pollution. We all know that that is not the case. Damage to the environment can be caused in many ways. Forestry and farming management practices—indeed, land management practices in general—can damage the environment. Against the background of our recent experiences in Paisley in the west of Scotland and
554
in the Tayside Region during the past two years, I believe that the Scottish environment protection agency should be involved in flood protection. There is some evidence—and I put it no higher—that one of the problems that caused the serious flood damage in the Tayside Region occurred because of the practices of the hydro-electricity companies and the hydro-schemes on the higher land in Tayside as compared with the lower lying city of Perth. It is my view that the Scottish environment protection agency should also have responsibility for flood protection.
We know about the discharge of chemicals and farm and forestry management practices. However, another growing problem in Scotland needs to be addressed and in my view it should be the responsibility of the Scottish environment protection agency; that is, the question of old abandoned mine-workings. When one studies the legislation it will be seen that it is not until 1999 that the owner of an abandoned mine will have to be responsible for ensuring that the water which is discharged from that abandoned mine does not pollute.
I give as an example the Frances Colliery in Kirkcaldy where there has been much debate about whether the Government should sustain the costs of keeping the water pumps operative or whether they should be switched off. The Committee will understand that almost all of the coal seams at that colliery are entirely under the North Sea and the River Forth. If the pumps were switched off, the Forth River Purification Board and Fife Regional Council have indicated that extensive pollution would arise from the waters discharged from the colliery. That will happen one way or another before 1999.
In my view, the opportunity provided by the Bill should be taken to give the Scottish environment protection agency more wide-ranging powers. Indeed, I go further. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I part company in relation to this matter, but I would involve the Scottish environment protection agency in the planning process also because it seems to me that unless the agency is involved at the planning stage we could easily find ourselves locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.
If we are serious about improving the Scottish environment—I am interested in the environment of the United Kingdom as a whole, but Clause 20 and Amendment No. 130 deal only with the Scottish position—the Scottish environment protection agency must be given more wide-ranging powers than is presently envisaged in the Bill. Flood protection and coastal erosion should be aspects with which the Scottish environment protection agency should deal, as are land management, forestry management practices and farming management practices. All those issues should come within the powers of the Scottish environment protection agency. I seriously ask the Minister to take away the whole question of the powers of SEPA, examine it and provide much more wide-ranging powers for what will be a very important agency.
Viscount Caldecote: It is extremely difficult to achieve the right balance between, on the one hand, the creation of wealth and improving the infrastructure and,

555
on the other hand, protecting and improving the environment. I believe that many people—the majority of the Members of the Committee—believe that the balance is too far in the direction of damaging and not protecting the environment. The problem with damage to the environment is that it is almost always irreversible, whereas if an unsightly building is constructed through having bad planning regulations, it can be knocked down and started again.
Surely the whole purpose of the Bill is to improve the balance so that we do not damage and do protect the environment. Because I believe that it helps to strike a better balance, I support the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: I speak in a limited way to Amendment No. 33, to which the noble Baroness has spoken. I should explain to the Committee that when I intervene in the debates it will generally be with the benefit of advice received from the Law Society.
The Law Society is extremely concerned about Clause 4 because it requires Ministers to give guidance from time to time to the agency with respect to the aims and objectives which they consider it appropriate for it to pursue in the performance of its functions. It is not appropriate for Ministers both to set the aims and objectives of the agency and also to provide guidance on how to achieve them. As the noble Baroness said, the aims and objectives should be set out in the legislation. The functions, powers and duties of the agency may expand or contract according to the aims and objectives of Ministers, but that is not acceptable.
Amendment No. 33 provides for a principal aim of the agency and provides its primary objectives. I am not here to say any more than was said by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell; namely, that those aims and objectives seem to be desirable. I hope that the Minister will take away the thought that the general scheme put forward by the noble Baroness in relation to Amendment No. 33 is correct and, if necessary, the Government will move an amendment to secure that effect.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may ask for some clarification with regard to Amendment No. 36. What is meant precisely by "sustainable development" and the "precautionary principle"? It seems to me that it is important to understand that. Perhaps those phrases are defined somewhere.
The Earl of Onslow: The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, underlines the considerable difficulty in which the beginning of the Bill places us. I know what I want to do in relation to the environment. I want to make it look clean and tidy. I want it to be possible for trees to be grown and to have clean air so that the wife of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, no longer has asthma. In other words, it is what I believe can be classed as gardening and gamekeeping and generally looking after things.
It is difficult to achieve that unless it is laid down in the legislation what Ministers must do. If that is not done, those aims and objectives will change not only between governments, if there is a change of government, but between Ministers. That is dangerous.
556
I am trying to help. I am not sure that I am being very helpful but I am seeing the difficulties of which we must be aware and which we should address.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: About five years ago at the time at which the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill was being debated in this Chamber we discussed and argued about the meaning of the words "sustainable development" for days and days and days. We asked continually for a definition and no real explanation was ever forthcoming. I very much doubt whether it will be any easier to achieve a definition this time.
Lord Bridges: Perhaps I may return to a somewhat narrower point which arises on Amendment No. 5, which was moved by the noble Baroness and with which I have some sympathy.
I am worried about the word "integrated" which is used in the amendment. It is not clear to me whether it applies to the words which follow—"protection, management and enhancement"—or whether it is intended that the policy should be integrated so as to achieve "protection, management and enhancement".
I observe that "integrated" is an extremely fashionable word these days. For example, it is used frequently in relation to transport policy. I doubt whether it helps in this clause, where it is, I suspect, used in a more general way so as to "Accentuate the positive", in the words of the old song. I suspect that the general purposes aimed at would be achieved better either by an improved version of Amendment No. 1, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, or by concentrating on a later amendment, Amendment No. 33, to which the noble Baroness has already spoken.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: There are at least two major strands to the debate. Perhaps I may try to disentangle them a little. I join other noble Lords in wishing to see on the face of the Bill the objectives which the guidance to be issued by Ministers should then support. I share concerns that too much may be relegated to that guidance.
Amendment No. 36, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, has partly as its aim the intention to separate those two levels; in other words, thereby establishing the hierarchy and seeking to put on the face of the Bill objectives with which the guidance must then be consistent. Having seen only the draft outline of the scope of the guidance within the last few minutes, it seems to me that much of the language used in this and, indeed, in other amendments has found its way into the scope of the guidance. It says:
"The guidance is intended to:
—set the overall aim and objectives of the Environment Agency"—
that, in itself, is worrying because it should be the purpose of the Act to set the aims and objectives—
"in relation to sustainable development and more generally"
with an "overall aim" of helping "to promote sustainable development".
The footnote in that respect adds:
"as defined in this guidance".

557
On the quick skim through that I have been able to give the document I believe that, so far, there is a commentary but not a definition of the term. I do not criticise the Government for that fact. It is a matter which, clearly, we must debate through the course of the Bill.
In support of Amendment No. 36, and of the general argument, I must say that I believe the important point is that the Bill establishes the aims and objectives and that they are not subject to ministerial change at the whim of successive governments and, as the noble Earl said, of successive Ministers.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, queried the definition of "sustainable development". It would, perhaps, be skewing the balance of the debate to discuss the details of that argument now. Indeed, later amendments will deal with it. However, it is intended to establish sustainability as an objective. The "precautionary principle" is shorthand, so to speak, for erring on the side of caution for reasons that my noble friend and other speakers have explained so vividly; namely, that mistakes in that area are frequently not rectifiable.
The amendment also seeks to incorporate the principle of the polluter paying. I have said on previous debates in this Chamber that I am concerned that that should not be taken to mean that, if the polluter can pay, the polluter can pollute. Having articulated that concern, I believe that the amendment would ensure that the balance is correct.
Amendment No. 36 also provides for consultation, representing all the relevant interests, before giving guidance. I suspect that we shall spend some time later discussing the guidance. However, as the amendment has been mentioned in this grouping it is only right that I should draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the provisions for consultation.
Lord Moran: I should like briefly to express my support for Amendment No. 33 which was so capably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. I have doubts about Amendment No. 36, simply because it contains the phrase "sustainable development" which two of my noble friends have queried and about which I expressed serious reservations on Second Reading. I propose to save what I have to say about that until we reach the next group of amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I intend to say just a few words on the issue of sustainable development. It is a mute point as to whether we should discuss it in regard to this group of amendments or the next one. However, the issue has been raised. I had proposed to beg for an indulgence from Members of the Committee: namely, that wherever those two words appear in the Bill they are struck out and some other words inserted which we understand; indeed, that the same should apply wherever those words appear in amendments and, further, that we should desist from using such words.
None of us know what sustainable development is. We do not even know whether our existing level of development is sustainable. In those circumstances, I
558
hope that my plea will be listened to and that we can find more precise words to define exactly what we are talking about when we use this catch-all phrase, which is meaningless.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I must differ from the noble Lord. I know what sustainable development means. Moreover, my noble friend and I have tabled Amendment No. 351 which seeks to write the definition into the Bill. Further, as regards the noble Lord's next statement—namely, that we do not know whether our present development is sustainable—I can only say that we know perfectly well that it is not.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendments all deal in various ways with the overall purpose of the agency. I should like to deal first with Amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 130 through which, in their various ways, noble Lords seek to set out some general aims for the agency or for SEPA. Amendment No. 7 gives the agency a specific duty to exercise its functions in order to protect and enhance the environment. Amendments Nos. 5 and 130 provide that, through the exercise of all their functions, the agency and SEPA will carry out integrated environmental protection, management and enhancement.
In passing, perhaps I may observe that Amendment No. 130 to which the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, referred, is misguided in talking about environmental management. Indeed, the noble Lord indicated why. In Scotland, SEPA will not have any of the hands-on management functions, such as flood defence, which the noble Lord identified as being one thing that the environment agency will have. I believe that the noble Lord recognised the fact that local authorities have for a very long time carried out many of the duties that the NRA has carried out in England and Wales. The functions of SEPA are limited in so far as it will not have the wider responsibility of the NRA for water management, as the Scottish river purification boards have never performed those roles.
The Scottish Office believes that the pressures on the water environment in England and Wales which justify the wider functions of the NRA do not exist in the same way in Scotland. Therefore, we believe that it is neither necessary nor desirable to give SEPA such responsibilities. However, I imagine that we shall return to such issues at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings.
With that exception, the three concepts—integrated environmental protection, management and enhancement—are indeed the purposes for which the agencies are being established. But for reasons that I endeavoured to explain during our debates on previous amendments, efforts to write any single prescription of purposes on the face of the Bill are, I believe, doomed to inadequacy and fraught with dangers. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell has reinforced my view that the existing legislation should be looked at very carefully before we place other purposes on the statute book. I believe that there is little I can add. We spoke on the issue during the debate on the previous amendment. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendments.

559
Amendment No. 33, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, also seeks to establish aims and objectives for the agency within the legislation, although it does so in rather more detail. It would make the agency's principal aim that of contributing, through the performance of its functions, to the advancement of environmental protection and would further provide that the agency's primary objectives included the implementation of,
"international and national obligations on environmental protection; [and]
"the application and promotion of the best practicable environmental option in all its functions".
The related amendment, Amendment No. 41, would place a duty on Ministers to give guidance on those aims and objectives after consultation "with interested bodies". I believe that to be an interesting suggestion, but it too runs into similar problems of trying to define a rather complex agency's aims and objectives in a few select words in a statutory provision.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine suggested that it was unacceptable for Ministers to set the aims and objectives of the agency and give guidance on how they are to be achieved. All agencies require clear aims and objectives which are a key input into their corporate planning processes. They are not typically set in legislation in order to ensure sufficient flexibility to reflect changing circumstances. The Bill goes further in providing for statutory guidance. But such guidance cannot overrule the statutory purposes and functions of the agency, many of which are already in existing legislation.
I am glad to know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, now has the guidance in front of her. As I indicated at Second Reading, the guidance is in the form of a draft. As I said then, it is our intention to consult on it. I believe that that is right. I do not want to be faced frequently by suggestions that a particular word may be the wrong one to use in the guidance. That is the purpose of draft guidance. It is an attempt—and I believe that it is a good attempt —to put the management statement into some form of guidance. But that will be considered very carefully, together with everything that is said in debate in this Chamber, so that we can refine it and improve it as we go along.
Amendment No. 36, like Amendment No. 41, seeks to replace Clause 4. It would instead give the agency or SEPA a statutory purpose related to sustainable development. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said, sustainable development is a subject which we shall debate under other amendments later this afternoon. Quite apart from any particular difficulties with statutory prescriptions on sustainable development, this attempt also fails in trying further to specify the purposes of the agency and SEPA in the Bill.
Amendment No. 42 seeks to give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations setting standards, objectives or requirements in relation to environmental protection. That would tread ground which is adequately covered by a specific statute. There are already powers, notably under Part I of the Environment Protection Act 1990, which cover integrated pollution control and local authority air pollution control. I take very seriously the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Obviously we are
560
concerned about the incidence of asthma, not only among children but also among adults. However, I believe that the policies which we are following in the transport field go a long way to mitigating the problems. Scientific evidence is still required to attach the one to the other.
Regarding waste, there are powers in Part II of the same Act to make regulations as to licence conditions and so on.
At this stage I should like to deal also with Amendment No. 78. In that amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, seeks to provide that the agency's conservation duty should be exercised without prejudice to the provisions of Section 1(1). I presume that that is the new section as it would be rewritten by Amendment No. 22. For that reason I believe that we should not take that amendment forward.
I have listened carefully to the points put forward by Members of the Committee. I shall certainly want to examine Hansard very carefully. I have not been able to reply individually to some of the points which were raised, but I believe that one or two covered the same issues. I shall consider very carefully what has been said. In the meantime, I believe that I have given an explanation as to why the Government are unable to accept the amendments. Therefore I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I hope that I may be forgiven for intervening again, but I too now have the benefit of having received the document which has been circulated so recently. We find ourselves in an extraordinary position with the Bill. My noble friend is gallantly doing his best in very difficult circumstances. He has told us that we cannot write into the Bill the proposed words about environmental protection, management and enhancement, yet the guidance document tells us that:
"The particular role of the Environment Agency is to provide effective environmental protection, management and enhancement within its areas of responsibility".
Later the document states that the main objectives of the environment agency are:
"to provide effective environmental protection, management and enhancement".
Therefore we are allowed those words in a secret document which is circulated because one asks for it but not apparently on the face of the Bill.
Turning to the definition of sustainable development, we are told in the document that the Government's understanding of what is meant by sustainable development was set out in the UK strategy document published in January 1994. Therefore, it is clearly a matter which is capable of different interpretations. The Government have a current understanding of it.
Later in the document we are told that the overall aim is to help to promote sustainable development, and find the magic footnote:
"as defined in this guidance".

561
Yet we have no definition but the promise at the very end that:
"The guidance will therefore list all extant guidance, consider how far it needs to be amended, amplified or consolidated, and set out a timetable for this process".
We are debating this and the next group of amendments with no real idea as to what sustainable development is, and we are not allowed to write on to the face of the Bill what the guidance note tells us is the principal objective of the environment agency. It is a very odd situation.
Lord Moran: Some of us find ourselves in even greater difficulty than the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in that we have not been favoured with a copy of the secret document. Can it be circulated more widely?
Lord Ennals: Is not the quotation from the guidance in opposition to the reasons given by the Minister for not accepting the amendments? It seems that the guidance issued by the department accepts what is proposed in the amendment, but the Minister has asked us not to accept the amendment. Will he please take the matter away and think again?
The Earl of Onslow: I was going to ask exactly that question. If the Minister is capable of saying what he wants the environment agency to do, surely he must also be capable of putting it into the Bill without changing it. We are not trying to be beastly. Somebody may be, but on this occasion I am not. We want to be helpful and we want to get this right because it is such an important matter. Our countryside, our townscapes, our air and water must be kept clean and tidy. That is what we are trying to achieve. It must be possible to write something on to the face of the Bill. I beg my noble friend to think further about the matter.
Viscount Ullswater: My noble friend Lord Crickhowell entertains the Committee by quoting from the guidance. In my earlier remarks I stressed that the guidance which has been issued will be firmed up as a statutory provision under Clause 4 setting out a statutory duty for the agency to take into account. Of course my noble friend can draw from the guidance words with which he may entertain the Committee. However, this is a firm attempt by the Government to establish a statutory provision under Clause 4. I indicated at Second Reading that the guidance would be available for consideration when we came to Committee stage. I understand that it is in the Library of the House, and is therefore available.
We are debating a principle as to whether what is in the guidance should be on the face of the Bill. That is what my noble friend Lord Onslow indicated. I seek to indicate that it should not be, and that what is on the face of the Bill is clear in Clause 4. The guidance is there to be considered. At present it is only draft guidance. The whole purpose is that the guidance should be flexible and so able to deal with situations as they arise. To put words on the face of the Bill would render the guidance inflexible.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I find the Minister's response deeply disappointing. He stated several times
562
that the purpose of the agency is environmental protection and enhancement. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said about the word "management" being difficult and perhaps too hands-on for a strategic agency. However, there seems a clear consensus in the Committee that an amendment such as Amendment No. 5 would gain common agreement throughout the Chamber. We shall certainly bring back a similar amendment at Report stage. I am sad that the Minister does not feel able to say that the words "environmental protection" and "enhancement" shall be written on the face of the Bill.
Guidance is all very well, but it is not in the public domain even when it is no longer in draft form. It remains guidance. The public do not necessarily have easy access to it. However, if the purpose of the agency were written firmly into Clause 1 of the Bill it would set a strategic framework in which all its functions could be carried out. I urge the Minister to think again before Report stage when we shall certainly bring forward an amendment which I hope will meet with the approval of the House. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling the next amendment, I should point out to the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 7.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("as part of the national sustainable development strategy.
(1A) The Agency shall develop the strategy for national sustainable development after consultation with the Ministers and local authorities.").
The noble Baroness said: We have talked about the difficulties of defining sustainable development. In this group I support two mutually contradictory amendments. Amendment No. 80 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, seeks to remove the words "sustainable development" from the Bill whereas Amendment No. 6 inserts them.
I believe that "sustainable development" is a much weaker purpose, or embracing strategic objective, for the agency partly because of the difficulties of definition. However, it is post-Rio, and, because of various published government documents, that definition is part of the current jargon about the environment. Therefore if we cannot achieve a more concrete amendment to this part of the Bill, such a provision is the very least that we can introduce regarding the purposes of the agency.
At Second Reading we discussed the difficulties of the phrase. The weight tends to be on the noun "development" rather than on the adjective "sustainable". It occurs to me that nowhere is it stated that development is economic development. One could define it as being environmental development; sustainability could be the sustainability of the economy. One could reverse the difficulties and consider them from the other direction. To refer to environmental development with a sustainable economy

563
might be a rather stronger purpose for the agency and more appropriate within the Bill. However, because it is part of the current jargon, we are attempting to insert the phrase as a minimum for the agency to consider. Therefore, although with no great enthusiasm, I beg to move the amendment, and speak to the others in the group.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I support the amendment. It raises the question of sustainable development. We strayed on to the subject slightly early during the last debate. Amendments Nos. 34 and 35, which stand in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and myself, relate to the promotion of sustainable development and the publication of an index of sustainable development. Amendment No. 47 has the objective of achieving sustainable development. Amendment No. 162 refers to the objectives—not the "objections" referred to in the margin note—of the SEPA. Finally, and possibly most importantly, Amendment No. 351 provides a definition of that undefinable term. It states that,
"'sustainable development' means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly".
That is the Brundtland definition. It is now accepted world wide. It was accepted in Rio. It has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government. It is far from meaningless. Although no one knows exactly what is meant by anything to do with development in the future because there are many unknowns, as a framework the provision is absolutely clear.
I am not entirely happy with the government guidance notes on the issue. They seem to go further than I would wish in thinking that one can go along a line of economic development. We must remember that we are tackling a global problem. Although we debate a Bill at this moment in this House for this country, nevertheless it is part of a debate on the future of the world. It is important that the third world and the first world (ourselves) are not seen to be in an area of extreme injustice one against the other. In other words, quite clearly in the first world there will not be the quantitative economic development that has occurred in the past although there may be room for quantitative economic development in the third world. At the same time we all want development of some kind. Therefore we must press as much as possible for qualitative development rather than quantitative development. I remember that at one of those international seminars one occasionally attends I had to point out to Robin Day that growth is not always vertical, it could be horizontal, and he was a good example of it. He did not think that that was very funny at the time; most of the meeting did.
However, it is important that we realise that there are different forms of growth. If one states that one will not necessarily grow quantitatively, it does not mean that one will not grow qualitatively with a much better life for a great many people.
564
Having made those remarks about some of the amendments in the group, I support the noble Baroness's proposal rather more wholeheartedly than she seemed to do.
5 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I wish to support what the noble Lord said and to argue with as much enthusiasm as I can muster at this stage of the day for having the concept of sustainable development written into the Bill. I disagree with Members of the Committee about the definition. Sustainable development must exist and must be definable because a Select Committee of this House deals with it. Therefore, by definition, it must exist and must be intelligible to the Committee. Furthermore, we have a major document on the UK strategy on sustainable development. There is the European Union document, Towards Sustainability, the fifth environmental action programme, and, as already mentioned, the whole international context of the Rio Summit and the international Commission on Sustainable Development on which the United Kingdom is represented.
It is important that we should include that in our legal discourse, not just in the guidance but on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I wish to turn to the guidance which states clearly that the environment agency cannot,
"achieve sustainable development but it is expected to make a significant contribution to it in relation to its functions".
I am worried about that because the whole point of sustainable development as a framework, a strategy and a concept is that it must cross departmental functions, it must cross agency functions. It must be a policy which is at once economic and environmental, concerned with the capital resources available in public spending, with human capital, finance capital and also natural capital. All those aspects are part of the whole concept which is part of the difficulty. But it is also part of its excitement because it provides us with an instrument and a concept for policy-making which, as we have already indicated in the Committee, is increasingly used on an international level. It is a concept which enables us to measure the performance of our economic indicators in relation to their impact on the natural environment and, more generally, on the resources of the planet. That is the whole point of the objective.
My worry is that by not putting it on the face of the Bill we shall create not an environment agency but an environmental policy marginalising agency. We have here an organisation composed of the constituent parts involved in waste management, pollution control and the whole subject of prevention and the responsibilities of the NRA being brought together.
Yet that is not really an environmental agency. An environmental agency needs to have regard to what other agencies are doing. In the Welsh context, whether it is the Welsh Development Agency, the land authority or any other agency, those agencies also need to be involved in the strategy of sustainable development. That is why I strongly support the idea that there should be a national and regional strategy for sustainable development, integrated within the whole of the UK and

565
the European international context. It should be placed on the face of the Bill and clearly indicated as a priority for all departments of the Government.
What I have said is not at all controversial for the Government. It more or less paraphrases what is in their own strategy which is endorsed by all government departments. Yet my anxiety is that it may be endorsed in a document which is shown to green organisations or to environmentalists or which might be raised in evidence at international conferences to show that the UK is carrying out its obligations. But in the practical terms of the day-to-day work of government departments, sustainable development in environmental policy tends to have a much lower priority. That is my anxiety. It is only if we can have an agency of government responsible to the various government departments which is charged with environmental activity, which is able to influence the whole range of government policy-making, decision-taking and implementation that we can talk about having an environmental policy.
There is one question in the tail of that. I turn to paragraph 1 of the guidance where reference is made to Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Wales. I am a little worried that not much environmental guidance seems to emanate these days from the Welsh Office. There may be slight ideological differences between the present Secretary of State and other holders of his office in the past or other members of the Cabinet. But it worries me that whereas guidance is sometimes made available by the Department of the Environment in England, for example, on planning procedures, such guidance is not often available from the Welsh Office.
Therefore, I should like an indication—if not immediately then later—that the Secretary of State for Wales is likely to produce guidance for the environment agency which would be of relevance not only to the local authorities and the other national agencies in Wales but also to the activity of the countryside council and such agencies as well as the voluntary environmental sector. In fairness to the Welsh Office, there is the Environment Wales organisation which receives support from the department. It is important that there should be an environmental strategy for sustainable development which operates at the level of activity of the Welsh Office. Therefore, I am pleased to support the amendments.
The Earl of Onslow: As the noble Lord was speaking, I was listening and thinking of a place called the Crimea Pass in North Wales. Its stone walls were built, I believe, by Russian prisoners captured at Inkerman and Balaklava. I will bet that had the environment protection agency or the planning authorities been in existence at that time, there would have been the most frightful row about building stone walls in a place of outstanding natural beauty in North Wales. There would now be an even bigger row if it were suggested that they should be bulldozed.
What I am coming to is the difficulty, without becoming blocked in concrete, of defining what our environment is or how it should look. To return to my
566
old friend, cut and laid hedges, Cobbett complained bitterly about them and the land enclosure Acts. Up to about 10 years ago, we gave grants to pull them out; we now give grants to put them back. In June I was in Normandy in the Bocages country, where my late lamented dad managed to get himself captured. They had exactly the same problem in Normandy; people were given grants to take out the bocage hedges and they are now being given grants to put those hedges back.
We must be careful. We cannot freeze the environment; we must be sensitive to it. Sustainable development is extremely difficult to define. The definition by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, did not give me much help. It was quite a nice lot of words, but its actual meaning could be argued over by any gang of first year law students till kingdom come. I believe that we all know what we ought to do, there is no division on it; it is how we do it. We are in quite a muddle. I am sorry not to be able to help in a concrete way except possibly to point out some of the difficulties which I see. I hope that we can examine them and people cleverer than I can try to put something together to make it work.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may play the part of the first year law student for a few moments and deal with the issue of the words "sustainable development" a little further. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, rightly drew attention to Amendment No. 351, to which I suppose I must now inevitably be speaking. I am quite prepared to agree that it may be an internationally accepted definition of a meaningless phrase. But to me this is an exercise in obfuscation.
In my previous remarks I said that we did not know whether the existing level of development was sustainable. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, pointed out that it was not, and then in response he drew my attention to the amendment and its definition. The problem that I have with it is simple. If the existing level of development is not sustainable, then we cannot meet the needs of present generations without prejudicing the needs of future generations. Therefore, the first part of the definition can—in our state of ignorance—be in conflict with the second. However acceptable it may be in the international sphere, where I am trying to interpret the meaning of the words literally, the phrase is an exercise in obfuscation. Therefore I am afraid that, however acceptable this may be in the international sphere, so far as I am concerned when I try to interpret the meaning of these words literally, this phrase is an exercise in obfuscation. Therefore, I return to my plea on an earlier amendment and say that wherever possible these two words should not be used but that more precise phrases should be found that meet the needs of the situation.
Lord Moran: Perhaps I may say a word about Amendment No. 80, which is grouped with these amendments. I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, has put her name to it. I agree that it is inconsistent with Amendment No. 6, but I hope to show that it is perhaps preferable to it. The amendment removes sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of

567
Clause 7(1) (a) on page 8 of the Bill. On that page the other two sub-paragraphs, namely, sub-paragraphs (i) and (iv) reflect the qualifications on the agency's duty to further conservation in the existing clause of the Water Resources Act 1991. However, sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of Clause 7(1) (a)—the two sub-paragraphs that I should like to see removed—explicitly subordinate the agency's duty to further conservation to Ministers' views and Ministers' guidance on sustainable development. As has been pointed out many times this afternoon, we do not at present know from the face of the Bill what "sustainable development" is supposed to mean.
At Second Reading I expressed my support for the general reformulation of the conservation duty and the "have regard" duty in respect of conservation actions which is now to be found in Clause 7(1) (b). The voluntary organisations (the NGOs) may have focused rather too much on the sometimes notional difference between a heavily qualified duty to further conservation and an unqualified duty to have regard to it. They may not have focused enough on the very real dangers that are implied by these sub-paragraphs in subjecting all the agency's duties to further conservation to development interests, albeit sustainable ones.
Perhaps I may say a word about the question that has been much discussed this afternoon, the general matter of sustainable development. I expressed strong reservations about the use of the term "sustainable development" in the Bill when I spoke at Second Reading. It is a wonderful Trojan Horse which may be taken by a government that is development orientated as a means of limiting the environmental protection functions of the new agencies. It can also be used in the opposite sense by a government of a different complexion.
We are often told that "sustainable development" means whatever you want it to mean. But if it means anything, it includes development. What is the environment agency to do with development? There are plenty of other agencies concerned with that. Clause 4 builds serious ambiguities into the Bill and invites us to accept an undefined proposition, sight unseen. It might be less objectionable if, for example, it simply referred to the concept of "sustainability" rather than "sustainable development". "Sustainability" features now in our legislation. As my noble friend Lady Saltoun mentioned, the term was included—in spite of many protests in this Chamber and questions from Lord Grimond as to what on earth it meant—in the legislation on the Scottish natural heritage. I believe that that was the first time that it had occurred. The phrase "sustainable development" was not used, merely the word "sustainability".
As I mentioned at Second Reading, it has been suggested by the World Wildlife Fund that it might be much better to refer to "environmental sustainability". If the Government are determined to include "sustainability", it would be much better to refer to it as
568
"environmental sustainability"—and far better than the phrase "sustainable development". I hope that the Government will perhaps think again about this point.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The Committee will be absolutely delighted to know that I do not intend to refer to sustainable development—if for no better reason than that anything I were to say on that subject would merely confuse the matter even further. I hope that as we examine this Bill we do not allow this issue to cloud all the other important issues therein. For that reason I want to address my remarks to the two amendments in this group which stand in my name on the Marshalled List; namely, Amendments Nos. 163 and 164. Both deal with the Secretary of State's powers to give guidance to the Scottish environment protection agency.
Before I speak briefly on that matter, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for the way in which he moved Amendment No. 162, with which I agree. It does not make an argument any better because someone happens to repeat it, so I will resist that temptation.
Amendment No. 163 lays down that the Secretary of State should issue his guidance no later than 12 months from the date on which this Act is implemented. If we are serious about protecting the environment, then surely it would be wrong if the Act, once it is implemented, were merely allowed to rest on a shelf somewhere in the Scottish Office while month follows month and the guidance that is necessary to allow the agency to get on with its work is simply not given.
Therefore, it is advisable, right at the beginning, to build in a timescale for that guidance to be given. As an aside, perhaps I may say that in many ways I am arguing against something in which I believe myself. When the original document dealing with the environment in Scotland, Improving the Environment in Scotland: The Way Forward, was published in 1992, it stated that the Government wanted an agency "at arm's length" from the Government. But of course what they have, as defined in Clause 29 of this Bill, and even more closely in Clause 38, is an agency that will be under the control of the Secretary of State.
Although we are not discussing Clause 38, it is linked to Clause 29 and the amendments that are in this group. It gives the Secretary of State wide and extensive powers to intervene in the day-to-day operations of the Scottish environment protection agency. So in many ways I am arguing against the principle that I thought the Government had accepted in 1992; namely, that the agency would be at arm's length from the Government and would be in a position to give the Government advice. That is not the case. It is not what we are faced with now. Therefore, we have to try and improve what is in the Bill. For that reason, my amendment suggests that the advice should be made available within 12 months of this Bill becoming an Act.
My second amendment goes on to define a number of matters that I consider to be of great importance to improving the environment in Scotland and which therefore ought to be included in the guidance. It would be easy and tempting to go through each one and explain what I mean by them. But I shall resist that temptation. I know that time is at a premium. I encapsulate it all in

569
the statement that the interests of future generations should be part of the statutory guidance that is given by the Secretary of State. I cannot honestly think of anything more important than the environmental interests of future generations, and that statement brings it all together.
With those few brief remarks, I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Viscount. We are coming up to the celebration of the birth of Robert Burns. Burns had a great saying:
"… I backward cast mye'e,
On prospects drear!
An' forward, tho' I canna see,
I guess an' fear!"
Forward though I cannot see, I have a terrible feeling that the noble Viscount will rise to reject these amendments as well. I hope that I am wrong. I ask him to give them the most serious consideration.
Viscount Mills: What never ceases to amaze me is the speed with which some Members of the Committee who have many years in advance of myself manage to get to their feet.
At Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister promised to arrange to have an initial outline of the guidance on sustainable development made available before this Committee stage. Eventually, along with other Members of Committee, I received a copy in this Chamber a short time ago. I have had no opportunity to do other than glance at the document and look over its contents. However, it is very much an initial outline, setting out what the Government intend the guidance to cover. Clearly, much further work is required.
I should be surprised if that guidance met the full aspirations of the Minister himself. At Second Reading, my noble friend said that:
"the guidance cannot be rushed; we must get it right. We propose to consult widely and to take into account the views of the many organisations which will have views on the matter, in addition to listening to the views of noble Lords and Members of another place".—[Official Report, 15/12194; col. 1463.]
I am in full agreement with that approach, although I add that I hope that the agency itself will have a special role in advising and assisting with such guidance. Perhaps in an ideal world such considered guidance would have been provided before the Bill reached the Committee stage in this Chamber. But that was not to be. Indeed, it is unrealistic to think that detailed guidance could now be produced even before the Bill reaches the Committee stage in another place.
The purpose of this amendment, like the previous one, is to set a realistic timetable for the production of at least preliminary guidance. In other words, for it to be produced within 12 months of this part of the Act coming into force.
I turn again to the Second Reading debate, in which my noble friend the Minister also pointed out that this was the first time in English law that there is a duty in relation to sustainable development. That makes it vitally important to debate the key elements of the guidance relating to that duty as soon as possible. It is
570
to be hoped that it will be achieved at least partly by debating the relevant amendments as the Bill passes through this Chamber.
It is certain that such guidance on sustainable development will be central to the manner in which the agency exercises all its functions, as outlined in Clause 4, and also with respect to specific environmental duties, such as the duty to further conservation, as set out in Clause 7. Therefore it is vital that the new agency should be provided with clear guidance on these matters within a reasonable timescale. That is the purpose of the amendment. Perhaps I may add that I hope that in future any guidance will be placed where it can easily be found.
Lord Crickhowell: I should like to make two fairly brief points. One is in regard to Amendment No. 6, which suggests that the agency should develop a strategy for national sustainable development.
I shall now turn, in what I am sure my noble friend will be relieved to hear is a helpful way, to the document that has so recently been circulated. It is absolutely correct in setting out the mutual and, in a sense, contradictory components of sustainability and sustainable development. At paragraph 5.3 it states:
"It therefore embraces the pursuit of both economic development and environmental protection, or improvement. Often these go hand in hand, but many forms of economic development make demands upon the environment and these have to be assessed".
I do not believe that it can or should be the role of an environment agency to make economic policy. That is the role of government. Therefore, I object to this proposed amendment. It takes the agency into territory that it should not occupy. Clearly one could elaborate on that proposition at some length but I shall not do so. I simply express my opposition to the concept that the agency should be responsible for economic policy.
I turn to an amendment with which I have a great deal more sympathy; namely, Amendment No. 41. I have sympathy not least because it seeks to ensure that:
"Any guidance … shall be subject to a period of consultation with interested bodies".
I entirely agree about that; but I hope that the "interested bodies" include the agency itself.
At Second Reading I observed that it was extremely curious that the Bill repeatedly talks about Ministers giving advice, guidance and even directions to the agency but does not on one single occasion suggest the possibility that it might be quite a good idea for Ministers just once in a while to listen to the advice of what is likely to be an extremely experienced, knowledgeable and important body.
This amendment is perhaps a first tentative step toward acceptance of the idea—I hope that it can be written in on other occasions during the passage of the Bill—that Ministers must consult the agency before they finally give it directions. If so, the whole exercise may have been worth while.
Lord Marlesford: One of the disadvantages of the breathless pace at which we were given the guidance

571
notes is that my copy appears to lack page 5. Therefore, I have not been able to give it the full attention that no doubt it merits.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may interrupt at this point. Thanks to the office of the noble Viscount, I received a copy of the guidance. I decided, perhaps wrongly, that it would be right to table the guidance in a somewhat filleted form, if I may use that expression, as a schedule.
Members of the Committee will find that schedule at Amendment No. 147. I do not wish to pre-empt the discussion that any Member may wish to raise on this guidance. But if the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, looks at that amendment, he will see that the schedule reproduces more or less ipsissima verba, but with some filleting, the guidance that the Government have produced and published today.
The point of tabling the schedule was to make sure that the Committee had an opportunity to look through it at leisure and to amend the schedule should Members so wish. I do not want to prevent the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, from putting forward any argument, but I wish him to know that there is an amendment which puts that schedule on the Marshalled List.
Lord Marlesford: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am afraid that I have not been using his version of the guidance but the one headed "Department of the Environment", in which my copy is defective. I am delighted to hear that his version is more complete.
I want to raise a point about the difficulty that we are all having with the phrase "sustainable development". As was pointed out, this is the first time that it has been in legislation. The problem is that "development" is the mistaken word. I can quite understand why we use the word "development". It comes from Rio, when all that was discussed. We are all considering what is likely to happen in the future in those very large countries where they have been cutting down the rainforest. We know about all those things, but there are also new activities.
The problem for this country, and after all this legislation primarily refers to this country, concerns what is happening now. There are many matters which the agency will have to deal with that are already happening. There is a misleading use of the word "development" which implies new and fresh activities. It would surely be better, at least in the legislation, to use the phrase "sustainable activity", so that it can include things which are happening now which perhaps should not be happening.
Lord Northbourne: The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said a great deal of what I wanted to say. Fortunately, therefore, I shall not need to say it. However, the phrases "sustainable development" and "use of resources" come to mind. It is true that what we are doing currently is much more likely to affect the environment than the development.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may say that the definition given by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, of "sustainable development" goes some way towards addressing the problem. The amendment cannot be acceptable in its present form because it is difficult to
572
know what future generations will want. One difficulty is that it would presumably preclude the use of any non-renewable resources—coal, oil or anything of that sort—and we cannot be sure that in an infinite distance forward they will not be needed by future generations.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: In coming into the debate this afternoon on this group of amendments I should like to make two points. First, on 15th December, when your Lordships' House considered the Second Reading of the Bill, I declared my interest in the subject matter. It may be helpful to those Members of the Committee who did not attend on that day for me again to declare my interest in that I am involved with the waste industry. I do not intend to repeat that declaration as we go further and deeper into the Committee stage over the next four or five weeks.
My second point is that your Lordships will see that grouped in this series of amendments is my Amendment No. 39 and its Scottish counterpart, Amendment No. 165. Perhaps the Committee and my noble friend the Minister would indicate to me whether it would be more convenient for me to discuss Amendment No. 39 separately from the others. Clause 4 deals with this somewhat vexed subject of sustainable development, while Amendment No. 39 deals with other aims and objectives. I do not believe that it fits neatly into this kind of discussion. If my noble friend would find it more helpful to discuss a cost element which has nothing to do with sustainable development in the order on the Marshalled List—line 14 of the groupings list—I should be happy to do so. That is entirely up to the Committee.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to intervene. I am sure that the noble Lord is as familiar with Committee procedure as I am. He is perfectly entitled to move his Amendment No. 39 in the place in which it appears on the Marshalled List. All the usual channels can do is to try to fit things in. If the noble Lord, like any other Member of the Committee, decides to move his amendment in its place in the Marshalled List, he is certainly entitled to do so.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful for that confirmation. I feel that it would be more helpful to the Committee for me to extract an amendment that deals with costs and cost benefits away from those amendments which deal with sustainable development. The two subjects just do not fit. Perhaps my noble friend can tell me whether that is as convenient to him as it is to the rest of us.
Viscount Ullswater: I was hoping, after hearing the interchange between my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that my comments on these amendments would satisfy my noble friend and he would not feel the need to draw attention to them when they arise in their normal place. Whether he wishes to

573
address them now or in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List, I am happy to deal with them either way.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: With the leave of the Committee, I prefer to deal with Amendment No. 39 separately and not in the groupings suggested.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may come back to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 in the names of my noble friend Lord Beaumont and myself, and in the context of a debate on sustainable development and on behalf of my noble friend I can accept the slightly guarded compliment paid to him on the definition which appears towards the end of this Marshalled List, though any compliments should perhaps go to Mrs. Brundtland and not to my noble friend.
I draw to the attention of the Committee our recognition of the need to keep matters under continuous review. That is an issue with which we dealt quite specifically in Amendment No. 34. I hope that an approach which involves the development of a list of indicators is one which will commend itself to the Government. It is very much the way in which they suggest other agencies should set about assessing their own success. But it is not merely the development of that list and the keeping of indicators; it is also a review of those indicators. As the Committee will recognise, this is a developing and progressing area.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before the noble Viscount replies, I apologise for bouncing this point off him. I should make clear that I am merely using him for other ears to hear.
In the guidance published by the Department of the Environment there is a footnote for editors which says,
"Ian Lang, Secretary of State for Scotland, today published draft guidance on sustainable development for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency".
It would have been preferable if that guidance had been available at least to Scottish Peers because substantial parts of the Bill deal with Scotland. It would have been helpful if we could have had the same services as all other Members of your Lordships' Committee. To add insult to injury, the only reference to Scotland at point 1.2 has been blanked out and I cannot even read it.
Viscount Ullswater: These amendments relate to the role of the agency or SEPA in the achievement of sustainable development and the guidance on aims and objectives for which Clause 4 and Clause 29 for the Scottish agency provide. Many seek to replace or reinforce the Bill's existing provisions by giving the agency or SEPA a statutory objective or duty to promote or achieve sustainable development, including through development of a national sustainable development strategy or indicators.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford is right to point out that the words "sustainable development" originate from the Rio Summit. Therefore we cannot go forward without using them and without keeping that specific phrase; otherwise we shall experience a lot of difficulty. The existing Clauses 4 and 29 place a duty on Ministers to give the agency or SEPA guidance on their aims and
574
objectives, including on the contribution they are to make towards achieving sustainable development. That goes beyond the normal arrangements for a non-departmental public body in which aims and objectives are set simply as part of a management statement.
We recognise that the aims and objectives will properly be a matter of considerable interest and discussion, and in the note on the scope and the guidance which I have already made available to the Committee we set out our initial view that the overall aim of the agency should be to help promote sustainable development through high quality, integrated environmental protection management and enhancement.
In Amendment No. 6, which I notice the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said she moved without particular enthusiasm, and Amendments Nos. 34 and 162, the noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Carmichael, seek in various ways to give the agency or SEPA a statutory purpose related to sustainable development. In addition, Amendment No. 6 requires the agency to develop a national strategy for sustainable development, and Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 would require it to develop and publish indicators of sustainability. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell brought to our attention the correct division of responsibility between the duty of Ministers and the duty of the agency and drew attention to the difficulty he saw in asking the agency to develop the national strategy. Amendment No. 164, from the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, attempts a somewhat shorter definition of the scope of the guidance to be issued to SEPA. Amendment No. 351 seeks to insert a specific definition of sustainable development into the legislation.
These amendments all touch on a key issue. It is indeed vital that the agency should contribute significantly towards the achievement of sustainable development. Sustainable development is the cornerstone of our environmental protection and economic development programmes. And that is what the existing Clauses 4 and 29 will do.
We believe that the amendments are inappropriate. First, they would suffer from the problem, which I have already touched on today, of trying further to specify the purposes of the agency and SEPA in the Bill. This problem is exacerbated by the difficulty, and indeed the danger, of seeking to define in legislation the main principles of sustainable development. For example, Amendment No. 162 appears confused on this point. It refers explicitly to the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. The UK strategy on sustainable development already starts from the premise that it incorporates both concepts. Yet the amendments repeat the first as a principle that needs specific definition as part of sustainable development and the second is added as an additional objective, as if it were somehow separate from sustainable development. Moreover, the amendments are silent on such issues as the need to consider changes in man-made capital and in renewable and non-renewable natural resources and on how to reconcile our aspirations for these two kinds of wealth.

575
Nor do they consider best available scientific information or risk analysis. And if they do not cover existing thinking on the meaning of sustainable development, how can they hope to encompass developing domestic and international ideas?
Amendments Nos. 164 and 351 suffer from the same difficulty. It would be dangerous to seek to overspecify on the face of the Bill the full contents of the guidance. A long list might appear exhaustive but not cover all issues on which, in future, Ministers might need to give guidance to the agency or to SEPA. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, acknowledged that the Scottish Secretary had published in parallel the draft guidance for SEPA today. I can only apologise to him that he somehow was unable to receive a copy of that, which I am sure he would have found interesting. We would be reluctant to see the principles set out in Amendment No. 164 fixed in legislation, for the reasons I have explained.
As for Amendment No. 351, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the definition it proposes is indeed one which is familiar. It is based on the Brundtland definition, but it is not one which has general recognition in international law. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith is quite right to query the validity of this definition and the difficulties that such a definition, if put into legislation, might pose in the long term.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: Does the Minister agree that if we are using the term "sustainable development"—there seems to be quite a consensus, with notable exceptions, that it is a term to be used—it ought to be defined for precisely the reason that he has just given?
Viscount Ullswater: The draft guidance is making a determined effort to try to draw the various strands together. Whether it will come out with a hard and fast and legal definition may be the difficulty. I am not trying to skate round the difficulty. There is one, and I think everyone recognises that. But it is the duty of Ministers to advise the agency on that basis.
I am saying to the Committee that we should agree therefore that sustainable development requires a complex reconciliation of the pursuit of economic development and environmental protection. It is difficult to express that succinctly in legislation without risking giving undue emphasis to some aspects or implying that others are not normally part of sustainable development and so need to be listed separately. The formulation in Clauses 4 and 29 avoids the problem.
My second difficulty with a number of these amendments is that they assume that the agency and SEPA can on their own achieve sustainable development and decide what it is. The agency and SEPA will make, as I said before, a major contribution towards achieving sustainable development in Britain. But many others must act to achieve sustainable development. Government themselves must take decisions about economic development and environmental protection. It cannot therefore be right for the agency or SEPA to take charge of national policy
576
on sustainable development and how we ensure consistency of interpretation. I believe that to be important.
The same applies to the issue of sustainable development indicators. These will need to cover issues, such as land use planning, resource use and energy efficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would need to give the agency considerable power if it was to encompass all that he wanted it to. He identified his interest as being that of Wales. There is an advisory committee for Wales and the Secretary of State has appointed one of the members of the advisory committee. So, a good many of the things the noble Lord wishes are being undertaken by the agency. Indicators are, therefore, for the Government to take forward, although in doing so we are consulting extensively with outside bodies. I am pleased to report that we expect to publish a preliminary set of indicators by the end of the year.
I sum up by saying that defining the meaning of sustainable development, and the contribution the agency and SEPA is to make to it, will be a complex but fundamental task for government. We recognise that. That is why we made available the outline of the scope of the guidance under Clause 4 and intend to expand the note in a more detailed draft for wide consultation when the Bill is considered in another place. As I said at Second Reading, it is right to take time and to involve a wide constituency in the preparation of the guidance. I do not feel chastened by my noble friend Lord Mills because I reiterate that the guidance is in draft and will be refined as the parliamentary process takes its course.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell asked whether the agency will be consulted. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear in another place, the Government will wish to seek the views of the environment agency advisory committee and the agency itself, once established, in producing guidance under Clause 4. I would stress that we want to get the guidance right and will consult widely on it.
Amendment No. 39A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills, and Amendment No. 163, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, would require guidance to be issued within 12 months of the Act coming into force. I have to tell noble Lords that this is currently our intention but we see no need to specify it on the face of the Bill. As drafted, Amendment No. 163 would also confuse as it does not reflect the intention that the guidance will be revised from time to time.
Amendment No. 40, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, seeks to remove the duty under Clause 4 for the agency to have regard to guidance issued by Ministers. I am bound to say that this appears to make a nonsense of Clause 4. There will be little point in requiring Ministers to give guidance to the agency if it were not in turn required to have regard to that guidance.
Amendment No. 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, proposes that one of the purposes for which the agency shall compile information relating to pollution under Clause 5 shall be that of attaining the objective of

577
achieving sustainable development. I am a little unsure exactly how it is envisaged that this provision would work in practice, but I do not believe that its inclusion would result in the collection of any additional information.
Clause 5(2) (b) already gives the agency powers to collect all the information that it needs to be able to form an opinion about the general state of environmental pollution. It is not obvious that more could be collected to take a view on sustainability.
Amendment No. 80 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, removes reference to sustainable development in the existing conservation duty under Clause 7. On the face of it, the amendment suggests that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness consider conservation to be a matter which somehow falls outside the scope of sustainable development. Yet sustainable development underpins the whole of environmental and economic policy. I cannot see how conservation is excluded.
I believe that I have attempted to indicate some of the difficulties that we run into when considering a number of these amendments. To a certain extent I was heartened by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, who said that she moved the amendment without particular enthusiasm. I hope that I have dampened her enthusiasm even more, to the stage where she may feel willing to withdraw it.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps I may draw attention to something which he said a moment ago. I believe I am right in saying that he said that sustainable development involves the whole process of environmental protection. Am I correct? That seems to imply a definition of "sustainable development" which is quite outside anything that we have discussed so far this afternoon. Will the noble Viscount accept that we really do need a definition of "sustainable development" and possibly a reference to "sustainable use"?
Viscount Ullswater: I shall have to look very carefully at what I did say. I thought I said that sustainable development underpins the whole of environmental and economic policy and that I cannot see how conservation is excluded from that.
Lord Marlesford: Further to that point, I simply do not understand why my noble friend should be suggesting that because the phrase "sustainable development" is used quite appropriately in Rio it is the right phrase to use in this piece of British legislation. What we are talking about in Britain is not only the need to have sustainable development but also to make certain adjustments to things which are already happening in this country in order to make them sustainable.
Perhaps I may give two obvious examples. There are many people who would say that there is already too much traffic on the roads. There are many who would say that power stations are already emitting nitrous oxide when they should be stopped from doing so. Would it not be more appropriate in this legislation for
578
the phrase "sustainable activity" to be used even though the phrase "sustainable development" is the current vogue phrase in a worldwide context?
Viscount Ullswater: I shall consider carefully what my noble friend said. I believe that the phrase "sustainable activity" suffers from the same difficulty as does the definition of "sustainable development". I believe that development in economic terms has an understanding. That is what we need to do when we look at the definition of "sustainable development". I hasten to say that the definition is not one which will come forward in a flash of blinding light and appear on the statute book. It is something which the guidance will ease its way towards refining during the progress of this Bill through Parliament.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My reservations about this amendment have been well exemplified by the debate which we have had. It is clear that the term "sustainable development" is for many of us not very well defined. We are not clear what it encompasses. Clearly this is a debate which will need careful perusal before we return to this subject.
I now have a copy of the draft guidance. It contains an overall aim for the agency which seems to combine the last two groups of amendments which we have been addressing. The overall aim of the agency shall be,
"To help to promote sustainable development through high quality, integrated environmental protection, management and enhancement".
That is effectively a combination of the two main amendments which we have been discussing this evening.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider putting something along those lines on the face of the Bill. In any case, we certainly intend to return at Report stage with an amendment to that effect which I hope will gain the support of the House as a whole. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonmoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert ("and shall take office provided their appointment is agreed by the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment").
The noble Baroness said: This group of amendments addresses an entirely different principle which is that of democratic involvement in the functioning of the agency at various levels. The amendments that we are taking together in this group, which I shall be addressing, are Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15 and those relating to the Scottish agency, which are Amendments Nos. 132, 133 and 135.
Amendment No. 8 is really intended as a probing amendment. It is an attempt to roll back what we are now beginning to call the "quangocracy". It is an attempt to prevent appointments to these very powerful agencies to be solely within the gift of Ministers. It may well not be that this particular suggestion and the

579
amendment is the appropriate one, but it is an attempt to enhance the role of Parliament rather than leaving power totally in the hands of Ministers and quangos.
Amendment No. 9 would make mandatory rather than voluntary the appointment of people with relevant experience to the agency. Amendment No. 11 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of having people on the agency with relevant experience in the business world, the voluntary sector and local authorities.
Amendment No. 13 is consequential on Amendment No. 8. The other amendments are also consequential on these particular points. They would assist in the scrutiny of the proceedings of this particular agency. They would create stricter criteria for appointment to the agency board and would apply freedom of information provisions to the agency under Amendment No. 15.
It is accepted that the new environment agency will be a quango operating at arm's length from government, but nevertheless quangos have been increasingly criticised in recent years on various grounds; that is, that they take powers away from elected and accountable representatives of the community both in Parliament and in local authorities. The system for the appointment of members is often extremely secret. The posts are often not advertised or subject to open competition. Their proceedings lack transparency. The usual standards of freedom of access to information and meetings which apply to local government do not apply to these appointed bodies. The amendments are therefore an attempt to address some of those abuses of democracy and the issue of freedom of information. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The noble Baroness has put forward a proposition which I think is without precedent. It is for Ministers (nearly always in statute) to take responsibility for appointments to statutory bodies of one kind or another. To provide that the appointments should be agreed by the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment spreads the responsibility. I should have thought that our present system is better because we can question the Minister and challenge any appointment that he makes. To ask a House of Commons Select Committee to share that responsibility seems a constitutional departure about which, to put it mildly, we should think very carefully indeed. Speaking for myself, I see great difficulties in it.
6 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 10 now as it is grouped with Amendment No. 8, and to its consequential amendment which we shall reach later. I heed what my noble friend Lord Renton says, but notwithstanding that I have some sympathy with the thinking behind the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton.
Amendment No. 10 is pretty self-evident. It could be argued that it is special pleading, particularly coming from myself. However, back in 1989 when the Select Committee in another place drew attention to the need for a national agency—a "national commission" as I think it called the body—that idea found favour and culminated in the 1990 Act. The background to this
580
provision is that there must be some regulation on waste. As I see it, that is the "birthing", so to speak, of the Bill that is now before us. Looking at the current nine members of the advisory committee of 15—we have some yet to come—I find that there is nobody, but nobody, with hands-on knowledge of the waste industry, with which the Bill is primarily concerned. That implies no criticism of the chairman, my noble friend Lord de Ramsey, or of the other eight named members who no doubt have splendid qualities to add to the deliberations of the advisory committee, which I suppose will ultimately form the board.
It has been said on a number of occasions—notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in her contribution to the debate on the humble Address in November of last year and by others on Second Reading—that the members of the advisory committee as it now is (or of the board ultimately) should have knowledge of the matters with which the Bill is concerned and with which the agencies will have to deal. However, nobody but nobody on that body has hands-on knowledge of the waste industry. That industry represents between £45 billion and £50 billion of business and is probably one of the biggest elements with which the agency will have to deal in terms of pollution, pollution control, landfill, contaminated land and so on, all of which we shall be considering later when I shall have more to say on them. The agency will be setting policies and priorities and allocating resources but, as far as I can identify, nobody at the decision-making level—no current member of that body—has knowledge of the industry or the effects that it may have on society and communities. That will make a lot of difference to the decision-making process.
My amendment specifies one industry in particular, although others could be involved. I suppose that if other members of the Committee were to list their favourite industries or interests and demand membership for them, we should have a board of 40 or 50—or at least one with more than 15 members. Nevertheless, I think that this is an important amendment to set alongside those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. The truth of the matter is that the agency will be operating at arm's length. Notwithstanding the fact that Ministers shall have responsibility to Parliament, it is a pretty long arm, because once the matter reaches Parliament the decisions and actions will have been taken. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will find favour with my noble friend the Minister or that he will at least give the Committee an unequivocal assurance that those industries which have a direct interest in the matters with which the agency will be dealing will have representation.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 132, 133 and 135 on appointments to the Scottish environment protection agency. However, perhaps I should say first with great respect and deep humility to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that in my view if legislation specifies that the Secretary of State shall appoint the members of a board, that is that. In my 25 years in both Houses I have never known a Secretary of State to be challenged on an appointment that he has made to a quango, for that challenge to be sustained and for the person who has been appointed to be removed.

581
If the legislation clearly specifies, as this legislation does, that the Secretary of State shall make the appointment, it is my humble view that Parliament has no further say in the matter. We should not believe that somehow or other there is a further check and balance on the appointments that are made.
As the Committee knows, major changes are taking place in Scotland which are not taking place in England in that local government is being completely reorganised. Indeed, the elections to the shadow authorities will take place in a few weeks. That is significant in relation to the Scottish environment protection agency which, contrary to what the Minister said earlier, is being given powers that are presently in the hands of the democratically elected local authorities.
Let us consider the river purification boards as an example. Until about two years ago, two-thirds of the membership of the river purification boards comprised elected representatives. There were, and still are, reserved places on river purification boards for elected representatives. In my view—I have represented a constituency in which the petro-chemical industry has a centre and where environmental and river pollution have been problems for many years—river purification boards retain public confidence because of the presence of elected representatives. That is the point that I wish to make.
In order for the SEPA to gain the public's confidence, it is essential that the boards' membership should come from as wide a spectrum of interests as possible. We know that the chairman of each of the regional boards will automatically be a member of the SEPA. So there is a strong case for there to be reserved places, at least on the regional boards, for elected members of the new local authorities which will come into being on 1st April 1996.
We say also that members appointed to the SEPA should have knowledge of the work that the agency is expected to carry out. I do not want to give the impression that that is solely the preserve of professional people. There are many good lay councillors on local authorities in Scotland that are being abolished—Central Regional Council is a good example—who make a major contribution to the river purification boards' work and whose knowledge and expertise will be lost unless the Secretary of State takes the advice of the Scottish Consumer Council and the Forth River Purification Board and consults widely and makes appointments according to the knowledge and expertise of the councillors to whom I refer.
I return to the point I made earlier. There must be an undertaking that places will be reserved, at least on regional boards, for locally elected representatives so that local accountability will be continued.
I want to draw the Minister, and gain an assurance from him, on one other aspect of the major changes that are taking place in Scotland. We need an assurance that no one appointed to the three new water quangos that are to be established is appointed also to the SEPA. Scotland is littered with people who are on five, six or seven quangos. It would be the worst of all worlds if, right at the beginning of the work of both authorities—
582
the new water authorities and the SEPA—there was duplication of membership, because there must be a conflict of interest between those two organisations. I hope that, if the Minister cannot go down the road suggested by the three amendments in relation to the authority in Scotland, he can at least give us an assurance that membership will not be duplicated between the water authorities and the SEPA.
Baroness Hamwee: It was the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, who said earlier that an argument does not improve for being repeated. So I shall merely say that I associate these Benches with the comments he made about local representation and appointments by the Secretary of State. However, in that connection I hope that Amendment No. 9, which seeks to constrain the Secretary of State a little more than the draft Bill does, will attract the Committee. Rather than the Secretary of State having regard to the desirability of appointing someone who satisfies a particular criteria, he should be required to appoint someone who fulfils those qualifications, which in themselves are wide.
With regard to the freedom of information clause to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, has rightly drawn the Committee's attention, and also tabled an appropriate amendment, it is a pity that one has to remember to put down such amendments. It would be so much better if the provisions applied to all our public bodies.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendments are concerned mainly with the appointment of members to the agency's boards. It may assist the Committee if I explain the Government's general approach to such appointments. The Bill requires the Secretary of State and the Minister to have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who has had experience of and shown capacity in some matter relevant to the agencies' functions. It does not require us to assemble boards with one of everything. We do not expect a board to be comprised of a panel of technical experts. The boards will have much more of a policy-setting and strategic decision-making role similar to that undertaken by other boards. Where technical expertise is called for, it will be provided primarily by the agencies' officers. Nor should boards be delegate bodies made up of nominees representing outside interests. The idea expressed in Amendment No. 132 of "a balance of key interests" is alien to the idea of the agencies. Rather, each member will be appointed on his or her individual merits and will be expected to act in the interests of the agency as a whole and in accordance with that agency's functions, aims and objectives.
In making appointments in general, we wish to appoint the best available talents for the task, whoever they are. Indeed, we have followed that approach in appointing the Environment Agency Advisory Committee. The committee members are drawn from a wide range of backgrounds and experience, including industry, local authorities, environmental science and finance, each member distinguished in his own right but each equipped to make a distinctive contribution to running a large organisation such as the agency.

583
With that background, I hope that the Committee will understand why I cannot accept any of the amendments in this group.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 13 together raise basic questions about parliamentary accountability. Amendment No. 8 would require the appointment of the agency's members to be agreed by the Select Committee on the Environment. Amendment No. 13 would add to that a requirement for their remuneration, travelling and other allowances to be subject to Select Committee approval.
The amendments risk drawing the appointment of agency members further into the political arena. Such an approach could well inhibit many people from accepting public appointments, with a detrimental effect on the quality of public appointees. Unless the agency were to be a special case, such procedures could not be applied realistically to the numbers of appointments and reappointments made each year.
As my noble friend Lord Renton rightly pointed out, these amendments would be a significant departure from current practice. It would be unwise to legislate in that way at a time well before the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life has reported. Issues relating to public appointments are a major area which that committee will consider.
I should stress that rejecting the amendments would not mean that there was no opportunity for Parliament to question Ministers about the grounds for appointments. Ministers remain accountable to Parliament for their actions, including the appointments they make, and this provides an opportunity to question their decisions.
Amendment No. 9, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to require any person appointed to meet the test of having experience and proven capacity in some matter relevant to the functions of the agency. Amendment No. 132 would limit the membership of the SEPA in a similar way. The amendments also take too narrow a view of what is needed on the boards of the agencies. The agencies will be large organisations with a full range of issues—such as management, personnel and finance—for which the boards must take responsibility. It would be wrong to suppose that all members must necessarily have experience of the agencies' specialist functions if they are to make a useful contribution.
Because the agencies are not to be bodies of delegates, I cannot accept the idea in Amendment No. 135 that the Government should seek "nominations from national organisations" when making appointments to the SEPA. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, asked whether there would be a role for elected councillors on SEPA. The Government will be keen to secure the services of effective board members from all sources. We certainly envisage elected councillors playing a full part on the regional boards. Perhaps we should return at another time to the noble Lord's anxieties. I am not sure that tonight I am able to give the assurances that he seeks on whether the same people will be appointed to the water authorities and to SEPA. I need to take further advice on the matter.
584
Nor should we carve out a list of reserve slots for various fields. Therefore, I cannot accept Amendment No. 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. However, I understand the view that he put forward. He seeks to promote the claims of waste management for consideration when appointments are made to the agencies' board. I believe that it would be wrong for me to give him the assurance that he wants, although I am certain that my right honourable friend will consider carefully what he said tonight.
The same applies to Amendments Nos. 11 and 133, which seek to take account specifically of business, the voluntary sector, local authorities and environmental and consumer interests in appointing members to the boards of the two agencies.
Finally, Amendment No. 15 would provide for public access to meetings of the agency and to its papers, agendas, reports, minutes and related background papers subject to the exemptions set out in the Local Government Act 1972. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, the agency will be under a statutory duty to make available environmental information to every person who requests it, subject to the exemptions in those regulations. Generally, the agency will be expected to conduct its affairs fully in accordance with the code of practice on access to government information.
We want neither to impose unnecessary controls on the agency nor to fetter unduly Ministers' discretion to obtain the best boards for both agencies. I hope that those explanations will convince Members of the Committee that the proposed amendments should find no place in the Bill.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I thank the Minister for that reply and I accept the logic of much of what he said. However, the existence of the Nolan Committee shows that all is not well with appointments to quangos. I reject entirely the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who suggested that because things have not been done previously we should not do them in future. I accept that the suggested remedy may not be appropriate; but, from the widespread anxiety about appointments to quangos, it is clear that things have not been as they should. I was puzzled by the Minister's slightly naive statement that we did not want to bring politics into the appointments to quangos. Surely, the chief anxiety about ministerial appointments has been the introduction of politics to the field. I accept entirely that the amendment might be suggesting the wrong mechanism; but, nevertheless, I believe that there is a wrong that needs addressing.
As regards the representation of local authorities and others, I believe that it is a general principle which should be part of the guidance to Ministers rather than being written into the Act. We shall think further about what the Minister said on that issue and about freedom of information, which may be provided for elsewhere in the Environmental Protection Act. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

585
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Daviesmoved Amendment No. 12:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause:
("Establishment of Agencies
. There shall be established—

(a) a body corporate to be known as the Environment Agency for England (in this Act referred to as the English Agency), to exercise in relation to England the functions transferred or assigned to it by or under this Act; and

(b) a body corporate to be known as the Environment Agency for Wales (in this Act referred to as the Welsh Agency), to exercise in relation to Wales the functions transferred or assigned to it by or under this Act.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 12 involves another issue of principle. It would establish a separate Welsh environment protection agency, which is the policy of the Labour Party and all other opposition parties in Wales. The policy is supported by the Council for the Welsh Districts, the Assembly of Welsh Councils and the Wales Association of Community and Town Councils. In addition, I believe that it is supported by voluntary bodies which play an important role in the conservation and enhancement of the environment in Wales. They are bodies such as Friends of the Earth Cymru and, I am advised, the Wales Wildlife and Countryside Link.
That is a broad and significant body of opinion; it is not a minority opinion in Wales. Of course, the case for a separate Welsh agency has been much enhanced by the Government's decision to set up in Clause 20 a separate Scottish environment protection agency. To an extent, I was heartened to hear the Minister acknowledge on Second Reading the distinct needs of Wales. That, essentially, is the basis of our case. Of course, the Minister did not say what he meant by the distinctiveness of Wales.
We submit that, in the context of this Bill, it arises out of the fact that within its narrow boundaries Wales, a small country, is a singularly beautiful country of mountains, barren uplands, lakes, rivers and a long coastline of which 42 per cent. is defined as heritage coast. It is studded, more so than England, with conservation areas. The high quality of the environment in much of Wales is of enormous importance to the people of Wales. That is in addition to being a major factor in the annual —1.3 billion Welsh tourist industry.
The distinctiveness of Wales also arises from the fact that it has a proud, historic identity. It is recognised by the existence of the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State for Wales. It is, therefore, a natural and appropriate level for the decentralisation of executive power.
That leads me to the third main argument for a Welsh agency. It is true to say that, generally speaking, the bodies involved in the care and control of the environment in Wales are able to liaise with one another on the basis that the buck stops in Wales. Agriculture and forestry, trunk roads and planning and public health and economic development come under the Welsh Office control. Indeed, that applies to almost every service which the environment protection agency must
586
co-ordinate. Our local authorities also refer to the Welsh Office but I take note of the point made earlier today by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
During the past decade in particular, the voluntary and private sectors, the political parties and the media have more and more aligned themselves in such a way as to create a vibrant Welsh policy. We need a separate environment protection agency which is fully attuned to the distinctive scene and which has the status and authority to take decisions without sending them up the line to an England and Wales body.
There are sound reasons for setting up a Welsh environment protection agency under the terms of this Bill. But instead of setting up a separate agency for Wales, the Bill resorts to an advisory committee to the Secretary of State, in addition to the type of advisory committees to be set up to advise the England and Wales agency. From these Benches we say that that is inadequate.
When the noble Viscount summed up the Second Reading debate he revealed that, initially, the Government considered setting up a separate agency for Wales but had concluded that it was not the most effective means of proceeding, whatever those words may mean.
He then went on to make three criticisms. First, the Minister alleged that a separate agency would involve the reorganisation of the NRA and the HMIP, which would be disruptive. Of course it would be disruptive but, in any event, there will be upheaval and problems of redeployment under Part I of the Bill, as a number of noble Lords pointed out on Second Reading. Therefore, I am not so sure that the setting up of a Welsh agency would make a substantial difference.
Surely the relevant question is whether a separate Welsh agency would facilitate a more effective environmental service for Wales. We answer that question in the affirmative.
The Minister's second criticism was that a separate Welsh agency would be "likely to reduce effectiveness". That is a cautiously expressed conclusion. Perhaps we may be told by the Minister this evening how his Ministerial colleagues arrived at that decision. Did they by chance resort to independent—I stress the word "independent"—expert advice? If they did, we should know about that. Will the Minister place a copy of the report in the Library? If Ministers did not resort to such advice, perhaps I may ask whether it is too late to do so before the Bill reaches another place.
On this side of the Committee we are extremely concerned with the ability to deliver effective protection services. The test of effectiveness must be assessed in relation to the whole range of activity, irrespective of the environmental resources of air, land, water and wild life, and the co-ordination of those services. To our way of thinking, one of the separate agency's prime concerns should be to ensure that services are co-ordinated at Welsh level and that the most cost effective use is made of public funds under its control. Have those considerations been brought fully into the calculation?

587
I thought that the Minister's third criticism revealed a contradiction. As I understand his words, he argued that in Wales the waste authorities are the district councils and that they lack what he described as a national structure. He then concluded that the functions should be removed from democratically elected control and handed over to an England and Wales nominated agency. Surely that would be far too remote from the Welsh scene. The district councils cannot see any sense in that conclusion.
I ask the Minister also how that conclusion is to be reconciled with the need for local accountability which the noble Viscount considered to be so important in his opening speech on Second Reading.
In so far as there might be a case for the centralisation of some of the waste regulation and disposal functions, their transfer from local democratic control to a Welsh agency rather than to an England and Wales agency would be some amelioration—I put it no higher than that—as at least a Welsh agency would be considerably more accessible. Therefore, for all those reasons, we say that a Welsh environment agency is needed urgently to protect and enhance our environmental resources.
I wish to touch very briefly on the other two amendments. Amendment No. 126 is not grouped with Amendment No. 12 but it should be because it follows, in a sense, from Amendment No. 12, and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, agrees with that. The purpose of that amendment is to provide in the Bill a joint machinery to safeguard the common interests which affect the main river basins on the border with England. That amendment reflects clearly an analogous provision in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and I am advised that it reflects also arrangements which are in force in respect of major river basins within unitary states such as Belgium, Germany and France.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 extend the remit of the Welsh agency to include the functions now undertaken by the Welsh Countryside Council. We owe this amendment to the advice of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel who is president of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and who will develop the argument in support of that amendment.
In view of the exchanges at Question Time today, I make it abundantly clear, in case of any misunderstanding, that on this side of the Committee we are not critical of the Countryside Council for Wales. We are fully supportive of it, but it is our submission that the Bill provides an opportunity to merge it with an environment agency in order to give us a comprehensive environment agency without adding to the network of nominated bodies in Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies for tabling this amendment and for his thoughtful speech, which I hope will influence the Government to think again about what we regard as a serious flaw in the Bill.
Before I turn to the substance of the amendment, perhaps I may say that two developments have caused concern and anxiety in Wales over the past 15 years or so: the first is the growth in the number of non-elected
588
bodies—that is, quangos—and the other is the steady diminution in the powers and functions of the local authorities in Wales.
The Council of Welsh Districts, in a constructive memorandum on the Bill states:
"In recent years the thrust towards centralisation and the removal of local democratic control over local services has been viewed with dismay and despondency by all those involved in the administration of local government".
I have called attention to that in many speeches in recent years although not in a party-political context. I know from experience that there are times and reasons why governments of all parties must set up non-elected bodies to perform essential tasks. But the growth of quangos has developed beyond all reason and it is not only the number of quangos but also the substantial powers vested in non-elected members which causes alarm.
The people of Wales have been tolerant but they have had more than enough experience of dealing with remote central agencies. I regret that the Prime Minister seems to have become a champion of centralisation. I did not think that it was in his nature, but it must be of interest to the Committee today that the Secretary of State for Wales has now produced a report which deals with the evidence of incompetence and worse in the work of some of the quangos. He concedes that something is radically wrong, but unfortunately we are not, apparently, to see the review conducted by civil servants and accountants and the evidence which was produced. I believe that we should be told the whole story. Nevertheless, I hope that some good will come from that report.
I must now turn to the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. He may recall that during his speech on the fourth day of the debate on the gracious Address I asked him to explain to the House why there is to be a separate agency for Scotland and not for Wales. The noble Viscount answered that the agency would be taking over the work done by HMIP and the NRA saying,
"and that is how it is based at the moment".
The noble Viscount added that there is a,
"different legal system in Scotland".—[Official Report, 23/11/94; col. 284.]
Speaking as a Welshman and as a former Secretary of State for Wales, I am bound to say that that reply is unacceptable to the Welsh people. I believe, as does my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, that Wales should be given its own environment agency, accountable initially to the Welsh Office which has the potential to co-ordinate at the Welsh level the work of all the bodies serving Welsh interests. I believe that the case for it is overwhelming.
The joint England and Wales agency will be a brand new agency controlling "bread and butter policies" over an important field. It will have far-reaching influence on the environment of Wales. Once again, the power will reside in a head office somewhere in England.
The debate about the need for Wales to have its own institutions with the necessary executive authority to take decisions in Wales has been resolved since the Second World War in favour, wherever possible, of

589
setting up separate Welsh institutions so that decisions affecting Wales can be taken in Wales. I am sorry that that principle has now been disregarded by the Welsh Office administration.
It is my experience, over a period of nearly 45 years, that we on this side have worked hard in both Houses to secure new institutions to serve the Welsh people. I recall that when we were making the case for the establishment of a Welsh Office, giving us parity with Scotland, there was a great deal of criticism from the party opposite, as, indeed, there is now, about establishing a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff. However, at the end of the day, we succeeded and the Welsh Office was set up in 1964. In the period since then it has grown into a great department of state and has performed splendid work for the Principality. Is there anyone in Wales today or, indeed, anyone in the party opposite who would vote for abolishing the Welsh Office? The answer to that question must be no, simply because of the contribution it has made to the life of Wales and because it represents the Welsh nation in Cabinet and government.
Therefore, the debate about the need for Wales to have its own institutions with the necessary executive authority has been resolved. The Bill concedes that there is a need to satisfy the "distinctive needs of Wales". It proposes to meet those needs by empowering the Secretary of State for Wales to appoint an advisory committee for Wales and for the agency to appoint specialist committees for Wales. But, as my noble friend made clear, that is a totally inadequate compromise.
We accept in our second amendment that two separate agencies for England and Wales will almost certainly require the setting up of a joint co-ordinating committee for the management of the three border rivers—the Severn, the Wye and the Dee—as the policies of the separate agencies could affect the border counties. But it should not be beyond the wit of the draftsman to design a clause to provide for such a committee. Given the comparable provision in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, such a committee would not be a dramatic novelty as some people may think.
The protection of the environment and the beauty of Wales is the duty and the privilege of the Welsh people and, therefore, of a Welsh agency such as we propose. Indeed, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 did recognise the distinctiveness of Wales as regards the need to care for and preserve its countryside. It would be utterly inconsistent not to recognise and cater for it in a similar way in the Bill. Further, to bring together the work of the countryside council and the work of the environmental agency—as proposed in the third amendment—makes sense in a Welsh connection, as all those who have any connection with Wales will agree. Reform along those lines would be workable and would meet the distinctive needs of Wales. I wonder if the proposal can be reconsidered?
Finally, perhaps I may repeat for the benefit of the Front Bench opposite the fact that there is a hardening concern and a growing impatience in Wales about the reaction to our reasonable proposals. If Ministers doubt that, let them make inquiries. Let the Secretary of State
590
show that he is making progress and learning something about Wales. Let him make contact with the Churches, with local authorities, with local organisations and with the Council of Welsh Districts. They must consult properly with the Welsh people and listen to them. Otherwise, they will go into a wilderness that they will have deserved.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: It is always a privilege and a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I hate to have to disagree with him on any proposition he puts forward. The noble Lord was a very distinguished Secretary of State for Wales. I served as Secretary of State for Wales for nearly eight years. However, I followed that particular responsibility with the chairmanship for some five years of the National Rivers Authority. Therefore, perhaps I may be permitted to say that, in this debate at least, I can bring some additional, practical experience of the management of the environment to the discussion which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, cannot.
I always seek to find something on which I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, although sometimes that is extremely difficult. I am glad I can at least agree with him in saying that it is most unfortunate that Amendment No. 216 had not been included in the group now being discussed. Clearly, it is directly consequential on the other amendments; indeed, it is almost impossible to debate the other amendments without reference to it. Therefore, I shall certainly refer to it.
I can also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, about the historic heritage of Wales and about its beauty. It is the country in which I live and the country I love. However, I have a profound disagreement with the proposal that has been advanced. It must be understood that my observations are not the idiosyncratic ideas of one individual or the eccentricities of a former Secretary of State driven demented by the responsibilities of that office or by some of the very peculiar responsibilities in which I seem to be engaged at present in connection with opera houses and other matters—which would be enough to drive almost anyone insane.
The form of the Bill and its contents are a result of very considerable consultation and discussion between the National Rivers Authority and the Secretary of State, based on our practical experience in the NRA. A picture has been conjured up today of some remote body; that is, some organisation managed in a centralist way from England. I suppose, with the head office of the NRA about five miles across the River Severn at Aztec West where the motorways M.4 and M.5 meet, a case could be made out that, at least in that sense, the head office organisation of the NRA is detached, if not remote, from the Principality.
However, 95 per cent. of the work of the NRA is actually carried out in its regional offices by local people on the spot. Overwhelmingly, the work of the NRA has been carried out, directed and organised from its office at St. Mellons and its other offices around Wales. It has been admirably advised by its advisory

591
committees. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in his place. He chaired with great distinction our fisheries advisory committee in Wales for a number of years.
The NRA has had the benefit of the advice of the special Welsh committee set up under the Water Act, which has been chaired throughout by Professor Ron Edwards, who has made a singular contribution to another part of this Bill. As Members of the Committee will be aware, he chaired a committee which advised on national parks. His advice, and that of his committee, has formed the basis of the section of the Bill which we shall debate subsequently. I am delighted that Professor Edwards has now moved to the committee which is advising on the setting up of the new agency.
I can tell the Committee without any doubt whatever that the view that it would be a mistake to have separate agencies is shared by those who work in the NRA in Wales, by its management, by its advisory committees and by its Welsh advisory committee. They take that view not because of some perverse desire to centralise. Most of them are Welsh—as Welsh as anyone taking part in this debate. They know and love the country and its environment as much as anyone. They have the advantage in respect of this debate of having been responsible for looking after Wales and doing their best to enhance and protect it for the past five years—and some of them for very much longer in their previous organisations. After much discussion and debate—because we do discuss and debate matters in Wales—they came firmly to the conclusion that it would be extremely damaging for the environment in Wales to have a separate agency.
They have equally come to the view that it is right and proper that the organisation should be structured in such a way that the agency can answer for its responsibilities in Wales to the Secretary of State for Wales. As a former Secretary of State I shall certainly not deny that proposition. A great deal of care has been taken in formulating the arrangements to ensure that that will happen.
There is no difficulty about having an agency which is responsible to more than one Secretary of State. Indeed, the NRA and the new environment agency will be answerable not only to the Secretary of State for the Environment but to the Minister of Agriculture for their flood defence and fisheries functions as well as to the Secretary of State for Wales. There is a perfectly logical and reasonable chain of command from the NRA to the Secretary of State for Wales for what it does in Wales, just as it answers to the Secretary of State for the Environment for what it does in England. It has the special advantage of its committee for Wales, chaired in Wales by a Welshman, and consisting of Welshmen who will give particular attention to the needs of Wales. I believe that over the past five years that arrangement has worked extremely well. I do not believe that it has caused any difficulty.
Why do we think it necessary to have such an arrangement, at least for the protection of the water environment, for that part of the environment agency concerned with water, fisheries and such matters? It is partly because of what the Almighty decided when he
592
created this planet on which we live. It is slightly inconvenient for those who take a totally separatist view that the rivers of Wales do not, as they do on the whole rather conveniently in the Scottish context, flow along and apart from the national boundary. They happen to cross the boundary. It happens that all, or perhaps I should say three, of the great rivers in Wales—to say "all" may be offensive to those who think that the Towy or the Teifi, or any others which Members of the Committee care to mention, are the great rivers—rise in Wales and flow to England. The Welsh Dee and the Severn cross the frontier in that way.
I mention those two rivers particularly because of the complexity of the arrangements for managing them. It is true that the Welsh Dee is perhaps one of the most closely managed rivers in the world. It is closely managed because it rises in the hills of Wales and flows through an industrial complex where there are great risks of pollution. It provides the water supply for the population of the Wirral and a considerable part of the north west. It is necessary to manage it very precisely and accurately to ensure that the water supply at the lower end is adequately protected.
Similarly, the Severn is a closely managed river system. It has a controlling reservoir in its headwaters which exists essentially not to store water which is piped to provide drinking water but to control the flow of water down the river. Water is also extracted from a groundwater system in Shropshire. The level and flow of the river is closely managed. Even with those resources and management, from time to time there are difficulties. Over the Christmas holiday there was flooding because of those difficulties.
The management of those rivers is not concerned only with flooding. Recently there was an incident in which a pollution slug flowed down the River Severn from the tributary River Wem. It had to be traced up the river by the staff of the NRA in the middle of the night for some 85 miles to its source. That was a remarkable piece of detection work.
That brings one to the nub of the issue. Any sensible arrangements for the protection of the environment of those rivers must mean that they are carried out within a single organisation. Even within that organisation, and with the separate structure which I described in relation to the existing arrangements for the NRA and proposed in the Bill for the agency, we think it right to delegate the management responsibilities to one single region of the NRA so that on an agency basis it controls the system from top to bottom.
Those who propose the amendments have tried in Amendment No. 216 to meet that point with an advisory committee. However, that misses the point. We are not concerned with general policy issues. We are concerned with the day-to-day management of an integrated and complex system in which people have to respond to emergencies and the unexpected. I do not believe that that is done wisely by means of seeking to integrate wholly separate organisations with separate managements, separate boards and separate chains of command. That is a solution fraught with danger and difficulty.

593
There are other arguments. Increasingly we find that within an organisation like the NRA—and that will be even more true of the environment agency—there is a need to set up specialist organisations to provide a service for the whole country with skills and expertise brought together in centres. To duplicate that expertise, or expertise of any kind, between two organisations—would be profoundly wasteful and an extraordinary misapplication of resources which should be devoted to protecting the environment. That was brought home to me when I first took up my responsibilities and visited the 10 water authorities. Each one showed me with pride its latest tool. It may have been an automated monitoring system or a computer system for managing some aspect of the business. The authorities had simultaneously set about inventing the wheel, not sharing their expertise or knowledge but separately taking pride in, and producing, their own solutions. It has taken five years to break down such separatism. I wish I thought that we had totally broken it down. Even today there is a tendency for people to hang on to the instruments, inventions and devices they have produced.
I believe that it would be a shocking waste of resources to establish two agencies to do the job. One can continue the argument into other aspects of the agency's affairs. I wish to refer to the work of the HMIP. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, in the past has debated the subject of orimulsion and Pembroke power station with some vigour. He has referred to the provisions needed to protect not only the environment in Wales but also the consequences of what may go wrong in a power station which may affect England and indeed Scandinavia and other countries.
It would be extraordinary to attempt to duplicate the specialist skills available in an organisation such as HMIP now being transferred into the agency, or to operate on some complex agency arrangement by which experts from one would help the Welsh to deal with specific problems. It seems a profoundly unsatisfactory way to deal with matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, listed a group of people whom the Welsh Office should have consulted. As a churchwarden at my local church, I am interested in the idea that the Welsh Office should have consulted the Church on this topic. I am a member of a PCC. I am not sure what advice the Church would have given. However, I believe that on this issue the advice firmly given by the NRA and its advisory committees, so widely representative of Welsh opinion, and by its Welsh committee under Professor Ron Edwards, is rather more valuable than the advice that it might have received from many of those sources.
The structure provided ensures that those functions which are rightly carried out in Wales—I refer to the functions of local government concerned with waste—are rightly the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. They will be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Wales. The new agency will be answerable to the Secretary of State for Wales. But those functions will be undertaken in an efficient and competent manner rather than in a wasteful manner put together for nothing more than a nationalist sentiment.
594
I find the other proposal bizarre. I can hardly credit that thinking people could suggest that it is sensible and wise to do away with the Countryside Council for Wales, so recently created, seek to merge it with an agency which has a huge range of complex responsibilities, and consider that that body is likely to do the job better. One may have other concerns about the Countryside Council for Wales. Perhaps it is wrong for me to express some anxiety as to whether it is right to have cut the budget of the Countryside Council for Wales by 17 per cent. I look forward to hearing the Government's answer to that question. I believe that the work which the Countryside Council for Wales does is important. I hope that it will be a strong and effective body.
I do not envy my noble friend Lord de Ramsey and those who will be responsible for this large and complex organisation. Not only will a totally different set of responsibilities make the job more difficult and complex for the new agency; it will cause a great deal of confusion and difficulty. There are moments when I and my colleagues in the NRA have differences of opinion with the judgments and views of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook—I am glad to see him in his place—and his organisation. We debate those issues freely and vigorously; and that is right. He and his organisation have one set of responsibilities—to advise on specific matters. There are particular skills and expertise concentrated in that organisation. My noble friend can give his advice freely and independently to government. If government accept that advice, or if the law decrees it, then the NRA, and in future the environment agency, will have to work on the decisions that have been taken on SSSIs or whatever the issue may be. But when an agency has a large number of possibly conflicting responsibilities on which people have to make difficult choices and has added to them the responsibilities of the Countryside Council for Wales, that seems a totally impossible burden if the agency is sensibly to carry out an already difficult task.
Therefore, while there are other matters we shall debate in the Bill about which I may feel moderately strongly, and upon which I may intervene from time to time, I do not believe that there is another issue on which I feel quite so strongly. Such a transfer of functions would be totally wrong in the interests of the protection of the environment which is our objective. There has been an extraordinary range of agreement around the Chamber about what we attempt to achieve. We have had differences of opinion about the exact terminology, or the interpretation of complex matters such as sustainability. But we have all had the same objective. I reject the proposal because I believe that it will damage the attainment of that objective. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the proposal.
7 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am in the unenviable position of following two distinguished Secretaries of State for Wales, one a churchwarden and the other a Presbyterian deacon. As someone who was a Presbyterian, now a member of the Church of Wales, I fall between the two.

595
First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about the proposal that the Countryside Council for Wales shall be amalgamated with the new environmental agency. It would be a serious mistake to interfere in any way in its work or structure, in particular at this stage of the council's future when it has recently been the subject of a review by the present Secretary of State for Wales and his department. Those of us who are concerned about the Welsh environment and the integration between environmental policies and agricultural policies probably have our work cut out to defend the present work of that organisation. I look forward to hearing a clear response from the Government regarding the future of the Countryside Council for Wales, in particular the future of its funding and the extremely important agri-environment of the Tir Cymen scheme which has substantially benefited both the environment and farming in large parts of rural Wales.
While disagreeing with that proposal, I wish to agree with the general proposal in the Bill that there should be a similar structure for Wales as for Scotland. I disagree theologically with my churchwarden. It would be unfair to blame Almighty God for the national border between Wales and England. I am sure that it is theologically true to say that the rivers are the result of creation. But national borders are all artificial and invented and the Welsh border is no exception. All administrative areas are invented. All the great rivers of Europe on the mainland flow across many national boundaries. That is not a problem for administration in that area. It should not be so in this country. We are now all aiming for similar environmental standards throughout the mainland of Europe within and without the European Union. Therefore we should operate the border between England and Wales in the same way.
We want the most efficient structure for caring for the environment in Wales and the impact of those activities in areas outside Wales.
I wish to emphasise the fact that we have rehearsed this argument before. I remember the arguments that were adduced in the 1960s in favour of retaining a countryside commission for England and Wales. I believe that it was the Labour government which deployed those arguments against my then colleague, Gwynfor Evans, the Member of Parliament for Carmarthen. Some Conservatives then spoke in favour of having a countryside council for Wales. We came to a stage where we had the structure of a countryside commission for England and Wales with a Welsh advisory committee. We have now reached a position where the advisory committee has been replaced by a countryside council. Very few people in the environmental movement, either within Wales or outside, would see that as a step back.
I also remember the same argument about scientific knowledge, the sharing of expertise, being applied to the amalgamation of the NCC arm in Wales, ably led by my present colleague in the private sector in an environmental capacity, Tom Pritchard, who was then a director of the NCC in Wales. That organisation was amalgamated with the Welsh arm of the countryside commission and it was felt that that would be a loss of
596
expertise, a duplication, and there would be conflict with English Nature. Of course there have been debates and arguments between various organisations but there has not been a disaster. A comprehensive countryside and conservation agency has been created.
I believe that the same process would apply if, under the Bill, we were to set up an environmental protection agency for Wales on the same basis as Scotland. The arguments for that are not those of sentiment or sentimental nationalism. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, would ever accuse me of being a sentimental nationalist; I may be a nationalist, but not a sentimental one.
My arguments on the structure are entirely to do with the present structure of Welsh government. I am a strong supporter of the present Government's devolution policy. Let me spell out what I mean by that. The present Government have devolved more institutions administratively to Wales than even the previous Labour government. We have the funding councils for higher and further education and there is the countryside council. All the structures have been created. The exception is the National Rivers Authority—the water industry. In most other areas a separate Welsh body has been set up, directly accountable to the Welsh Office.
I appreciate the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that the agency can be accountable to more than one Secretary of State. However, my anxiety is that because of the present structure of the agency the advisory committee for Wales will not be a sufficiently powerful body to deal in a positive way with all the environmental issues that we shall cover.
I have complete confidence in the present personnel of the NRA and HMIP as they operate. I have seen them all in action in different contexts with river pollution, industrial pollution, and so on. I regard Ron Edwards as a good friend and someone in whom I have complete confidence, both as a committee person and a policy adviser.
That is not the issue. The issue is whether it would be more effective to have the clear structure of an agency than to have this present structure of an England and Wales agency with yet another advisory committee. There are other relevant amendments later, I hope we will not reach them this evening but they will come in our next debate. We shall then look at proposals to rename and strengthen the committee and that is something to which we shall return.
Perhaps we may look at the structure of whether or not there should be a separate Welsh agency. The arguments are to do with the structure of present government in Wales, the structure of the Welsh Office itself, the nature of the semi-autonomous environmental movements there and the fact that it would enable us to work within the quasi-federal system with which Welsh higher and further education and the countryside in Wales are already working.
In a sense the Government are taking a step backwards. I read between the lines of the Second Reading debate. Unfortunately, I missed it because of a particularly virulent bout of 'flu—it was not just a Welsh virus but a cross-border one from which other people have suffered. I read between the lines of the

597
debate that at one stage the Government considered the possibility of establishing a Welsh agency. I do not know whether it was the decision of the present Secretary of State or his officials that that should not happen. We shall not know that for some time. I suspect that it may have something to do with the argument that has been adduced quite strongly in Wales recently about the proliferation of nominated bodies.
I wish to end by being slightly critical of the Labour Party. My view is that the Labour Party's incessant campaign—not so much here but in another place—against nominated bodies in Wales has played into the hands of the Government. It has meant that the Government can now say with their hand on their heart, "We're not going to create any more nominated bodies, Welsh quangos; we're going to create an England and Wales agency with a Welsh advisory committee". My advice to the Labour Party is: remember what these bodies are. The nominated bodies have come into existence because of the transitional nature of the relationship between Wales and Westminster. I am not and never have been a separatist; I am a European federalist. I believe that sooner rather than later there will be an elected assembly for Wales where all these nominated bodies can be brought to greater account.
In the meantime, I think that it is in the interests of Wales to create as many nominated bodies as we can within the present structure, so that those bodies will be able to develop policies and a positive administrative structure to run the existing level of government in the Principality. That will be anathema to some Conservative and Labour people and even some members of my own party. I believe that the present state and nature of government in Wales is such that the only way in which we can make progress is by creating a series of nominated bodies which work within the current system. Beyond that, we can look for democracy. Meanwhile, I argue strongly for a separate environmental agency for Wales, for reasons of practical government, and against any agency which takes over the responsibilities of or interferes with the already beleaguered countryside council.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may bring us back from jargon and whether the Labour Party has encouraged Conservatism in Wales to the realities of the amendments. I should like for a moment to speak as the president of the CPRW. I have the highest regard for the Countryside Council for Wales and I wish that to go on the record because it is under serious attack from the Welsh Office. As Members of the Committee have mentioned, morale in the CCW is not good. Although originally I opposed the creation of the CCW, I believe it has performed an excellent task and done extremely well.
Nevertheless, we must consider—not just with national sentiment, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said—what is best for Wales. Our position is that we join the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in wishing there to be a separate agency for Wales under the Bill. But we do not believe—and I say this in all seriousness—
598
that that agency will have the critical mass that is required to be a proper environmental agency for the whole of Wales unless the activities of CCW are brought into it.
It is simple. I accept that the cultures may be rather different, that CCW has a different origin. There are the NRA, the HMIP, the local authorities, waste management, and so on. I believe—and I am supported in the view strongly by the executives of CCW—that a full-scale environmental agency for Wales is required and is what the Welsh would like. I hope that the denigratory remarks that have been made about CCW will be modified to the extent that if CCW were brought into a Welsh agency, within the remit of the Bill, it would provide for Wales a full-scale environmental agency such as we need.
I am disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, say that the Welsh district councils do not wish it, the NRA in Wales does not wish it and the regional NRA does not wish it. That may well be the case. But the NRA is only one of the three elements that will make up the agency as set out in the Bill.
So far as the HMIP is concerned, there are serious reservations from the Association of District Councils in Wales about the investigations and delays that stem from the HMIP. I have to say that we are not at all happy that the HMIP is performing in a way that responds to the requirement of the people of Wales. It may well be that the regional NRA is efficient in Wales—indeed, I have my own experience in regard to the activities of the NRA on the Wye, the Ithon, the Irfon and the Severn. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will nevertheless accept that there is no reason why some of the expertise that is in the NRA in Wales should not be shared with others. There is no reason why the co-operation between the NRA in Wales and that in England should not be shared with Scotland and vice versa. Technology does not necessarily mean frontiers that cannot be—
Lord Crickhowell: There is no reason, except human nature and human experience. I can only tell the noble Lord that it is difficult enough sometimes, even within an own organisation, to get regions to co-operate. To have separate bodies involved and with the degree of co-operation that he urges is, I have to say sadly, against all my experience in dealing with these matters.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord may say that, but as the chairman of a quango myself in the past, I can say that it is possible to break through these barriers if you have the right type of management. It is just a question perhaps of having the right chairman or chief executive.
It seems to me odd that the argument for a separate organisation for Wales should rest on the grounds of legality. It seems odd that the argument that the Government adduce—namely, that they need an advisory committee for Wales rather than a body which is of itself Welsh—should be based purely on the fact that the Scots have a different legal system.
My noble friend, Lord Cledwyn has put very succinctly the arguments for a Welsh agency. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies will respond after the noble

599
Viscount, Lord Ullswater, has given the government view. I wish to intervene only in order to make sure that Members of this Committee are in no doubt at all that we rebut the argument that there can be no separate agency for Wales and the argument of the NRA, as represented by its present chairman, that there can be no separate agency in Wales.
The Earl of Selborne: Perhaps I may intervene. I shall be very brief. I specifically want to say a word in addressing Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 on the Countryside Council for Wales. I declare an interest as chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which, as Members of the Committee will know, is partially funded by the Countryside Council for Wales.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in which he explained to us why it was in the interests of nature conservation in Wales to abolish the Countryside Council for Wales and make it effectively a subset of the proposed Welsh agency. Members from all sides of the Committee—as indeed they were at Question Time—have been highly supportive of the Countryside Council for Wales, and rightly so. That body has fulfilled all that Parliament expected of it when it was set up under the Environmental Protection Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that he was fully supportive of the Countryside Council for Wales. Therefore the word used by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell understated the issue. If this quango—which it clearly is—nevertheless fulfils precisely the role, and is held in such high regard not only in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom, and is recognised to have carried through many initiatives which have an application elsewhere, it seems unfortunate that, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—perhaps I may just make this point and the noble Lord will have something to grasp on.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I would be grateful, if the noble Lord would allow me to intervene. It is because it is doing such a good job, and because the Welsh agency needs a critical mass. It is for that reason that we wish to put CCW into the new agency. It is not to abolish it.
The Earl of Selborne: I understood precisely what the noble Lord said the first time: he wanted to achieve critical mass in the new Welsh agency by putting the Countryside Council for Wales inside it. That seems to me to suggest that the interests of nature conservation in Wales—which are being extremely efficiently fulfilled at the moment by the quango called the Countryside Council for Wales—are to be put at risk by that organisation being subsumed into the Welsh agency which will otherwise lack critical mass. I use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He may not like the phrase "critical mass" but he has now used it twice. I urge the noble Lord to look at the record of the Countryside Council for Wales and judge the issue that is propounded in Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 on one very simple criterion: which body will best look after
600
nature conservation and countryside policy in Wales? I believe that that means that the Committee could not possibly support those two amendments.
Lord Moran: I, too, shall be very brief. I was a little surprised that both the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas should have said that they were looking forward to the reply from the Government about the funding of the Countryside Council for Wales, because the Government gave an interim reply at Question Time today. Having myself then gone into bat for the Countryside Council for Wales—and I entirely share the views of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne about the excellence of the work that it does—I was, I must confess, surprised and disconcerted to see the wording of Amendment No. 129 on the Marshalled List beginning with the schedule:
"Dissolution of Countryside Council for Wales: Consequential Amendments".
It is a profound mistake constantly to tinker with organisations. One must think of the staff in them who are trying to do an important job. It is essential to leave them alone for a period of years and give them adequate funding so that they can work out their priorities and do their job effectively. The Countryside Council for Wales has existed for only a few years. It would be disastrous to dissolve it now and merge it with another organisation. There would be tremendous upheaval and great anxiety; and the work that it does would be seriously put back.
I should like to make just one other point. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, I was associated with the Welsh region of the NRA in an advisory capacity for five years. I was a member of the Welsh Secretary's advisory committee. Therefore I had a very good opportunity to see how that organisation worked. In my judgment it worked extremely effectively. We felt very Welsh. We were very proud of what the staff were doing in the Welsh region. We very often felt that we were ahead of what was being done by the other regions (I expect that they felt the same). It worked well. I can think of no problems that arose during that five years from the fact that there was a single organisation. We felt in no sense that we were subject merely to blind direction from London or Bristol.
In conclusion, I should like to re-emphasise what I said at Second Reading. I said that it was essential in any reorganisation that we preserve the integrity of the river catchments and that the arrangements under which the Wye is run by the Welsh region and the Severn is run by Severn Trent have worked extremely well and give rise to no difficulties at all. To tinker with that, to try to alter it and, moreover, to try to divide those rivers and the Dee somewhere along their length in line with a political boundary would, I believe, be a profound mistake. I hope that we shall not for a moment contemplate doing that.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Parry: In the decade or so since I ceased to be chairman of the Wales Tourist Board, I have had the opportunity and privilege of working very closely in environmental matters nationally and internationally

601
with the Keep Britain Tidy organisation. I do not cite either the Wales Tourist Board or the Tidy Britain organisation. It is a tradition in this Chamber and one that we have always observed that when a noble Lord rose to speak, if there might be an implication that the speaker spoke authoritatively for an organisation of which he was a member, the Addison Rules were cited and the speaker made it perfectly clear that he did not so speak.
It is a fact that there are organisations set up nationally which work very effectively within Wales with their counterparts—for example, the Wales Tourist Board. I served under the former Secretary of State for Wales, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The Wales Tourist Board found it very easy indeed to work within its own borders and with its own people, creating its own ethos and emphasis and at the same time representing Wales strongly within the British Tourist Authority.
Others have served even longer than I in the interests of Wales. They will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that it is true that the creation of the Wales Tourist Board unexpectedly took place as the result of an afterthought on a Friday afternoon in the other place. Yet that organisation has stood the test of time. It has been examined by Conservative Governments' investigating committees. It has been found to be effective and cost-effective and to work within the borders of Wales. Since I left the organisation, it has also extended its activities by winning the right to represent itself overseas. It does so individually and directly. At the same time it co-operates in the interests of Britain with the British Tourist Authority.
When my noble friend moved this amendment he said nothing that criticised or in any way suggested that the servants, executives or serving members on boards of existing organisations were incompetent. That is an unfortunate aspect introduced by accident into the debate. We know the competence of the people who serve those bodies within Wales—Welsh and English immigrants. I sympathise with the noble Lord opposite who as an Englishman found himself baffled by some of the nuances of the debate. I have never lived anywhere other than in Wales and in the past hour or so have found myself baffled by some of the didactic views that have been taken.
But that cannot be separated from the unease within Wales about the fact that local government structures which have been long in place, are long respected and contribute so much to the evolution not only of Wales but of Great Britain have been misrepresented, have been insulted and have seen their powers taken away from them. It is also a fact that over the past 15 years an inordinate number of people have found their way into certain positions and have represented interests without having declared their own position. I have served on quangos and never thought that it was something that I should be ashamed of doing. I chaired the Wales Tourist Board with immense pride and joy. I did it because I believed that, as evolution occurs in a democracy, it is essential to create organisations which serve in a different way.
602
If it is possible to represent and develop a new and vital part of the Welsh economy—and tourism is that—with a body chosen deliberately to be properly able to represent Wales, what on earth is wrong with doing the same here? I know the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and know that it did not cross his mind that he was urging his case as chairman of the National Rivers Authority. That thought did not occur for a moment. But there is a group of National Rivers Authority people who work under his general guidance but most particularly in the interests of Wales.
I live on the River Cleddau. So did the noble Lord. It does not empty anywhere other than into the Irish Sea. I have no need to be emotional about the beauties of Wales, as though they were opposed to or contrary to the beauties of England. But I feel passionately—at my age, which is now entering the last decade of the seven that I was promised—that the people who represent their own nation should be understood when they express their unease.
The present Secretary of State for Wales is an Englishman. He is a highly intellectual and intelligent Englishman. But he has to learn about the nation over which he presides. He has to learn some of those things that are part of the blood. I support this amendment not because of any of the points that have been made but because I believe that at this time this Government should make a gesture toward Wales. They should say that, if there is unease about the way in which appointments are made, we will create here a body that will win the respect of Wales and be able to carry out the work without in any way contradicting the value of work done elsewhere.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 12, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, seeks to establish separate environment agencies in England and in Wales. A separate Welsh agency, which would be set up under this amendment, would operate completely independently of the English agency.
The option of separate agencies was considered in 1991 when the initial proposals to set up an environment agency were made. Following a wide-ranging consultation exercise, the Government decided that a joint agency would be most effective in improving environmental protection across England and Wales. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell indicated the amount and depth of that consultation process.
A joint agency has a number of benefits, including cost-effectiveness through avoiding the need for the maintenance of two separate boards, committee structures, headquarters and so on. A separate Welsh agency would necessarily be relatively small compared with the proposed environment agency. That is already well understood by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. It would not have access to the equivalent depth of expertise, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell pointed out. So far from being more effective, there is a real risk that a separate agency would in practice be weaker.
However, the main reason for the Government's decision was that the problems that the environment agency will need to address are common to both England and Wales and the agency will need to apply

603
common solutions. A joint agency for England and Wales will operate to consistent standards of regulation throughout England and Wales, which has not been the case in the past under separate systems; for example, in the regulation of waste management by local authorities across England and Wales.
This evening we heard from two distinguished former Secretaries of State for Wales with very different views. My right honourable friend the present Secretary of State for Wales will be responsible for setting the policy framework within which the environment agency will discharge its functions in Wales and the agency will report to him on its operations in Wales. There will also be arrangements for Welsh Office Ministers to have an input into the policy and the corporate planning processes of the agency, and those will be defined in a memorandum of understanding between the agency and the Welsh Office.
My noble friend will be responsible also for the appointment of one member to the agency board and the Welsh interests will be further protected by the existence of the Advisory Committee for Wales. That committee will advise my right honourable friend on the issues relating to the agency's activities in the Principality and inform his input into the agency's corporate planning process.
There will be an environment protection advisory committee for the Welsh region which will advise the agency itself on the specific needs of Wales and matters of particular relevance to its operations in Wales. The chairman of that committee will be appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales; he will also approve the membership scheme prepared by the agency for its Welsh region and in doing so will ensure that its composition reflects a representative balance of interests. The National Rivers Authority was set up on an England and Wales basis and the arrangements for the authority to take the needs of Wales fully into account has been very successful.
I feel that the Committee should listen most carefully to the words of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. His experience in the working of the NRA is most valuable and I do not intend to comment further on it except to say that he put my case most eloquently. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, nevertheless finds the situation to be unacceptable to Wales. I am sorry about that and should like to point out that one of the difficulties that arises is immediately apparent from the suggestion in Amendment No. 216. Immediately one thinks of setting up an agency dealing with Wales one realises that an arrangement must be made for some of the river catchment areas across the borders. In relation to Amendment No. 216, if there were two agencies in England and Wales there would need to be co-ordination between them. That amendment identifies some of the difficulties inherent in having two agencies and what should be done about river catchments crossing the border. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell spelt out carefully some of the difficulties that may arise.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Selborne that the concept of having to table Amendments Nos. 128 and 129, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, did, to seek to dissolve the Countryside Council for Wales (on the basis
604
that the agency would not have a critical mass unless it absorbed the functions of the Countryside Council for Wales and transferred them to the Welsh agency) reinforces in my mind that he is aware that the agency would be a weak agency and would need to deal with other matters in order to give it critical mass.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am not sure that the noble Viscount understood the argument. I shall put it for the third time. Wales needs a proper environment agency. An environment agency consists of people who deal with rivers and people who deal with river banks. It is absurd to suggest that we can have an agency which goes six inches beyond the river and another which starts at that point and then goes on to the river bank. That is the situation which would persist if we had a separate agency for Wales without the Countryside Council for Wales coming in. That is my point.
Viscount Ullswater: The noble Lord makes that point now; he made a different point in his original statement to the Committee.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I know what I am talking about.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that the body that will be created by the transfer of these functions would have too wide a remit to operate effectively. While I appreciate the reasons for the amendments, a combined body is unnecessary as there is a clear divide between water and pollution aspects of the environment and the nature conservation and countryside elements. Such a major upheaval would not be in the interests of nature conservation in Wales. It would also create problems in the relationship with the distinct countryside bodies in England and Scotland. However, my right honourable friend is currently examining whether there is scope for a better focus of the functions of the Countryside Council for Wales by considering whether some might more appropriately be undertaken by local authorities. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that that consideration is going on at present.
We also had the benefit of hearing the views of my noble friend Lord Selborne on this matter, as chairman of the JNCC and the views of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. Taken together with the distinct view of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I believe that the amendments would create an unwieldy and unfocused body in Wales which would not enhance pollution control or nature conservation in Wales. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part in this important debate on the three amendments. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Selborne, said in relation to two of them. We take note of that. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn—a former Secretary of State and Minister for Agriculture—for coming to the Committee this afternoon, staying here for almost five hours and giving us the benefit of his wisdom.

605
I listened, with interest, as always, to what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, had to say. I shall reflect upon it. But I respectfully suggest that we should not be overwhelmed by his contribution to the debate this evening. I, as a mere Pontypridd solicitor, with no specialist knowledge of the field, suggest that his ideas as expressed this evening to the Committee are too sweeping and possibly too coloured by his experience as a chairman of the NRA—
indeed, a notable chairman of the NRA. My noble friend Lord Williams made the point that water is only one of the environmental resources of Wales.
I was disappointed but not entirely surprised by the Minister's response. He did not depart an inch from his position at Second Reading. But, having listened to him this evening, it seems to me that there is a difference in treatment between Scotland and Wales which arises in the main because of the important river basins on the border. I felt that we acknowledged that there was a problem with the three river basins—the Wye, the Dee and the Severn. But we also believe that Amendment No. 216 meets that difficulty. There is a precedent for that amendment in the arrangements which one finds in the unitary states of Europe and, in particular, in Germany, Belgium and France.
I hope that the debate will give the Government food for thought and that they will take the advice of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and think again—though I confess that I see no glimmer of hope that they will do so. It must be said from this side of the House that if the principle of a separate environment agency is not acceptable to Conservative Ministers in 1995, the whole question will be reopened when the next Labour Government are in office in the not too distant future. Therefore, I am confident that the England and Wales agency as proposed by the Bill will not endure into the future. I am also confident that that function, sooner or later, will be discharged by an elected Welsh Assembly. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage resumes again not before 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Tourist Boards: Future Role
7.50 p.m.
Lord Mountevansrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they propose as the future role of the statutory tourist boards.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity, and I am grateful to the usual channels for giving it to me, to introduce tonight's short debate on tourism, in which I declare an interest.
606
Before sketching out the background and then raising concerns, I should like to take the opportunity of paying a brief tribute to our late friend, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. Reading the obituaries one realises what a bright diamond and what a multifaceted one he was. One wishes one had known him better and known him longer, but one also rejoices that one had known him at all. He was for several years a vice-president of the London Tourist Board and an active participant in our tourism debates, always fighting for more funds for the promotion of London. Noble Lords can imagine how delighted he was when, in the face of a difficult spending round, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my noble friend the Minister for Tourism were able to secure and then announce such funds on Budget day.
Tourism is, as those of us who have been involved in it know, one of this country's most important industries. It accounts for one third of all service sector exports—that is more than the financial services sector—and for well over 5 per cent. of GDP. Domestic and overseas visitors together spend perhaps £90 million each day. Around 1.5 million people depend on the industry for their livelihood. Those are impressive figures, as I am sure your Lordships will agree. But tourism has not in the past, in spite of the combined efforts of the tourist boards and the industry trade associations, got the recognition it deserves, mainly, I suspect, because it is a fragmented industry made up in many cases of very small businesses.
I have been most encouraged that the Government have paid more than lip service to the importance of the industry. The extra funds that I have already mentioned for the promotion of London are tangible proof of this enhanced commitment, and very welcome they are to us all. However, at the risk of seeming ungrateful, I want to sound a cautionary note and put down some markers for further thought.
I said that the figures I have just quoted about the tourism industry were impressive, as indeed they are, but other figures are less so, which should give the Government pause for thought. Between 1980 and 1991 international tourism to the United Kingdom grew at an annual rate of 5.7 per cent. That sounds quite good until one compares it with the world average of 8.5 per cent. We did not even keep up with the European average of 7.6 per cent. When one looks at the growth rates of the Americas—more than 10 per cent.—and the region with the fastest rate of growth—East Asia and the Pacific—where the average annual growth amounted to an amazing 15 per cent., one begins to realise the scale of the competition we are up against.
My message is that we cannot rest on our laurels and assume that people will automatically wish to take their holidays here. Domestic and overseas visitors have to be persuaded that this country offers what they want in a holiday. The Government, the tourist boards and the tourism industry all have a part to play in this.
When people talk about tourism they tend to think about international tourism and forget about people taking holidays in their own country. Yet there are very few—I should go so far as to say no—tourist facilities in this country which can survive on income from overseas

607
visitors alone. We ignore the importance of domestic tourism at our peril. Over the past 10 years, the balance of spending by British residents on overseas and home holidays has completely reversed. In 1983, less than half the money spent on holidays by the British went on holidays abroad. Ten years later, well over
half the money flowed overseas, and I understand that the situation has worsened since then. We now have a negative balance of payments on the tourism account where we used to have a positive one.
When I spoke almost exactly two years ago in this House on the role of the statutory tourist boards, I mentioned my concern at the disparity in funding between the boards, and particularly between the English, Scottish and Wales Tourists Boards. The gap has in fact widened since then, with what I can only describe as further savage budget cuts to the English Tourist Board, whose grant-in-aid has been reduced from more than £23 million in 1988–89 to only £10 million in the coming financial year. The Scottish and Wales Tourist Boards have over the same period had their budgets increased, with the Scottish Tourist Board having just been given additional money specifically for domestic promotion, following a substantial decline in visitors to Scotland from other parts of this country. I fail to understand how the parts of Great Britain can be so differently treated. It is not enough for government to hide behind the excuse that matters pertaining to the scottish and Wales Tourist Boards are the responsibility of their respective Secretaries of State. The problems of attracting visitors, of stimulating investment and of reducing seasonality are no different in, say, Cornwall than in West Wales or Northern Scotland.
The British Tourist Authority—my erstwhile colleagues—continues to do excellent work overseas, each year picking up more and more accolades for its work. It has been voted top tourist office in countries as far apart as Australia, the US and Ireland. Equally gratifying to those who work for it is the number of foreign tourist offices which are now imitating our methods and as gratifying to my colleagues is the number of foreign governments who are coming to the BTA to ask how to do the job. However, the budget cuts inflicted on the English Tourist Board have hampered not only the English Tourist Board's work but also that of the authority. Since 1985, as a result of one of the numerous government reviews to which the boards have been subject, the BTA and ETB have had a joint chairman, occupied the same building and shared some joint departments serving both boards. The cuts and redundancies at ETB have left the BTA facing increased costs if it is to pick up the tab for things which the English Tourist Board can no longer afford to do or watch while valuable functions are dropped or drastically scaled down.
On a wider scale, in looking at facilities which are of importance to visitors overseas, the Government have, without apparent consistent reason, treated England, Scotland and Wales differently. Why has the English Tourist Board been required by the Department of National Heritage to review its involvement with accommodation classification and grading schemes, when the Scottish Tourist Board, with, I understand,
608
Scottish Office backing, has been developing similar schemes in Scotland? Why has the value of the English Tourist Board's work with tourist information centres been questioned when that of the Scottish Tourist Board and Wales Tourist Board has not? The overseas visitor has the same need for information on where to go and what to see, the same need for reassurance on accommodation quality, wherever he is in our country. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me today that the Government's commitment to these important aspects of the English Tourist Board's work is not in doubt and that funding will continue.
A truly national approach to the challenges facing the tourism industry is needed if we are to succeed in helping this country maintain, let alone improve, its market share. I hope that the Government will be working towards achieving this, not least by supporting the work of the national tourist boards against consistent criteria for England, Scotland and Wales in persuading our people to take more holidays here and in encouraging the highest standards in what we offer to our visitors from home and abroad, and by continuing to back the excellent work of the British Tourist Authority overseas. I understand that the boards are making substantial progress in working more closely together on marketing and development issues. May I hope to see the Government adopting a similar Britain-wide stance? It will be to the benefit of us all.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I too wish to pay a brief tribute to our friend and colleague the late Lord Pitt of Hampstead. I first met him in 1959 when I lived in Hampstead. But much later on in 1964 I was the last ever Parliamentary Secretary in the Colonial Office, before it was absorbed by the Commonwealth Office. I found that David's reputation and his name opened many doors in the Caribbean which would otherwise have remained closed. There can be few people held in such esteem simultaneously in their own country and in high office in the United Kingdom, as was abundantly true of David Pitt. That includes, of course, his work for the London Tourist Board.
My own concern about contemporary tourism in the United Kingdom is centred in my own country, which is Wales. With the desperate decline in the major industries of coal and steel and in certain areas of agriculture, proportionately tourism is far more important for Wales than it is for England. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, who opened the debate will, I am sure, bear that in mind. It is a very obvious consideration to those of us who live and work in Wales.
I do not agree very often with the Secretary of State for Wales. What he is doing for local government is extremely disturbing. But in the matter of tourism he has been genuinely helpful. Last May he launched the Wales Tourist Board's current strategy, "Tourism 2000", which has won considerable praise.
The Wales Tourist Board is one of the four set up in 1969. It is now an independent statutory body financed primarily by the Welsh Office. In 1992 Wales obtained legal consent to market directly overseas, which was bestowed on Scotland in 1984. The Wales Tourist Board

609
has proceeded from strength to strength and taken over some of the responsibilities of the Welsh Development Agency in promoting private sector activities.
Should some noble Lords believe that these initiatives in Wales might fragment British overseas touring interests, I am assured that the precise opposite has happened. There is now the most carefully co-ordinated programme drawn up by the Wales Tourist Board with the British Tourist Authority and with BTA managers overseas.
People in Wales have become steadily more active and interested, especially where North America is concerned. Just recently we sent a delegation across the Atlantic which included not only officials and business people, but our outstanding soloist, Bryn Terfel, our "special ambassador" from the Land of Song. He sang at the Metropolitan.
At home the Wales Tourist Board has established excellent customer-care training schemes, particularly for small and family businesses, so far with over 20,000 participants. That is a pretty good record. In 1984 only two tourist information centres in Wales were open throughout the year. Now there are nearly 50.
I could go on but time forbids. We are doing very well, thank you, in Wales. Independence has paid off well. We should be allowed to expand and to thrive. I have no doubt that that is the best course for Wales and for Britain.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for giving me the opportunity of perhaps catching up with tourism. I have to declare an interest in that I run two very small tourist attractions. I have been a member of the East Anglian Tourist Board since it started. I was chairman for some six years and have been vice-president for the past six years, so I feel that I know something about tourism as it was.
It is getting late because of a certain Welsh question which we had just now. They are different from people in London. People in East Anglia, and particularly in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, are also very different from people in London. They have felt that for a very long time. Over the past few years I have watched with dismay the amount of money which the Government have handed out to the national tourist boards diminishing in real terms, particularly to the English Tourist Board. As far as I am concerned, support from the English Tourist Board to the regional boards has also diminished; perhaps not as rapidly, but certainly it has diminished. This year the East Anglian Tourist Board will expect to get some £60,000 less from the English Tourist Board than it had the year before.
I ask the Minister this question: do the Government still support the concept of regional boards or do they expect members of the boards to pick up that shortfall? Is this in fact a form of creeping privatisation? I have noticed also that the London Tourist Board—bless it because when I was involved with tourist boards it was in a fairly parlous state—has managed to attract yet further money from the Government, I believe from
610
Vision 2000. I also noticed that in the last Budget statement a certain amount of what I would have called "tourist money" went to the CBI. I understand that it has a tourist action group which is looking into benchmarking.
Can the Government tell me how they view the London Tourist Board's work? Is it something particularly special? How do the Government view the work of the CBI in its relationship with the English Tourist Board? I am a little out of date, but can the Minister define what "benchmarking" actually means and why the national tourist boards cannot do it themselves?
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has already touched on standards. Do the Government support the English Tourist Board's decision to give classification to accommodation more like that in Scotland than has been run in England for the past 10 years or so, or are the Government still sitting on the fence and not giving advice?
Do the Government still support the concept of tourist information centres being subsidised—as, indeed, they are —not in their actual day-to-day running, but in their training and the host of things which make tourist information centres places which the public should aim for? I believe that the native public should also go to tourist information centres. They are not just for foreigners. Do the Government believe, as I suspect, that the network of tourist information centres is now secure, mature and should be self-supporting? Perhaps that also should be privatised. I fear what would happen if it were. The larger tourism operators would in fact take advantage of it and any form of privatisation would militate against the thousands of smaller attractions, which would not be able to afford to use the network.
I now turn to green tourism. Not long ago that concept seemed to find favour with both the Government and the tourist boards. Perhaps I may quote from a recent letter from the English Tourist Board to the Council for the Protection of Rural England in response to a request for a meeting on the subject. The English Tourist Board stated:
"Having lost over half our total staff numbers in two years, it has become increasingly difficult to find time for some of the things which are important rather than urgent. Hence, at least for the time being, much of our work of 'sustainability' has had to be put on the back burner".
That is to say, the English Tourist Board has not the resources to carry out green tourism. Would the Minister like to comment on that one? Finally, I understood that the Government were about to issue a policy statement on tourism. When will that emerge or are we in for a major statement tonight?
8.10 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Mountevans for raising this question this evening, but perhaps I should say first that this debate gives me an opportunity to join in the tributes that have been paid to our late friend Lord Pitt. I valued his friendship and was always very grateful for the friendly and sound advice that he gave me so readily on

611
the many occasions on which I sought it. I shall miss him—perhaps not least for—how shall I put it?—his merry little chuckle.
The debate also gives us an opportunity to discuss briefly the tourism industry. I should like to dwell on the status of the smaller hotels. We all agree about the vital importance of the industry to our balance of payments problems. My noble friend dwelt on that. If tourism's importance is to continue, it is essential that visitors obtain good value for money whatever the standard of the hotel in which they choose to stay. They would then return home happily, spread the good news about the excellence of our accommodation, and other visitors would flock in. Sadly, I do not believe that that is always the case—certainly not in London in the relatively smaller hotels. There are innumerable complaints.
It is most important that there is some control to uphold standards. At the moment, hoteliers can fill in a form stating the type of accommodation and facilities that they offer and thereby obtain a relevant crown rating, albeit without the tourist board commendation. But there is no guarantee that those facilities will remain. The bar or restaurant may be open in the evenings or it may be closed. Such hoteliers advertise in tourist board brochures. When the foreign visitor sees four stars or a crown, he thinks that that is all that he needs to know. The fact that there is no tourist board commendation is immaterial to him because it means nothing to him. He probably will not understand it anyway. As the standards are lower in such hotels than in four-star commended hotels, prices are slightly lower so tourists go to those and are often bitterly disappointed. He may complain, but if he has booked for a week, he will have to pay for that. In any case, he probably will not be able to get in anywhere else. With his possibly small command of the language, he is at a tremendous disadvantage, but the hotelier does not care. He will never see the tourist again anyway.
I understand that the Department of National Heritage, which sponsors the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board, has conducted a review of the work of the tourist boards. In its report it said that it wants to give priority to reinvigorating the accommodation sector and to further strengthening the grading and classification scheme. Indeed, holiday homes and caravan parks are already quality graded as an integral part of the classification inspection process. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can tell me whether the Government have ever considered legislation giving tourist boards powers to operate a licensing scheme on which it would be obligatory for all hotels to register. That could be self-financing given that at present in order to achieve commended status a fee has to be paid to the board. If all hotels participated, the fee would be correspondingly less and affordable, and revenue would be generated. Such a scheme within the quality grading and classification process would do much to improve standards and value for money in hotels of all levels. That power could easily be delegated to the tourist boards to enforce. It would bring about more competition within the industry as hotels would start renovating and upgrading in order to compete.
612
However, if individual small hotels are to start investing their capital in order to upgrade, they need more incentives for expansion. That means that there must be some relaxation in the very stringent planning regulations. If a small hotel wishes to acquire a vacant adjoining property in order to expand, it seems that at present there is very little hope of it being granted planning permission for a change of use. Even though it could clearly demonstrate that the demand was there, it is highly unlikely that it would get that permission. One often wonders why. In fact, one often wonders about planning.
I know of one relatively small hotel in London. It is an excellent hotel. It is absolutely first-class and, if not the best, it is one of the best of its kind in London. That hotel has a small plaque outside the front door showing its tourist board four-crown commendation. The plaque is not in anyone's way. It is not obstructing anyone's vision and I cannot see what harm it is doing, but it has to be taken down. Why? Because no other hotel in that area has such a sign. But that hotel is the only hotel in that area to be entitled to such a plaque, so why should it not let the visitor looking for accommodation know it? It seems to me to be bureaucracy gone mad, but I suppose that that is the planners' thinking.
Visitors from overseas want to come to London. They want to come to Britain. We do not want them to go away unhappy and if we are to compete with the other capitals and countries of Europe we must make sure that they do not. Given the powers, the tourist boards are the means of ensuring that.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I too must express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for making this debate possible and for his words about Lord Pitt, whom we have sadly lost. Many noble Lords knew David Pitt a lot longer than I did. I first met him 20 years ago when I signed him up as, I think, the first Labour parliamentarian to join the then National Committee for Electoral Reform. I know from talking to him just before his sad death that he was much encouraged by progress in that area. He was a good friend to many noble Lords and is very much missed.
Tourism is an important subject. The OECD predicts that by the turn of the century tourism will be the largest single industry in the world, so it is relevant to ask how we are doing in Britain. How do we measure up? There have been some signal successes and we should express our appreciation to the many people who work creatively in tourism for those successes.
Overall, however—the Government should be concerned about this—we are not doing as well as we should. Our market share of global tourism has fallen over the past decade from approximately 6 per cent. to approximately 4.3 per cent. Had we maintained our market share, it would have added about 10 per cent. in employment terms to the 1.5 million people who are employed in the tourism industry—in other words, perhaps another 150,000 jobs. It would certainly have produced in earnings or revenue another £9 billion to add to the £30 billion that tourism already represents, with all that that would have meant for our balance of

613
payments. So we are talking about something that is of the greatest possible significance to the national economy. If one is not doing as well as one should—I do not think that that point is arguable—I suppose that any competent marketing manager in industry would ask "Why?" and would raise questions about the product, its price and promotion. Such a marketing manager would ask, "What could we do better?"
As regards the product, this beautiful country may not have dependable sun, surf or snow, but it has some of the most incomparably beautiful countryside in the world. We have a wealth of historical buildings and a vibrant contemporary culture. There is nothing wrong with the product in Britain as a whole or in Wales, Scotland or the regions. This is an attractive place for people to visit. The answer must lie in the marketing—the way we present the country and the prices we set (the prices of our hotels are high compared to those in many other parts of the world); the service we offer; our salesmanship; and, above all, the marketing budget. Are we spending enough in the right way to promote this country's tourism around the world?
The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, asked about bench-marking. I do not want to anticipate the Minister's reply, but I believe that bench-marking means measuring oneself against the best of the competition. I wonder whether we are doing as well as we should internationally against the best of the competition. That is why the tourist boards are important and why it is important to have a clear statement of the Government's intentions and whether they are honourable; whether they see the tourist boards having a continuing and, I hope, an expanding place in the constellation of marketing effort that goes into British tourism.
There are problems. The Minister will know that Bill Davis, the former chairman of the BTA, said:
"the Government have no consistent strategy. I have served three different Secretaries of State, all of whom had their own priorities".
There is a question about consistency. This is an area where we must think long term, as other countries and the regions of other countries do. There is the question of co-ordination. There are so many departments involved. There are the Departments of Transport, the Environment and National Heritage. In the Government's own paper Tourism in the UK they talked about establishing strong and co-ordinated leadership for all tourism sectoral interests. Co-ordination is demonstrably not as good as it should be. Now we have the cutbacks to which several noble Lords have referred. The English tourist boards have lost over half their staff numbers in the past two years.
I should like to ask the Minister about Northern Ireland, for which I have some responsibilities from these Benches. Now that Northern Ireland is relatively so much more peaceful and the prospects of it becoming permanently peaceful are improving, it must become a more attractive tourist location than it already is. It is a most attractive place to visit. Do the Government see the new situation demanding more investment to promote Northern Ireland? What are their intentions on that
614
score? Will they continue to work with the Republic of Ireland to present the island of Ireland's attractions as a whole, especially in the United States?
Perhaps I may conclude by urging three points of action on the Government. The first is that they reverse the cuts. The second is that they should promote green tourism and make it possible to do that in the context of ensured environmental sustainability. The final point is one that the Government should take seriously. Some kind of equalisation and review mechanism is needed. It cannot be fair that in south-west England, for instance, it is local residents, whether through the unified business rate or water charges, who have to bear the heavy costs of making that region more attractive to tourists because it benefits us all if visitors come here to go to that part of the world. Is it sensible that local residents should bear the entire cost, as they do at present?
8.24 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise to the House for how I look and how I sound, but I am not well.
I join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for initiating the debate. From this Front Bench I want to respond to the moving tributes that have been paid to our dear comrade David Pitt. They were made first most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. We all know that David Pitt was a man of immense energy, passion and emotion. He made countless friends for the causes he espoused, none more so than for the Caribbean. Undoubtedly, his West Indian credentials will have helped, but it was his deep love of London and its peoples which fitted him so well for his role as deputy chairman of the London Tourist Board. There never was an opportunity to promote or protect London or the Caribbean which he allowed to pass. He brought to both, his unique blend of wisdom mixed with humour, and laced with plain common sense. His stature in tourism, as in all other fields, was of the highest. We mourn a good man who left an indelible impression on the London and the Londoners whom he loved, and who loved him in return.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we know of David Pitt's abiding love for London and Londoners. He undoubtedly loved not just the stupendous, prestigious tourist attractions such as Buckingham Palace, the Palace of Westminster, the Changing of the Guard, the Tower of London and the like, he would equally love what I call "the other London". In many a London borough there are fascinating places known to few visitors from abroad, and even from within Britain, but nevertheless worthy of visits.
I discovered an interesting hybrid called Discover Islington —a small struggling group, surviving on a shoestring, trying to serve those who live and work in that borough, and which, hitherto, merited support from, among others, the English Tourist Board. But not any more. That funding has dried up. Using public as well as private money, it opens up vistas of the other London about which we know but which needs sorely to be opened up and supported by us all. Perhaps I may ask

615
the Minister a direct question. Will he look, or look again, at the type of initiative represented by Discover Islington? Sir John Egan can safely be left to nourish pomp and pageantry, but we need also to nourish that other London so beloved by David Pitt.
The other night I was a guest at a dinner given by ABTA for parliamentarians who take an interest in tourism. Mr Colin Trigger, the ABTA president, invited his fellow travel industry colleagues to brief us on their concerns. One which gained much support was along the lines that while they seemed to be moderately successful in encouraging British people to holiday abroad, the sad conclusion, based on much evidence, was that the product with which they were in competition—Britain—was declining as a competitor. That was not due to an absence of major attractions—our heritage and our history—but merely to the fact that nationally Britain did not take seriously the need to compete as vigorously as other countries. I asked, "What or who carried most responsibility to redress that?" Back came the emphatic reply, "The Government".
ABTA members are concerned not merely in sending Britons abroad, they convinced me of their concern to make it a two-way traffic. I share ABTA's view that despite the valiant endeavours of many people, the Government are required to lead them to a better future, or, as Adele Bliss, the chairman of the British Tourist Authority, said, when she introduced the BTA annual report last October:
"If Government can shift its focus more towards accepting the high returns on its investment in tourism rather than seeking to minimise its commitments, whenever possible, then tourism will have the best chance it has had for a decade".
If it be the quality of its scepticism which impresses the Minister, he must have been suitably chastened when those who were dubbed "the knights of tourism" visited recently his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in what was undoubtedly the most unprecedented deputation of all time. The Minister knows that their message was to ask the Government to take tourism seriously; that it required tourism to be given a much higher priority in government economic thinking. The Minister will know that Sir Colin Marshall, chairman of British Airways, said to his right honourable friend:
"The industry remains an also-ran in terms of budget considerations and status within the political forum. In the past, tourism to this country took care of itself. However, as more and more nations world-wide identify the industry's importance as a creator of wealth and jobs, competition is hotting up and we can no longer afford to be complacent".
That charge of complacency is one which the Minister tonight should take head on, for the evidence for the charge is plain for all to see.
Adele Biss painted two contrasting scenarios of tourism in Britain. It is easy to be carried away by euphoria based on statistics without being aware of the reality underneath. I believe that the emergence of the new Secretary of State, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, is good news for tourism. He has started to bang the drum for Britain, comparing the delights of Huddersfield with a week-end in Paris. Do not ask me which I would choose! He caught the headlines, however, which is his
616
job. He sounds genuine in his aspirations to see Britain climb back up the league table of attractive countries to which world holiday-makers trek.
In 1980, 60 per cent. of Britons took their holidays here. By 1993 that figure had declined to 45 per cent. The BTA makes a valid point when complaining of a lack of focus and a haphazard approach to the industry by the Government. There are 220,000 tourism businesses—that is, businesses large and small which depend upon tourism. There are 510 local authorities, more than 100 city convention bureaux and four national tourist boards.
It is not just a question of funding, it is a question of leadership. Since 1980 we have seen Britain's share of world tourism decline from 6.7 per cent. to 6.3 per cent. in 1993. It is a challenge to us all—but mostly to the Government. We need increased investment by way of tax incentives, rather than taxes such as the new £5 and £10 airport tax on all incoming holiday-makers.
I know that the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is fighting the good fight. He has earned our thanks for his success in securing more funding for London. We wish him well as, together with his noble friend, he seeks to extend the battle world-wide.
8.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, it is a great privilege to be able to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid by my noble friend Lord Mountevans and others to Lord Pitt in the course of this debate. His accomplishments were many and wide-ranging. He was a distinguished medical practitioner, he was a leader in improving race relations and he was prominent in local government and as a Member of this House.
For much of his life, Lord Pitt worked tirelessly on behalf of the people of London. He was clearly aware of the significance of tourism to this city and gave freely of his time and abilities to play a part in its development. He was vice president of the London Tourist Board and chairman of the policy committee of the London Convention Bureau. Speaking in this Chamber in May 1993, he reminded noble Lords that tourism is particularly important to London. That remains equally true today.
The figures confirm it. About 55 per cent. of overseas tourists to the UK stay in London for at least part of their visit. London receives about 17 million visitors a year, of whom around 10 million are from abroad. Spending by visitors is around £4.5 billion. It is estimated that tourism creates some 200,000 jobs; that is to say, around 7 per cent. of London's working population is employed in tourism.
These figures and the evidence of our own eyes confirm that tourism is of great importance to London. There is also a great deal of evidence which suggests that London is crucial to the performance of the nation's tourism industry. Our capital city is one of Britain's greatest assets in attracting overseas visitors and in persuading British people to take a holiday in this country. In every field, London is a world-class city. You can find other cities with shopping as good as

617
London's. You may find a few places—but not many—which can rival London in the arts and entertainment. Perhaps there is the odd city which can match London's heritage and pageantry. But I doubt that any city in the world can offer all of these in the way that London can.
The Government fully recognise the importance both of tourism to the capital and of London to UK tourism as a whole. In November my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage announced that an additional £2 million would be provided to the British Tourist Authority over the next two financial years in order to fund projects which will improve the promotion of London in overseas markets. It will not be provided to the CBI, as the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, suggested. The money will be paid to the British Tourist Authority, which, in partnership with the London Tourist Board, will fund projects to market London.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I referred to a separate grant to the London Tourist Board but perhaps it was to the BTA. My comment about the CBI related to benchmarking.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I apologise if I misheard the noble Lord but I wished to clear the matter up. The money will be matched by the BTA from its existing resources to create a total public sector contribution of £4 million to the initiative. The work will be taken forward in partnership with the London Tourist Board and London First, who aim to bring in matching funding from the private sector. The partner organisations will have at their disposal a fund of up to £8 million over two years to add to the already substantial resources which promote London to potential overseas visitors.
The benefits of this promotion will not be confined to the south-east. London is an important gateway to the rest of the country. Many of those overseas visitors who are attracted to London will visit other parts of the UK during their stay. We want to encourage more to do so in order that the benefits from tourism can be more widely shared.
My right honourable friend's initiative will make possible a very significant improvement in the promotion of London. I believe that the benefits from that work will be shared by the whole of the United Kingdom tourist industry.
It is easy to under-estimate the very significant contribution of tourism to the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole. In 1993, the UK received almost 19.2 million visitors from overseas, a 3 per cent. increase on the previous year. Expenditure by overseas residents amounted to £8.9 billion, a 13 per cent. increase on 1992. Figures for the first nine months of 1994 are even more encouraging, with overseas visits up by 6 per cent. on the same period in the previous year and expenditure rising by 8 per cent. Taken as a whole, the tourist industry generates an annual turnover of about £33 billion, which is 5 per cent. of this country's gross domestic product. And it creates an estimated 1.5 million jobs.
Perhaps even more importantly, tourism is, and is likely to remain, an industry with considerable potential for growth. Employment in the sector has increased by
618
30 per cent. during the past 10 years, compared with a growth of 5 per cent. for all industries. And it is widely predicted that by the year 2000 tourism will be the world's biggest industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, claimed that lack of government support had prohibited the industry from growing at a similar rate to tourism in other countries. The noble Lord produced figures. The calculation was based on the premise that Britain could have maintained its 1980 share of the domestic market. However, since that date there has been a vast increase in the number of people able to afford foreign travel. The market has utterly changed and other northern European countries have experienced exactly the same trend. In fact, Germany's balance of payments deficit is more than four times that of this country. There is also little evidence that government promotional spend has a great deal of effect on large-scale trends. A recent world tourism organisation survey found that amounts spent by governments on promotion bore little relation to their country's tourism earnings.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is he saying fatalistically that our share of global tourism is therefore bound to decrease and continue to decrease?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, no, I am not saying that. I am saying that the figures given by the noble Lord compared the industry in 1980 with that of today. However, it has been the subject of great change. If, for example, the economy of this country continues to improve in 1995 more people may take holidays abroad. That may widen the gap. We wish to attract as many people as possible to the country. The real point is that the market has changed over a period of time. The market for people going abroad is entirely different from the market for people visiting this country. Therefore, I do not believe that it is valid to compare them.
We must remember the importance of the tourist industry to all that the Department of National Heritage represents. It is the single most important part of the department. It provides much of the business for the arts and heritage. The spending of overseas visitors on what we might call "cultural tourism" is estimated at around £2 billion in 1993. More than one in three seats in West End theatres are occupied by tourists from overseas. Forty per cent. of those who go to London museums and galleries and over two-thirds of those who go to the capital's historic properties and cathedrals are visitors from abroad.
Tourism heightens the profile and increases the revenues of many artistic and cultural activities. It brings significant benefits and opportunities to all sectors of the national heritage, and it is for that reason that its development is a priority for the Department of National Heritage.
In recognising the very great strengths and achievements of the tourist industry, it is important that we do not become complacent. Britain's share in the international tourist market has fallen over the last 10 years or so, and we feel very strongly that the industry could improve its performance. We need to ensure that the industry offers the consumer good quality, wide

619
choice and value for money. The industry must provide what consumers want, and it must market its products effectively at home and abroad.
We cannot, of course, prevent people in this country taking their holidays abroad. We must accept that there are different markets. People visit different places for different reasons. There are different products. The Department of National Heritage is determined to support the industry and to be its advocate in government at every level.
But a great deal of the responsibility must lie on the members of the industry. Government can and will offer advice and seek to strengthen incentives to improve. But in the end it is the industry which determines what is available to offer to the consumer. Investment and improvements in the quality and competitiveness of our tourism product can, in the end, only be brought about by the industry itself.
Government support for the industry continues largely to be channelled through the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board. Grant in aid to the boards for 1995–96 is £44.5 million. Regional tourist boards, which are independent and not statutory bodies, including the London Tourist Board, continue to be funded for the delivery of specific programmes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Viscount allowing me to intervene. Perhaps he will say a few words in support of the initiative which I mentioned called Discover Islington. The people involved in that initiative are not the big boys. They are working on a shoestring and are supported by local authorities and their residents. Those people are attempting to say to tourists visiting this country that almost every borough has something worth seeing. Although the initiative does not receive funding, I am sure that it deserves at least a few kind words from the Minister.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was coming to that point. I am not aware of the details of that scheme. As the noble Lord described it, it sounds particularly interesting. I should be grateful if he will send me some information about it.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the fact is (is it not?) that it would be very easy for the Government and the Minister to accept the argument that it is impossible to judge the value of the stimulation of effective marketing and the amount of money invested in it. I have heard that argument over the past 15 years. The fact remains that if that is not done, then our share will decrease.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have absolutely no doubt that the money spent via the various statutory boards has a significant effect in this country and, indeed, abroad. The formula for funding the regional tourist boards was agreed between ETB and the regions and was based on scale, need and performance. Regions can apply for additional funding for specific projects from a tourism development fund.
Recent work with the boards is designed to ensure that the activities of both the ETB and the BTA are based on a rigorous analysis of the needs of the industry and do not substitute for activities which the industry
620
should carry out for itself. We have asked the ETB to concentrate its efforts on strategic functions aimed at developing the quality of the product. It needs to work closely with the BTA and others to identify the types of holiday and the facilities that today's tourists are looking for. We aim to work with the industry to ensure that Britain provides the right products, and offers good quality at reasonable prices.
I know the importance to the industry of the classification and grading scheme for the accommodation sector. A widely recognised and used rating system makes it easier for the consumer to choose what he wants and to distinguish between good and poor. That acts as an incentive to operators to improve and reap the rewards of providing a quality product.
The ETB runs a number of grading schemes, the largest being the crown accommodation classification and grading scheme which covers all serviced accommodation. The ETB is currently reviewing a number of issues which relate to the scheme. It will make known its proposals in due course.
I must say to my noble friend Lord Wise that as far as I know, the industry does not support a statutory grading scheme. We want to make the crown scheme work so well that the industry will wish to join it and feel that it is to its advantage to do so. We do not believe in making new, burdensome regulations. We believe in deregulation.
There is clear evidence that the ETB plays a vital role in tourist information centres and that its work serves to encourage the TICs to provide a wider range of services than might otherwise be available. As a result, a substantial number of visitors are being inspired to travel further afield in this country. I have asked the English Tourist Board to give thought to how the services provided may be further enhanced and in particular to give further thought to the part which the TICs may play in making it easier to book a domestic holiday and in disseminating information on holiday prices.
The BTA is seeking to improve the allocation of its resources among overseas markets. The aim is to ensure that public funding is directed to those areas which will have an impact on visits to this country which will not be achieved by the private sector if left to itself. The authority is looking at the potential growth of particular markets and market segments and at the scope for increasing and improving the private sector's marketing effort.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, informed your Lordships of the successes and the work done by the Wales Tourist Board. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is doing an excellent job. I encourage the BTA and the Wales Tourist Board to work together where it is in both their interests to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, asked about the CBI tourism action group. We are extremely pleased that it has established such a group. My department and the statutory tourist boards will collaborate with that group where it is appropriate to do so. As I said, the boards will continue to be the primary instrument through which government policy on tourism is implemented.

621
The noble Lord asked about benchmarking. I believe that that means identifying good practices in the industry and seeking to draw the attention of all businesses to those good practices so that the lessons can be applied.
My noble friend Lord Wise asked about tourism signing. That is an extremely important issue. It is one of the main areas of concern highlighted in my department's investigation into regulations affecting the tourist industry. We reflected those anxieties in our contribution to the Department of Transport's recent review of signing policy. We are currently discussing detailed proposals from the Department of Transport. I hope that it will be possible to relax the existing criteria and to introduce new arrangements which will be better able to meet the needs of tourists and the tourist industry. It is too early to say exactly what form the new arrangements will take but I hope that they will be in place in good time for next year's summer season.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, mentioned Northern Ireland. The BTA will continue to co-operate with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the tourist authorities in the Republic. I am sure that they will not be slow to appreciate the possibilities created by the new situation that is emerging in Northern Ireland.
In summary, the Government continue to be committed to doing all that they can to help improve the performance of the tourism industry. The statutory tourist organisations will continue to play a full part in those efforts. Tourism is a very successful sector of the economy and has great strengths. The figures for the first 10 months of 1994 are very encouraging. The Government and the boards will continue to play their part in the development of the industry, but the onus is on the industry itself to recognise and build on its strength. It must be prepared to change where change is necessary. We all have a part to play in ensuring that the United Kingdom remains one of the world's foremost tourist destinations.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
8.50 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Schedule 1 [The Environment Agency]:
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvelmoved Amendment No. 13A:
Page 114, line 7, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall, for the convenience of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 13B to D, 14, 14A and B, 25 and 26, 28, 29 to 32, 148, 149 and 151. It is a large grouping, but the essence of the amendments relates to the position of employees and staff in the bodies whose functions are to be transferred to the new agency. Perhaps I may refer Members of the Committee to page 3 of the Marshalled List where Amendment No. 13A can be found. If it is accepted by the Committee, the amendment would oblige the agency to pay the pensions, allowances, gratuities, and so on, to which the
622
staff and employees would be entitled were they to remain with the authority which is to be transferred to the agency.
Amendment No. 13B is designed to ensure that the local government superannuation scheme shall,
"make provision for the funds of the National Rivers Authority to [be vested] in the Agency and become the funds of the Agency",
in the sense that the agency will have its own superannuation scheme and that the benefits of that scheme will accrue to those who have accrued benefits within the NRA scheme.
Amendment No. 13C seeks to ensure that persons who have been "officers or employees" of the NRA and the other organisations which are to be transferred into the agency have the same rights. Amendment No. 13D seeks to ensure that the pensions to which people who have been employed until now are entitled should be transferred immediately without any break in their entitlement.
Amendment No. 14 speaks for itself.
"The Agency may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, appoint such officers and employees as it may determine [to negotiate with] the trade unions recognised by the Agency for the purpose of collective bargaining".
I do not believe that I need to argue that point further.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 again relate to the position of staff. We believe that there should be a staff commission as set out in Amendment No. 31 which provides that the agency shall,
"adopt the Local Government Superannuation Scheme",
and in Amendment No. 32 where we propose that the agency shall promote health and safety.
There are substantive amendments in the group. But we believe—and we have been advised by the unions concerned —that there is a gap as regards the future of employees and staff in the new agency when they are transferred from the old organisations. When I say "old organisations", I mean the National Rivers Authority, HMIP and certain local authorities.
These are all probing amendments to ask the Government where they stand. We are not entirely happy with the position; indeed, the trade unions involved are not happy.
Amendment No. 149 is designed to ensure that the TUPE regulations apply and Amendment No. 151 is designed to ensure that those regulations and the transfer arrangements apply in Scotland. I realise that I have introduced a rather long and complicated group of amendments. However, the essence of the argument is still the same; namely, that there should be a proper method of ensuring that those who are employed on a staff basis, an employee basis, or on any other basis, should have the same rights under the new agency as they enjoyed in their previous employment. The benefits they had in their previous employment should accrue when they become employees of the new agency. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, moved this rather large group of amendments with commendable brevity. I can only apologise to

623
Members of the Committee if my reply is somewhat lengthier than the noble Lord's introduction. There are matters of some importance involved with which I may have to deal in considerable detail. The amendments cover a variety of matters which relate to staffing. I shall speak, first, about those which deal with the transfer of staff to the agency and then about several others which deal with more general staffing matters and with pensions.
First, I should like to deal with Amendment No. 29. This concerns the Secretary of State's power, at any time before the transfer date, to modify a transfer scheme which he had previously made or approved. It would require him to consult the body which had prepared the scheme. We support the general intention behind the amendment. The Bill provides for consultation in other cases where a scheme is modified, and we are happy to correct the anomaly. But, as with those other provisions, we would wish to require consultation of the agency as well as the body which prepared the scheme. I undertake to consider the matter further with a view to introducing a revised amendment at a later date.
I now come to Amendment No. 149. This would, in effect, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, provide that Schedule 2 is "without prejudice" to the provisions of TUPE. But such an amendment would be superfluous. All persons transferring to the agency will either be covered by TUPE or given equivalent protection under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest otherwise.
Amendment No. 30 seeks to establish a staff commission to oversee the transfer of waste regulation staff to the agency. Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 28 all relate to that commission. I should point out that Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 would involve the commission in the transfer of staff from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, although Amendment No. 30 refers only to staff employed by waste regulation authorities.
We are, of course, anxious to see that the transfer of staff from waste regulation authorities to the agency is orderly and fair. We have therefore considered the case for a staff commission with great care. But we are not persuaded that a commission is necessary or appropriate in this case. I shall summarise the reasons.
First, staff will either transfer to the agency or remain with local authorities. This differs from local government reorganisation where, for example, successor authorities have a discretion, within a framework set by the Local Government Staff Commission (and the provisions of employment law), about the number of staff whom they take on. Furthermore, local government reorganisation is potentially a much more complex exercise which is likely to involve movement of relatively large numbers of staff, sometimes from one authority to several successor authorities, and affects all staff in each reorganised authority.
Secondly, there is likely to be relatively little uncertainty about who should transfer to the agency. The effort currently devoted to waste regulation in England equates to around 1,150 full-time staff. Over
624
1,000 staff work for more than three-quarters of their time on waste regulation. Therefore, situations where a judgment is needed about who will transfer will be few. In Wales a higher proportion of staff work for less of their time on waste regulation, but the number of staff is small. While in a few cases, therefore, identification of staff to transfer may not be clear-cut, the numbers are such that it should be possible to resolve any difficulties without recourse to a commission. We have already issued initial guidance to help authorities identify who transfers. This was developed in consultation with the local authority associations, and we shall continue to involve them in the development of any further guidance. We are confident that this will provide a basis for authorities, in consultation with the agency and their staff, to draw up schemes. In cases of dispute, the Secretary of State would make the final determination.
Thirdly, there have been suggestions that a commission could consider issues relating to the agency's management structure and appointments to specific posts and locations. If it did it would need to consider the interests of staff inherited from all predecessor bodies. But these are key issues for the environment agency advisory committee and the agency board. They should not be delegated to a separate commission which would be less well placed to balance the needs of the agency and, unlike the agency's management, would not need to build long-term relationships with the agency's staff and trade unions.
The Committee should also note that, as I have already said, staff who transfer will have protection under, or equivalent to, TUPE. I therefore submit that the establishment of a staff commission is unnecessary and would not justify the associated administrative and financial costs. Before leaving this issue, however, I should like to refer briefly to the situation in Wales and Scotland.
In Wales because transfer to the agency coincides with a general local government reorganisation, the Welsh Staff Commission on Local Government Reorganisation will keep in touch with the agency transfer. That is primarily to ensure that staff are not inadvertently omitted from, or double counted in, transfer schemes. The commission will not, however, have a wider role in relation to the agency transfer.
In Scotland the Bill provides for the remit of the relevant local government staff commission to be extended to the transfer to SEPA. But the situation in Scotland is more complex. Not only will general local government reorganisation proceed in tandem with the establishment of SEPA, but local authority air pollution control will also transfer to the agency. We do not, therefore, consider that this sets a precedent for a separate staff commission in England and Wales or for the remit of the Local Government Staff Commissions in England or Wales to be extended. I should add that regarding the commission in Scotland we see no need for Amendment No. 151 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. As staff who transfer to SEPA will have protection under TUPE or equivalent provisions, it is unnecessary to extend the commission's remit in that way.

625
I now turn to amendments dealing with other staffing matters. Both Amendments Nos. 14 and 32 deal in some way with the agency's relationship with trade unions. Amendment No. 14 would change existing provisions by requiring that the terms and conditions of service of staff appointed by the agency must be agreed with the trade unions recognised by the agency for the purpose of collective bargaining. We take the view, however, that employers should be free to decide such matters for themselves in the light of their own circumstances and needs. The agency is no exception. It will be governed by the same laws that protect the rights of employees and employers generally. I am not aware of any other public body that operates under such a statutory requirement as proposed by that amendment.
I should stress that there is no intention to discourage the agency from consultation with trade unions. Consultation and negotiation with trade unions is well established in the existing public bodies from which staff will transfer. Furthermore, I understand that the advisory committee of my noble friend Lord De Ramsey intends to arrange an early meeting with the trade unions representing the employees who will transfer to the agency. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this amendment would be an unnecessarily onerous statutory control.
Turning to Amendment No. 32, this seeks to dictate the agency's approach to its health and safety responsibilities. We have no argument either with the involvement of trade unions or with the establishment of joint health and safety committees. However, employers' responsibilities for the health, safety and welfare of their employees are already laid down in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and in regulations under that Act. Those provide for the appointment by recognised trade unions of safety representatives, and for the employer to establish a safety committee if requested to do so by two or more safety representatives. I therefore hope that the Committee will agree that the amendment is neither necessary nor appropriate.
Finally, I come to Amendments Nos. 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D, 14A, 14B and 31, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, but moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Those raise a number of separate points concerned with pensions, which I shall deal with in turn. I well appreciate that pensions are a matter of concern to staff. But, as I shall explain, I believe that the amendments are inappropriate.
First, Amendments Nos. 13A to 13D and 31 appear to require the agency to offer pensions to staff only in accordance with the local government superannuation scheme. I can confirm that the agency, through amendments to secondary legislation, will be designated as an administering authority for that scheme. But the use of primary legislation to require the agency to offer pensions only under that scheme would be unnecessarily restrictive. It may be the case in the future that the agency wishes to offer different employer's occupational pension schemes to different classes of employees. Indeed, while most of the agency's future staff are currently members of the local government
626
superannuation scheme, those now in HMIP are members of the principal Civil Service pension scheme. We are still considering whether it would be appropriate for the agency to offer those staff membership of only the local government superannuation scheme.
Secondly, Amendment No. 13A goes even further by requiring the agency to pay a pension to each member of its staff. But a distinction can be drawn between staff transferred to the agency whose employment is already pensionable, and new recruits who are offered jobs in the future. Existing staff whose employment is pensionable must be offered comparable pensions by the agency. This is a general requirement of contract and employment law. If such an offer were not made the staff concerned could resign and claim an unfair constructive dismissal. The agency must, however, have the same freedom as existing employers (including NRA and waste regulation authorities) to offer jobs to staff which are not pensionable—for example, staff employed as casuals.
Thirdly, Amendment No. 13B makes provision for the pension funds of the National Rivers Authority to vest in the agency. However, the pension funds of the National Rivers Authority will automatically transfer to the agency along with the NRA's other property, rights and liabilities, and there is therefore no need to specify this on the face of the Bill.
Fourthly, Amendments Nos. 14A and 31 refer to the water authorities superannuation fund. That fund was wound up when the water industry was privatised. But I assume that the reference is to the "closed fund" for ex-water authority pensioners for which the National Rivers Authority became responsible. We are presently considering what future arrangements would best serve the interests of the closed fund pensioners and the taxpayer. On a technical point, Amendment No. 14A would also appear to prevent the setting up of a new agency fund which would accommodate all agency employees, and not just those transferred from NRA.
Fifthly, Amendments Nos. 14B and 31 would require the agency to establish a joint advisory committee to oversee the management of the scheme. However, regulations under the local government superannuation scheme already require administering authorities to act prudently in the management of their funds. We would not wish to prescribe further in this legislation the particular arrangement that the agency will follow. But we will be concerned to see that its arrangements follow good practice for pensions administration.
Sixthly, Amendment No. 31 would also require the agency to make appropriate funding arrangements for its scheme. This is unnecessary. All administering authorities for the local government superannuation scheme must comply with funding arrangements prescribed in regulations and designed to safeguard the viability of their individual schemes.
Finally, Amendment No. 31 also deals with arrangements for the transfer of service. Where employees transfer between individual funds set up under local government superannuation scheme rules prescribed in regulations, they are provided with year for year transfers of service. This will apply to persons transferring to an agency fund from the NRA fund, or

627
individual local authority funds. Where persons transfer from schemes outside the framework of the local government superannuation scheme, arrangements particular to those transfers will need to be put in place.
This group of amendments has covered a wide range of issues. I well understand noble Lords' concern for the fair treatment of the agency's future staff. I have agreed to consider further the matter raised by Amendment No. 29. But, otherwise, I hope I have persuaded the Committee that the amendments are unnecessary or inappropriate. I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that these are probing amendments. I felt that it was important to deal with them, perhaps at a greater length than the Committee might have wished at this hour of night. However, I ask whether the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw them.
Lord Crickhowell: I wish to make two brief points. First, I note the remarks of my noble friend about the possibility that employees who come from from HMIP and are therefore in the Civil Service pension scheme might in some circumstance be kept out of the local authority pension arrangements which apply to the other employees. I hope, however, that the Government will consider the issue with great care before taking such a decision. In pension matters, as in other employment matters, the need to bring staff together with common terms of employment should have a high priority. Considerable difficulties would confront the authority if it operated two separate pension schemes of that kind. I only comment by way of caution at the moment and hope that the Government will consider the matter.
The other point is that understandably—and I in no way criticise him for it—my noble friend said in answer to a number of points that the Government were considering this and that and would take decisions about them later. He made that comment in particular about the closed fund and its relationship to the other funds.
As someone who, for my sins, has the responsibility of chairing the pensions committee which looks after the funds at present, I am in close touch with the representatives of the employees who sit on the pensions committee. There is some anxiety among pensioners about the future and I therefore express the hope that the Government will come to their conclusions and clearly state them before the Bill is passed. There would be considerable anxiety among employees if the matter were left uncertain and in the air until after the agency came into existence and was dependent upon decisions taken by Ministers at that time.
What I hope will happen is that at some later stage in the passage of the Bill the Government will come back to this House, or another place, and make clear their intentions.
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I may quickly reply. I have carefully noted what my noble friend said and it is important to come to a conclusion about the future of the closed funds. I also take into account the operation
628
of the two parallel pension schemes running at the same time. We need to ensure that we make the right decision as to whether to offer only one pension scheme.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful in general to the noble Viscount for his long response. These are matters of extreme anxiety to employees and staff of the various organisations which will be gathered together in the agency. I hope that I shall not be impertinent if I say to the Minister that I was not the originator of the amendments, they come from trade unions involved who are interested in what the noble Viscount says. I believe that they will wish to study carefully what he said this evening.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in saying that the trade unions involved will wish to have a definitive response by the time the Bill receives its Royal Assent, or before, so that they know where they stand. Having expressed my gratitude to the noble Viscount for his full and comprehensive reply to the amendments, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 13A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13B to 15 not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 114, line 33, at end insert:
("Responsibility for enforcement
6A.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations enabling responsibility for enforcing any of the relevant statutory provisions to be to such extent as may be determined under the regulations,—

(a) transferred from the Agency to local authorities or from local authorities to the Agency, or

(b) assigned to the Agency or to local authorities for the purpose of removing any uncertainty as to what are by virtue of this subsection their respective responsibilities for the enforcement of those provisions;

and any regulations made in pursuance of this paragraph shall include provision for securing that any transfer or assignment effected under the regulations is brought to the notice of persons affected by it.
(2) It shall be the duty of every local authority

(a) to make adequate arrangements for the enforcement within their area of the relevant statutory provisions to the extent that they are by any of those provisions or by regulations under sub-paragraph (1) above made responsible for their enforcement; and

(b) to perform the duty imposed on them by sub-paragraph (1) above and any other functions conferred on them by any of the relevant statutory provisions in accordance with such guidance as the Agency may give them.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 21 and 69A. At this stage they are intended as probing amendments in that our view is that the environment agency should be a strategic agency, setting standards and monitoring performance. However, it should perhaps not be involved too much in the hands-on provision of waste disposal. Therefore, the waste regulation authorities should continue in existence, including the London Waste Regulation Authority. If the agency is too much involved in the implementation of environmental issues

629
at local level it will make life extremely difficult for it. We therefore think that there should be some differentiation between the role of the agency as a standard setter and a monitor of performance, and the local authorities, which should continue to be responsible for waste disposal at the local level.
Clearly, local authorities must continue to have a role in relation to waste regulation. It would be impossible for the agency to carry out all the functions that are currently performed at the local level. The public will continue to bring their concerns to the door of local authorities, and the authorities will continue to have specific residual responsibilities, particularly in respect of such matters as fly-tipping.
Therefore there is a case for a mechanism that will allow local authorities to assume the role of the agency in certain limited circumstances. These amendments attempt to give those powers by delegation from the agency to local authorities. This is not in any sense to assert local authorities as the prime movers in this situation but as agents, effectively, of the agency.
Amendment No. 21 also seeks to transfer powers, as in Amendment No. 16, in a sense from the agency to local authorities. But Amendment No. 21 would transfer powers under the Environmental Protection Act from the Secretary of State to the agency. Amendment No. 69A would similarly transfer provisions to the agency in respect of pollution control.
These amendments attempt to tidy up the overall framework for environmental protection by laying out those matters which we believe should be appropriately dealt with at the centre and those which are more appropriately dealt with on a local basis within an overall strategic framework. That is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I wonder whether I might—if I use the expression "seek clarification", that may not be quite right. The next group of amendments, beginning with Amendment No. 16, deals with the waste regulation authorities. I should like to establish whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee to deal with all points relating to that matter together. Some important matters were raised in relation to Amendment No. 16, but I did not anticipate dealing with the waste regulation authorities under that amendment. Perhaps I might ask whether the noble Baroness spoke at the same time to Amendment No. 17 and so on.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: No, I have not spoken to those amendments. This one relates to enforcement, as we understood it. We saw the next amendment as clearly being closely related but it has to do with present pollution control mechanisms. Although the two are closely related, we saw this amendment as referring to specific statutory enforcements. Is that a useful clarification?
Baroness Hamwee: I am obliged to the noble Baroness. We had some difficulty earlier today in sorting out where it would be convenient to deal with certain points. I apologise to her for my confusion.
630
My noble friend Lord McNair will speak to other amendments in this list, but perhaps I may say that I support the comments that were just made about the need to separate the role of advice and regulation and that of enforcement.
One of the comments that is made, particularly in the area of waste regulation, relates to the danger of those who are regulated and who pay licence fees and so on effectively being those who pay the piper and therefore call a particular tune. There is confusion as to whom the agencies will be responsible in effect. They will perhaps be a little affected themselves by the confusion in roles.
Local authorities have a distinct role in enforcement which it is important to relate directly to their roles of responsibility and accountability to their local communities. I have had some difficulty in sorting out in my mind quite to what extent the agencies should involve a direct accountability through the route of local authorities. I see a danger of the Government saying, "You have all or a large part of the representation. You have a role to play as local authorities and local representatives and we shall refuse to carry the can".
There is a difficult problem with the confusion of accountability—how much the agency is an arm of central government and how much it is an independent organisation which is able to blow the whistle on central government when central government are not getting things right. The Committee will appreciate my confusion as I have expressed my view in such an inarticulate fashion. But I support the noble Baroness in drawing attention to the different functions.
Viscount Ullswater: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McNair, will speak to Amendment No. 18A before I try to reply to him.
Lord McNair: The Minister is very kind. In fact I discussed with the Government Whips Office the possibility of speaking also to Amendments Nos. 70A, 191A and 191B. It makes sense to do so. With the leave of the Committee, that is what I shall do. I hope that the Committee will accept that it is for the greater good of the Committee. I hope too that I can resolve the confusion that I seem to have caused the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton.
Amendments Nos. 18A and 191A are complementary. Amendment No. 70A is contingent upon Amendment No. 191B, which itself is an alternative to Amendment No. 191A. I think I have made the confusion worse. I hope that matters will become clear as I proceed.
Amendment No. 18A arises from concerns about the future of navigation within the new agency, which will be primarily concerned with pollution control. It will have further functions relating to water resources management, flood defence, fisheries, navigation and water recreation and is charged with responsibility to promote and enhance the water environment. The promotional and operational navigation and recreation functions of the National Rivers Authority, which it is due to take over, are of a very different nature from its other responsibilities. They will not sit easily alongside its regulatory powers. They will represent a diversion from the agency's core tasks.

631
Many users argue that that is already the case within the NRA. While the commitment and efforts of individual NRA staff are appreciated, it is strongly felt that navigation and recreation receive relatively low priority within NRA's overall strategy. I would not necessarily argue with the NRA's perception of its priorities. A mainly regulatory body is not well suited to the task of promoting and defending the navigational integrity of the waterways, either generally or in dialogue with central or local government. Users and the waterway leisure and tourism industry need a vigorous, proactive, single-minded navigation body both to provide that service and to offer the centre of excellence and expertise that many other small navigation authorities lack at present.
In 1989—at this point I shall speak more to Amendment No. 191A—the Environment Select Committee in another place recommended that a review of the navigation functions of the NRA, along with those of the British Waterways Board, should be carried out:
"with a view to creating a single authority for those navigations currently operated by British Waterways Board and the (then) water authorities".
The Government accepted that remit. However, the 1991–92 navigation review was not completed. To ensure smooth progress in establishing the environment agency, the Government determined that the new agency should take over the totality of the NRA's powers and responsibilities, including those for the management and operation of its waterways for navigation and recreation. However, at a meeting of the Parliamentary Waterways Group in April 1994 concerns were expressed to the honourable Member of another place, Robert Atkins, Minister for the Environment and Countryside, about the future of the NRA navigation and recreation functions within the new agency. The Minister explained that he would be reviving the review so that the Government could take account of concerns about the future of our waterways. A consultation paper on the review is expected shortly, in response to which many knowledgeable waterways interests will argue that navigation needs to be given higher profile; that management must be made more efficient, effective and answerable to users, and that that can best be achieved initially by the creation of a single body to take on the present statutory and operational responsibilities of BWB and of the NRA.
In the light of that, it is questionable whether it is appropriate for the Bill to transfer the new responsibilities which are set out in Clause 2(1) (a) (vi), to the new agency. The amendment seeks to ensure that the future of the NRA navigation and recreation responsibilities will not be determined until after a thorough review of all the issues and of all the other options.
I should now like to speak to Amendment No. 70A, which seeks to delete Clause 6(1) (c), and refers to the duty to promote water recreation. The amendment is contingent on Amendment No. 191B, to which I shall come shortly. I have already referred to the case for a single navigation authority that will be argued in response to the expected consultation paper in the review of the navigation and recreation responsibilities
632
of the National Rivers Authority and the British Waterways Board. The responsibility given under Clause 6(1) (c) is a potentially powerful weapon in the armoury of whatever body assumes the relevant responsibilities of the NRA. Since the thrust of my group of amendments is that this decision should not be made until the review has been completed, it would be premature for the Bill to determine where that power should lie. If the review recommends a single navigation authority separate from the environment agency, then it is that new body rather than the agency which should be given the responsibilities of Clause 6(1) (c). In fact, were the amendment to be carried, a consequential amendment would be needed on page 254, line 48, Schedule 20 of the Bill to keep Section 2(2) of the 1991 Act alive until the results of the review are known and implemented.
Amendment No. 191B seeks to delete Clause 2(1) (a) (vi) and create a national waterways conservancy, which is what this is all leading up to, to take on the NRA's navigation and recreation responsibilities. Here I must draw the attention of the Committee to the comments I voiced in relation to my first amendment; the same arguments apply. This amendment provides for a new statutory organisation to manage the majority of inland waterways, taking over the existing powers and responsibilities of the British Waterways Board and the related ones of the National Rivers Authority. The present arrangements came about through a whole succession of historical accidents resulting in a series of Acts of Parliament which do not articulate well together.
Robert Aickman, the visionary founder member of the Inland Waterways Association, was the original promoter of this solution. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, in paragraph 53 of the special report of the Select Committee of the then British Waterways Bill, said,
"The legislation concerning the waterways has developed piecemeal over the last three decades. The Committee considers that the result is a confusing web of provisions, and it takes this opportunity to encourage the Board to put forward consolidating legislation".
In fact, this amendment asks the Government to do that because the British Waterways Bill was a Private Member's Bill.
There are a large number of navigation authorities, of which the British Waterways Board and the NRA are by far the biggest. The BWB is a single-purpose body, but that is not the case with the NRA, whose functions in relation to the promotion and protection of navigation and recreation are only a small part of its overall remit and do not fit easily with its core function of environmental regulation and protection. Of the many other navigation authorities, only the Broads Authority is of a significant size. The BWB, the NRA and the Broads Authority are already developing lines of communication and co-operation. It is essential for the smaller authorities to have a centre of excellence and expertise on which to draw. Such a centre does not exist and needs a statutory structure rather than an informal voluntary initiative.

633
Our navigations have heritage and conservation values which need vigorous national protection as well as promotion. They offer a unique link between urban populations and the countryside. Their towing paths provide walkers with routes free of motor traffic. Inland navigation is a growing leisure industry catering for an increasing number of visitors from Britain and overseas. Angling on the waterways is well established. There is an invaluable heritage of historic buildings and engineering structures which are part of our waterways. Restoration of derelict canals has been shown in a number of studies to provide significant economic and ecological benefits. Waterways are, of course, also an essential integral part of our water supply and land drainage in this country. The whole system —and it is important to remember that it is a nation-wide system—is of inestimable value. Its stewardship could be managed much more effectively if there was some rationalisation of the controlling bodies such as is proposed by this amendment.
To transfer the relevant powers of the NRA to the new agency would be a step in exactly the wrong direction. These powers would sit even less well with the core concerns of the new body than they do at present with the NRA. The Government have here a wonderful opportunity to take positive and constructive action to secure the coherent management of our waterways that has been historically lacking and to examine properly and to develop the way forward so that we have far sighted and even visionary policies that will protect the future of the waterways for our grandchildren.
The powers and responsibilities which I am proposing should be transferred to the new conservancy by this amendment include the following: the NRA's duty under Section 2(2) of the Water Resources Act 1991, which it is proposed to re-enact in Clause 6(1) (c) of the present Bill, and various other powers which I shall not go into at the moment.
I do not propose that any other navigational authorities should be compulsorily absorbed into a new conservancy. They may wish to remain independent. If this amendment is carried there are a number of areas, such as this, on which more detailed work would need to be completed at later stages of the Bill's progress, not least the detailed funding mechanism for the new conservancy. These proposals, as I have already pointed out, are not new ideas but have been, and remain, a prime objective voiced by the Inland Waterways Association for almost half a century, and the recent observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, after studying our inland waterways legislation would seem to underline the need for rationalisation and change.
Lord Greenway: While I have every sympathy with the series of amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, I nevertheless have considerable reservations as to whether this is the right way to proceed at this time. As the noble Lord said, Her Majesty's Government are in the process of undertaking
634
a navigation review, and I think it would be going beyond the bounds of what is required at the moment to prejudge whatever might ensue from that review.
These amendments would involve the setting up of yet another quango, which immediately brings up the question of funding. Where is the money to come from? And even if it were to be set up as a single agency, it would thereafter be very vulnerable to any cost cutting measures that the Treasury might wish to bring forward. It would also be an agency of some complexity. I would be most interested to hear what the noble Viscount the Minister has to say on these questions. I might even go so far as to borrow a phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, earlier on when she referred to a "quangocracy". I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this quangocratic suggestion.
I favour the more measured approach to navigation contained in my later amendments, which do not seek to make fundamental changes to the Bill. Perhaps I may add that this approach is supported by and large by boating interests such as the British Marine Industries Federation, the Royal Yachting Association and the Inland Waterways Association.
Viscount Ullswater: I take Amendment No. 21 first because that goes right to the core of the Bill. It would prevent the transfer of local authority waste regulation functions to the agency and prevent the abolition of the London Waste Regulation Authority. Waste regulation is a fundamental part of the concept and purpose of the environment agency. We will not achieve a more coherent and integrated approach to environmental protection—a multi-media agency—if waste regulation remains with local government. The problem of maintaining consistent standards across 80 separate waste regulation authorities would also remain. The existing voluntary regional groupings of waste regulation authorities have made progress in this direction, but they could never achieve the consistency that a single regulatory body would provide.
The agency will enable expertise and know-how to be pooled much more effectively, but without sacrificing local experience. It will be staffed by the waste regulation officers of local authorities who will bring considerable local knowledge with them and will be able to deal with local concerns at least as effectively as they do now. The agency will be a centre of excellence, combining in one organisation the experience and expertise which the existing bodies have built up over the years.
Amendment No. 21 would also transfer the Secretary of State's inspection and default powers under Sections 68 and 72 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to the agency. That would simply maintain the status quo with the agency, rather than the Secretary of State, having default powers. There would be no integration with the agency's other pollution control functions, no benefit from shared expertise, and no reason why the agency should be any better at ensuring consistency between waste regulation authorities than the Government.

635
Amendment No. 16 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations transferring responsibility for enforcing relevant statutory provisions from the agency to local authorities, or vice versa. It would also enable the Secretary of State to assign responsibility for enforcement to the agency or local authorities where there is any doubt as to where that responsibility lies. In addition, it would require local authorities to make adequate arrangements for enforcing the relevant statutory provisions for which they are responsible in accordance with any guidance which the agency gives them.
Although it is not clear to me what precisely is meant by the "relevant statutory provisions", I cannot see any benefit in separating the responsibilities for issuing licences, consents and authorisations from the responsibilities for enforcing them. The two go hand-in-hand. Where the agency is the licensing authority, it will have the right staff with the relevant expertise and necessary powers, and we would expect it to take any enforcement action necessary to ensure compliance with the various pollution control regimes for which it is responsible. The split of functions proposed by the amendment would, rather than removing doubt, just increase confusion.
Amendment No. 69A would, to a large extent, if not completely, duplicate the enforcement provisions contained in the various enactments under which the agency has functions. Subsection (6) of the new clause which this amendment would insert into the Bill indicates that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, recognises the issue of overlap, but this is a far more substantial problem than can be dealt with by such a provision. That is because existing legislation already controls the sorts of activities likely to give rise to risks of serious environmental pollution, and in each case those controls include perfectly adequate enforcement measures. Indeed, the control of pollution needs to be tailor made to the type of pollution being covered and includes the checks and safeguards that are appropriate.
I do not consider that a general enforcement provision along the lines of this amendment is therefore needed. In so far as harmonisation might have been desirable, it seems to me that Clause 91 of the Bill achieves this with its general power to seize harmful substances or articles.
Finally, perhaps I may turn to the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord McNair. He has asked us to consider setting up a single authority, perhaps called a national waterways conservancy, which might take on the NRA's present waterways functions and duties together with those navigations currently managed by British Waterways. As a consequence, he has asked us to transfer the NRA's navigation functions and water-related recreation duties to the agency. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Government accepted a recommendation from the Select Committee on the Environment in another place to review the navigation functions of British Waterways and the NRA with a view to establishing a single authority. A consultation exercise in 1991–1992 sought the views of interested parties but no consensus emerged on the way ahead.
636
Our waterways represent a unique asset. Their special environmental heritage character needs to be protected for future generations. Used nowadays mainly for recreation, they are important for a wide range of different uses including boating, angling, freight, water supply, flood defence and land drainage. We shall shortly issue a consultation paper seeking views from those interested in the future of the waterways. Complex issues are involved and it would not be right to prejudge the outcome of the consultation either as to substance or to timetable in the way in which the amendments demand. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, that to do so now would be to prejudge an important issue.
We shall look carefully at all the views that are expressed, including those that have been expressed tonight and including arguments supporting a single navigation authority, when we decide what action is necessary to ensure the best possible stewardship of the waterways for all their different uses and for society at large. Having dealt with that and the other amendments, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Viscount said that he was thinking about the waterways, that he would consult and that he would bring something forward. Is that part of the Bill and, if so, why have not the Government thought about it before?
Viscount Ullswater: I indicated that the Government have thought about it but that no consensus has emerged on the way ahead. That is an important point. As I said, these are complex issues and we need to consult. That is why a consultation paper will be issued in the near future.
Lord Williams of Elvel: How long have the Government been thinking about this and how long will the consultation process take?
Viscount Ullswater: We had a consultation exercise in 1991–92 when we found that a consensus did not emerge. We did not think it right to pursue the point. Since then we have reviewed matters and will issue a further consultation paper.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I owe an apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for having accepted this grouping and the next group of amendments and, in due course, that relating to Amendment No. 22. All those amendments relate to the same topic, which is the attempt to provide a strategic central agency and to have some implementation at local level where it seems more appropriate. In discussing the actual regulations, I strayed into a discussion of the mechanisms. Having looked again at the grouping, I realise that that was because we had accepted a grouping which included the two. The same will apply to the next grouping, which again is on the same topic.
We need to take this matter away. The overall strategic implementation of environmental protection is an important issue. We need to consider local

637
implementation and who will undertake that. There is a distinction to be drawn. It would be extremely difficult for the environment agency to be the body responsible for implementing the mechanism by which some of the tasks that it wants to perform are carried out. We need to think more clearly about the role of local authorities in that respect. I shall return to that point briefly when we reach the next group of amendments.
Lord McNair: I should like to thank the noble Viscount for what he has said. I am not going to pursue this issue at this time and in this place, but I have written to the Minister and hope that we shall be able to discuss it at another time and in another place. I hope that the matter that I have raised will be taken forward as the consultation process proceeds.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 16.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Transfer of functions to the Agency]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert ("and waste regulation authorities").
The noble Baroness said: We return again to the question of how environmental protection is delivered at the local level and whether the EA can do everything that we hope it will do in relation to matters such as waste disposal. On Amendment No. 22 we shall be looking in due course also at air pollution. The monitoring and implementation of these environmental matters are more appropriately carried out at local authority level, under licence or with delegated powers from the central EA. This is a serious issue which needs to be addressed.
If the EA is to do all these things it will become an enormously bureaucratic, centralised, cumbersome organisation. It is therefore important that it retains its strategic role, its monitoring role and its setting-of-standards role but allows the hands-on carrying out of some of its duties to be done at a more local level. I should be grateful if the Minister would address the point of how he sees the role of local authorities in relation to environmental protection. Does he see them continuing to have a role? How are the mechanisms to be operated? How will we divide responsibilities between the centre and the local authorities? I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I apologise for splitting up my comments on this general area. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if some of the points that I make now should have been made on the earlier group of amendments. But the Minister has indicated that he is in listening mode, so I am sure that he will not discard arguments merely because they crop up at the wrong point.
638
In looking in general terms at how the responsibilities should be split between the different levels of government, it seemed to me that there was clearly no argument over technical functions or that there should be accountability. The issue is the interface between those two aspects and whether waste regulation is best a matter for central or local accountability.
It is implicit in the amendments that public accountability for waste regulation lies best with the local authorities and with decisions taken within a structure where the public has rights of access and the decisions are made by locally elected representatives. I accept that the granting of planning permissions for waste operations will remain as it is now, but public concern is generally not just about whether the site is suitable but what the operation on the site does, how it will affect the neighbourhood and the potential for pollution. Those are of course matters of concern to local people who can best voice them through the local democratic structure.
On the previous group of amendments I referred to the principle of the polluter paying being a good one but it is a matter of concern that a standard-setting body may be dependent for its income upon the bodies for which it is setting standards. There is a concern that the separation may be done away with. I shall amplify that by saying that sometimes self-policing is criticised, as is a system where the greater the amount of transgression of pollution laws the greater the income of the standard setting body of the regulatory institutions. In suggesting a retention of a substantial role for local government, I suggest that that anxiety should also be addressed.
The London Waste Regulation Authority is not old but appears to have established a reputation during its 10 years of existence. It responds to the needs of people living and working in an area in which it is recognised that there is a need for a strategic approach. Greater London is a distinct area and particular needs must be met.
Comments were made on the fact that the public tend to understand where the boundaries of local authorities are. I say that hesitantly in the context of the local government review. At any rate, perhaps the political boundaries are easily understood and applied.
In the clear-out that I and, I suspect, other noble Lords had during the Christmas period when one tries to get rid of the paper that built up during the previous year, I was about to throw out the 1992 report of the London and South East Regional Planning Conference. The area of work has been superseded by the South East Waste Authority. SERPLAN set out its strategy for dealing with waste; that is, its reduction, re-use and disposal. I believe that it is helpful as an example of the way in which such an organisation can appropriately deal with waste regulation within the context of what one hopes to see as an integrated waste strategy, yet with a distinct and good role. Certainly, it is something that I should like to get on the record.

639
Its policy guidance strategy is set out in six parts, which I shall summarise. The first is the objective of preserving and enhancing the environment. That is the correct context in which to base decisions. The second sets the priorities for dealing with waste: the waste hierarchy, with which your Lordships will be familiar, of minimisation; re-use; the increased use for energy production, and so forth, culminating with landfill where appropriate. It is understandable that that features within the strategy because it would be part of an integrated waste strategy.
The third strategy is that the south east should aim to make adequate provision within the region for the disposal of all its own waste. The fourth is that London should aim to reduce the volumes of wastes which it exports. London boroughs, in preparing their unitary development plans, should have regard to the need to facilitate waste reduction and bulk handling. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is looking puzzled. I believe that this is the appropriate point at which to raise these matters.
The fifth strategy is that in preparing waste local plans, counties should aim to provide for the disposal of their own waste arisings and make an appropriate contribution to regional needs. The sixth is that SERPLAN will provide and periodically update guidance on the quantities of waste likely to require disposal within London and each of the counties of the region.
That neatly summarised the type of responsibilities that a waste regulation authority should address, together with the way in which they could be separated from the areas to be dealt with by the agency. I conclude by saying that if the whole of waste regulation is to be centralised I cannot see at what point it would stop.
Picking up the final point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, I do not know what role the Government see for local authorities. After all, if we are to have a completely centralised system, who should be responsible for collection? It is not simply a matter of emptying dustbins. The authorities which collect have to organise how they do that. For example, they may make arrangements for separating items and for collecting different items in order to recycle those which are suitable for recycling. That is just one example. Therefore, if we are to be centralised, are we to be centralised right down to local level?
10 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: First, I should like to consider Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. I was very surprised to see the amendments. They do not clarify the purposes for which the agency is to be established. Indeed, on the face of it, they leave an agency that has very little to do at all. Pollution control would not be brought together in an integrated way, which is one of the main reasons for establishing the new body, but would remain fragmented as now. The only body that the noble Baroness has targeted for transfer is Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and some functions
640
of the Secretary of State. It would seem that those are to be divided between waste regulation authorities and the agency in some unspecified way.
We published the draft of provisions to establish the agency in October and discussed these proposals fully at Second Reading. On the whole, the agency was broadly welcomed. Indeed, at that stage the noble Baroness said that she welcomed the improvements to the Bill since publication and hoped it would be further strengthened. I cannot regard these amendments as contributing to a strengthening of our proposals.
Amendment No. 20 is covered by Amendment No. 18 and by Amendment No. 21 which we considered previously. It would prevent waste regulation being transferred to the agency. As I explained to the Committee, waste regulation is a fundamental part of the concept and purpose of the agency, and we could not accept such a change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, expressed anxiety about the transfer of waste regulation to the agency which would mean a loss of local accountability and accessibility. I believe that those fears are unfounded. There is no question of the agency being a remote, unaccountable central organisation. In addition to its responsibility to Parliament through Ministers, the agency will have, as one of its main objectives set out in its management statement, the development of a close and responsive relationship to the public and local communities. That will involve establishing arrangements to consult and co-operate with local authorities, both to provide a channel for local anxieties and to ensure proper liaison and co-ordination with related local government functions such as development, control and planning.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, asked me what would remain with local authorities. They retain important environmental duties and even gain new ones in the Bill. The local authorities' functions in relation to air pollution are retained in England and Wales, as are those in relation to statutory nuisance, which are updated for Scotland. In Part II they have new responsibilities with regard to contaminated land. Therefore, the local authorities retain a considerable amount of influence in that area.
Amendment No. 23 would prevent abolition of the London Waste Regulation Authority under Clause 2(3). I can see that this amendment would be necessary if waste regulation functions were not being transferred to the agency. However, I hope that I have convinced Members of the Committee that this would be undesirable, and that this consequential amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Finally, I come to Amendments Nos. 24 and 27. Those would require the London Waste Regulation Authority to draw up transfer schemes in the same way as other waste regulation authorities. That would be inappropriate. The LWRA, like the National Rivers Authority, will be abolished once the agency is set up, and all its property, rights and liabilities will transfer. It will be clear at the point of transfer which property, rights and liabilities belong to, or are enforced against, the LWRA. There is therefore no

641
need for a transfer scheme to identify those. In contrast, other waste regulation authorities are part of larger authorities and a scheme is necessary to identify and transfer the property, rights and liabilities appropriate to the waste regulation function. I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the noble Baroness. I am not persuaded that the amendments should be accepted. I, therefore, ask the noble Baroness whether she will be good enough to withdraw them.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: We clearly have the groupings wrong as regards this collection of amendments. Therefore, they need examining more closely. I accept what the Minister says in that they have not, perhaps, been as well laid out as they might have been. We shall think again about the relationship between local authorities and the environment agency. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 18A not moved.]
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert ("Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act").
The noble Lord said: Compared with some that we have discussed today, this amendment is a simple one aimed at clarification. I feel that Clause 2 as worded does not make it absolutely clear to which Act the schedule referred to in subsection (1) (a) (vii) of
642
Clause 2 belongs. I believe it is important that that should be made clear to cover taking in or delegation of a function by the new agency. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for moving the amendment. It makes it clear that the reference in Clause 2(1) (a) (vii) to the agency's functions under that "Schedule" is a reference to navigation, harbour and conservancy functions transferred to the agency under Schedule 2 to the Water Resources Act 1991. I am happy to accept such an improvement to the drafting of the Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Greenway: I am grateful to the Minister for his response.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Transfer of property, rights and liabilities to the Agency.]
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 32 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  MOROCCO—GIBRALTAR—PARIS AIR SERVICE
  Lord Merrivale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether discussions are proposed for an airline designated by Morocco to operate a route with points in Morocco, Gibraltar and Paris in accordance with the provision of Schedule (II) (1) of the Exchange of Notes (Cm 6798) which entered into force on 20 December 1976.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)
  Royal Air Maroc, the only airline currently designated by Morocco, can commence operations on a route Morocco—Gibraltar—Paris at any time without the need for prior discussions with the United Kingdom Government. The 1976 Exchange of Notes (CM 6798) does not, however, confer the right to pick up passengers in Gibraltar on this route. If a Moroccan airline wished to pick up passengers in Gibraltar for Paris, and vice versa, it would be for the Moroccan authorities to seek to amend the current UK—Morocco air services arrangements accordingly. At air services talks held in Rabat on 12 and 13 January the Moroccan authorities made no such request.

  WHEELCHAIR ACCOMMODATION PROVISION: REPORTS
  Lord Swinfen
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they can confirm the findings of the housing research report entitled Living Independently published by the Department of the Environment on 16th December 1994 which suggests that there is a shortfall of 12,988 wheelchair units in England as outlined in table 2.22 page 55 of the report;

  Whether they can confirm the findings of the housing research report entitled Housing for People with Disabilities published by the Housing Corporation in October 1991 which suggests that there was a shortfall of 330,000 wheelchair units in England at that time as outlined on page 21 of the report; and

  What is the cause of the discrepancy between the estimated shortfall in wheelchair units outlined in the report entitled Housing for People with Disabilities published by the Housing Corporation in October 1991 at 330,000 and the estimated shortfall of 12,988 as outlined in the report entitled Living Independently published by the Department of the Environment on 16 December 1994.

  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)
  Her Majesty's Government are aware of the different figures in these two research reports for shortfalls in provision of wheelchair accommodation in England.

  The data is not comparable because:
  WA 36

  a. the source of the estimate in Housing for People with Disabilities was a general survey of disability which did not specifically examine housing needs and provision. The Living Independently estimate was based on a survey of disabled adults which was intended to produce estimates of housing need;

  b. the Housing for People with Disabilities estimate covered all tenures whereas the Living Independently estimate covers only the shortfall in accommodation provided by local authorities and housing associations;

  c. the Housing for People with Disabilities estimate was a shortfall of wheelchair standard dwellings, whether purpose-built or not. The Living Independently estimate relates to purpose-built wheelchair dwellings only; and,

  d. the Living Independently estimate contains an element to take account of the housing aspirations of disabled people. The study showed that 70 per cent. of disabled people households wish to remain in their existing homes. The Housing for People with Disabilities estimate took no account of housing aspirations.

  ROUGH SLEEPERS INITIATIVE
  Baroness Fisher of Rednal
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the rough sleepers initiative, which started in London, also operates in Birmingham and other large cities.

  Viscount Ullswater
  The Government's £182 million rough sleepers initiative continues to be focused on central London where there remain the greatest concentrations of people sleeping rough. A count by voluntary sector organisations in November 1994 found 288 people sleeping rough in the main central London sites. Outside central London, it is properly the responsibility of each local authority to consider the housing needs of all the people living in its area, including people sleeping rough, when drawing up its housing strategy. The rough sleepers initiative has shown how voluntary and statutory agencies can work together towards the relief of street homelessness, and I commend this model to all local authorities.

  CAERPHILLY NEW DISTRICT: POLICING
  Lord Brougham and Vaux
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What plans they have for the future policing arrangements for the new unitary district of Caerphilly.

  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)
  We have consulted the forces, police authorities and local authorities in the area on the future policing arrangements for the new unitary district of Caerphilly. We also asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary to report on this issue. In the light of the replies received and of the professional
  WA 37
  views of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, we have decided that the Gwent Constabulary shall be responsible for policing the whole of the new district from 1 April 1996. An order will be made in due course, under Section 21A of the Police Act 1964 (as inserted by Section 14 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994), to give effect to this decision, following discussions with the police authorities and forces concerned on the details of its content.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS
  Lord Bruce of Donington
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will state, in respect of legislation published in the Official Journal of the European Communities for each of the years 1993 and 1994 whose titles are printed in bold type and preceded with an asterisk, the number of decisions, directives, regulations and recommendations (stated separately) on the authority of (a) the European Council and (b) the European Commission.

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)
  According to the Commission's CELEX Database on Community legislation, and the Official Journal of the European Communities, legislative instruments produced by the Council and Commission in 1993 and 1994 fall into the following categories:

  1993

  1994

  Council

  Commission

  Council

  Commission

  Directives

  65

  52

  17

  24

  Regulations

  325

  1,160

  180

  1,579

  Decisions

  135

  520

  72

  445

  Recommendations

  5

  2

  5

  3

  A breakdown which excluded those acts not printed in bold type with an asterisk in the Official Journal (i.e. relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters which are generally valid only for a limited period) could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHAPTER
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will submit their decision to opt out of the European social chapter to a referendum.
  WA 38
  Lord Inglewood
  The United Kingdom Government's refusal to accept the proposed new social chapter was enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty and approved by Parliament in agreeing to the ratification of that treaty. The question of a referendum on the issue does not therefore arise.

  ADOPTED CHILDREN: STATISTICS
  Lord Braine of Wheatley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will publish in the Official Report a table showing the total number of children in England and Wales who were adopted at (a) under one year of age, (b) between one year and five years, and (c) over five years for each of the last 30 years for which figures are available.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)
  The information is given in the table.

  Children adopted, by age at adoption, 1962–1992, England and Wales

  Year

  Age at adoption

  Under 1

  1–4

  5 and over1

  All ages of children2

  1962

  9,214

  3,872

  3,808

  16,894

  1963

  9,896

  4,129

  3,757

  17,782

  1964

  11,506

  4,699

  4,207

  20,412

  1965

  11,650

  5,049

  4,333

  21,032

  1966

  12,308

  5,611

  4,873

  22,792

  1967

  12,170

  5,688

  4,944

  22,802

  1968

  12,641

  6,313

  5,877

  24,831

  1969

  11,096

  6,344

  6,268

  23,708

  1970

  8,833

  6,776

  6,764

  22,373

  1971

  7,780

  6,502

  7,213

  21,495

  1972

  6,593

  6,421

  8,585

  21,599

  1973

  6,026

  6,298

  9,923

  22,247

  1974

  5,172

  6,148

  11,182

  22,502

  1975

  4,548

  5,523

  11,228

  21,299

  1976

  3,608

  4,216

  9,797

  17,621

  1977

  2,945

  3,002

  6,801

  12,748

  1978

  2,816

  2,593

  6,712

  12,121

  1979

  2,649

  2,183

  6,038

  10,870

  1980

  2,599

  2,090

  5,920

  10,609

  1981

  2,365

  1,910

  5,009

  9,284

  1982

  2,177

  2,162

  5,901

  10,240

  1983

  1,962

  2,094

  4,973

  9,029

  1984

  1,836

  1,935

  4,859

  8,648

  1985

  1,605

  1,645

  4,340

  7,615

  1986

  1,572

  1,748

  4,496

  7,892

  1987

  1,333

  1,694

  4,121

  7,201

  1988

  1,235

  1,975

  4,099

  7,390

  1989

  1,115

  1,875

  4,033

  7,044

  1990

  969

  1,871

  3,688

  6,533

  1991

  895

  2,071

  4,205

  7,171

  1992

  661

  2,270

  4,409

  7,342

  1 Age 5–17 for 1973–1992; age 5–20 for 1962–1972.

  2 From 1984, the total includes adoptions where age was not stated.