Sitting of 30 January 1995

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

    Competitive Sports
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to encourage competitive sports among young people.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): A priority of my current proposals for restructuring the Sports Council is to ensure that sports governing bodies develop and implement structured programmes for young people. My Department and the Department for Education are also looking at a number of other initiatives to ensure that young people take part in competitive sports in schools, and an announcement will be made in due course.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the English cricketers on their magnificent victory, and wish the English rugby players every luck on Saturday so that they can show that they are good Europeans by trouncing the French? Does he agree that the message would be even better if in primary schools a greater emphasis was placed on competitive sports instead of on sports such as aerobics?
    Mr. Sproat: I certainly echo my hon. Friend's congratulations to the England team; it was a magnificent performance. On the question of competitive sports in schools, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education are currently working together to produce what I hope will be some happy proposals.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister agree that the best place to encourage sport of all sorts—whether competitive or not—is within the schools, and that that can be done only by mobilising the enthusiasm, expertise and time of teachers? Does he agree, however, that the time when teachers could be exploited to take part and do those things in their own time, without being paid, has long gone, and that therefore he must look at a structure that will ensure that they are properly paid for the work that they do?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I certainly agree that the best place for young people to learn is in schools, and I certainly agree that the co-operation and enthusiasm of teachers is extremely important—in fact, it is absolutely
    666
    essential. As far as payment is concerned, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.
    Mr. David Evans: The Minister knows very well that the lot opposite do not believe in competition in anything, whether it is public utilities or school sports days. Can the Minister assure me that we will not have competition in volleyball and other sports like that, but real competition in football, cricket and rugby, so that we might build on the success that we had in cricket this very day?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is quite interesting to consider that, of the schools attended by the England team, in Adelaide this week, half of them no longer play any cricket at all—it may be more; I will have to check that. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of proper competitive games in schools.

    Disabled People (Arts)
    Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the Yorkshire and Humberside regional arts board about improving arts opportunities and facilities for the disabled.
    Mr. Sproat: The Government are committed to access to the arts for people with disabilities—as members of audiences, as performers and as employees. My Department works with the Arts Council in pursuit of that objective and the council liaises closely with individual regional arts boards.
    Mr. Rooney: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does not he consider the work of Access for Disabled People to Arts Premises Today as extremely important and very good value for money? In those terms, does he agree that its grant of £43,000 last year was miserable?
    Mr. Sproat: I agree that the work of the ADAPT trust is extremely important. Its grant last year went up by 10 per cent., which is something for which we should all be grateful.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister cannot be proud, however, of the fact that many arts facilities in Yorkshire, Humberside and elsewhere are not, as yet, fully accessible to disabled people. Nor can he be proud of the fact that the disability unit within the Arts Council was ended last year, as a direct result of Government cuts. Will he now give a guarantee that when the ADAPT grant comes up for renewal in June of this year, it will at the very least be kept at this year's level?
    Mr. Sproat: I look forward to hearing what the various members of the trust have to say about the grant; we shall consider that on its merits. What the Arts Council did with its unit was entirely a matter for the council itself. It decided that, instead of one unit examining the issue of disability in the arts, all its departments should consider the issue. That is what is now happening, and I think it a very sensible way to proceed.

    Press Regulation
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he proposes to publish his White Paper on the regulation of the press.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The White Paper on privacy and media intrusion will be published when we have completed our consideration of the issues raised by the proposed criminal and civil remedies.
    Sir David Knox: I commend my right hon. Friend's caution, but does he not think that the time has come for the White Paper to be published, especially in view of the low standards currently applied by many newspapers?
    Mr. Dorrell: I certainly agree that the time for consideration must be drawing to a close. No purpose is served by indefinite delay, and I very much hope that we shall be able to present proposals in the not too distant future.
    Mr. Soley: Is the Secretary of State saying that we really have reached the stage of drinking-up time in the last chance saloon?
    Mr. Dorrell: No; I am saying that we are thinking about it.
    Mr. Jessel: May I remind my right hon. Friend that, when the Select Committee on National Heritage considered privacy and the media two years ago, the Lord Chancellor personally gave evidence to the Committee and said that we should recommend the appointment of a press ombudsman?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend mentions one of many current proposals. As a member of the Select Committee, he will know that many ways of improving the performance of the press in respecting individuals' right to privacy have been suggested. It is not a matter of controversy in the media; indeed, it is written into the Press Complaints Commission code. The question is how that undertaking can be given more tangible form.

    Disabled People (Access)
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet groups representing disabled people in the near future to discuss access to buildings.
    Mr. Dorrell: Ministers in my Department meet groups representing disabled people regularly. The most recent such meeting was between my noble Friend Lord Astor and the Holiday Care Service on 25 January. The Government's White Paper, "Ending Discrimination against Disabled People", makes it clear that disabled people will be consulted on the detailed implementation of its proposals. My Department will play an active part in that consultation process.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that access means not only the provision of ramps but the availability of information in Braille, audio descriptions and allowing people to take guide dogs to arts venues? Is he aware that training and employment opportunities in the arts
    668
    for disabled people are also important? Does he agree that the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill is woefully inadequate in all those contexts?
    Mr. Dorrell: I agreed with everything that the hon. Lady said until the last sentence. I do not agree that the Government's Bill is inadequate in dealing with the issues that she has correctly raised. She is right to emphasise that a disability policy in the area for which I am responsible must consider the rights of both employees and potential audiences; it must consider all the ways in which disabled people come into contact with sport, the arts and the national heritage. That is my Department's commitment.
    Mr. Corbett: Is the Secretary of State aware of what some theatres, galleries and museums in London have done to provide tape guides, Braille signs and audio aids? Does he accept that, none the less, access to buildings, performances and exhibitions remains inadequate? Does he know, for example, that six out of 10 drama schools have no physical access for people with disabilities, and that some 40-odd colleges are little better in that regard?
    What will the Secretary of State do to help provide more cash for organisation such as ADAPT and the arts and sports councils to end discrimination against people with disabilities? Will he also monitor progress made on access with the money allocated to good causes from the national lottery?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned progress made by the museums sector in London. He might also have mentioned progress made by the national museums sector in the north-west. Museums and galleries on Merseyside, which are part of that sector, have set up a disability access group to implement priorities there, and the museum of science and industry in Manchester—which I visited before Christmas—has taken a number of steps to improve access to exhibitions of artefacts and processes. The progress is not confined to London, nor should it be.
    In terms of resources to improve facilities for disabled people, the Sports Council distributes substantial quantities of money to the British Paralympic Association, the British Sports Association for the Disabled and to the United Kingdom Sports Association for People with Learning Difficulties. Therefore money goes specifically to assist access for the disabled.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the lottery is potentially a further new source of cash. That is why in his guidance to lottery distributors my predecessor emphasised the importance of the access-for-the-disabled theme and why I fully intend to carry forward that commitment.

    Astley Castle
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he will take to safeguard the future of Astley castle in Warwickshire.
    Mr. Dorrell: Discussions on the future of Astley castle are taking place between the owner of the building, the local planning authority, English Heritage

    669
    and the Landmark Trust. My officials are monitoring developments but I see no reason to intervene at this stage.
    Mr. O'Brien: While I accept that discussions are going on with a view to finding a private sector solution to the problem of Astley castle, which is falling into dilapidation and is of national historic importance, does the Minister agree that private sector solutions have failed in the past, that it would be wrong for the burden to fall on the council tax payers of north Warwickshire of a castle that is of national importance, and that the Government must consider whether it is appropriate, if the private sector solution fails, to exercise their statutory ability to intervene and save that castle?
    Mr. Dorrell: As the hon. Gentleman knows there are powers in the hands of the local authority and there are reserve powers vested in me to ensure that listed buildings are maintained to an acceptable standard that reflects their national importance. Local authority powers and those vested in the Secretary of State are intended to be reserve enforcement powers because the law makes it quite clear that the primary responsibility for maintaining listed buildings rests on the owner. It is to secure that outcome that negotiations are proceeding between the district council and the owner of the castle.

    Training Centres
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to establish further training centres for national sporting excellence in cricket and other sports, along the lines of the Australian Cricket Academy.
    Mr. Sproat: I am concerned that sporting structures should exist to enable our young sports men and women to reach their potential and I shall certainly be sharing the results of my recent fact-finding visit to Australia with the appropriate sporting bodies, including the cricket authorities.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Given that today we are all celebrating our team's wonderful fightback and victory, does my hon. Friend agree that, if we, like the Australians, had a cricket academy, we might have won the first three tests as well and not simply be celebrating a victory after the opportunity of winning the series has gone? I thank my hon. Friend for his encouragement to the team as reported in The Daily Telegraph, because it has obviously been successful.
    Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The way in which the England team has conducted itself after appalling injuries and the kind of vicious criticism to which it has been subjected is remarkable. I congratulate Mr. Atherton on his cool concentration and confidence. My hon. Friend asked about cricket academies. The cricket world is rather divided as to whether they help. There is already a cricket academy in Yorkshire and the MCC helps young cricketers in London. I shall certainly consider what Mr. Rod Marsh and others showed me in Adelaide to see whether we can use it to advantage.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister pay a special tribute to the two Derbyshire players, Malcolm
    670
    and DeFreitas? Will he bear it in mind that there are training centres in every coalfield for competitive and individual sport? They are run by the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, but with the privatisation of British Coal, every single village that has produced cricketers and footballers for England and for many clubs and counties throughout Great Britain has been placed in peril. I ask the Minister again whether he will guarantee that CISWO will be safe from the hands of those who have privatised the coal industry and whether he will ensure that those sporting areas are kept in our villages.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member raises an extremely good and important point. With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have done everything I can to protect those facilities, and I continue to do so. I hope that an announcement will be made shortly. I had the pleasure of sitting between Mr. Malcolm and Mr. DeFreitas at the test match in Adelaide. They said that the most important single thing that I could do would be to ensure that cricket was played in schools again, and I agreed.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the sporting structures to which he refers already exist in Lancashire schools, which have produced players of the calibre of Atherton and Crawley? Will my hon. Friend please note and take heart from the fact that a number of young cricketers are coming up in those fine schools in the footsteps of Atherton and Crawley? Will my hon. Friend please urge other schools to take example from the excellent coaching that takes place in Manchester grammar school and Lancashire Royal grammar school, and to follow their example?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the success of Lancashire players and to the good things that happen in so many schools in Lancashire. We want even better things to come from schools everywhere.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister agree that, in the pursuit of excellence in sport, we should not leave out football? Although the incident involving Mr. Eric Cantona last week may have been shameful, we should not forget that football is the national game of the United Kingdom, and that it gives a considerable amount of pleasure to many people Saturday upon Saturday throughout the season?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. Many people look up to footballers. I hope that the football authorities will deal in a proper manner with Mr. Cantona and others who are tempted to behave like him.
    Mr. Pendry: Before the Minister proposes centres of sporting excellence along Australian lines, will he consider again the narrow focus that he proposes for the new sports councils of two or three dozen core sports? Surely centres of excellence can become effective only when set against the other Australian aim of sport for all—their aim should not, as he proposes, be sport for the few. Otherwise, he will marginalise many sporting groups, not least those for the disabled.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what we are trying to achieve in the Sports Council. I

    671
    do not want the Sports Council to spread itself too thinly—I think that it recognises about 117 different governing bodies of sport—but to concentrate on sport for young people and on elite sport and excellence. That does not mean that we shall not do a lot about other matters as well, but a little concentration by the Sports Council on those matters should help everyone.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people, including those who have served in the teaching profession, believe that coaching and supervising competitive sports are an integral part of the job and do not deserve extra pay?
    Mr. Sproat: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will consider that view closely.

    Tourism, London
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his plans to promote tourism to London.
    Mr. Dorrell: London's performance in tourism is important both in itself and as the gateway to the rest of country. I therefore announced on 29 November increased funding for London, to be matched by the private sector.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the general policy of the Government to promote and to encourage the dispersal of visitors to all parts of the United Kingdom? If that is still the case, will he use his best endeavours to encourage bodies that are charged with responsibility for the promotion of tourism in parts of the United Kingdom outside London, to advertise and promote what they have to offer to visitors when they are in London, on the basis that it is a great deal cheaper to tell Americans about the rest of Britain when they are in London than when they are dispersed in America and the rest of the world?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has taken an interest in the subject for a long time and he has got the point precisely right. The biggest audience of overseas visitors to the rest of the UK is people who, as part of their visit—it may be their first visit or part of a visit to London and the provinces—are in London. London as a tourist destination is an essential part of the success of our tourist industry. That is why, as the first stage in the development of our tourist strategy, we are seeking to reinforce the marketing of London as a tourist destination.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the Minister share my view that it is important that visitors to London should be encouraged to see sights on the fringes of London? Is he aware that 100,000 people a year visit the Thames barrier, which has been described as one of the eight modern wonders of the world and which is a superb advertisement for British engineering skills? Is he further aware that the National Rivers Authority proposes to close the visitors centre? Will he ensure that resources are made available not only to refurbish the exhibition there—it is now 10 years old—but to ensure that the centre stays open?
    Mr. Dorrell: If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me about the visitors centre at the Thames barrier, I
    672
    shall be glad to examine the matter. The hon. Gentleman is of course right about promoting the development of tourist destinations on the London rim. Places such as Hampton court and Greenwich are major tourist attractions which are outside the centre of London, and the more visitors we can attract to them, the better pleased the Government will be.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to persuade visitors to London to stay on the outer rim rather than concentrating on hotels in Mayfair? They would be made welcome and comfortable in Northolt, Hanwell and other parts of the borough of Ealing and would find it easy to get into London during off-peak hours. Would not all involved benefit?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which he makes in his own way. The key message for Londoners to take on board is the importance to London's economy of the tourist sector as a whole. Roughly 200,000 jobs in London depend directly on tourism, which contributes nearly £5 billion to the city's economy. It is therefore an important sector for us to develop.

    Disabled People (Cinemas)
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to improve access by disabled people to cinemas.
    Mr. Sproat: The Government's Disability Discrimination Bill was introduced to Parliament on 12 January 1995. It seeks to introduce a right of access for disabled people to goods, facilities and services, including cinemas.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Minister aware that, in a recent survey of 96 cinemas in London, only 22 were found to be accessible to disabled people, and that many disabled people now face the humiliation of being told that they are fire risks? Many of my hon. Friends share the view that the Disability Discrimination Bill does not go far enough. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with that assessment, what plans does he have to influence his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that the Bill allows disabled people to enter London cinemas in the near future?
    Mr. Sproat: I was not aware of the exact statistics, but the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the majority of cinemas do not have the facilities that we would like. In fact, only 25 per cent. of all cinemas around the country do, but a survey of facilities for disabled people is currently being updated by the Cinema Exhibitors Association and when we have the results, which we hope will be shortly, we hope that they can be fed in to consideration of the Bill.

    National Lottery
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to impose an upper limit on the amount of money available to individual prize winners in the national lottery.
    Mr. Dorrell: None.
    Mrs. Campbell: Why is not the Secretary of State prepared to regulate winnings? Is it not better for 17

    673
    people to win £1 million than for one person to win £17 million? Does he not feel that it would be better to spread the benefits to give individuals a greater chance of winning?
    Mr. Dorrell: No, I do not agree with that at all. The hon. Lady is focusing on the wrong issue. The key issue is what structure of lottery prizes will raise the largest sum of money for good causes. There is a wealth of evidence from around the world to suggest that the approach taken in our lottery is better targeted at raising money for good causes than that suggested by the hon. Lady or, it must be said, by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry).
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dogma that people should be rich but not too rich is one of the many things that the new and old Labour parties have in common?
    Mr. Dorrell: One of the entertaining things about listening to spokesmen from different parts of the Labour party is learning where different spokesmen draw the line on where true riches really begin—they cannot seem to agree.

    Disabled Athletes
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has made to the Department of Health regarding provision for athletes with disabilities in the Disability Discrimination Bill.
    Mr. Sproat: The Department of Social Security is in contact with all relevant Departments, including the Department of National Heritage, in taking forward the Government's policy in this sector. In addition, the Sports Council responded to the consultation document issued by the Department of Social Security in July 1994.
    Ms Eagle: Is the Minister satisfied with the level of provision for disabled sport in the Bill? Will he reassure disabled sportsmen and women, in the light of his failure to mention them at all in his statement on the restructuring of the Sports Council, that his plans and the Government's plans, as presented in their Bill, include disabled sportsmen and women and do not marginalise them?
    Mr. Sproat: We are strongly aware of the need for the Sports Council and other bodies in sport to take into full consideration the needs of people with disabilities. The Sports Council gives out more than £500,000 every year. In addition, the Foundation for Sports and the Arts, the Sports Aid Foundation and the sports match scheme all take fully into account the needs of people with disabilities. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, when the lottery letter went out last year from his predecessor, it specifically mentioned the need to take into account people with disabilities.
    Mr. Lidington: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous opportunities that are already being given to many disabled athletes by the Ludwig Guttman sports stadium at Stoke Mandeville in my constituency? Will he confirm that it will be open to the operators of that stadium, or any other sports body, to seek funds under the national lottery provisions to improve their facilities to help disabled athletes?
    Mr. Sproat: It is a marvellous facility, and it would he eligible for lottery funding.

    Disabled People (Arts)
    Mrs. Golding: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the West Midlands regional arts board about improving arts facilities for the disabled.
    Mr. Sproat: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney).
    Mrs. Golding: The West Midlands regional arts hoard has an excellent record of promoting disability arts. Will the Minister study its policies, which not only give access to the disabled, but help the disabled to get jobs in the art world? Will he then promote those policies through his position in Government?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Lady is absolutely right in congratulating the West Midlands regional arts board on what it does. It spends something like £94,000 a year on improving the lot of persons with disabilities in the arts. I know that, in its latest corporate plan, it specifically put forward ways in which it could help further those with disabilities. It sets an example which could well be followed by many another.

    Tourism
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures have been undertaken in recent years to attract more visitors to Britain; and how successful those measures have been.
    Mr. Dorrell: My Department has provided funding of £33.2 million this year to the British Tourist Authority to conduct marketing campaigns through its 20 overseas offices to bring people here. Early estimates suggest that, during the first 10 months of 1994, 17.5 million visitors came to the United Kingdom, up 7 per cent. on the same period in 1993, which was itself a record year.
    Mr. Spring: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that, in areas where British exports are booming, especially in the far east and Latin America, not only is knowledge of the excellence of British goods and services available, but the tourist potential of Britain in those expanding market places is fully known?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the opportunity for this country to extend its tourism marketing effort beyond some of the more mature markets towards some of the emerging markets. My hon. Friend identifies two promising candidates.

    Departmental Staff (Disabled People)
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many of the staff in his Department are disabled; and what proportion this represents of the work force.
    Mr. Sproat: The latest available figures show that 13 staff employed by my Department, excluding our two agencies, identify themselves as disabled. That represents 3.6 per cent. of all staff.
    Mr. Pickthall: If 3.6 per cent. is the correct figure across the Ministry, at least the hon. Gentleman's Ministry is doing a proper job on the quota. Why,

    675
    therefore, are the Government to abolish the quota in advance of the provisions of the new Disability Discrimination Bill being bedded down?
    Mr. Sproat: I am happy to accept the congratulations of the hon. Gentleman on what the Department of National Heritage has achieved. The second part of his question should be discussed as the Bill progresses through the House.

    VE Day (Tourism)
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what benefit to the tourism industry he estimates will accrue from the Victory in Europe commemoration.
    Mr. Dorrell: The tourist boards estimate that events to commemorate VE day may attract up to an additional 10,000 visitors from overseas and perhaps as many as 1 million additional domestic visitors.
    Mr. Waterson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept the view held by many people in this country, including ex-service men and women's organisations, that the difficult and delicate decision to include German representatives and exclude Japanese representatives at VE and VJ commemorations is absolutely right?
    Mr. Dorrell: Yes. I can well understand that there is obvious sensitivity around those matters, and not everyone will feel wholly at home with the decision that has been taken. However, I believe that it is the right decision.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State accept that many people would regard it as an unattractive way to respond to the VE celebrations for the Conservative party to be divided about the future of our relationship with the European Union?
    Mr. Dorrell: It is breathtaking that the hon. Gentleman should seek to make party political capital out of a VE day celebration. The argument about the future of the European Union is clearly an argument between different points of view about how the Union should develop. It has nothing to do with the act of national commemoration which will be at the heart of VE day.

    Actors and Dancers
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of British actors and dancers to meet the needs of British theatre.
    Mr. Sproat: My Department takes a close interest in the well-being of the performing arts in this country. We are aware of concerns over the funding of training for dance and drama students. That is an issue that is currently being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, in consultation with my Department and the Arts Council of England.
    Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend will be aware of how welcome is the obvious priority that the Government are attaching to resolving the question of discretionary grants. May I urge him to press the matter with the utmost speed? I am aware of case after case in my constituency of young
    676
    people who cannot use their skills to train for drama and for dance schools because the local authority does not have the money.
    Mr. Sproat: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the persistence and knowledge with which he has pursued that important point. We are currently considering the findings of the Gulbenkian survey with the Department for Education, and I very much hope that we shall be able to fulfil my hon. Friend's request for a speedy answer.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister will be aware that the matter is now urgent because practically no discretionary grant is handed out to people who want to study dance or drama. This country has a high quality of representation in both those arts. If we are not to lose them, it will require rather more vigour on the Minister's part than has been shown so far.
    Mr. Sproat: That is primarily a matter for the local education authorities.

    National Cricket Academy
    Mr. Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for a national cricket academy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sproat: The establishment of a national cricket academy is essentially a matter for the cricketing authorities. If a suitable project were put forward, I see no reason why it could not be considered as a candidate for lottery funding.
    Mr. Hicks: Despite England's excellent victory in Adelaide yesterday, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need for a cricket academy which could well be funded from the millennium fund or from national lottery funds, provided, of course, that there is the essential structural link between the existing game and any such academy?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The fact that we won the latest test match does not mean that we should consider the matter any less closely. However, the cricketing world is sharply divided over whether we should have a central national cricket academy or whether the matter would be better handled by the individual counties.
    Mr. Enright: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the excellent Yorkshire cricket academy, which produced Darren Gough, the great find of this tour, is a success. However, it will not continue to be a success unless the schools that feed into it have the funds to put into grounds on which they can play cricket. That is an extremely important point, and I urge the Minister to stress its importance to the Department for Education.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the great importance of having proper sports grounds. Of course, it would be open to schools and to those who wish to put forward a plan with them to apply for funds under the lottery for the acquisition of such playing fields, provided that the playing fields were open not just to schools but to the rest of the community. Just to show the hon. Gentleman that I do not merely echo glibly what he

    677
    says about the importance of the Yorkshire cricket academy, let me say that I shall see representatives of the Yorkshire cricket academy later this very week.
    Mr. Elletson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if there is to be a national cricket academy, the proper location for it would be Lancashire, which continues to provide the real backbone of English cricket?
    Mr. Sproat: I had the pleasure of visiting Old Trafford recently, and I saw what was being done there by the Lancashire county authority. I certainly agree that its plan is splendid, but other counties might have different views.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Pension Fund
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations he has received on the viability of the pension fund.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Clergy pensions are currently funded from the Church Commissioners' investment income rather than from a separate pension fund. Following actuarial advice, a number of options for the future funding of pensions are being discussed with the dioceses. They focus on the collection of pension contributions for future service.
    Mr. Corbyn: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect a statement to be made on the future funding of the pension fund, following the representations that he has received? What action is being taken concerning the serious losses incurred by the Church Commissioners pension fund on irresponsible investments in out-of-town shopping centres in the past? Will future pensions be increased in line with average earnings or in line with inflation, or can the right hon. Gentleman give no guarantee at all as to future pension payments both to clergy and to lay employees of the Church of England?
    Mr. Alison: The specific question of when a definitive statement is likely to emerge about future pension arrangements—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will approve of this—will depend to some extent on when the Social Services Select Committee's report on the issue comes out and when the various diocesan consultations have taken place. There cannot in any case be a fundamental change without legislation, so I doubt whether any new arrangements will be in place before 1998.
    As for the underlying value of the assets, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is going up steadily. Assets lay at £2.1 billion in 1992, and by the end of 1993 they had increased to £2.4 billion. The so-called loss of £800 million is already being steadily recouped by the soundness of the Church Commissioners' investment.
    Future pensions will continue to be linked to clergy stipends. Clergy stipends have been linked to average earnings. That link is likely to persist.

    Historic Church Buildings
    Mr. Miller: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what
    678
    representation the Commission has received regarding value added tax on repairs and maintenance of historic church buildings.
    Mr. Alison: The commissioners have no direct responsibility within the Church of England on the issue, but they have supported representations by the Churches Main Committee to the Government about the heavy VAT burden which churches currently have to bear.
    Mr. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Right Rev. Michael Baughen, Bishop of Chester, that such a reduction in VAT would help to protect our historic church buildings? If the European Commission brings forward the proposals that have been suggested, should not the Government accept such proposals as a way of protecting those buildings?
    Mr. Alison: Yes, I very much hope that any changes recommended by the European Commission in this matter will be reflected by changes in the Government's approach to VAT. I endorse what Bishop Michael Baughen has said about the heavy burden represented by VAT, but it should not be overlooked that the Government have been supportive of charities in the past, not only by the long-standing exemption from income tax from their direct income, but by introducing gift aid and relaxing the regulations on charitable deeds of covenant. They have increased the ability of English Heritage to make grants to cathedrals and other places of worship in use. We should not underestimate the extent to which the Government have sought to help charities, but I agree that there is more land to be possessed.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for National Heritage recently kindly met a deputation from the Historic Churches Preservation Trust to discuss that and other issues? Will my right hon. Friend talk to the Secretary of State about the matter and ensure that vigourous representations are made, as the measure places a crippling burden on many smaller, and particularly rural, parishes?
    Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has a peculiarly attuned and sensitive ear and is capable of hearing anything which is bruited around the House. He will have taken careful note of what my hon. Friend has said, and he will reflect that I have had occasion to write to his Department on the matter. I hope that there will be a benign approach to any changes proposed by Brussels on VAT.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he plans to restrict the scope of legal aid.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): The Lord Chancellor does not plan to restrict the scope of legal aid. New proposals for legal aid will be the subject of a Green

    679
    Paper later in the year, as anticipated in the Lord Chancellor's recent speech to the Social Market Foundation.
    Mr. Brazier: Is my hon. Friend aware of how welcome are the proposals which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has outlined for setting up limited budgets to many hard-pressed taxpayers? Given the considerable powers which officials in area legal aid offices have, and given that those powers are likely to be extended, is there not a strong case for having some voluntary oversight?
    Mr. Taylor: The board can refuse legal aid on the grounds of merit and, if so, an applicant can appeal to an area committee, whose members are independent legal practitioners not employed by the board. In addition, complaints about the board's administration are susceptible to investigation by the ombudsman.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Does the Minister agree that it is important that people who rely on legal aid to obtain justice should have the same level of representation as the Crown Prosecution Service at any appeal to a court or to the Lord Chancellor? Will he ensure that there will be that equality of representation?
    Mr. Taylor: I want to give a serious answer to a serious question, but I should have thought that most advocates in the private sector would consider themselves to be every bit as good as the advocates in the Crown Prosecution Service.
    Mr. Stephen: Can my hon. Friend confirm press reports that the Legal Aid Board has granted legal aid to Winston Silcott to enable him to sue the police? Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Silcott has received £17,000 compensation from the Home Office within the past six months? How can it be that people can give money away to friends and relations, as Silcott has done, and then claim to be too poor to pay their own lawyers' fees? Does not that make a mockery of the legal aid system?
    Mr. Taylor: Although I cannot comment on the details of any individual case, I have no reason to believe that Mr. Silcott's application has been dealt with any differently from anybody else's.
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to deal with abuses of the legal aid system; and when he will bring them forward.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Legal Aid Board has made a number of proposals in relation to the green form scheme, which are being taken forward now.
    Mr. Mudie: The Minister will be aware that the Lord Chancellor has suggested cash-limiting the legal aid budget on a regional basis. Is the Minister aware that where that has been tried, in the social fund, hundreds of thousands of genuine claimants have been refused aid because the money has run out? Does the Minister agree that it would be intolerable for that to happen in justice? Will he ask the Lord Chancellor to think again? If the noble Lord wishes to persist, will the Minister ensure that there are proper safeguards to protect innocent people?
    Mr. Taylor: That matter is so far only the subject of a prelude speech by the Lord Chancellor. A Green Paper will be issued. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's
    680
    question will be taken into account. For the moment, raising the spectre of cash running out is scaremongering and we certainly want to ensure that that does not happen.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: When considering changes to the legal aid system, will my hon. Friend consider those cases in which someone assisted by legal aid can pursue a civil claim against a business, which is not able to claim such aid? The case can bring the business almost to the point of bankruptcy and, even when the business eventually wins, it is unlikely to be awarded any compensation by the courts.
    Mr. Taylor: It is part of the original sin of legal aid—if that is the correct expression—that, in civil cases, one encounters disputes in which party A has legal aid and party B does not, whether the latter is a limited liability company or another citizen. As long as resources are not infinite and there has to be a cut-off point, as there does with many such welfare schemes, it is almost inevitable that one party will be legally aided while the other is not.
    Mr. Boateng: We have heard a lot from the Minister about cuts that affect the consumers of legal services. What are he and the Lord Chancellor doing to deal with the scandal of restrictive practices within the legal profession? Have they met the Bar and the Law Society to deal with how lawyers might put their own house in order, so that more consumers can benefit from legal services at a time when those are being cut?
    Mr. Taylor: That was an interesting question. I am no more in favour of restrictive practices than the hon. Gentleman, but he knows as well as I that the legal professions are self-regulating. Obviously, we view any abuses of public money with the greatest possible concern because that is what the House would want us to do. Meanwhile, I think that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the fact that the Lord Chancellor wants to widen the categories of people who dispense legal advice. It need not be solicitors and barristers only, but could include citizens advice bureaux, as supported by me, and law centres, as supported by him.
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further changes are planned for the legal aid system.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: New proposals for legal aid will be the subject of a Green Paper later in the year.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the great concerns about the system has been the large number of people on modest incomes who have not been eligible for legal aid? That was one of the concerns highlighted in the excellent debate in the House last Wednesday morning, to which my hon. Friend replied. Will he reconsider the position of the so-called MINELAs—middle income, not eligible for legal aid?
    Mr. Taylor: Yes. I am probably in that category. I want to share with my hon. Friend the emergence of the regime of conditional fees—no win, no fee. Many cases, especially personal injury cases, will be susceptible to that scheme. Although the idea is in a fledgling state, there

    681
    is also a possibility of people obtaining legal expenses insurance, as many of us do in respect of our motor policies.
    Mrs. Roche: Given that the Lord Chancellor removed legal aid from 14 million people in 1993, is it not about time that he and his Department started to make the legal system more accessible to ordinary people and more efficient, rather than clobbering them time after time?
    Mr. Taylor: I have never understood how 14 million people could fall out of a scheme used by 3 million people. We want to widen access and some of my suggestions to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) were along those lines.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the provision of legal aid to the apparently rich.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor and I have received a number of representations on that subject and it was for that reason that the Lord Chancellor issued the consultation paper "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy" on 20 December 1994. Responses are required by 1 March.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is unprecedented public anger that people such as Mr. Ernest Saunders, Mr. Roger Levitt, Mr. Gordon Foxley and Mr. Hashim should get legal aid? Does not that roll call of wealthy parasites, including Mr. Asil Nadir, underline the need to deprive the apparently wealthy of access to the taxpayer's money?
    Mr. Taylor: To his credit, my hon. Friend was successful in securing a debate on that subject on the Floor of the House last Wednesday morning. He was eloquent then and was equally robust and clear in the point that he has just made. I am grateful to him.
    Mr. Skinner: What is the answer, then?
    Madam Speaker: Does the Minister want to go further in answering that question? If so, I must allow him to do so.
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, because it was clear from sedentary interventions that certain hon. Members thought that my reply did not hit the nail on the head. The answer is, as some hon. Members know already, that we have produced a consultative paper entitled "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy" which deals, among other things, with exactly the points about which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) is concerned.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that not only did Asil Nadir get legal aid but it has now been proved that the money handed over by Asil Nadir to the Tory party, amounting to £440,000, had been stolen? The Tory Minister dealing with the matter at that stage said that if the money were found to be stolen, he would ensure that it went back to its rightful source. Has that been done?
    Mr. Taylor: Do you know, Madam Speaker, the extraordinary thing is that there is nothing in my file about that?

    Privity of Contract
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about privity of contract; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: My hon. Friend will know the latest state of play from the meeting that I had with him last Thursday.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend urge his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to complete their consultations as soon as possible with a view to the Government introducing a reform Bill without further delay?
    Mr. Taylor: I am always prepared to assist my hon. Friend by any conversations that I can usefully have with the Department of the Environment, but I should put it on record that the Government had agreed my hon. Friend's Bill when he introduced it. While I am pleased that the British Retail Consortium and the British Property Federation are agreed, they have agreed to something else, and that sets us back a bit. I am concerned, above all, about the small tenant.

    Trials (Press Coverage)
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the press coverage of trials.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The administration of justice should, so far as possible, be public. Subject to certain statutory safeguards, including the law relating to contempt of court, the coverage of trials is a matter for the press itself.
    Mr. Soley: Why did not the Lord Chancellor's Department act in the case of the Taylor sisters, where the court decided, partly on the basis of press coverage, that they had been wrongly convicted? Has the Lord Chancellor considered the alternative of requiring newspapers to cover both the defence and the prosecution equally, so that prosecutions are not based on salacious claims that later turn out to be false?
    Mr. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor would not intervene in a judicial capacity—he would not act in an appellate function. I know that the hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of that subject because, some time ago, he introduced a private Member's Bill that dealt with it. I do not know whether we should consider obliging the press to cover each side equally, as they do in general elections. [Laughter.] That proposition does not seem to have found a favourable reception. I shall reflect on the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about equality of coverage.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the sub judice system in the United Kingdom is the envy of other parts of the English-speaking world? Does he further agree that the O.J. Simpson trial is making a mockery of the United States' judicial system?
    Mr. Taylor: I watched some of that on television last night. The sub judice rule has served us well and should be reconsidered only with the greatest possible care.

    Legal Aid
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from legal aid lawyers in Rochdale, in the past six months, regarding proposed changes to the legal aid system.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I am not aware that the Lord Chancellor or I have received any such representations directly from Rochdale solicitors or via the hon. Lady. The Rochdale solicitors have been particularly helpful
    684
    with a non-solicitor legal aid experiment conducted with the Rochdale citizens advice bureau. I wish all parties to those arrangements every possible success.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that many solicitors are finding it increasingly unprofitable to perform legal aid work? What assurances can he give my constituents in Rochdale and elsewhere that the services will not decline?
    Mr. Taylor: We owe it to the House to keep an eye on the levels of expenditure on legal aid, as it constitutes part of the public purse. I believe that, by and large, legal aid practitioners know how to work expeditiously and to a high standard, and many of them are acquiring franchises by so doing. I think that the best of them will work well and find standard fees extremely congenial with their skills.

Channel Tunnel (Security)
3.29 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on security in the channel tunnel.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Allegations were published yesterday that on certain specified days security arrangements for the Eurostar and Eurotunnel trains were inadequate. When those allegations were brought to my attention at the beginning of the weekend, I immediately called for urgent reports from the two companies.
The Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 requires the operators of the tunnel and of the trains that go through it to carry out counter-terrorist security measures. Similar measures are applied in France and Belgium as agreed between our three Governments. The operators are responsible for ensuring that the security measures are applied properly. Here, my Department's inspectors give instructions, offer advice and make both announced and unannounced inspections.
The Government's requirements have not changed since the tunnel was opened. The House will not expect me to detail the requirements. Suffice to say that security measures are closely tailored to the threat, as assessed by the Government's security advisers. Among other measures, all traffic in the tunnel, passenger and freight, is liable to be searched. There is not and never has been a requirement for all passengers or vehicles to be searched. On the other hand, permitting a passenger to get off a train prior to arrival at his destination and leaving behind an unattended bag is a potentially serious matter, and could be a breach of security requirements.
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I take security issues seriously. I will decide what further action needs to be taken in light of the reports that I have commissioned and any further security advice that I receive.
Mr. Meacher: In the debate about the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order last year, the Minister for Public Transport wrote to members of the Committee on 3 March stating:
"John Taylor also sought reassurance that the security of channel tunnel services would be comparable with arrangements at airports, and I was happy to give him that assurance".
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that correspondence and will he confirm that that commitment is very far from being met? Even if that requirement were excessive, will he not accept that, given the symbolic significance of the channel tunnel, there is a balance to be struck between ensuring speed of throughput and non-intrusiveness of checks on the one hand and a reasonably high level of security on the other, and the Observer revelations yesterday suggest that that balance is being struck at too low a level of security?
How are the right hon. Gentleman's assurances today about security in the channel tunnel consistent with random checks which show that most cars are not even subject to the most cursory search, most foot passengers' baggage is not scanned electronically, and only a few lorries have been required to pass through the enhanced X-ray scanner? Is it not a breach of procedure—the Minister seemed to agree that it was—that passengers were permitted to leave the Eurostar train without any
686
checks being made of their baggage? In light of what he said, what action is he taking to ensure that that does not happen again?
Since the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the implementation of agreed security procedures in the channel tunnel rests with the Department of Transport security division, will the Minister say how many inspections of the tunnel operators' procedures that division has carried out so far? When was the last inspection and to what extent did it reveal any deficiencies?
In addition to the risk of terrorist bombing, will the Minister also inform the House whether evacuation procedures have been fully tested and practised in the event of a breakdown or fire in the tunnel, taking into account fully loaded trains and a throughput at peak capacity of a train in the tunnel every three minutes—which means that there could be up to seven trains in the tunnel at any one time? Have evacuation procedures been properly tested under those conditions, including the requirement for following trains to reverse out of the tunnel? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman publish the results?
There can be no absolute guarantee of passenger or vehicle safety, but does the Secretary of State accept that the laxity in procedures that has been exposed is not acceptable, and can and must be tightened without significant intrusiveness or loss of speed of transmission?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware that my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Public Transport wrote to members of the Committee, referring to his remarks to the House. I noted with interest that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) gave only a partial quotation over the weekend, as did the Observer. My right hon. Friend told the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor):
"security at the tunnel will be comparable to that of airlines and at airports, commensurate with the threat."—[0fficial Report, 16 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 982.]
Those words were left out of the quotations that filled the airways and the hon. Gentleman's comments over the weekend.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a balance must be struck, and not in a way that deliberately or in a focused manner seeks to underestimate the importance of security. He and I are as one on that. However, I will not prejudge—and the hon. Gentleman will understand why—the reports that I have sought. Given my personal background, I take security issues particularly seriously. I will study carefully the reports that I urgently commissioned, and if I judge that further action should be taken, I will not hesitate to take that action.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point about evacuation, certificates to run trains through the tunnel require safety checks of the sort to which he referred. I hope that he finds that reassuring.
I want to end on a common note in responding to the hon. Gentleman's questions. I was pleased that he recognised that there can never be an absolute guarantee of safety—but together we share the view that all appropriate steps should be taken, for the sake of not only safety but public confidence.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone who has served as a Northern Ireland Minister retains a special interest in security

687
matters? Is he aware that I have had several opportunities to study the operation of the channel tunnel, the most recent being yesterday? Does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone who approaches security issues is wise to do so with discretion and balance—two qualities in short supply at the Observer, and of which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is devoid?
Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend that he and I, and others, have special reason to take security matters seriously and that his experiences, like mine, are not lightly forgotten. I come to the issue against that background. If the newspaper in question had been concerned about security issues, one might have thought that it would raise them with the appropriate people—the operators—in a framework that gave them an opportunity to respond adequately and appropriately to the allegations. But that might not have created such a good newspaper story.
Having said that, I recognise the seriousness of the issues and of the allegations made. They must and will be investigated. If I believe that further action must be taken, I will ensure that the operators take it.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The whole House will recognise that we cannot prejudge the reports that the Secretary of State has asked for. I hope that he will accept that from the Liberal Democrat party at least.
We also welcome the right hon. Gentleman's most important remark this afternoon—that he accepts full ministerial responsibility. He has shown as much by making this statement.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread concern about the mechanisms—who is watching the watchdogs? The Minister takes responsibility, but what is there to ensure that those who are responsible for surveillance, evacuation and emergency procedures are themselves under the surveillance of the Minister, or at least under his authority? If no such system is in place, the Minister must be aware that incidents of this sort will continue and will constantly be referred back to the House and to his desk at the Department.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about not prejudging the issue: I agree with him. If he was saying that security measures must be related to the threat, including the vulnerability of the system, I also agree with him on that important point.
I said in my answer to the private notice question that my Department's inspectors, independently of the operators, give security instructions, offer advice and make announced and unannounced inspections of the system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find some encouragement in that.
Mr. Roger Gale: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the synthetic outrage generated by this stunt is not allowed to obscure the genuine and long-standing concern of some of us about the training of channel tunnel staff and the co-ordination of the emergency services that work with the tunnel operators? My right hon. Friend will know that the recent bi-national exercise left a number of unanswered questions; one would hope that, as a result of the lessons learned, action will have been taken.
688
Will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure that a further bi-national exercise is held, so that we can establish whether the lessons of bi-nat 6 have been learned, and so that we can test the security services?
Dr. Mawhinney: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, I am not going to refer to security arrangements in any form from the Dispatch Box. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West for his recognition of that. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that all appropriate steps need to be taken and that they are likely to include training, which is an important and legitimate aspect of security arrangements. I should have thought that the whole House would be as keen as I am to ensure that public confidence in the system, which is high, remains high—and justifiably so.
Mr. Bruce George: I am delighted that the Minister has not responded to attempts to politicise this issue, because it is not—it should not be—remotely a party political one. The channel tunnel is the No. 1 terrorist target in the world. It would not take a major terrorist organisation to destroy it; that could be done by a tiny organisation with access to relatively unsophisticated technology.
Will the right hon. Gentleman review the idea that security must be tailored to the threat? Although that seems a smart phrase to use, and although security can be upped or lowered at the margins, the threat from a tiny organisation can be such that no amount of manipulating the response to it will result in preparedness for someone trying a long shot from 60 yards.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that my point is valid. I ask him not to be beguiled by security analysts who describe the threat as greater or lesser. When the threat is thought to be low is the very time when some organisation can try it on, possibly with disastrous consequences.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about not making this into a partisan issue—although he will understand that, just occasionally, the temptation is large. [Interruption.] I am glad to note that he does not belong to the same luddite tendency as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) appears to belong to.
A security assessment is not just a beguiling figment of the imagination, but having said that, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We are tending to move into an Adjournment debate when putting questions to the Minister. Could I now have brisk and direct questions to the Minister?
Mr. Robert Key: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when the reports are forthcoming, he will not publish them? Does he agree that the British public have the safest transport systems in the world when it comes to security? They can have total confidence in the

689
system. In particular, they can have confidence in this case in the Department's own inspectors, in the Kent constabulary and in the Gendarmerie Nationale.
Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right in all respects. I have travelled through the channel tunnel with full confidence and expect to do so again very shortly.
Ms Glenda Jackson: As my constituents have suffered from a number of bomb outrages, will the Secretary of State, in the new review of channel tunnel security, include consideration of possible terrorist outrages at the St. Pancras terminal?
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Lady is getting somewhat beyond the scope of the question, and in the light of your instructions, Madam Speaker, I will not respond.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the Minister is correct. Perhaps the hon. Lady will put a question to the appropriate Minister on the appropriate day.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has not the gleeful scaremongering in this case got something to do with the gleeful mudslinging in the case of Ebbsfleet station, in as much as it puts in jeopardy the future jobs of people in Kent? If there are instances, as there appear to be, of lapses in security, is not the proper response to take it privately to the competent authorities, all the way up to the Secretary of State if necessary?
Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right; if there are concerns, suspicions or allegations, they should be properly investigated and those reports studied carefully. I will do that.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept that the issue concerns more than just the south-east of England. It concerns, of course, the other regions of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Bearing in minding that fact, does he accept that his resentment at the coverage that the Observer has given to the issue reflects the image of a departmental team caught on the hop? Does not the disarray of Transport Ministers show that the public are paying the price of the merry-go-round in Transport Ministers that exists under the Government? Does that not reflect his state of unreadiness?
Dr. Mawhinney: First, let me make it clear that I have no resentment about the Observer running whatever articles it wishes to run—be they true, false or somewhere in between. Secondly, there is no state of unreadiness. Thirdly, I have explained to the House exactly who is responsible and the various layers of responsibility. Fourthly, if action needs to be taken, it will be, and in a way which I hope will reassure the hon. Gentleman of the competence and readiness of this team to pursue its due responsibilities not only up to the next election but beyond.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, far from the picture painted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), his Department looked at the most sophisticated scientific
690
techniques of non-invasive automated cargo inspection as far back as the beginning of 1991 and that programmes were undertaken to test that technology? Without giving the House the details of that technology, because it is a matter of security, will he confirm that the most sophisticated measures were looked at and will continue to be examined by his Department, especially the security officials within it?
Dr. Mawhinney: For reasons that I explained earlier, I will not be drawn into discussing security measures, but my hon. Friend is right to bolster public confidence in the arrangements that are in place.
Mr. Tony Worthington: There was a strange omission in the Secretary of State's response today. He said that his own inspectorate has powers to inspect and see what has been happening. On what occasions has it inspected? That was asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), and there was no response. Was it satisfied with its inspection? If not, did it report that to the Minister? What action was taken?
Dr. Mawhinney: As the House will understand, that question involves security. I will not be drawn on such issues.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Is it not a fact that no inspectors have been appointed under the auspices of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, and that the inspectors referred to by the Secretary of State are mere civil servants—although, no doubt, senior bods? They have no statutory basis. When will the Government clarify the respective responsibilities of the French authorities, the British Health and Safety Executive and the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority? When will proper inspectors be appointed, and who precisely are the inspectors referred to by the Secretary of State?
Dr. Mawhinney: The House will have noted the hon. Gentleman's contempt for civil servants, security advisers and inspectors. I must tell him that that contempt is restricted to him. As for co-operation between national Governments and national security authorities, it is very good.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Has there not been legitimate concern that Eurostar's marketing strategy has downplayed the special nature of this form of transport? Has that not led to insufficient emphasis on the need to arrive on time, and hence to very rushed security measures before people board the train? Travellers have been unsure whether they are boarding a train with the same security arrangements as an aircraft, or an ordinary, conventional train. Even Members of Parliament have fallen foul of the arrangements.
Dr. Mawhinney: I do not accept that for a moment. Coincidentally, the other day someone told me that they were concerned about the amount of time for which it was apparently necessary to be present before the train's departure, precisely because of the various security arrangements that had to be made before boarding was possible.

Points of Order
3.51 pm
Mr. John Sykes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Thursday, before Business Questions, I made an intemperate allegation relating to Opposition Members and the Register of Members' Interests. With your permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to withdraw the remark, which was made in the heat of the moment. I apologise to you and the House for any offence that I may have caused.
Madam Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely the way in which we should deal with such matters in the House.

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  (Clauses Nos. 2, 5, 8, 15, 52, 64 and 91, Schedules Nos. 1, 4, 11, and 14, and any new Clauses 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)
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 25th January].
  [MR. MICHAEL. MORRIS in the Chair]
  Ordered,
  That the order in which the remaining proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill are to be taken shall be Clause 52, Schedule 11, Clause 15, Schedule 4.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  Finance Bill
    Clause 52

      PENSIONS
      3.52 pm
      Mr.Alistair Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 45, line 36, at end insert—
      '(2) Schedule 11 shall come into effect only if the Government has presented a report to Parliament before the passing of this Act on certain aspects of the Schedule specified in subsection (3) below.
      (3) The Government shall report to Parliament on—

      (a) the likely effects of the provisions of Schedule 11 to this Act on the costs of administering personal pension schemes;

      (b) an assessment of the risks to members of personal pension schemes of decisions taken as a result of the provisions of Schedule 11; and

      (c) considerations raised by the extension of the provisions of Schedule 11 to retirement benefit schemes and retirement annuity contracts.'.

      The subject of pensions may not often be the stuff of political cut and thrust—and, indeed, there is widespread agreement on the principle of this part of the Bill—but we have a number of questions and anxieties.
      While welcoming the principle underlying clause 52—the introduction of more flexibility in the purchase of annuities—the amendment raises concerns that have been expressed inside and outside the House about both the cost of the scheme and who will meet it, and the whole question of risk. I refer to the risk of deferment, and also to that involved in any arrangements made by those wishing to secure greater flexibility than would be available in, for example, an occupational pension scheme. The amendment also deals with certain other considerations. Its purpose is to probe the Government on their intentions, mindful as we are that what Ministers say in the House can be relied on by those outside. I hope that I shall be able to persuade Ministers to make one or two helpful explanations.
      As I have said, we welcome the flexibility introduced by clause 52, which will enable people to defer purchasing their annuities at any time between the ages of 50 and 75—a flexibility heralded by the White Paper that the Government published in June last year. We welcome that, but a number of problems remain.
      While the flexibility for personal pension schemes is welcome in that it will enable people to defer purchasing an annuity if they think that circumstances justify such deferment, there are two particular concerns that need to

      693
      be addressed. The first is obvious, and it is that people must be warned that there is no guarantee that rates will necessarily get better. Although there is flexibility and many people will be tempted to think that things can only get better, experience should tell them that that is not necessarily the case.
      I shall return to that because, clearly, the warnings given to people who buy pensions or who transfer from occupational schemes to private schemes have exercised Parliament and people outside for some time. If the Government or the industry propose to publicise the provision, it is important for people to be warned that deferring purchase does not necessarily guarantee better returns.
      The second matter concerning us is the cost of the scheme. I notice that the Government—as they do now with nearly all measures—published a compliance cost assessment which is available on request from the Treasury. It makes interesting reading, because it looks at the costs of introducing the measure and in particular at the businesses that might be affected and states that it would not affect small business. But that depends on how one defines costs, because many financial advisers, who for the most part constitute small businesses, will incur additional costs for the advice and the preparation of papers that need to be given to prospective purchasers of policies.
      The Committee will be aware that, under the new disclosure regime it is necessary to give far more information to prospective purchasers of pensions and that will give rise to costs for small businesses. Therefore, I am surprised that the Government can assert in their compliance cost assessment that small businesses will not be affected.
      Looking generally at the compliance costs, I note that the Revenue admits that the setting-up costs of the new scheme will be about £1.15 billion. That is a substantial cost and, of course, it will have to be met by the public. The Government do not propose to meet it, and I do not suggest for a minute that they should because, clearly, the industry must meet the costs itself. However, at the end of the day any cost incurred by the industry will be passed on to the public, and that is bound to affect people's decisions. I shall shortly return to the whole question of the regulatory regime that goes side by side with this in assessing risks and costs.
      It is important at the outset to flag up the fact that there will be a significant cost. I understand that an annual recurring cost of more than £500,000 is expected to be incurred. I mention that because an article in today's edition of the Financial Times makes disturbing reading. It suggests that more than 20 per cent. of pension policies are halted within the first year and, plainly, cost will be one reason for that halting. After that period, termination rates are also high.
      It is very much in the interests of individuals and in the interests of any Government to ensure that people make provision for themselves alongside public provision. If we are to encourage people to do that we must be mindful of the costs that will be imposed on them and of the warnings given to people who decide to buy certain policies.
      As I have said, disclosure will clearly flag up to people what they are paying for, at least if disclosure works properly, but it could have a knock-on effect in terms of reduced sales, which have already taken a knock over the past year because of loss of confidence in the regulatory
      694
      regime. I understand that some people in the industry think that sales may have gone down by about 10 per cent. over the past year because of that loss of confidence.
      The main point on which I would like to draw Ministers is the thinking behind the decision apparently—I emphasise apparently—not to extend the flexibility to other pension schemes. The clause affects private pensions and we have no objection to that, but it would be helpful to get a clear statement of policy from Ministers about the Government's intentions. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a statement through a press release, but, of course, that has no legal force whatever. Many members of the public and people who work in the industry would like to know the Government's view on extending flexibility to occupational schemes and AVCs. In one view, they might be excluded because of Inland Revenue practice. I think that they might be excluded more because of practice than because of the law.
      A number of categories are not included. Retirement annuity contracts were the forerunners of personal pensions and were largely superseded in 1988. They are apparently not affected. In a Treasury press release issued on 4 January, the Financial Secretary said that those people would benefit because
      "they all had the option to transfer funds into a personal pension on the open market."
      Indeed they have that option, but, if one considers the recent history of pension transfers, one might have thought that Ministers would have thought long and hard about casually saying to people who have retirement annuity contracts, "Don't worry. Just transfer."
      Transfer incurs costs and may be inappropriate in a number of cases, depending on individual circumstances. To suggest, as the Financial Secretary apparently did, that no difficulty was involved, but that people should simply transfer to a private personal pension was not necessarily the appropriate advice to give. It would be helpful if either the Financial Secretary or the Minister of State, who appears to be poised to answer for the Government, would comment on that matter.
      4 pm
      Ministers should bear it in mind that it is only a year since the Securities and Investments Board discovered that up to 2 million pensions might have been inappropriately sold to people, who were wrongly persuaded to opt out of occupational schemes and to transfer to personal pension schemes. The Government should be wary of, as a matter of policy, encouraging people to opt out of an occupational scheme, or of any other scheme, and to transfer to a private pension, if they do not need to do so.
      I am not saying that we should discourage people from taking out private pensions, which is appropriate for a number of people. The Government seem to accept that a need for flexibility exists in relation to occupational pensions, but the House should pass no measure that forces people to opt out and to transfer to a private pension, when they would not otherwise do so.
      Mr. Nigel Forman: I am seeking to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and I have some sympathy with it. To refine his point further, will he clarify that he is talking about the unwisdom of persuading people to transfer to personal

      695
      pensions from occupational pensions when they are, shall we say, aged over 45 or 50? Is not he making a blanket statement about people of all ages in their working career?
      Mr. Darling: For many people, it is entirely appropriate to have a private pension—it depends on what they do, their age and their likely work pattern. Unlike in the past, many people will not reasonably expect to be in the same employment from the age of 20 to the age of 60 or 65, when the receive their gold watch. The Labour party has never said that the purchase of a private pension—never mind transfer—is a bad thing. That can be good and appropriate.
      No doubt exists, however, that, in the past few years, a number of people have been wrongly advised to come out of occupational schemes and to go into private schemes, not because it was good for them, but because it was good for the salesman and insurance companies. That is the point that has exercised people in the past year.
      I am making a general point. The Financial Secretary said that the way out of the difficulty, and the way to achieve flexibility, was for people in occupational schemes to transfer to private schemes. The Government should not force people to opt out to achieve flexibility if, through certain measures in the House or a change in Inland Revenue practice, they could achieve the same flexibility by staying where they are. Transfer should not be forced on people.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the past few years, the Government and people acting on their behalf have obviously sent a signal to many workers, such as those in the mining industry, that it would be a splendid idea to opt out of the National Coal Board and British Coal pension, with the result that there are more than 100,000 casualties in the coalfields—people with redundancy money and the pensions entitlement. The net result is that there are people in every constituency in the coalfield areas who have been kidded on by salesmen acting on the signal sent by the Government. Many are now trying to fight in the courts to re-establish their entitlement to a pension although, of course, they are unable to get legal aid because the Government have chopped that, too.
      Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We all remember the television advertisements depicting a man in a straitjacket being freed by the change in the law in the late 1980s, a change for which the current Secretary of State for Social Security and another Minister—now the Prime Minister—had prime responsibility. We are all aware of the difficulties subsequently caused by the mis-selling of pensions. My point is that we should not bring about another situation in which people are forced to transfer to get the flexibility that we welcome in respect of private pensions. It is on that point in particular that I want Ministers to tell the House what the Government believe the law to be and what they believe to be the Inland Revenue's practice.
      As I said, we should not as a matter of principle force people to opt out. It is bad enough that people are wrongly persuaded to do so for all sorts of extraneous reasons—because of the way in which the commission system works, or because salesmen are under pressure to sell policies in order to keep their jobs and earn enough to
      696
      feed their families, which I regard as a fundamental structural defect in the industry—but the House should not do the same.
      Mr. Forman: Once again I must ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify the point. I think that he is using language rather loosely. He talks about people being forced to transfer. Clearly, we all deplore the mis-selling of pensions that has happened, but nothing in the Bill requires such a transfer to be made; there are simply advantages held out for those who make such a move.
      Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is also guilty of being a bit vague. No one is suggesting that there is anything in the Bill to force someone to transfer, but clearly, if there is flexibility with a personal pension and inflexibility with an occupational pension, although people are not forced to transfer in the sense that no one is holding a gun to their heads, they may be "forced" to get the necessary flexibility. If the Government are committed to flexibility—a principle that we support—I should have thought that it should be universally applied to all pensions, unless there are good reasons why not. If there are good reasons why it should not be universally applied, we shall no doubt hear them, but, as things stand at the moment, the Bill provides flexibility for private pensions.
      If he was quoted correctly—as the words appear in a Treasury press release, I have no reason to believe that they are incorrect—the Financial Secretary said that those who had retirement annuity contracts would benefit because they had the option to transfer. That means that they would have to transfer to get that option. Exactly the same thing applies to occupational pension schemes.
      The press release also reports the Financial Secretary as saying:
      "it is not clear that any legislative changes are needed. The purchase of an annuity is very often a part of the structure of these schemes, but the Inland Revenue are prepared to consider any ideas that scheme sponsors may have for introducing more flexibility in this area."
      It is my understanding that no legal change is necessary—I am sure that Ministers will tell me if my understanding is wrong—but the Financial Secretary concedes in the statement that, as a matter of practice rather than as a matter of law, the Inland Revenue can influence whether the flexibility that we are talking about can be transferred to an occupational scheme. He said that the Inland Revenue was now prepared to
      "consider any ideas that scheme sponsors may have for introducing more flexibility".
      It would be helpful if the Minister of State could tell us what rules and principles the Inland Revenue is proposing to apply when sponsors of schemes come forward. It would be interesting for those in occupational schemes and those who sponsor such schemes. It is not clear from anything that Ministers have said, by way of press release or, indeed, by any other means, what the Government think will be changed in occupational schemes. Given that, judging from the reaction, there is general agreement that flexibility is good as a matter of principle, provided that people are warned that there is no guarantee of more money at the end of the day, it must apply to all schemes.
      The Minister says that the Revenue is prepared to consider any ideas. It would be very helpful if we could find out the principles that Ministers are prepared to

      697
      consider. Otherwise, we may be stuck with the current position, whereby the Inland Revenue practice, which for all practicable purposes has virtually the same effect as the law, may prevent flexibility from being extended to occupational schemes.
      As I understand it, under the present practice, a scheme would be approved only if the rules of a money purchase occupational scheme require that an annuity is purchased on retirement. Consequently, there is something to be said for changing those rules so that the Revenue will allow flexibility of the sort that we are discussing with private pensions. The Government's intentions are not at all clear. Given that the industry is entitled to rely on ministerial statements, it would be very helpful if the Minister could tell us what the Government have in mind.
      Our amendment refers to two particular points, which must be emphasised. The first is the question of cost, which, if I am successful in drawing the Government on allowing increased flexibility for occupational schemes, may be less of a problem. At the moment, when people transfer to private schemes they incur a cost. Everybody knows that, when one transfers a pension, not only are there administrative charges, but, very often, the act of transfer means that other optional benefits provided by the schemes could be forgone. That leads me directly to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Many people who transferred inappropriately in the late 1980s not only gave up their entitlement in their contract of insurance, but the optional bonuses which they never get under private schemes.
      Clearly, cost is incurred if one has to transfer, which is why I emphasise again and again that flexibility must be universally applied unless there are very good reasons for not doing so. We should not do anything in the House to force the substantial number of people in good occupational schemes out of those schemes. To please the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), we should not so heavily influence people that they are driven to the conclusion that transfer is the only way out.
      As I said, the new regime of disclosure, which we very much welcome, will help because people will be able to identify their costs. However, perversely, I suspect that sales may be initially depressed when people receive their print-outs from their independent financial adviser or their insurance company and see the cost of buying a policy. The Government should be aware that substantial costs are involved.
      Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, there is the question of risk. I said at the outset that added flexibility does not necessarily mean that all is good news for those who choose to defer their purchase, because rates may not improve and people may make bad decisions. Individuals must decide that for themselves.
      Mr. John Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Darling: Yes, in one minute.
      It is no part of a Government's function to try to substitute their judgment for that of individuals. However, individuals must know of all the pros and cons before they reach a decision and only an effective regulatory system can ensure that.
      Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman will understand—indeed, it was explained to the all-party group on
      698
      occupational pensions only last week—that quite a number of pension funds are now offering a phased arrangement, whereby people may change to gilts on a periodic basis. So each year they put a proportion in, depending on how far they are away from retirement. That will eliminate much of the risk about which the hon. Gentleman is talking. However, they would need pretty good professional advice to make those decisions.
      Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has made my case. He said that people will need pretty good professional advice. However, the ability to give pretty good professional advice has eluded many in the industry. I accept that if there is an ability to phase and to buy more gilts, that should benefit the individual.
      We all accept that the difficulty is that only a handful of people in this country understand how pensions work. If we had a private, anonymous and confidential poll in the House, we would find that only a handful of hon. Members understand how the pensions regime works. That should worry all of us as the House passes pensions legislation. Indeed, the Pensions Bill is in the other place at the moment. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people will buy pensions or take out pensions through their employers, but they do not have a clue how those pensions work.
      4.15 pm
      No doubt the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) will want to make a pitch for his other interests and perhaps come to our rescue. However, if we change the regime and give people greater flexibility, we should ensure that people know what they are letting themselves in for.
      Mr. Michael Stern: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger here? Some of the decisions that people will take in respect of this clause, or in related areas of pensions, cannot possibly be the subject of advice—except from Nostradamus—because they depend entirely on a view of the state of the market in 10 years' time. We should be wary of placing a huge reliance on advice when that advice can only be an informed guess.
      Mr. Darling: I am not sure whether Nostradamus is registered under the Financial Services Act 1986 to provide such advice. Equally, I am not sure what point I am supposed to take from the hon. Gentleman's comments.
      Mr. Stern: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Darling: No. I want to progress matters a little further.
      Of course no one knows what will happen in 10 years' time. No one knows what is going to happen in five years. Unless the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) had a different manifesto from that of his colleagues, he will recall that he made a gross error of judgment in 1992 when he told his electors that things were going to improve in 1992 and that growth would start the day after the general election. No one knows what the conditions are going to be and no one would suggest that the Government or a regulator should place themselves in the shoes of an individual and make such judgments for them.

      699
      However, a regulatory system can ensure that, when someone buys a pension or any other financial services product, that person should know what the risks are. People must form a judgment. The difficulty that we have had in this country for too long is that people do not know what the risks are because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, too many salesmen did not bother them about the risks. People were told to sign on the bottom line and to ignore the small print. They were assured that the money would be all right and that whatever they did would be better.
      Happily, the regulatory system is beginning to bite on some of those people. However, there are still occasions when reputable companies, household names and companies which should know better allow inappropriate selling methods to continue. Companies with very good training regimes and very good and efficient regulatory regimes undermine those aspects by making their work forces depend on commission. If salesmen have to sell 10 policies a week, and only five have been sold by Friday afternoon, common sense tells us that a mistake is likely to be made.
      I am not suggesting that we should attempt to substitute the judgment of Parliament or of the Government for the judgment of individuals. However, I am absolutely certain that we need a regulatory system that ensures that people are told the risks. That point has been raised many times in the House and I am afraid that it will be raised on many occasions in the future. Clause 52 and schedule 11 give a new opportunity for flexibility, and we welcome that. However, there is apparently an inflexibility with regard to occupational schemes. It would be reckless of us simply to nod the proposals through without having regard to the fact that the current regulatory regime is flawed in many respects.
      That view is not held simply by Opposition Members. Many Conservative Members accept that there are problems with the regulatory regime which need to be addressed. That view is increasingly held outside the industry. I do not argue for a minute that there is unanimity about what should be done about the problem. We believe that self-regulation should be scrapped, but many Conservative Members do not hold that view. However, we are nearly at one in the belief that the system needs to be improved.
      I mention that point because there are concerns. The Association of British Insurers, I think, has written to all members of the Finance Bill Standing Committee, stating:
      "The risks to policyholders inherent in decisions of this nature must not be overlooked. There is no guarantee that a policyholder will benefit from a decision to defer purchase of his annuity"—
      this will be a costly system to provide—
      "a factor overlooked in the compliance cost assessment"
      to which I referred. Its present view is:
      "Only those with funds at retirement in excess of £100,000 are likely to find this facility economic."
      If the ABI is right about that—it has a certain view because of what it is, but otherwise it is a respected and reputable organisation—surely the Committee needs to spend some time considering what we are doing.
      If the costs are so great that people will benefit only if they have £100,000 or more, we must reflect upon that, but we must reflect even more on the difficulties and risks
      700
      involved in such a transfer. As it is within his ministerial responsibility, perhaps the Minister of State will tell us whether the Government have at last accepted that the regulatory regime needs to be looked at in respect of not only its structure but the quality of regulation.
      The Personal Investment Authority is now off the ground. It is still recruiting its members, but it is becoming more and more responsible for the retail end of the market. There is concern about the quality and degree of regulation. Although the PIA has a rule and regulation for just about every eventuality, there are doubts about how effective they are. That matter needs to be looked at, especially in the light of this measure.
      The other matter of which Ministers must be aware is that the pension transfer problem, which was highlighted 13 or 14 months ago, has not yet been resolved. Indeed, although the Securities and Investments Board has now instructed the Personal Investment Authority to examine pension transfer cases, the Minister will be aware that many people in the industry are trying to block that review. Before the courts at present, which is why I cannot go into the matter in too much detail, is an action that I understand is funded by individual independent financial advisers' professional indemnity insurers.
      If that review is blocked, we will be back at square one. The Minister will then be driven to accept that legislation is necessary to try to unscramble the mess that we are in, but we should not compound the problem with pension transfers until that matter is cleared up. Although the Minister will say that the review is under way, it will be at risk if the judicial review is successful, and we will not know that for a few weeks. If the Minister has more information, no doubt he will tell us.
      I observe in passing that it is ironic that the insurance industry itself—professional indemnity insurers—is trying to block the regulators from trying to unscramble the mess and to sort out the problems of, possibly, 2 million people. Only under the Conservative Government could we have the absurd situation that self-regulation allows the interests of so many people to be in such a mess and threatened by litigation that is funded by another branch of the insurance industry. One would have thought that the Government might have accepted that they had some responsibility.
      As I have said, more and more people will want to make provision for themselves, and more and more people are doing so. If we are to encourage them to do that, they are entitled to turn to Parliament and say, "You make sure that the regulatory system works." At present, the regulatory system does not work. There are fundamental problems with pension transfers which Ministers must address. Ministers have used self-regulation to turn their backs on the problem and walk away from it. It is high time that they faced up to their responsibilities and acted on behalf of the general public and not on behalf of those who continue to espouse self-regulation.
      Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman will remember that my interest in the matter predates 1986, when I sat on the Committee which considered the Financial Services Bill, and that it also predates his sneering reference to the fact that I have advised the British Insurance and Investment Brokers Association on such issues for many years. Under the Labour party's proposals, which it put forward in 1986 and which accepted the principle of self-regulation—the

      701
      only difference was that it wanted a statutory SIB—how would the presence of a statutory SIB rather than the present structure have altered the present position?
      Mr. Darling: Direct regulation by the Securities and Investments Board, which is what we favour, would mean that the fiction of self-regulation by bodies such as the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation, the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation and now the Personal Investment Authority would be done away with.
      We would not have spent millions of pounds on setting up the PIA during the past three years. There would not have been the additional costs caused by the Treasury telling the SIB what to do, and then the SIB telling the self-regulatory bodies what they must do. We would abolish the difficulties caused by the fact that the PIA had to bid for members as well as bidding for recognition as a regulator. It is very difficult to serve two masters at once. That is the short answer.
      Mr. Butterfill rose—
      Mr. Darling: No, I have not finished yet.
      The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West was unkind to accuse me of sneering. I have not mentioned one of the hon. Gentleman's many interests in the Register of Members' Interests. I am saving that for the Committee. The hon. Gentleman's entry in the Register is almost as long as some of the schedules in the Bill. He should not worry—I shall return to that subject.
      I am not sneering at the hon. Gentleman. He takes a great interest in these matters and, in between times, he makes occasional lucid remarks which have a great deal of force. That was the sneering bit. The subject is too important to indulge in the sort of exchange that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
      I return to a point that I do not want to labour. Self-regulation does not work, because it is very difficult to serve the trade interest and the public interest. We want regulation that acts in the public interest. Of course we must have the involvement of practitioners—that is very important—but it must serve the public interest first and foremost.
      Mr. Butterfill: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is rather different from the position that the Labour party took in 1986, when it endorsed the principle of self-regulation and simply wanted a statutory SIB above it, rather than the present structure of the SIB. Is he not moving the goalposts as he speaks?
      Mr. Darling: One would be hard pressed to find anyone in the country who believes that the Financial Services Act 1986 does not need revisiting. That applies to people of all shades of opinion, both political and industrial. That was not a terribly good point.
      Having looked at what my colleagues said in 1986 and before that, I think that what I am saying—with regard to our experiences over the past eight or nine years—is a logical development of that. There needs to be a change, and one day—perhaps even in this Parliament—we may have the Second Reading debate for a new Financial Services Act, if the Government face up to the fact that changes are needed.
      Perhaps the new regime—there are a number of new faces on the Treasury Front Bench—might even see that change is needed. Perhaps the Government will continue
      702
      their policy of clearing the decks in advance of a general election, in the hope that nobody notices those things between now and 1996, or whenever the election is.
      It is important that we reflect that the pension transfer problem which was highlighted 14 to 16 months ago has not yet been resolved. The House is being invited today to approve something that could add to the problems, unless the regulatory regime is put on a proper footing. That is the point that I am making, and I shall continue to make it until the Government face the fact that reform is needed.
      It will be helpful to the House and to the country if the Minister tells us whether the Government accept that changes have to come to the regulatory regime, and whether the Government will contemplate even consulting on the matter or having further legislation because the present situation cannot possibly be allowed to continue. Given that it will probably take two or three years between the change being announced and anything being put in place, the sooner the Government take action, the better.
      I shall revert to the subject that has dominated our thinking this afternoon—whether people will be forced to transfer. I draw to the House's attention a letter that I received from a firm which advises nurses and others in occupational schemes. The firm makes the point that those people may be forced into a position where, in order to get flexibility, they will have to transfer their pensions. That cannot possibly be right, and I hope that Ministers will make absolutely clear what the Government believe needs to be done to provide greater flexibility.
      If there is no need to change the law, and it is simply a question of changing the Inland Revenue's practice, it would be helpful if Ministers could first announce that the Revenue is to change its practice and allow flexibility in occupational schemes. It would be helpful if the Government were to announce what their thinking is and what the goalposts are, if I might use that term. Many people outside the House want to know the position.
      Paragraph 4(4) of schedule 11, headed "Income withdrawals", deals with a technical matter—I describe it thus as it is rather obscure. It requires that the withdrawals
      "must be not less than 70 per cent. or more than 100 per cent. of the annual amount of the annuity which would have been purchasable by him"—
      the policyholder—
      "on the relevant reference date."
      I understand that the Government will publish tables of annuity rates to which people can refer to calculate whether 70 per cent. is being withdrawn. I have been told that the problem with the table rates is that they will be arrived at on the basis of a level annuity—in other words with no indexation on the basis that there will be no pension for a surviving spouse.
      I do not know whether that is true. Can the Minister tell me whether my understanding is correct? If it is, is not the 70 per cent. tariff high, as it might lead to far more disbursement than would be wise? Perhaps a 50 per cent. rate might be appropriate. I am seeking information and it would be helpful if the Minister could let us know the Government's thinking on that matter.

      703
      4.30 pm
      In conclusion—you will be pleased to hear, Mr. Morris—we welcome the flexibility that the measure offers. It is a good thing, provided that people know that there is a cost, what the risks are and that we can never guarantee that deferral will mean more, or even the same amount, in the end.
      Secondly, we need a clear statement on flexibility and the extension of that principle to all pension schemes. What is the Government's position, what are the rules and regulations and, if flexibility is to be allowed, what relaxation or changes do the Inland Revenue propose?
      Our amendment highlights not merely the costs, but the need for the industry to be properly regulated. I shall emphasise time and again that self-regulation does not work in the conduct of the affairs of the House, or in the regulation of the financial services industry, and the sooner the Government face up to that fact the better. In that spirit, I hope that the Government will be able to explain their thinking.
      Mr. Stern: First, I must make it clear that I have a personal interest in this matter. I was self-employed for most of my working life before I came to the House, I am still self-employed as regards my outside interests, and I inevitably took out some of the old retirement annuity policies and retained them. That fact will inform some of my later comments.
      The comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on flexibility were a little rich. In 1984–85, before the hon. Gentleman came to the House, I served on the Standing Committees considering two social security measures that paved the way for the introduction of personal pensions. I remember the vitriol that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues—the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—threw at the concept of personal pensions, purely because they thought that ordinary people could not be trusted with flexibility in pensions. They were not prepared to consider the idea of people being able to choose between a good, honest, upstanding occupational scheme and a personal scheme that might accidentally be more appropriate in certain circumstances.
      I welcome the change in outlook in the Opposition Front-Bench team, and the fact that they accept that ordinary people, as opposed to the organised masses for whom they were formerly speaking, welcome that flexibility. I urge the hon. Gentlemen to encourage some of his colleagues who have been here for longer to look at many of their entrenched attitudes towards other areas where ordinary people could benefit from the flexibility that he now lauds.
      In introducing his amendment, the hon. Gentleman rightly distinguished between personal pensions that are being given the extra flexibility of taking an annuity on a range of dates; occupational pensions; and section 226 policies. But he failed to make one crucial distinction: such flexibility already exists in many good occupational pension schemes, and can be introduced in others. In any case, flexibility is available to employers to increase a pension in payment, which many large occupational pension schemes already do.
      Such flexibility is not available to a person who has purchased either a personal pension or a retirement annuity. Many retirement annuity policies currently exist,
      704
      and premiums are still paid into them. I am indebted Scottish Equitable for supplying me rapidly with information on this matter and telling me that some 5 million section 226 policies are still in force, and many of those continue to grow.
      Those policyholders do not have the flexibility that is being offered to personal pension holders under the clause, nor is it suggested that they should be entitled to it, despite the fact that current thinking in pensions is towards greater flexibility in retirement. For example, many people may now leave invested a large part of their pension provision to pay for care costs when they are very elderly, need much more care than can be provided through the state system, or need care that differs from that provided through the state system, for which they must pay. Such flexibility is built into the personal pension regime now proposed by the Government, but 'is on offer to no one else.
      I hope that, both in replying to this debate and when we return to the subject later during the passage of the Bill, as I suspect we will, my hon. Friend the Minister will give better reasons for excluding retirement annuity policyholders and, to a large extent, many occupational pension scheme members, from the flexibility that is now proposed. It is not sufficient to say that it is open to a retirement annuity pensioner to transfer.
      First, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central rightly said, a suitable policy may not be on offer. Secondly, costs are incurred whether those are borne by the individual or other pension holders. The estimated cost for each retirement annuity policy transferred into a personal pension policy is some £50 per policy. Why should those costs be incurred when it is of no apparent benefit to the Exchequer to exclude section 226 policyholders from the benefits in the clause?
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give a detailed explanation of why we are reintroducing a class system into pensions.
      Mr. Forman: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said. I, too, look forward to a clear explanation from my hon. Friend the Minister, which I am sure we shall have, about the thinking behind how the lines have been drawn in the schedule. I say "schedule" because, even though we are talking about clause 52, the thrust of the debate so far has been about the terms and the implications of schedule 11.
      In opening the debate, it is interesting that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) made it clear to the House—and, through Hansard, to the country—that any future Labour Government would see a further upheaval of the financial services industry through the introduction of direct statutory regulation by the Securities and Investments Board in place of the existing measures and structure, which have taken the best part of seven years to put in place. I think that the industry must be warned about that.
      The main point I wish to make in this afternoon's fairly narrow but necessary debate is that, as I understand it, clause 52 and schedule 11 constitute a permissive and not a mandatory measure. That goes to the heart of what I said to the hon. Gentleman by way of intervention. The arrangements do not force any transfer upon pension holders, and nothing is required to be transferred by law. If the Bill becomes law, certain advantageous

      705
      arrangements will be offered to categories of pension holders, and they may or may not take advantage of them, depending on the quality of advice they receive and their own decisions about their plans between the age of 50 and 75 years.
      I want to ask the Minister of State some relevant questions. First, if the Bill goes ahead unamended, can he confirm that the costs of making a transfer will be of the order mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, or will they be more or less than that? Have some estimated categories of cost been overlooked at this stage?
      Secondly, are there any persuasive arguments against the idea of extending the principle of flexibility to the other instruments mentioned by my hon. Friend? Thirdly, can we feel confident that, when best advice is given, particularly by independent financial advisers, that best advice will include not only the advantages of transferring—all hon. Members know of cases where those advantages have proved illusory and damaging to the people concerned—but the advantages of staying with the existing arrangements?
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said, quite correctly, that most people in the country, and indeed in this House, do not fully understand their own pension arrangements, let alone those of other people. Obviously it is important that independent financial advisers argue clearly the advantages of maintaining the present position rather than making a change.
      I welcome the option of flexibility which the clause opens up for people between the age of 50 and 75. I do not think that it will clinch the decision for all people: they would be wise to look carefully at the implications of the measure for their individual circumstances.
      I urge my hon. Friend to think carefully, and preferably inform the House as fully as possible, about the assumptions which lie behind the present policy. Perhaps he could include some up-to-date figures about the size and scope of the personal pensions market today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West has already cited figures in relation to section 226 contracts, and it would be useful to compare them with the personal pensions market.
      I welcome this element of the Finance Bill, and wish it well. However, I think that we need to address some of the detailed points which have been raised on both sides of the Chamber.
      Mr. John Denham: The debate so far has hinged on the question not whether flexibility is desirable, but whether the regulatory system which is in place is sufficient to ensure that those who choose to exercise flexibility take the right decisions. That is where the real question marks arise, and there is little sign that the Government are addressing the weaknesses in the regulatory system.
      Obviously, anyone who considers exercising the new flexibility afforded by clause 52 will be making a critical and very difficult decision. As has already been said, that decision requires the ability to project into the future in a way that few people, including professional advisers, are able to do. Recent evidence shows that those who have sought to project into the future have fairly consistently overstated the benefits of taking a particular investment decision, which has left people very vulnerable.
      706
      4.45 pm
      An obvious example which comes to mind is the sale of home income bonds in the late 1980s. The pitch behind that sale—"Here is a way of making far more out of your capital than you previously thought possible"—could apply also to the holder of a personal pension. That exercise ended in disaster for many households.
      Although the costs have not yet proven to be as high, it is clear that the sale of endowment mortgages—essentially a gamble on the performance of the stock market—in the 1980s took place on the basis of results which have not been achieved. The projections for the performance of endowment mortgages which were approved at that time by the regulatory organisations have subsequently been scaled down.
      In looking at using personal pensions in a flexible manner, we must say that the regulatory system failed to ensure that people received the best advice in those circumstances. My worry about clause 52—not the principle of it, but its practical consequences—is that good advice is again not likely to be forthcoming.
      We do not know whether someone who has bought a personal pension will have much money to invest in an annuity. People who have invested two or three years' savings with a firm such as Guardian may find that they have nothing left when their policy matures after 20 or 30 years, because, according to the projections of Money Management magazine, the effects of fees and charges will exhaust their savings altogether. Many people who have entered the personal pensions market believing that money is accruing safely to provide for their future pensions will find that they have very little or no money left at the end of the day.
      Even more important than the flexibility with which people can invest in a pension fund is the return they receive on that investment. The survey by Money Management showed that some firms produce twice the rate of return on policies as others. At the moment, the regulatory system contains little to enable a personal pension purchaser to distinguish between the best and the worst performers in the industry.
      Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that it is even more important that independent financial advisers retain their place in the market, and that we do not move to a system where most schemes are marketed directly by financial institutions which do not offer a range of independent advice? Does he agree that the report conducted into the matter for the Securities and Investments Board showed that those who took independent financial advice fared much better than those who bought directly from financial institutions?
      Mr. Denham: I am not aware of the report which made that distinction. Some independent financial advisers offer a good service; equally, there are those who do not. The record books are full of both examples, and one could argue either way in order to prove one's case. However, I think that it is to the consumers' advantage that they can turn to independent financial advisers for advice as well as to the major companies.
      The Government's failure to regulate in that area is costing the taxpayer a great deal of money. It appears that, up to 1992, £3.5 billion was paid to private insurance companies on behalf of personal pensions by people whose incomes were so low that they would have been

      707
      better off remaining in state earnings-related pension schemes. That is an enormous sum of public money to pay the private insurance industry to put people in a worse situation than they would be in otherwise.
      Assuming that such people retain their pensions until they mature, they may find that the annuity in which they wish to invest under this clause will buy them a pension less than the one they would have received under SERPS—whether they purchase the annuity on the date that the policy matures, or whether they buy it some time later. There are no signs yet that the Government are using the regulatory system to clamp down on that sort of mis-selling. Pension fund opt-outs affect perhaps half a million people, but opt-outs from SERPS by people on low incomes affect perhaps 2.5 million. Numerically, it is a much greater problem than that with which the board is wrestling.
      One in five people abandon their personal pensions within the first year of sale. Almost every one will lose practically all the money that they paid, and the money paid by the taxpayer in the form of national insurance contributions and additional rebates will be entirely wasted. Although this debate naturally concentrates on policy maturity, far too little is done by the Government to make sure that someone who buys a personal pension is in a position to maintain it until its maturity.
      Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the start of long-term schemes. Does he have further evidence that, in the majority of cases, people terminate their pensions because of a force majeure—a downturn in their personal circumstances? Is it not more usually the case that the advice that they were initially given was defective?
      Mr. Denham: There is no satisfactory answer to that question, because studies of individual cases in sufficient detail have not been completed. The question arises, what is force majeure in such circumstances? If someone discovers that they cannot continue a policy less than one year after it was sold to them, that is arguably something that a competent salesperson, properly managed, should have predicted. That will not always be so, but in many cases where policy payments lapse after a relatively short time, the reasons will include bad advice because the salesperson did not look sufficiently into the future in determining the best policy.
      That is often the case when individuals are encouraged to sign up for regular premium policies, when they would have been better advised to enter into a single premium policy. Such a policy would largely protect them from the whole of the first three years' premiums being absorbed by commissions and fees, and would provide the security of knowing that the amount invested will stay invested for a reasonable time.
      I am not against the principle of flexibility but a major investment decision by someone in their fifties, sixties or seventies requires a level of advice and expertise that the financial services industry and its regulators have not yet demonstrated. Hand-in-hand with the Government's proposed measures should be a reassurance that they will
      708
      continue to drive the regulatory structure, so that consumers will be better protected from bad advice than in recent years.
      Mr. Butterfill: I am the first to agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that the existing regulatory structure contains defects, and did so ab initio. The problem is that, following implementation of the Financial Services Act 1986, the Securities and Investments Board did not require a single retail regulator. That, above all else, caused the majority of the subsequent problems.
      Regrettably, Sir Kenneth Berrill, the board's first chairman, concentrated more on writing detailed rule books—as one might have anticipated of a former civil servant—than considering the big picture of what was to happen in the marketplace. Had he done that, and insisted on a single retail regulator, today's position would be considerably different.
      However, we have a single retail regulator now in the Personal Investment Authority. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that it took a lot of cajoling to secure one. I would have preferred a modest amendment to the 1986 Act, to give the SIB power to direct the way in which practitioners were regulated and by whom. That would have made the PIA's birth much less painful. Having said that, it is up and running and likely to work satisfactorily. We ought to give it a good try before embarking on wholesale reform of the 1986 Act.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) about section 226 policyholders. Again, I must declare an interest as such a policyholder myself. Distinguishing between one group of pension holders and another is unjustifiable. I am particularly concerned about people in occupational schemes that are money purchase schemes, who will be disadvantaged relative to those in other schemes under the Government's proposals.
      I see no justification for disadvantaging some policyholders, and agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that we ought to remedy that situation in the Bill. There is a grave danger that many people in good occupational schemes that are money-purchased will be tempted out of them and into personal pensions that may be inappropriate. Contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, the respectable part of the independent adviser profession agrees with him. He may have seen the briefing that the IFA Association sent to hon. Members.
      Mr. Darling: At no time did I suggest that independent advisers in general or particular were at fault. The hon. Gentleman must be thinking of another speaker.
      Mr. Butterfill: I will read Hansard carefully, but my clear recollection is that the hon. Gentleman said that it was likely to lead to such further mis-selling, by anybody. The IFA Association agrees with the hon. Gentleman. Its chairman wrote to me:
      "Why should the personal pension have an advantage over all other schemes? Has the Government not yet learnt the lesson from pension transfers and opt outs? … I see restriction of deferred purchase to personal pensions as yet again opening the floodgates for the unscrupulous salesman."
      The hon. Gentleman's views are endorsed by the profession itself. It is right to allow deferral, because it is wrong that someone reaching retirement at an

      709
      unpropitious time in the market should be forced to make an investment decision that nobody with the freedom would make at that time.
      I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider reducing from 70 per cent. to 50 per cent. the minimum amount taken, because although people reaching retirement age are likely to be suffering a substantial diminution in income, and they will probably need more money, if they retire at a time in the market when the yield on their annuity is unusually low, it is unreasonable to expect them to take a substantially increased risk as a result.
      I am concerned also about the taxation provisions, and seek my hon. Friend's advice. If, following a member's death, where there is deferral, his widow chooses to take the lump sum, she will be liable at that time to tax at 35 per cent. That seems to breach the general rule that transfers on death between husbands and wives will be free of taxation, and seems unnecessarily harsh.
      Of course, the wife might die shortly after her husband. For example, if the husband died immediately in a car crash in which they were both victims, but his wife died some weeks later, there could be double taxation. The estate would pay not only 35 per cent. tax but inheritance tax. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider those points when he responds.
      Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Clause 25 and schedule 11 are clearly designed to alleviate a problem that arises in relation to personal pension schemes—the obligation placed on members to use accumulated funds in pension schemes to purchase an annuity as soon as any benefit is taken from the pension fund. That means that people may be obliged to buy their annuity at a time when market rates are less favourable than they might be. The advantage to everybody of such a rule is that it results in clarity. Everyone knows that, at the point at which a fund matures, the purchase of the annuity has to be made.
      This inflexibility, however, can cause problems for someone who has contributed large amounts of income to the fund for many years, at a time when rates may have been significantly higher than they are at the point when the fund is used for annuity purchase. In those circumstances, the Government have sensibly sought ways of avoiding the problems. Their plans were set out clearly in the DSS White Paper, "Security, Equality, Choice: The Future for Pensions".
      5pm
      Published in June 1994, the White Paper states in paragraph 3.9:
      "The Government is aware of the effect that annuity rates at the time of retirement can have on the size of the pension bought with the contents of a money purchase pension fund. The Government favours greater flexibility in this area."
      Certainly, the proposals in the Finance Bill will achieve that flexibility.
      The basic proposition will allow personal pension scheme members to purchase an annuity at any stage between the ages of 50 and 75. Secondly, it will allow retired people who have deferred annuity purchase to withdraw income broadly equivalent to the annuity that the fund would have purchased. These proposals for flexibility at least address the basic problem which I have described.
      The issue for the Opposition concerns whether the proposals will work in practice and whether they will remedy the harm that we are worried about. Of course I
      710
      accept that the Government's proposals will give members of personal pension schemes a greater range of choice; but in so doing, certain difficulties are likely to arise for members. It is those difficulties that amendment No. 13 is designed to deal with.
      First comes the risk problem. Although rates may have been falling for some time, there is clearly no guarantee that a policyholder will gain from any decision to defer the purchase of an annuity. There is a risk that, if rates have been falling while contributions have been paid into a fund, they may continue to fall. So deferral will merely serve to achieve the purchase of an annuity at still lower rates. That is a judgment which any holder will have to make.
      The difficulty with exercising this judgment is that it requires a fairly sophisticated understanding of markets and how they are going to operate. Thus flexibility does not necessarily bring benefits for the individual concerned.
      We should also bear in mind the more substantial consideration at stake—the costs that policyholders may have to bear in the exercise of this choice. The Inland Revenue has calculated that the one-off cost to personal pension providers of setting up the new system will be about £1.15 billion, together with annual recurring costs of as much as £600.000 a year by the third year of operation. Those figures are contained in the compliance cost assessment of 29 November 1994. The Revenue goes on to state:
      "It is expected that personal pension providers will pass on all compliance costs to their members in the form of an administration charge."
      That will significantly reduce the money available for the ultimate purchase of the annuity. The cost will fall to the pension holder, in the form of reduced benefits on retirement.
      Policyholders who are contemplating making use of the new flexibility and choice will need to understand all the risks involved. I have already mentioned one: the fact that rates may continue to fall, so the fund will purchase still less in the form on an annuity. Hence anyone taking advantage of the new flexibility will need professional advice—which tends to be rather expensive. That is necessarily so, because the advice needs to be as sophisticated as circumstances dictate.
      Mr. Butterfill: Surely the advice does not need to be terribly sophisticated? One has only to look at the long-term money rate trend in the market. If the market is discounting a higher rate for the future, it clearly expects interest rates to rise. That is about as far as anyone can predict.
      Mr. Hoon: That is right, but the problem is that many people depend on expert advice. When people have paid substantial contributions into their pension funds so as to buy an annuity, we want them to have the best possible advice. The hon. Gentleman makes light of these judgments, but they are of grave concern to people embarking on their retirements. I repeat that this sort of professional advice, especially if it is of the highest quality, can be expensive.

      711
      All this tends to suggest that the proposals in this years's Finance Bill are likely to benefit only the wealthier members of society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has already said, and as the Association of British Insurers reiterates,
      "Our present view is that only those with funds at retirement in excess of £100,000 are likely to find this facility economic."
      That is quite a large fund. Although flexibility obviously benefits people with that much to invest, we would like to ensure that the disadvantages are not so great as to render the exercise uneconomic for other people. There is also a clear risk of poor decisions and judgments about how the new rules should operate being reached.
      Our amendment seeks at least to provide further information about how the rules would operate. It suggests that the Government report to Parliament on the likely costs of administering personal pension schemes, and provide an assessment of the risks to members of such schemes. We believe that that would provide a context in which to reach a judgment on the operation of the proposals; and on whether, in practice, they benefit not just the wealthy but also the greater number of people who might expect to take advantage of them because they have a fund into which they have paid throughout their working lives. Such people will want to purchase annuities at the most favourable rates.
      Generally speaking, while we can see the benefits of the flexibility that these proposals allow for personal pension schemes, we are worried that the flexibility involved may be achieved only at some risk. Amendment No. 13 at least eliminates some of those risks.
      The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): There is one matter on which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee can agree—pensions are a complicated business. Most people rarely understand the full details of their own pension let alone the range of those offered on the market, the benefits that derive from them and the tax treatment of them. That is a matter for regret. In the search for equity and greater self-provision, it is probably inevitable that there will be complexities in the provision of choice and equity, but at the same time—the complexity of such schemes has been raised by a number of hon. Members—it raises the whole issue of education about financial provision. It is an issue to which I have referred on numerous occasions in the House and I do so again today.
      One does not want in any way to be too patronising, because, of course, the Government are obliged to frame the law properly and regulators are obliged to supervise the law properly, but at the end of the day there must be an obligation on the individual to look carefully at investment products—particularly long-term investment products such as pensions—before they enter into them, to seek advice from those who have expert abilities and to ensure as far as possible that the contract that they are entering into meets their needs.
      We can do the best that we can, and we can seek to refine the legislation, as I will endeavour to show later, and the regulatory system, to give as much support and backing as possible, but we must address a wider issue, perhaps through the education system, perhaps in a variety of publicity ways, by regulators and product providers, to
      712
      ensure that people understand much better the nature of the products that they are offered, their obligations and the benefits that they are likely to receive.
      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I have listened intently to the debate as one of those persons ill-informed on pension provision. I take the point about education, but, practically, how can one provide that with changes being made to the pension provision almost daily, notwithstanding the clause before us? How will the Government be forced to do that?
      Mr. Nelson: The principal means of improving awareness about the nature of products, the obligations and benefits that arise under them, is through disclosure, the transparency and the understanding of the nature of the product itself. The disclosure regime, which came into effect from the beginning of this year—not just with regard to life insurance products but the wider application—goes to the heart of the issue and goes a long way towards answering the hon. Gentleman's question.
      I suggest that there is a wider obligation, because one can disclose; one can tell people; one can write to people; but unless one is pretty certain that people understand, they can still be mis-sold, or they can enter inadvertently into a disadvantageous contract. I have no wish to use this important debate to give a polemic on the wider issue, but it is relevant and is a matter to which the Committee may wish to return.
      A number of reasonable points were made by hon. Members and I shall do my best to comment on them and provide answers where possible.
      Clause 52 and schedule 11 will give personal pension scheme members greater choice over the timing of the annuity purchase and will enable them to continue to benefit from the further investment growth of their funds while drawing an income in retirement. The amendment proposes that the provisions of schedule 11 should come into effect only after the Government have reported on three issues: the costs to personal pension schemes of administering the new provisions; the risks to personal pension scheme members who take advantage of the provisions; and the extension of the provisions to occupational pension schemes and to retirement annuity contracts.
      I sympathise with the concerns raised by a number of hon. Members on those matters. The Government have already taken action to meet those concerns as far as they can. I must say, therefore, that I do not think that the proposed amendment to clause 52 will serve any useful purpose. I shall explain why by providing reassurance, I hope, on each of the issues covered by the amendment.
      I deal first with the likely effects of the provisions of schedule 11 on the costs of administering personal pension schemes—a point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). As a matter of general Government policy, all Departments are required to prepare a structured appraisal of the likely cost to businesses of complying with new or amended regulations. In that way, compliance costs can be assessed and unnecessary burdens to business identified. In the case of annuity deferral, a full compliance cost assessment—CCA—has been made and has been available, as announced in an Inland Revenue press review from its deregulation unit, since Budget day.

      713
      The CCA broadly examines the likely administrative costs to personal pension providers over and above the costs of administering the present regime, which requires immediate annuity purchase once benefits are taken from a personal pension scheme. Costs are divided into those that are non-recurring, such as the cost of amending computer systems, and recurring ones, such as arranging income withdrawals for people who defer annuity purchase.
      5.15 pm
      Of course, the costs are likely to rise in future years as more people retire and take advantage of the new flexibility, but we would expect all pension providers to recover those costs by means of an administration charge, such as that already levied in respect of personal pension arrangements.
      Mr. Hoon: Does the Minister expect that that administration charge will be spread evenly throughout all personal pension holders, or will it simply be paid by those who are deferring their annuity purchase?
      Mr. Nelson: That will be a matter for the individual schemes to determine. It is not a matter for regulation. The costs, in general terms, while inevitably as much a guesstimate as an estimate, are clearly set out. It will be for the industry to determine how to recover those costs. In the case of smaller businesses—a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, raised this point—independent financial advisers already have to give the best advice possible, and we do not see that that necessarily will involve additional net costs, but there will obviously be particular compliance costs for the product providers, as such, rather than the intermediaries. It will be a matter for them broadly to determine how the costs are spread.
      The second point covered in the amendment concerns the risks that people will run in deferring annuity purchase. It is an important issue. It must be apparent to all hon. Members that flexibility involves choice, and choice involves risk. It is an interesting paradox that risk can be present both with flexibility and with inflexibility. If any regime is too inflexible, and tethers people down to only one recourse, that can be highly risky and can prejudice them.
      Equally, if one introduces flexibility into any regime, as we seek further to do with the amendment and schedule, it opens up a choice, but it opens up the prospect of some risk, or relatively better performance by one who behaves in one way as opposed to another. So although there might not—I hope—be a fundamental risk in terms of the whole stream of income or the value of the security of a fund, there will be a differential result, obviously, for people who behave in different ways.
      It is inevitable in providing flexibility or choice that there will be some risk for people that they take a decision, the outcome of which will be less preferential to them than had they chosen otherwise. What I am saying is obviously a truism in one sense, but it raises the point made by hon. Members—that such risk can best be avoided by getting the best possible advice from professionals on how people should proceed, and how they should or should not take advantage of the flexibilities provided under the clause and schedule.
      Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that although there is undoubtedly some risk inherent in
      714
      the choice, the overall risk is reduced by giving that choice? Although some people will make bad choices, overall the element of risk must be reduced by giving that choice.
      Mr. Nelson: I hope and believe so. The Government would not have brought the measure forward unless we believed that to be so. Of course, without straying too much from the narrow provision of the clause and schedule, the Government's overall macro-economic policy is there to try to bring about a sustained period of low inflation and interest rates as low as can be sustained to continue to bear down on that level of inflation.
      If it were possible—an objective seriously to be desired by all hon. Members—for the country to enjoy a very long period of low inflation and low interest rates, it follows that it might not necessarily be right for people to defer for a long period the purchase of an annuity. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) and others pointed out, they might be disadvantaged: the market can move in both directions, and interest rates may fall. People must make their own decisions.
      Understandably, over the past couple of years—particularly a year or so ago—there was apprehension about the requirement for the removal of any money from a personal pension immediately to trigger the need to buy an annuity at what were historically low interest rates: no option was available. We hope that the introduction of further flexibility will meet people's needs, although it does not necessarily follow that it is right for them to defer without expert advice.
      Mr. Derek Enright: What advice would the Minister give people today, with the prospect of a rise in interest rates?
      Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I cannot advise people on such matters.
      Let me return to the risk involved in the deferral of annuity purchase. I am well aware of the concerns that have been expressed, and assure the House that the Government take them very seriously in the light of past mis-selling of personal pensions. The Securities and Investments Board has already made its recommendations for redress following cases of mis-selling, and the House will recall the statement that I made about the matter on 25 October last year.
      We should remember that the annuity deferral proposals were made in response to a flaw in the present personal pensions regime. We want above all to free people from the obligation to buy an annuity as soon as they take benefits from their pension scheme, possibly at a time when annuity rates are low. The new flexibility that we are offering has been widely welcomed, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) pointed out—it is only an option: no one will be forced to defer buying an annuity if they are unhappy about the risks involved. Indeed, we do not expect that many people will wish to do so for more than a few years.
      So what are the risks that people may run if they opt for income withdrawals? The main risk is that their income may decrease at some point in the future, either because of falling interest rates which have a direct effect on annuity rates or because of an unexpectedly low investment performance by their fund in the deferral period. There is also the risk, for people with a small fund,

      715
      that administration charges will erode the value of the fund before the annuity is bought—a point raised by more than one hon. Member.
      Regulatory bodies such as the Personal Investment Authority will therefore have a duty to ensure that personal pension scheme members are made aware of the risks, and the disclosure regime on life products that came into effect on 1 January this year provides an excellent basis for that. Pension providers will be obliged to disclose the potential risks in deferring annuity purchase, and individual scheme members will normally consider seeking expert financial advice before reaching a decision.
      The proposed legislation itself provides a further safeguard against the too-rapid depletion of the pension fund: personal pension providers will have to review members' funds every three years to ensure that income withdrawals are in line with the value of the fund. Members will, of course, be able to convert their pension fund to an annuity at any time they choose up to the age of 75.
      Let me now deal with the third issue covered by the amendment—the possible extension of the proposals to money-purchase occupational pension schemes and retirement annuity contracts. The Government considered that very carefully when formulating the present clause and schedule. In the light of press comments following the Budget day announcement, we examined the matter yet again; and, as has been mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary made a statement that was reported in an Inland Revenue press release issued on 4 January.
      That statement pointed out that the present tax approval rules for occupational pension schemes did not prevent flexibility in the timing of annuity purchase, although a pension must be taken. The provision of annuities is often part of the structure of the schemes, for reasons unconnected with the tax rules. Following the Budget day announcement about the proposal to amend the personal pension schemes tax rules, we made it clear that we would be happy to discuss the issue with the promoters of occupational pension schemes. As a result, some insurance companies have approached the Inland Revenue to see what changes would be needed in the rules governing tax-approved occupational pension schemes.
      At this stage, it is not at all clear that any legislative changes are needed in relation to occupational pension schemes, but if it proves—as a result of discussion with the promoters of the schemes—that some changes are desirable, we shall consider introducing appropriate measures.
      Mr. Darling: Does that mean that the Government are agreeable to the principle of extending flexibility to occupational schemes? Have any difficulties been highlighted so far by the approaches made to them?
      Mr. Nelson: Yes and no. Yes, we are in favour of the principle of extending flexibility: that is, we believe that flexibility already reasonably exists, but if we were persuaded otherwise we would want to examine the matter carefully. No, our discussions and consultations have not flagged up any problems. Unless compelling reasons are given for us to introduce appropriate measures, we see no need to assert in legislation what is already the case.
      716
      The statement also pointed out that the retirement annuity legislation had been obsolescent and had remained unchanged since 1988, when personal pensions superseded retirement annuity contracts. In any case, it was not necessary to amend the retirement annuity rules, because holders of RACs can already transfer their funds to a personal pension scheme if they want to benefit from the new provisions. Inland Revenue officials have spoken to nine insurance companies, all of which said that they would make no charge for internal transfers—that is, transfers from a retirement annuity contract to a personal pension scheme with the same company. That option therefore need not involve any additional cost.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central raised the question of the principles that should be applied to administrative savings for schemes, and to any annuity changes and transfers that are made. Broadly, amendments to occupational pension schemes should ensure that changes are consistent with the purpose of pension schemes. It is a tax approval condition that the schemes should provide a pension for life. Any proposals should be consistent with that principle, based on actuarial considerations relating to life expectancy and periodic reviews of funds.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) asked whether we were reintroducing a class system into pensions. That is far from being the case; we intend to ensure, by providing greater flexibility and choice, that people are better able to take the course that they consider best for them. The provision of an opportunity that does not currently exist should only break down any class system that may be in the pensions regime.
      I hope that I have made it clear that it is easy for people with retirement annuity contracts to transfer to personal pension schemes; certainly, that was suggested by nine insurance companies that we consulted.
      Mr. Stern rose—
      Mr. Nelson: I will give way in a moment. First, let me make a further point which I think was implicit in what a number of hon. Members said. They asked why we have not in this or in other legislation referred specifically to retirement annuity contracts. I have said that that is essentially obsolescent legislation. A complicated corpus of further clauses in the Bill would be required to address what we believe is not in practice a problem.
      There would be no great advantage. It would not offer to those with retirement annuity contracts a choice or an option that is not already there. It could not be done at no or low cost, and in any case we have assurances that it can already be done. It is open to people to change to a personal pension, thereby taking full advantage of the flexibility provided by the clause and the schedule. For the reasons that I have given with regard to occupational pensions and retirement annuity contracts, we do not think that the problem arises.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Stern: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister has so clearly misunderstood, failed to comprehend, the genuine fears of people who hold retirement annuities. First, he said that retirement annuities were obsolescent but they cannot be obsolescent because many hundreds of thousands of people continue to pay premiums and will go on doing so for the next 20 to 30 years. They are not obsolescent: they are very much alive.

      717
      Secondly, my hon. Friend said that some insurance companies have agreed not to charge people who wish to transfer and take advantage of the flexibility which retirement annuity holders, and they alone according to the Minister, will be debarred from taking under the existing legislation. He is wrong. First, those costs exist, and if they are not borne by a charge on the policy holder making the change they will be borne by the general fund of policy holders. Secondly, what happens if the personal pension offered by the insurance company with which someone has a retirement annuity is not suitable for that person and he wishes to transfer? Costs will be transferred automatically.
      Mr. Nelson rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That intervention verged on a speech and I have strong views on that.
      Mr. Nelson: With that stricture in mind, I hasten to assure my hon. Friend that I do not wish my remarks about retirement annuity contracts to be taken as derogatory. Far from it. They exist, and people took them out and continue to subscribe to them. For many people they have distinct advantages and they wish to retain those contracts. However, my hon. Friend and I both know that personal pensions legislation superseded them and offers a different set of opportunities and benefits.
      In some ways RACs have certain benefits that are not provided under the personal pensions regime. I acknowledge all that and, as I say, I am not in any way being derogatory. We are discussing the issue of taking advantage of deferment flexibility. I am saying only that that can be done without necessarily introducing a whole corpus of law to provide freedom and flexibility for RACs in particular. It can be done easily by filling in a form and transferring from the RAC to a personal pension.
      As I have said, there are no direct costs to the prospective pensioner. Of course costs are involved, but how they are absorbed is a matter for the companies. I assume that the Committee is principally concerned about whether there is a cost to those people who exercise their rights for deferment and take advantage of the flexibility. All the evidence, as far as we can assess it, is that there is not.
      Mr. Butterfill: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). The reply by my hon. Friend the Minister will not do. He admits that it may not be appropriate for some people to transfer from RACs to personal pensions. How do we relieve their predicament if they are not offered the proposed flexibility? Secondly, the Minister may be surprised to know that what he says may not be widely disseminated outside the confines of the Chamber. I suspect that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of personal pension holders will be unaware that they can transfer in this way. They will continue to hold RACs and will suffer as a result. It is incumbent on the Government to amend the legislation, if not in this Finance Bill in the next one.
      Mr. Nelson: I hear what my hon. Friend says and take it seriously. I shall reflect upon any shortcomings that he feels are in the current legislation or proposals. I was simply trying to respond to concerns raised at the beginning of the debate which seemed to show that those with retirement annuity contracts did not have this option
      718
      or, if the deferment option did apply, it would involve them in costs. I have tried to show that the opportunity is there.
      RACs are different from personal pensions, and to provide the deferment regime on top of RACs would be going beyond what is currently proposed. People can exercise their right to defer and can choose to implement at a later date the purchase of their annuity through transfer. That is not unreasonable.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) asked about size and scope of personal pensions. The latest figures show that there are about 8 million personal pension holders. That is a considerable number and shows the choice that people have exercised since 1988 to make provision for themselves. Despite the undoubted serious problems relating to the mis-selling of personal pensions, the figures demonstrate that for many people such pensions are popular and will continue to be so for the many who wish to make flexible provision for themselves for retirement.
      My hon. Friend said that the arguments for staying put in an occupational pension scheme should be presented as clearly as the arguments for transferring to another one. I entirely agree. That is exactly the purpose of the disclosure regime and the product and advice regimes which we have tried to implement through Securities and Investments Boards rules and the Personal Investment Authority.
      It is necessary to point out to prospective investors the advantages of the status quo as well as the option for change. It would certainly be inadequate and a serious shortcoming of that advice if a comparison were not made. It is implicit in giving best advice that it is compared with the current range of available benefits. In its executive function the regulatory regime has sought seriously to improve the quality and efficiency with which such information and advice is rendered.
      The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said that the flexibility in the clause requires good advice. That echoes what he said several times in the past, and I whole-heartedly agree with him. We must constantly support measures to improve the quality of advice and to crack down on bad advice. That means costs for the industry and, of course, at the end of the day for the product buyer, the investor. But if markets are to be free they must also be fair, and if people are to have more confidence in investor protection they must have impartial and good quality investment advice.
      The changes which Andrew Large, the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board has instituted, and the shake-up and changes in the self-regulatory organisations will deliver very much better standards of investment advice. Of course, that will always stop short of a guarantee that people will get perfect advice, and even the best advice may not match how events eventually turn out, but there must be a constant quest to improve the quality of advice and in that regard substantial progress has been made.
      Mr. Hoon: The Minister spoke about the benefits of extra advice and no one challenges his suggestion. But there will clearly be a cost involved. Perhaps I may use the illustration used earlier in the debate. A company providing a personal pension scheme will have to employ someone for the time that it takes to provide advice on whether it is sensible to defer the purchase of an annuity.

      719
      In those circumstances, and given the extra costs for the company, would it not be sensible to accept at least the spirit of the amendment tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)? There should be some consideration of the extra costs involved in administering personal pension schemes.
      Mr. Nelson: I have, of course, read the amendment and I understand its purpose. I am endeavouring to explain to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the Government have considered these matters carefully, and that we have reported on some of them—I referred to the cost compliance assessment. Eventually, people reach the point where they must make up their minds and decide what to do. One cannot make all policies a matter of constant review. I know of the popularity of that with the Opposition. All policies seem to be put on hold while someone else decides what the outcome should be.
      With matters as important for people's provisions as pensions, however, people must not make judgments on the basis of the fact that the regime will be revised and reviewed, and that it may be imperfect. They must make long-term personal decisions on the basis of the regime that operates, and of the Government's best judgment of how it should do so. That is the purpose of law in the matter. It is important that it should be certain, even if it is not wholly inflexible. Of course, we revise and consider things with the experience of time, but we have already spent a good deal of time on considering how flexibility can be better extended.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) gave a broad welcome to the Personal Investment Authority. He said that it was important to give the PIA a chance, before we engaged in radical reform of the regulatory system. I agree with him. The establishment of the PIA marks a step change in the quality of investment, advice, supervision and regulation in the retail sector.
      Although, through shortcomings and inadequacies, well-advertised problems and serious consequences have arisen for many individuals in recent years, the changes that have been put into place, if only because of the controversy that has sometimes been aroused by the constituent members of the PIA, demonstrate that they are taking their responsibilities seriously. I reiterate that I give Mr. Palmer and all members of the PIA my full support in seeing through the important changes that they are bringing about and which are improving significantly the quality of the provision of investment services in the retail sector.
      My hon. Friend said that it was right to allow deferral. I am grateful for the broad support that, I take it, he was giving to the clause and schedule. He asked, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central did, about the amount of income that would have to be withdrawn during the deferral period, and my hon. Friend asked whether it might be appropriate for the minimum level to be lowered even further.
      Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained that the intention is to ensure that, where someone exercises deferral, some income is taken out of the fund that has been built up. The aim is to ensure, in part, that that income, which is then taxed, goes to help refund the reliefs that have been available for contributions to the
      720
      fund during its lifetime. Otherwise, a danger would exist that such funds would become just a money-box that people could dip into from time to time.
      5.45 pm
      The essence of our personal pension policy and, indeed, our pensions law and provision is that people receive tax relief on their contributions during their working lifetimes to build up or to fund an amount, which can then provide a decent income for them in retirement, which will be subject to tax, and which will equate with the contributions made and the reliefs during the lifetime of contributions. If it were possible for no income to be withdrawn for a long period of time, it would offer a savings opportunity and a non-pensions opportunity, which was not the intention. If a case exists for providing reliefs for long-term savings, we should do that, as the Government have done through schemes such as the personal equity plan. We should consider that sector.
      On pensions, the intention broadly should not necessarily be to assist especially high-worth savers to build up a very large sum at the expense of the Inland Revenue, when they have had relief on contributions during the lifetime; it should be to ensure that a relationship exists between the taxation that is recouped and the relief that is given during the period of contributions.
      On the amount of withdrawal during the deferment period, the Government considered carefully the single annuity to ensure that some flexibility was built in for people who might have purchased different sorts of annuity—one providing benefits for a spouse and one providing for staged increases in benefit entitlement. That is why there was a difference between the minimum and maximum. However, partly as a result of some of the comments made outside the House as well as within it, we accept that a case may exist for reconsidering the matter.
      I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West said. In particular, he made a case for a reduction from 70 per cent. to 50 per cent. The Government might want to consider that further. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central raised that point at the end of his remarks.
      The Government's proposals for enabling annuity purchase to be deferred have been widely welcomed, but some people have said that a minimum deferral of 70 per cent. is too high. The Government now accept that, and we are discussing the right figure with interested parties. When that consultation has been completed, we will propose an appropriate amendment on Report. I hope that the House will accept that that is a sensible way to proceed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West. raised a point about taxation on death. There might be taxation on a spouse receiving the cash sum from a pension fund, and were she or he to die subsequently, they might also be liable to further tax, such as inheritance tax, if it formed part of the estate. That has always been the case.
      It is also the case with other savings funds that are built up. If the widow or spouse decided to continue with the deferment and to purchase the annuity, they would be able to do that; there would be no tax charged, other than on the income that subsequently arose under the annuity. I know, however, that comments have been made about the tax level, were the surviving spouse to take the whole of

      721
      the lump sum, instead of continuing with the deferment. I hope that that has explained the position to my hon. Friend.
      The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) asked about flexibility. He said that it could work against a person if market rates declined. I understand the point, which I think I have dealt with adequately.
      The issues about the regulatory system, while perhaps going somewhat wider than the clause and schedule allow, are nevertheless relevant. The House is right to seek assurances that our legislative system, both in the statute book and in practice, delivers the sort of public confidence that people are entitled to receive. Any system or structure that one devises and implements by law does not necessarily deliver the human judgments that result in high-quality investor protection.
      Sometimes, there is a quest for reform. I make no complaint about people testing arguments, especially if they can come up with better systems, but massive and costly uncertainty and change do not necessarily result in cowboys being put out of business, or in the prevention of fraudsters. I believe that the course that we have adopted, which is to make the system work significantly better, is the right course to deliver greater confidence to investors and depositors.
      Many of the problems that have been uncovered in recent years and which are being redressed demonstrate that the system is working. We may not like some of the consequences in that some firms have gone bust or some people lose out but the fact that problems are being detected and redressed, and the fact that there is an investors' compensation scheme that provides relatively high recompense to those who have lost out and that it has worked out in practice, is an endorsement of a good success record. The fact that we have built in the many changes that Andrew Large and others have instituted means that we are not complacent—far from it—but that we are determined to ensure that the system works better.
      However, revolution in the structure of regulation of the City is no answer for those who seek more certainty. It is an answer for those who want ever more centralist control of the financial resources in our economic system but we will have no part in that. It is not our intention to embark on a blighted period of cost and uncertainty for the financial services industry. That would merely deliver more opportunity for, rather than detection of, the worst sort of practices.
      Mr. Butterfill: May I press the Minister on one other point? Talking about the position of those in occupational schemes which are money-purchase schemes, he said that he did not think that there would be any difficulty in the trustees of such schemes allowing deferral and that there was no legislative barrier to that taking place. What could he do to overcome the difficulty that might arise if individual employees wished to choose deferral but the trustees said no because it was an extra cost that they were not prepared to load on to the scheme? In the case of personal pensions, the initiative or option rests with the policy holder himself but, in the case that he has described, the decision lies with the pension trustees. Does he regard that as satisfactory?
      Mr. Nelson: I acknowledge immediately that this does not deal entirely with my hon. Friend's point, but one answer is that people can opt out of an occupational pension into a personal pension scheme. When an
      722
      individual decides to be a member of an occupational scheme, it is implicit that he understands—or at least, one hopes that he does—the implications of being part of a collective scheme, which has benefits as well as obligations. It also has risks and involves exercising a choice.
      About 90 per cent. of people in occupational pension schemes have defined benefit schemes rather than money-purchase schemes. Only a small proportion of those in occupational pension schemes decide to translate into annuity the benefits that they receive and very often do so because it is more certain and easier for them to do so. It may be only a minority but it does not make it any less important that individuals should have as much flexibility as possible. However, I repeat that we are not aware that there is a problem or that anything inhibits deferral, provided that the scheme decides to take that line and offer deferral to its beneficiaries.
      Mr. Butterfill: I accept that there are at present more defined benefit schemes than money-purchase schemes but the Minister will be aware that the trend is going the other way. There are virtually no new defined benefit schemes being set up and major companies such as BP are suggesting that they may move from defined benefit schemes to money-purchase schemes.
      Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend, who is well informed on this and related matters, is absolutely right, and I take his point seriously. If there proves to be a problem in practice, we shall certainly reconsider the matter but we think that the flexibility for retirement annuity contracts and for occupational pensions is adequate. Therefore, though worthy, the amendment is unnecessary. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central will withdraw it.
      Mr. Darling: I would not be too confident about that. I thank the Minister for his remarks about schedule 11. I accept entirely that if tax reliefs are given we should ensure that we are not subsidising saving in a way that does not apply to other savings products. However, the Government will have to explain why 70 per cent., as opposed to 65 per cent. or any other figure, is the appropriate one.
      Having said that, it is fascinating that the Minister and a number of Conservative Members—although not all of them—take as their touchstone for whether a scheme is good or bad what the industry—the product providers—have to say about it. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and the Minister were at pains to point out that no one was forced to transfer. Indeed, no one is forced to buy a pension; it is always possible to go through life without one and then wait and see what happens when one retires. People may not be forced, but the Minister should reflect on the point made by Labour Members and one or two Conservative Members. Although people are not physically forced to transfer, many may feel that they have to because there is no flexibility in the scheme that they have, whether that is an occupational scheme or any other sort.
      It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he has spoken to nine companies which have said that people can transfer as long as they move to one of their schemes. That is precisely what we do not want; we do not want employees to be able to transfer only to one of the

      723
      schemes that a company happens to have on offer. The alternative scheme which has the flexibility may not be the best—another company may have a better one.
      The Government must sometimes ask not only what is good for business but what is good for the general public. The Government say that they have a compliance test and seek to check business costs and red tape. That is a good thing and perhaps they will apply the same principles to the rest of the evening's debate.
      Yes, let us ask the industry and the product providers but let us consider, too, the effect of such policies on people in general. Parliament is supposed to be representing the people at large, not only those in business. We must not take what the industry says as the last word on the matter. We must consider the wider interests, something that the Minister and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington failed to do. However, I shall look to my new ally, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), for support.
      Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman is wise to do so. I was going to take his point a little further. Does he agree that the Government are not only looking purely to business but are going further and saying that two classes of policy holders will be entitled to a say, whereas a third class of policyholder will have the option either of not accepting the flexibility being offered or transferring willy-nilly? We are offering freedom to some but not to all.
      Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and, in so far as he is allowed to, I hope that he will return to it in Standing Committee. For the Government to say that no one is forced to transfer is not adequate.
      The fundamental issue that has been touched on repeatedly is regulation. Again, it is interesting that the Minister and one or two other Conservative Members take as their touchstone the increasingly minority view that there is nothing wrong with the Financial Services Act 1986 and that no change is needed. The Minister said that any change would mean a revolution and central control of resources but no regulatory system on this earth seeks to control resources in that way. The fact is that a growing number of people recognise that the 1986 Act will have to be amended and the sooner the Government face that, the better.
      We believe that we should build on what we have but it is nonsense to try to continue with the fiction of self-regulation. The Minister cannot say that the system is working because many problems have been identified. Indeed, many of the problems that arose with pension transfers were due to the fact that the system was not working and was driven by the industry, which knew that bad practices existed but too many of those involved chose to do nothing about it.
      Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a point that I made in an earlier intervention. I was trying to tell the hon. Gentleman that it has taken the best part of nine years to perfect and improve the system of self-regulation within a statutory framework. It would be very unwise, in the interests of this country and the financial services sector, to tear that up by the roots again, as I understand that his party would seek to do were it to come into office.
      Mr. Darling: We are not proposing to tear it up by the roots but to reform and to strengthen it. I agree with the
      724
      hon. Gentleman that the regulatory system has improved dramatically, especially since Mr. Andrew Large became chairman of the Securities and Investments Board. The Minister cited Mr. Large's review as a major step change. Indeed it was, but the Minister might be candid enough to admit that poor Mr. Large had to conduct his review in the straitjacket of knowing that the Government would not introduce any new legislation.
      The Government have always made clear to anyone who cared to ask that they would not legislate. That is because they are not confident of getting a Bill that is committed to self-regulation through the House. Not only Opposition Members, but Conservative Members have doubts about the whole philosophy of self-regulation. It is expensive, it is cumbersome and it does not work.
      The debate has been extremely useful, in that I think that the Minister is now in no doubt that we are looking for flexibility to be extended universally across pension provision. The sooner that the Government do that the better. I very much welcome the fact that the Government have admitted, perhaps not in clear terms, that they would make the necessary changes if it turned out that there was some fundamental problem in allowing that flexibility. I hope that the Minister will report to the House further as and when discussions continue.
      6 pm
      The Government have nothing new to say about regulation. Yet again, they seem to be in the pockets of a minority of providers in the industry. They are not prepared to face up to the fact that the public and, increasingly, a large section of the industry, have lost confidence in our regulatory system. Until that is put right, sales will continue to fall and people will continue to lack the confidence to make provision for themselves—the sort of confidence that they ought to have—because they will have doubts about the integrity and the efficiency of the regulatory system. That must be put right. For that reason, if for no other, we shall certainly press our amendment to the vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 215, Noes 275.

      Division No. 53]

      [6.00 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Boateng, Paul

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Boyes, Roland

      Ainger, Nick

      Bradley, Keith

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Allen, Graham

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

      Alton, David

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Burden, Richard

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Byers, Stephen

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Caborn, Richard

      Ashton, Joe

      Callaghan, Jim

      Austin-Walker, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Battle, John

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Bayley, Hugh

      Canavan, Dennis

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cann, Jamie

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Chidgey, David

      Benton, Joe

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Church, Judith

      Berry, Roger

      Clapham, Michael

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      725

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Clelland, David

      Lewis, Terry

      Cohen, Harry

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Connarty, Michael

      Livingstone, Ken

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Corbett, Robin

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cousins, Jim

      McCartney, Ian

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      McKelvey, William

      Dalyell, Tam

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Darling, Alistair

      MacShane, Denis

      Davidson, Ian

      Madden, Max

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Mahon, Alice

      Denham, John

      Mandelson, Peter

      Dixon, Don

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dobson, Frank

      Martlew, Eric

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Maxton, John

      Dowd, Jim

      Meacher, Michael

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Meale, Alan

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Michael, Alun

      Eastham, Ken

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Enright, Derek

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Etherington, Bill

      Milburn, Alan

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Miller, Andrew

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Field, Frank (Brikenhead)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fisher, Mark

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Mudie, George

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Mullin, Chris

      Fyfe, Maria

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Galbraith, Sam

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Galloway, George

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Gapes, Mike

      O'Hara, Edward

      George, Bruce

      Olner, Bill

      Gerrard, Neil

      O'Neill, Martin

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Parry, Robert

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Patchett, Terry

      Gordon, Mildred

      Pearson, Ian

      Graham, Thomas

      Pendry, Tom

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Pike, Peter L

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pope, Greg

      Gunnell, John

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hall, Mike

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hanson, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Harvey, Nick

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Heppell, John

      Purchase, Ken

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hinchliffe, David

      Radice, Giles

      Hodge, Margaret

      Randall, Stuart

      Hoey, Kate

      Raynsford, Nick

      Home Robertson, John

      Reid, Dr John

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Rendel, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rooney, Terry

      Hutton, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Illsley, Eric

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ingram, Adam

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Jamieson, David

      Short Clare

      Janner, Greville

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Soley, Clive

      Keen, Alan

      Spearing, Nigel

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Spellar, John

      Khabra, Piara S

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      726

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wallace, James

      Stevenson, George

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stott, Roger

      Watson, Mike

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wilson, Brian

      Timms, Stephen

      Wise, Audrey

      Tipping, Paddy

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Dennis

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Tyler, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Vaz, Keith

      Ms Tessa Jowell and

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Ms Estelle Morris

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Cran, James

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

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

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Amess, David

      Day, Stephen

      Ancram, Michael

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Arbuthnot James

      Delvin, Tim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dicks, Terry

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ashby, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Atkins, Robert

      Dover, Den

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Duncan, Alan

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Dunn, Bob

      Baldry, Tony

      Dykes, Hugh

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Elletson, Harold

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Bates, Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Faber, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Booth, Hartley

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Boswell, Tim

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Forman, Nigel

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Forth, Eric

      Bowis, John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Brazier, Julian

      French, Douglas

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Gale, Roger

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gallie, Phil

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Garnier, Edward

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gill, Christopher

      Burns, Simon

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Burt, Alistair

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Butcher, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Butler, Peter

      Gorst, Sir John

      Butterfill, John

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Cash, William

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hague, William

      Churchill, Mr

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Clappison, James

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Congdon, David

      Harris, David

      Conway, Derek

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Heald, Oliver

      Couchman, James

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      727

      Heathcoat-Arnory, David

      Paice, James

      Hendry, Charles

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hicks, Robert

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Pawsey, James

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Pickles, Eric

      Horam, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jack, Michael

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jessel, Toby

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Key, Robert

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Sackville, Tom

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Knapman, Roger

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

      Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian

      Knox, Sir David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shersby, Michael

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Sims, Roger

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Legg, Barry

      Soames, Nicholas

      Leigh, Edward

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lidington, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spring, Richard

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Sproat, Iain

      Lord, Michael

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Luff, Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Steen, Anthony

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stephen, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew

      Stern, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Stewart, Alan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sumberg, David

      Madel, Sir David

      Sykes, John

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Marland, Paul

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Thomason, Roy

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marshal, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Merchant Piers

      Tracey, Richard

      Mills Iain

      Tredinnick, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Trend, Michael

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Viggers, Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Walden, George

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Ward, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Watts, John

      Norris, Steve

      Wells, Bowen

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Whitney, Ray

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Whittingdale, John

      Page, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      728

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Yeo, Tim

      Willets, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Wilshire, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Wood, Timothy

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope

      Amendment accordingly negatived.
      Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 11 agreed to.

    Clause 15

      VEHICLE EXCISE AND REGISTRATION: OTHER PROVISIONS
      6.15 pm
      Ms Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 11, line 42, at end insert
      `only if the Government has presented a report to Parliament before the passing of this Act on certain of its implications specified in subsection (2) below.
      (2) The Government shall report to Parliament on the implications of Schedule 4 for—

      (a) public and traffic safety;

      (b) the standard of public service; and

      (c) the costs to individuals, service providers and businesses; and on the results of public consultation.'.

      The amendment requires the Government to withdraw schedule 4, which is long and complex, covers 24 pages and is cross-referenced with the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. In their haste to open up another base for indirect taxation, we believe that the Government have not taken proper account of public safety or of the cost to businesses and the likely implications for employment. In particular, I want to emphasise the full ramifications of the schedule and I want to put the case for full assessment, with public consultation with the relevant bodies, to be undertaken before the Government require the House to take a decision on these matters.
      Rather than deal with every category in the schedule, I shall use examples to make the principle points on public safety and the costs to businesses. The matter is further complicated by the fact that, in addition to schedule 4, the Government have tabled complex amendments in acknowledgement of their errors. They have tabled them in an attempt to ameliorate the worst excesses of their original proposals, but they have failed in that attempt.
      I want first to consider the categories of vehicles that are now to have vehicle excise duty applied to them. Those vehicles are chiefly—[Interruption.] It is difficult to debate an important issue while half a dozen conversations are going on. Forgive me, Dame Janet—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) is right. It was in my mind to draw attention to the matter, and I now do so formally. If hon. Members want to chat, they must go outside the Chamber to do so.
      Ms Primarolo: Thank you, Dame Janet. I am much obliged.
      The vehicles that are covered—snow ploughs, gritters, street cleansing vehicles, street lighting tower wagons and road construction vehicles—are mainly used by local authorities or by the private contractors which now fulfil certain obligations, as a result of the Government's

      729
      compulsory competitive tendering policy. I shall deal only with road safety and likely costs. Because of the complexity of the Bill, it has been difficult for private contractors or local authorities, in such a short period, to unravel the complicated relationships that are set out in the schedule.
      The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has made representations to me on the difficulties of ascertaining exactly the new rates of duty. Because of the separation of direct labour organisations and privatisation, it is difficult to see how costs can be measured. Clearly, for local authorities that are already rate-capped and have severe local authority grant settlements, any increase in cost will not just threaten the provision of services. I am sure that hon. Members can appreciate the significance of gritters or snow ploughs, particularly for authorities in the north of the country.
      For example, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has said that about 30 vehicles in the Wigan authority's fleet will be in this class of taxation for the first time. In trying to decide the effect of the new charges, it contacted the local taxation office, which was unable to supply anything other than a range of duties that may apply. That means that the additional costs to that authority could be anything from £1,500 to £60,000 a year.
      Not only are there costs and possible implications for local authorities, private business and employment, but there are clear road safety implications. If local authorities which face severe grant restrictions are unable to find money, there could be severe consequences for the future maintenance of local authority highways and for road safety. That is at a time when there is extreme concern about the condition of roads in local authority remits, as a result of funding arrangements.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: In addition, is there not an equity point that, if specialist vehicles spend most of their time stationary because men are up the tower or if they are used only for the few weeks of the year when salting is necessary, that goes right against the theology of vehicle excise duty, which is aimed at trying to deal with damage to our roads? Clearly, a vehicle which spends little time travelling or is used for only a few days a year should not, in equity, be asked to pay the same as a heavy goods vehicle which travels our roads for up to 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
      Ms Primarolo: As a former Minister in the Department of Transport, the hon. Gentleman has considerable expertise. I agree with his point. Before any alterations are made to exemptions or to concessionary classes for vehicle excise duty, the Government need to undertake a rigorous assessment of the likely impact of such changes on public safety. For example, I refer to the environment, although we have not mentioned it in the amendment, costs to businesses—because of contracting out, there are now private contractors—and the likely long-term effects on the quality of our roads. We are not satisfied that the Government have undertaken any consultations or consideration before preparing schedule 4.
      Mr. Sutcliffe: Last week, in my constituency in north-west Yorkshire, there were severe weather conditions. The gritters and snow ploughs were out. Under the standard spending assessment, there was no extra allocation for increases in vehicle excise duty in
      730
      respect of the vehicles that my hon. Friend has mentioned. Because weather conditions have not been as severe over the past few years, the budget has been cut. Whether that is right or wrong, it has happened, and it will be the case in future. Therefore, road safety will be affected.
      Ms Primarolo: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was surprised, in the west country, to see television news reports of the dreadful weather that was occurring only a few 'hundred miles up the road and to see the different demands on the local authorities concerned. I do not want to make this into a larger point, but gritters are often dual-purpose vehicles. They might be dust carts as well.
      Our general criticism still stands: the Government have not undertaken the necessary review. Whether a local authority undertakes work directly or whether it is done by a private contractor, the costs of providing that service will increase and therefore will fall on council tax payers. As a form of indirect taxation, that is regressive in that it hits people unequally. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has struggled to understand the implications of the measures, because it is also concerned about prospects for road safety.
      The Government proclaim themselves, first, to be concerned about the environment; secondly, to be concerned about safety, and road safety in particular; and, thirdly, to be considerate of small business and employment prospects. However, they have opened an entire taxation base without undertaking a proper assessment. The vehicle excise duties that can be imposed under schedule 4 can be increased every year, just as vehicle excise duty on private cars has been increased in the past.
      That presents an enormous dilemma in properly assessing the likely impact. The Government have not undertaken an assessment. Local authorities cannot say what the impact will be. Private contractors whom I have contacted are in the same position—they need more information and discussion before they can make a conclusive statement.
      Mr. Iain Mills: The Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club and all emergency organisations are with the hon. Lady on that point.
      Ms Primarolo: I was about to refer to the AA, the RAC and private vehicle recovery firms which undertake essential safety work on our roads. They not only recover stranded motorists but deal with dangerous lorry loads, oil tankers and many noxious chemicals and products that are transported on our roads.
      The proposals on road recovery vehicles offer the greatest threat to road safety. We recognise that the Government were trying to simplify the vehicle excise duty regime but schedule 4 makes for a more complex scheme. Road recovery vehicles had been taxed at a concessionary rate of £85 per year, regardless of size. Under schedule 4, that concessionary status would be removed, and there would be an increase in the taxation classes to between £135 and £5,000 a year. The Government are now proposing to amend that figure, and the Minister will no doubt put his case later in the debate.
      The pegging of the excise duty is dependent on the weight of the vehicle and the new taxation rates are linked to those for heavy goods vehicles. HGVs are on the road much more and their work is more predictable than that

      731
      of recovery vehicles, so the categories are not comparable. By the nature of their work, recovery vehicles are used occasionally. The work load cannot be planned, as it depends on the weather and what accidents the vehicles are called to. Consequently, they spend a great deal of time off the road on standby. Safety could be compromised if the proposals go ahead.
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I have been in contact with two operators of heavy recovery vehicles in my constituency, and they have said that if the vehicle licence remains high, they will have to go out of business. As my hon. Friend said, it is only on the odd occasion when the vehicles are needed, and they are usually called out to help a tanker in trouble or in an emergency. I am worried that, if those operators go out of business, nobody will take up the emergency and recovery service.
      6.30 pm
      Ms Primarolo: I shall come to that point.
      I have letters from private companies engaged in road recovery work which describe the difficulties that they will have in complying with the new rate if it is imposed, and also the implications for road safety. Large recovery vehicles may be called out only once a month to a road accident, but they are essential as they can clear any obstruction quickly. In a moment, I shall deal with the comments of the police with regard to the Government's proposals.
      If a vehicle is taken out of circulation because it is too expensive to tax, another vehicle will have to be brought in from further away. The companies which are able to deal with accidents will be spread more thinly, and therefore there could be longer delays in responding to accidents and the time that the police will have to remain at an accident while waiting for an obstruction to be cleared could increase. That will not only waste the time of the police, who should be doing other things, but will cause a great deal of obstruction and possibly distress. It could cause disruption on the roads, and it is wasteful as well as unsafe. It is clear that the police cannot leave the scene of an accident before the road is clear.
      The Association of Vehicle Recovery Operators has conducted a survey of all its regions. It says that if the proposal goes through, there will be no heavy goods vehicle recovery operators in Scotland north of Perth. In North Yorkshire, there is only one operator capable of removing heavy goods vehicles from Sutton bank, near Leeming Bar, which is a 1:3 gradient. That operator says that he will not be able to continue his service if the rate goes through, and if that happens, there will be no suitable vehicle to deal with an emergency within a 100-mile radius of that area.
      Mr. Hugh Bayley: My hon. Friend is raising the problems in my county. I have spoken to the company in question, and its 26-tonne heavy vehicle—a vehicle on which the excise duty would rise from £85 to some £5,000 under the Bill's provisions—was used on only eight occasions last year. The company was paid on only six of those occasions. Even under the Government's modified proposal of a £750 vehicle excise duty, does that not mean that the Government will be taxing the operator more than
      732
      £100 for every trip he makes with a vehicle that is delivering a public service in opening roads for the police and for other road users?
      Ms Primarolo: I agree with the point so ably made by my hon. Friend.
      The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): It may assist the Committee if I invite hon. Members to look at Government amendments Nos. 44 to 47, which entirely take account of the points which have been raised.
      Ms Primarolo: The Minister will put his case carefully and adequately to the Committee this evening, but we reject what he has said. The Government amendments do not go far enough, and we wish to press our points.
      Those points are reinforced in a letter from the North Yorkshire police on the specific matter of road safety, which was addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley). The force makes it clear that the proposals to remove the concessionary classes will cause considerable difficulties. The North Yorkshire force currently contracts the recovery of accident and broken-down vehicles to the RAC. The actual recovery work is subject to a business agreement between the RAC and the individual private specialist recovery operators, with the recovery fees being reclaimed from the individual companies or from insurance.
      The major concern of the force is not about the commercial implications of the excise duty changes but with the knock-on effect that will occur on the availability of suitably equipped recovery vehicles to deal with accidents and safety requirements. The implications for the North Yorkshire force and for the motoring public who use the roads of the county may be quite profound. As the number of recovery trucks diminishes, the time of arrival at accident scenes will increase, the frequency of tailbacks will grow and there will be a further risk of accidents. That will create a need for the police to spend more time at accidents, which will have obvious implications for road safety.
      We think that the Government have been hasty in their rush to extend their taxation base. They have not taken proper account of the cost implications, nor of the implications for the future existence of businesses. That is shown yet again in a later schedule which affects farm goods vehicles, and increases the costs on farming businesses. Those costs are estimated to be more than £6 million for the loss of the exempt classes, and £3.8 million for loss of the concessionary classes.
      Finally, to demonstrate the folly of the schedule, a Government who claim to be interested in the environment and have used the increase in petrol duties as their fig leaf, claiming that they are sticking to the Rio targets on traffic pollution and pollution generally, are proposing to extend vehicle excise duty to electric milk floats—environmentally sound vehicles that should be encouraged, not taxed—which will cause problems for a milk industry that is already beleaguered because of the Government's policies.
      The schedule is ill thought-out and no consultation has taken place. It has implications for road recovery vehicles and businesses and for public safety, which are all at risk. We request that the Government withdraw the schedule,

      733
      undertake a full consultation, produce a review and report back to the House before they make any changes to vehicle excise duty for those vehicles.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It might assist the Committee if I set out the general background to the measures. Although we are debating clause 15, most of the detail is in schedule 4, to which the clause relates. A general explanation at this stage will help us when we debate the details of that schedule.
      The present vehicle excise duty system is needlessly complex, with 132 different classes of concession and exemption. Lawyers cannot agree on some of the interpretations, which provides endless scope for expensive litigation. The system is also extremely archaic. Many of the provisions date back to before the second world war. They were added to during the time of digging for victory, when privileges and exemptions for agriculture were easier to justify.
      Since then, technology has moved on. Some of the legislation that we are replacing refers to water being used for propulsion. It also explicitly provides for the wartime device of towing a trailer containing gas, which was used to propel the vehicle in question. That system is certainly no longer with us.
      Some of the existing classes are empty. There is no relevant vehicle in them—perhaps there never was. New types have arisen, such as all-terrain vehicles, which have to fall into the general tax class because the concessionary tax classes have not caught up with their existence. I think that all hon. Members agree that the need for reform is plain and that it is overdue. The legislation is also anomalous.
      Mr. Mills: When were the concessions for emergency relief vehicles on motorways discussed and agreed? I thought that it was about five years ago, so my hon. Friend's explanation hardly applies.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, another section of my speech deals with those matters. My general argument is that the system which we have inherited is anomalous and inconsistent.
      I regret the fact that many of the amendments tabled by the official Opposition appear to cling to those anomalies. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) referred to street-cleaning vehicles, snow clearing and so forth, and I shall touch on those in detail later.
      Under existing law, if a street-cleaning vehicle uses its hose to clear a gully, it is exempt from vehicle excise duty, but if it extends its hose a little more under the street to flush out a sewer, it is supposed to pay the full vehicle excise duty. A tower wagon—an hydraulic platform on wheels—is exempt when it is used for mending street lighting, but it must pay the full duty if it is mending a telegraph pole or a power line. The anomalies are indefensible and they invite tax evasion. We cannot expect policemen to check how far under the street the hose pipe from one of those cleansing vehicles goes, so the legislation is practically tailor-made for cheating and exemptions.
      Many of the concessions are granted on the basis of nothing more than an operator's declaration that he or she qualifies and are thus almost impossible to police. When the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency carried out a
      734
      detailed check on one class—restricted goods vehicles—it found that 90 per cent. of claimants for special treatment seemed to be claiming the concession wrongly.
      6.45 pm
      The legislation is extremely bureaucratic. For example, let us consider the exemption for vehicles travelling six road miles a week. We shall debate it later, so I shall not go into great detail, but claimants must fill in a form every year and swear that they will not depart from the road routes that they use between their fields. If they want to make a detour during the year, because of a blocked road or some such thing, they are supposed to inform the DVLA in writing.
      None of that makes for good taxation. In fact, the present system breaks every rule of good taxation; it is inconsistent, out of date, unclear, and difficult to enforce. We have aimed, first, to simplify the system so that it is easier for users to understand and cheap for the Government to operate. Secondly, we want to bring it up to date and to concentrate special treatment on those that most warrant it. Thirdly, we aim to grant consistent treatment for similar types of vehicles, thus removing anomalies. Fourthly, we insist that we can easily check that claimants for special treatment are genuine, so removing the opportunity to evade.
      In place of the 132 classes, we have concentrated on four basic classes of vehicle, leaving unchanged the few add-ons for motor cycles, vintage cars and the like. First, vehicle excise duty exemption is granted to the most deserving cases, such as 999 emergency vehicles and those for the severely disabled. Secondly, very low rates of VED—only £35—are applied to those with a good case, such as snow ploughs, gritters, electric vehicles, tractors, other agricultural machines and mowing machines. Thirdly, a special low rate of £150 is applied to specialised vehicles that are based mostly on heavy lorries and have a specialised use; examples include mobile cranes, road rollers, digging machines, work trucks and showmen's lorries.
      All other classes must pay the full vehicle excise duty. The presumption must be that, without good reason otherwise, a vehicle should be in that class. Most vehicles in the £35 and £150 classes will also continue to benefit from very low rates of duty on their diesel.
      With any comprehensive reform, there are some winners and some losers—that is inevitable. The measures as a whole, however, increase the revenue from VED by less than 1 per cent. I believe that members of the Committee will join me in thinking that this is an overdue reform.
      In her introductory remarks, the hon. Member for Bristol, South mentioned recovery vehicles.
      Mr. Bayley: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not give way? I know that he intervened, and I hope that I can assist him and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills).
      I appreciate that the hon. Member for Bristol, South probably wrote her speech before the Government tabled amendments Nos. 44 to 47, but even after that was pointed out she ploughed on with unnecessary remarks about the additional taxation of recovery vehicles, with which we have already dealt.

      735
      It is reasonable to put light breakdown vehicles, which are commercial high-mileage vehicles, into the £135 per annum class. We have met the concerns raised by a number of hon. Members and the trade that to tax very large vehicles, which may be infrequently used, at the full heavy goods vehicle rate would be wrong. That is why we put the heavier vehicles into three bands, the highest of which will tax them at £750 per annum.
      Mr. Bayley: When the Minister intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), he might have been under the misapprehension that I was talking about the vehicle excise duty rates for 26-tonne recovery vehicles, as originally proposed. I was not. The original proposal was for £5,000 excise duty. I gave the new figure of £750, which the Minister proposes in his amendment.
      The point is that, in the past 12 months, that operator in my county, the only operator who can clear Sutton Bank road, made just eight trips with his 26-tonne vehicle. As it happens, he was paid on only six of those occasions. Under the Minister's new proposal, the duty on that vehicle will rise from £85 to £750—a tax increase of more than £100 for each occasion on which the vehicle was used and paid for.
      The Minister may say that his tax proposal amounts to only a 1 per cent. increase in the total vehicle excise bill, but for that operator—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. As I told another hon. Member earlier, interventions should be short. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has been quite long enough.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I fully understood the hon. Gentleman's point. It was put to me by the Retail Motor Industry Federation, which represents the Association of Recovery Vehicle Operators, when its representatives came to see me. I listened carefully to, and met, the federation's concerns. I have before me a letter from the federation saying that it is happy with the compromise that we have reached. If it is happy—after all, it represents the industry and the operator mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—that should be good enough for the hon. Gentleman.
      We shall return to the issue in a later group of amendments.
      Mr. Bayley rose—
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry, but I answered the hon. Gentleman's point. I said that the trade was happy with the new limit on very heavy recovery vehicles of not £5,000, but £750, a year.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, South mentioned snow-clearing and street-cleaning vehicles. I want to say a little more about that matter, because it encapsulates the problems with which we are dealing and the necessity for the reforms that we are introducing. We have recognised the special nature of snow-clearing and ice-gritting vehicles by putting them in the category that charges only £35 a year VED and allowing them to retain their right to use rebated fuel—so called "red diesel". Were those vehicles in the heavy goods vehicle class, they would pay not £35 a year but between £150 and £5,000 a year, as well as full duty on the diesel that they use.
      736
      Street-cleaning and street-lighting vehicles will face normal VED rates. After all, those are commercial operations and, today, few such vehicles are owned by local authorities. Most are owned by private sector operators, often under contract to local authorities. Many local service vehicles such as refuse lorries already pay full VED. Why should street-cleaning vehicles be exempt when almost identical vehicles that clean sewers are taxed?
      The Labour party needs to come up to date on that matter and realise what has been happening. Instead of single-use machines all owned by local authorities, we now have multi-use machines operated under contract by the private sector. It makes no sense to impose full annual VED on a vehicle when it is doing a job such as cleaning sewers, and exempt it when it is doing a slightly different job such as street cleaning, possibly on the very next day.
      Ms Primarolo: The Minister said that the changes in VED are to simplify the system. He then explained that the Government needed to make the system a little more complex because it did not take account of recovery vehicles, which now need to be put in a different regime. He then referred to red diesel, which was previously linked to vehicle excise duty exemptions and concessions, which must now have an entire schedule to itself to override the vehicle excise duty schedules because the system does not satisfy demand. Is that not a more complex rather than a simpler system?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am glad that the hon. Lady has given me an opportunity to point out that we shall have a chance tomorrow, when the Bill goes upstairs to Committee, to debate the precise issue of the use of rebated fuel. Far from adding complexity to the system, we shall simplify that matter as well and put that provision into statute law.
      I urge the Labour party to take on board the fact that the world has changed from one of municipally owned vehicles simply doing one job. Frequently, vehicles change operations from one day to another. Vehicles can change their configuration from one season to the next by using swap bodies; for example, a snow plough used in winter can be used for an entirely different operation in summer. The Labour amendment refuses to recognise that and puts back all the difficulties we seek to get away from.
      The trade recognises the need for change, even if the Labour party does not. The police and the licensing agency know that the current system is becoming impossible to enforce. I only wish that we could persuade the Opposition, particularly the Labour party, to drop their ideological baggage just long enough to withdraw the amendment, which would take us back in time rather than forward.
      The amendment would hinder and delay the very reforms that I have outlined. There are no adverse road or safety implications in the provision. We have given careful thought to the reforms, and the overwhelming need for them is recognised by outside bodies. We have delayed implementation of the VED system until 1 July 1995 both to give those affected an opportunity to adapt to the changes and to enable them to draw attention to any specific and special difficulties. I have already explained how we have responded to well-thought-out arguments presented to us in the context of recovery vehicles.

      737
      We are not convinced, however, by the arguments against the need for overall change, which is why I ask the Committee to accept the clause and to reject the Opposition amendment.
      Mr. Paul Tyler: I wish to follow the Minister, as he has rightly put before the Committee the rationale of the whole of schedule 4. We are not just dealing with the Labour party amendment; it is right and proper that we look at the principles behind the proposed changes.
      I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Epping Forrest (Mr. Norris) in the Chamber to listen to the debate. His Department must have been actively consulted about the rationale for the changes, as I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry was consulted about their important energy implications.
      There are a number of amendments standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. They relate to agricultural vehicles, vehicle usage as opposed to vehicle ownership—that is the key energy conservation issue with which we should be concerned—the impact that lorries have on the economy and, finally, the special circumstances relating to commercial traffic on islands. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) will speak about that matter a little later.
      I shall illustrate the extent to which the Government's apparent attempt to simplify vehicle excise duty not only will make the situation more complicated but is clearly not worth the candle. The Minister said that the total take in a full financial year will amount to only a 1 per cent. increase in VED, yet he is blundering into a series of mini-calamities—each one may not be important to everybody, but they add up to a snowstorm of calamities.
      As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said earlier, the only logical way to approach the tax is to relate it either to use of the highway or to the use of scarce resources. The Government's proposals do not relate directly to either use.
      Perhaps the panic stations in rural constituencies have persuaded the Minister and his Treasury colleagues to re-examine the proposals for agricultural vehicles that use the roads for only a limited period. All U-turns are welcome, even if they are conducted on a motorway at such a slow speed that they cause a major hold-up. By trying to buy off his colleagues in rural constituencies, there is a danger that the Minister will end up with a situation that is as bad as the one he started with. It certainly will not be any less complex.
      I will illustrate how the proposals will affect the individual farmer. A farmer from my constituency gave me at the weekend a careful assessment of the precise implications of the Bill—as it then stood; I acknowledge the Minister's comments in that regard. He estimated that he faced an additional cost of £1,080 a year under the Bill as it then stood. No doubt the amendments will improve the situation somewhat, but it will not improve dramatically.
      My constituent is a hill livestock farmer with 265 acres of land which is bisected by a major road proposal—the A30 on Bodmin moor. As a result, he has great difficulty in reaching some parts of his land. He says that he has
      "no alternative other than to travel short distances on the public highway with agricultural vehicles and machinery to carry out essential day to day tasks such as inspecting livestock during the summer and transporting fodder in the winter."
      738
      I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has now left his position on the Front Bench.
      The farmer continued:
      "Bearing in mind the fact that this government has also axed Farm Waste Pollution Control and Farm Conservation Grants in this same budget, reduced the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances by 2.5 per cent. in the past year, I feel it is outrageous to expect me to find a further £1080 per year to run my business and also to threaten extra costs for fuel when the Customs & Excise review their policy on red diesel."
      I know that the Minister intends to address that matter in Committee, but I think that he will acknowledge that the industry is correct to be concerned about that point.
      The National Farmers Union has also briefed a number of hon. Members on the subject and has said:
      "Many agricultural holdings have parcels of land which are geographically close but not integrated within a "ring fence", and many more have contiguous parcels of land which are bisected by public roads necessitating the crossing of the road to take a vehicle from one field to another".
      The NFU and individual farmers are saying that there is no specific rationale for the change which the Government currently propose. Their usage of the highway is very limited, but the legislation will impact greatly on the industry and on individual farmers. The NFU said:
      "The revenue benefit of forcing all these agricultural vehicles which are used for short local journeys into the VED system is out of all proportion to the additional administrative burden and cost which it would place on farmers".
      The Minister makes great play of simplifying administration and removing burdens, but I suspect that he is taking administrative burdens away from the Treasury and loading them onto individual businesses.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise for intervening for a second time. The Department of Transport organised an exemption for Dotto trains which allows small trains at seaside resorts to travel for a few hundred yards on the public highway. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are not looking for an exemption for a farmer who takes a tractor into a market town on a regular basis; we are talking about journeys of 20 or 200 yd on the public highway? Many people in agriculture do not understand why their vehicles, which will otherwise be used on their own land, should be taxed for such small, infrequent journeys.
      Mr. Tyler: Not for the first time, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I noticed with great pleasure the pained expression on the face of his hon. Friend the Minister. who has either not represented that view to the Treasury or failed to represent the views of the farming industry—and, for all I know, those of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as well.
      Many people believe that schedule 4 should be re-examined, because there has been inadequate consultation about the principles of the changes, let alone their practical implications and the economic effects on certain industries. We will return to that point later, so I will not labour it now.
      There are a number of other "apparent anomalies"—to use the Minister's phrase—in the legislation. It has been suggested several times that the changes in the Budget, in the Finance Bill and in schedule 4 are intended to develop environmental objectives in some way. It is simply humbug. There is no environmental reason for increasing

      739
      vehicle excise duty. We should make sure that future tax burdens are applied according to usage of the highway and of scarce resources. Usage, not ownership, is the issue.
      It is therefore absurd to increase the vehicle excise duty this year. We should reduce the vehicle excise duty on those vehicles which are modest in their consumption of fossil fuels. It should be possible to reduce the excise duty on the smallest vehicles to £10—just an administrative charge—while at the same time allowing the full weight of the Budget increase to fall on those who use the most fuel.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. Is he saying that heavy recovery vehicles should pay more excise duty because they use considerable amounts of diesel, and that smaller recovery vehicles which travel many more miles should pay less?
      Mr. Tyler: In a normal winter—who knows, we may be experiencing an abnormal one—many of the very large vehicles are on the road for only a short time, and therefore use an insignificant amount of fuel. I know that the hon. Gentleman represents a rural constituency, and I will show how a change of taxation emphasis from ownership to usage could assist his constituents.
      The average private motorist in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as in mine—even taking into account the difficulty of finding alternative public transport—travels only 8,000 or 8,500 miles per year. If that motorist does that sort of mileage in a comparatively modest car of between 1,200 and 1,500 cc and pays only £10 in VED but pays the full increase in petrol and diesel tax, that motorist will save a considerable amount of money. If the Government want to do something effective about the usage of fossil fuels and usage of the highways, they should encourage people to trade down and use modest vehicles more modestly. We will return to that issue at a later stage, but if there is to be any logic in schedule 4, the Government must do something more effective to persuade us.
      The Royal Commission on the Environment reported a few months ago to the Department of Transport that the weight of responsibility for cost in terms of maintenance equations, the environment, and so on, is almost twice as much in the case of lorries as is paid in lorry vehicle excise duty. This morning, The Times reported, that despite the industry's claim that it is paying much more than it can afford, truck registrations in 1994 rose an astonishing 23 per cent. over 1993—the highest year-on-year increase on record, in stark contrast to the ailing car market.
      That increase scarcely suggests that lorries are over-taxed and will be taxed out of business, even in the recession that is still afflicting so much of our country. Lorries are making less of a contribution to overall road costs, the economy and consequent environmental costs than they should.
      740
      Schedule 4, at best, portrays muddled thinking about transport and energy policy. At worst, it looks like yet another indiscriminate, ill-thought-out and illogical attack on not just particular sectors such as agriculture but the private motorist.
      Mr. Bayley: Although the overall increase in vehicle excise duty may be modest in the context of the industry's total bill—a figure of 1 per cent. was suggested—the individual operator of a vehicle recovery service will find the rise staggering. Even under the modified proposal that the Minister considers acceptable, the firm that I mentioned earlier will have to confront a VED increase of more than 200 per cent.—from £1,020 to £3,300.
      That will be less of a burden than the original proposal, which would have raised that firm's vehicle duty bill to nearly £20,000, but how does the Minister justify to that small business a 200 per cent. tax increase; and how does he respond to the case made by that firm and by North Yorkshire police, that such firms will reduce the number of their heavy recovery vehicles, which will extend the time that road users will be kept waiting when a heavy goods vehicle breaks down or is involved in an accident?
      Earlier this month, the assistant chief constable of North Yorkshire police wrote to me about that matter.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: Did he know about the changes?
      Mr. Bayley: Of course not, because they were announced only last Friday as a panic measure by the Government when they realised that they had got it wrong with their initial proposal.
      If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will learn that assistant chief constable's comment was relevant before the change and after it. He stated that the duty increase for smaller vehicles weighing under 7.5 tonnes could be recovered by operators because such vehicles are used frequently. However, he added:
      "The category over 7.5 tonnes will create a particular difficulty for recovery operators. Throughout the County there are approximately 16 recovery vehicles in this category and their work is extremely limited. They are primarily used for the recovery of broken down and accident damaged heavy goods vehicles, and I am aware that one operator has only used his vehicle on 12 occasions during the past 12 months. Despite this limited use it is imperative that North Yorkshire Police are able to call on this type of recovery vehicle."
      Nevertheless, the Government are proposing for large vehicles an 800 per cent. rise, from £85 to £750. That represents a substantial increase in the tax burden on operators of large vehicles used only occasionally.
      7.15 pm
      The Minister recognised that the initial proposal was a mistake. His compromise is a step in the right direction, but not a big enough step. The revenue implications of going the whole hog in my county, which is geographically the largest in England, should be considered. There are only 16 such vehicles in my county, but there will be fewer as a result of the proposal.
      Mr. Michael Lord: The vehicles to which the hon. Gentleman refers must be expensive. I do not know the depreciation involved, but can the hon.

      741
      Gentleman say how much the vehicle owner charged in each of the 12 instances mentioned by the assistant chief constable?
      Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, in terms of the cost to the individual owner of a recovered vehicle of the extra £670. I cannot recall whether the hon. Gentleman was in his seat when I spoke earlier, but not all owners of recovered vehicles pay their bills. I said that one recovery vehicle was used only eight times during the course of a year, and its owner received payment on only six of those occasions. In that instance, the proposed increase would, if it had been passed on, have added £100 to the charge for each rescue.
      Recovery vehicles provide a service to the public in removing an obstruction and opening the road to other users. Surely that is worth something in the Government's terms.
      Mr. Lord: I heard the hon. Gentleman's earlier speech, but it strikes me that any business that uses such a vehicle so infrequently must build into its cost structure substantial fees per trip. Otherwise, the business is unlikely to be viable. Therefore, the proposed increase may represent a much smaller percentage of the firm's overheads than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Mr. Bayley: When the hon. Gentleman intervened earlier, I acknowledged that he made a valid point when he said that the lower rate increase would not represent a huge extra cost, given the overall charges made for vehicle recovery. Is that not all the more reason for the Government to examine its costings in the round?
      In the case of the vehicle used eight times a year, for which its operator was paid on six occasions, the tax would add £100 per use. Why do the Government not set against that the increased cost of police time spent waiting at the scene of an accident, if the time taken to effect recovery is lengthened because perhaps only eight suitable vehicles will operate in North Yorkshire instead of the 16 that operate at present?
      The Government's initial proposal prompted the company in question to cancel the purchase of a new vehicle, which would have cost £100,000. That obviously led to an immediate reduction in the quality of the service to the public and the county. The second consequence was that the company decided not to go ahead with appointing someone to a job that it had advertised and had planned to fill. The company has 26 employees, so, proportionately speaking, this had a significant impact. Thirdly, the company decided to call a halt to its efforts to get BS 5750 accreditation, because it realised that it had to make savings.
      I hope that, as a result of the reduced increases in VED, the company will be able to reconsider some of these decisions. As the Government have admitted that they were wrong in the first place to propose these excise increases, and as the Government, when bringing in the new lower rate for these vehicles, have failed in their objective of simplicity—putting all the heavy goods vehicles on the same rate of taxation, why do they not accept that these vehicles are infrequently used but perform a valuable public service? If there are fewer of them, there will be greater costs to the Exchequer in terms of police time and road blockages.
      742
      The Government's argument is really not worth the candle. For vehicles over 7.5 tonnes, the Government have gone halfway; they should now go the whole way and abandon this increase. The revenue implications will be minuscule. The benefits for an industry on which the Government and the police rely will be considerable. There will also be the benefits of BS 5750 accreditation and of more employment, which the Government say they want. More investment will also go into the industry. All that could be lost if the Government go ahead with this tax increase.
      Mr. William Ross: This is one of those debates that go beyond the usual political point scoring with which we are so familiar. The Government should pay careful attention to what is said, with the intention of looking again at the proposals.
      The Minister drew attention to the fact that most snow clearance, gritting, and street lighting and cleaning vehicles in Great Britain are owned by councils. Not so in Northern Ireland. He will be well aware that all those functions are still under the control of the Department of the Environment. One begins to wonder why the Government should impose a tax which they themselves will eventually have to pay. That does not seem the wisest way of proceeding to raise revenue.
      The Minister talked about multi-use machines, but did not spell out what he meant by that. In my experience, many machines of the class that he described are single-use machines, used for gritting or for snow clearance—or sometimes for both but for nothing else—
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I gave a specific example of how a street cleaning vehicle could be exempt from VED when cleaning gutters with its hosepipe but, with a small adaptation—not uncommon with such vehicles—it could put its hose further down under the street and do the same job for the sewer. In the latter case, it would pay full VED. So it could switch in and out of exemption from one day to the next. That is a recipe for evasion, and it would create a bureaucratic nightmare.
      Mr. Ross: I can see the problem with that case, but I wonder whether the Government's is the right way of dealing with it. I think they should look for a different solution. In any case, in Northern Ireland, these are all DOE vehicles. Thank God, the Department still owns the sewers—no doubt many in this House and elsewhere wish the same were true throughout the United Kingdom. The fact remains that, in the nation from which I come, these are essentially Government vehicles; now they are being asked to pay tax.
      Even when the service is privatised, as it has been over here, the cost will eventually be paid by local government taxpayers. Who pays for snow clearance? The road authorities do. Eventually, therefore, local government taxpayers will foot the bill. This is thus a rather sneaky way of placing an unjustified burden on those taxpayers. As we know, it can be snowing in the north of England while the sun is shining in London, at the same time as the south-west is being washed away.

      743
      Had the Minister been with me in the plane today, he would have seen a great deal of England under water—
      Ms Primarolo: Would a boat count as a recovery vehicle?
      Mr. Ross: Certainly a boat would have been more suitable had the journey been made on the ground.
      This measure has not been properly thought through, and the Government should go away and reconsider.
      As the House will know, I have long been associated with agriculture, about which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke earlier. The difficulty is that many farm vehicles, especially tractors, are used only rarely and for short journeys. A farmer in the summer does not take his tractor down the road to look over the gate at the sheep or cattle: he drives a car. The car is taxed. He takes it because it saves him time and is cheaper.
      In winter, he will transport fodder to his livestock, which may be only 20 yd away or up to a mile away, two or three times a week—although it may be less often because the cattle may have been moved closer to the farm or even indoors. His farm vehicle thus makes the journey to and from the cattle extremely rarely.
      Many farms have more than one tractor. One may be used on longer journeys, and thus be taxed in the usual way, while another is kept to do runabout jobs on the farm. That saves the farmer money, and is quite justified in the circumstances. It all depends on whether a farm is traversed by public roads or by a private road or lane. In the latter case, the need to pay tax is practically non-existent. The Government should bear that in mind, too.
      The final problem is that, whereas privatised road cleaning services may be able to recover their extra costs by putting up their prices, farmers cannot just say, "I've got to pay higher tax, so I'll need another pound for this lamb, friend." They can only make what the market will pay them—a fact that the Government appear to ignore.
      I was astonished to hear the Minister say, in the context of recovery vehicles, that there was no implication for road safety. There is always a road safety implication when a broken-down vehicle is on the road, especially at night.
      Last Friday, I tried to cross the Glenshane pass, which reminded me of the road to Basra at the end of the Gulf war. There had been two hours of wet snow, and the road was in an horrendous condition. I spent an hour admiring the surrounding hills—I could well have done without that—before we got through. The snow cleared up after a couple of hours, but at least two vehicles were off the road by then, and they were not going to be lifted out by a light recovery vehicle. It was clear that a heavy one would be needed.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) described the difficulties very well. These vehicles are very much needed—sometimes only rarely—and are essential to our road system.
      The economics of the operation was raised. I believe that whether an operator of heavy recovery vehicles will spend £100,000 or go out and buy a second-hand or
      744
      third-hand vehicle for a fraction of that cost depends on the amount of use that he expects to make of it. Those people are business men. They can count.
      We all know that, in one part of the country, such a vehicle may be needed every day—certainly every week—but in others it may be needed half a dozen times a year and no more than that. In those circumstances, it will be an extremely heavy burden on the individual concerned. If the tax goes up to several times its present rate, there will be a knock-on effect on insurance costs. It may be small for an individual vehicle, but there will inevitably be a rise in insurance costs to cover increased costs, and, of course, there will also be the VAT, which I assume will be added, for the service of taking out the recovery vehicle and using it.
      7.30 pm
      The Minister said that it would raise only 1 per cent. The implication is that 1 per cent. is an absolutely tiny sum, scarcely worth thinking or bothering about. If so, why does he bother about it? Why does not he go away and forget about the tax for a year? He should listen to what is said this evening and no doubt to what will be said in Standing Committee. After that, he could come back with a regime that is more easily defendable than what is before us this evening.
      The reality is that a number of completely obsolete vehicles are mentioned in the proposed legislation. The Minister does not have to worry about them. Nobody is breaking the law. The vehicles do not exist, so by definition the law cannot be broken. He could wipe them out at any time, and nobody would be too concerned. The mere fact that the present legislation has lasted so long says an awful lot for those who framed it. It would seem that they got it very nearly right.
      I suspect that, if the Minister goes ahead with the proposed legislation, not only will he be unpopular but he will be back here again in a year or two trying to dress up the mistakes that the Government are currently making.
      Mr. John Hutton: I support the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), for two simple reasons: first, clause 15 and schedule 4 raise a question mark about the extent to which the Government have seriously taken on board some of the road safety and road traffic issues that Opposition Members have raised; and, secondly, there is a genuine case for reviewing the parts of the Bill that relate to changing vehicle excise duty on heavy recovery vehicles, because of the burden that the duty changes will place on many small businesses.
      I was intrigued by some of the Minister's earlier remarks. He said two things that particularly caught my attention: first, that this part of the Bill is necessary. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made it clear that the amounts being raised by the Government are very small, and some people might conclude, as he did, that therefore it is an argument that is not worth having at all. Secondly, he tried to make the case that the changes were necessary because the existing legislation was in a mess—it was confusing and complex and few people understood it.
      Anyone involved in law making and applying the law wants to see Parliament make law that is comprehensible and sensible. That is not what the Government propose. That is particularly true of some of the changes being

      745
      made for vehicle excise duty on road recovery vehicles. At the moment, there is a simple provision in legislation in the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, which specifies the rate of duty that those vehicles are to be charged. That will be replaced by a considerably more complex range of provisions, which is unlikely to see an end to the complex litigation and expensive law actions that have pursued that area of the law in the past.
      I shall comment not only on road recovery vehicles but on the proposed exemption for emergency vehicles, or 999 vehicles, as the Minister described them.
      Paragraph 3A of schedule 4 is to be inserted into schedule 2 of the 1994 Act, to create a new category of exempt vehicles. Many hon. Members, on both sides of the Committee, will be quite surprised to learn that police vehicles are not already exempt from vehicle excise duty. I support the extension of the category of exempt vehicles in section 5 of the 1994 Act to include that category. That is long overdue and sensible. The Government's intentions are clear from paragraph 3A—it is clearly designed to exempt police vehicles from paying vehicle excise duty. But there must be a question mark over whether the amendments proposed to schedule 2 of the 1994 Act will achieve the Government's objectives.
      Schedule 2 is to be amended by the insertion of a new paragraph 3A, which says:
      "A vehicle is an exempt vehicle when it is being used for police purposes."
      The Minister said that that was designed to include 999 emergency vehicles to the concept on an exempt vehicle not liable to vehicle excise duty. I do not think that is what the Government have achieved.
      I bring to the Minister's attention two problems with paragraph 3A. He may not be able to respond to these points tonight, but I hope that he is listening. First, there is no definition of "police purposes" for the purposes of the new paragraph. Secondly, there is no definition of what is a police vehicle. I should have thought that both problems were fundamental. If the Government simply propose an exemption for 999 emergency vehicles, is that what they have achieved? What about a range of police vehicles that are not used in 999 emergency situations, for example, vehicles that are used to transport prisoners to and from a magistrates court to prison? Will they be covered by the new paragraph 3A?
      I used that example, because from the existing legislation that relates to the definition of police purposes—we could use section 25 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 and section 79 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967—it is clear that both of them relate to emergency situations: when a police vehicle is attending the scene of a crime or an accident and must exceed the speed limit for that area. Clearly, not all police vehicles are designed or used for those emergency scenarios, so where does that leave us? If we look at existing case law that relates to both statutory provisions, we are unlikely to have much assistance. Therefore, no definition in existing case law appears to be of any great assistance to us.
      Perhaps a more fundamental problem for the Government is that there is no definition of what is a police vehicle. That is strange. Other emergency vehicles, for example, fire engines and ambulances, which are already exempt under schedule 2 of the 1994 Act, are pretty comprehensively defined in schedule 2 of the 1994 Act. The Minister may not be aware of those definitions,
      746
      but if he cares to look at schedule 2 of the Act, he will see in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 a pretty comprehensive and impressive definition of what those emergency vehicles are.
      Why is there not a similar definition of a police vehicle for the purposes of the new exempted category of vehicles? Surely a paragraph such as paragraph 5 is capable of being used without any great intellectual effort to apply to the concept of a police vehicle. I wonder whether the Minister might consider at some point having another look at the new schedule and including in it some reference to the fact that the vehicle exempted from excise duty should not be a vehicle that is kept or operated by a police authority. Surely that is what the Minister intends this part of the Bill to achieve. Sadly, it is not what the Bill does.
      I shall give the Minister three examples of where there might be a problem with police vehicles. First, what will happen if a police authority wishes to hire or rent a vehicle to enable business to be done by the police authority? It is not uncommon to see police stickers on the sides of vehicles that are, in fact, used to transport stores. Under the Bill as it stands, will such vehicles be exempt from vehicle excise duty? Are they being used for police purposes? They are not actually owned by the police authority.
      Presumably, the company that owns such a vehicle—Hertz, for instance, or Eurodollar—will be able to ask for a rebate from the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise, saying that the vehicle has been on contract hire to a police authority and that paragraph 3A of the new schedule to the 1994 Act should apply.
      Secondly, what about the use of private vehicles commandeered by constables—or police officers of other rank—to respond to emergencies? Although we hope that such vehicles would be used for only a short time, in theory an owner could claim that his vehicle was being used for police purposes during that time. Do the Government want owners of private vehicles to be able to claim exemptions from vehicle excise duty? Probably not; in which case, why does not the Bill make it clear that only vehicles kept or operated by police authorities will be so exempted?
      Schedule 4 is a complex provision, but it does not refer to earlier legislation dealing with police authorities, police vehicles and police purposes. That is not good enough. The Minister rightly described the law as complicated, and said that the Government wanted to simplify it; that is fine, but I fear that this part of the Bill will represent three cherries on the fruit machine for lawyers. I do not think that Members of Parliament are in the business of handing the prospect of expensive litigation to well-paid lawyers, when we can get our legislation right and make it simple.
      The third problem involves prison escort vehicles. The Government have emphasised the need to privatise some of the escort services transferring people between prisons and courts. I do not wish to become involved in the merits or otherwise of their policy now; but could it not be argued that vehicles carrying remand or convicted prisoners between prison and court are acting for a police purpose, in the context of new paragraph 3A? Could not a private operator such as Group 4, which has won contracts in Humberside and the east midlands, argue that because police authorities are currently using its services, those services are being used for a police purpose?

      747
      Opposition Members do not wish to cause difficulties for the Government on this issue, at least; but let us be certain about the vehicles that we are exempting. The Government could tighten the drafting of the Bill with very little effort. The definition of police purposes could be refined if we inserted a provision to the effect that the vehicles involved need to be operated or kept by police authorities: that would limit exemptions to the category that the Government probably had in mind.
      Amendment No. 12 also raises road safety and traffic issues. The Government have clearly had a change of heart, seeing the force of the arguments against them, which have been deployed again tonight: it seems probable that the duty will now be substantially less, and we welcome that. The proposed changes will, however, have an impact on heavy road recovery vehicles in my constituency in south Cumbria.
      It has often been said that my constituency lies at the end of the longest cul de sac in Europe. I think that that is something of an exaggeration, but it gives a flavour of the sense of geographical isolation felt by many of my constituents. The bulk of the incoming traffic comes down the A590, which is an awful road; however, there are not many garages or other small companies running heavy vehicle recovery services in the area. I believe that there is a risk that the Government's proposed changes to vehicle excise duty legislation will jeopardise the provision of any such services. I put it no higher than that, but the Government must take the risk into account.
      The Minister said that the Retail Motor Industry Federation was happy with the changes, but I should be interested to know how many small companies and garage operators have been consulted, even about these particular changes. Certainly, many small employers in my constituency are still extremely concerned about the impact of the measure on their businesses.
      7.45 pm
      In a very articulate letter, one of those small employers urges me to vote against the Government tonight. It will surprise no one when I disclose that that is exactly what I intend to do. My constituent, Mr. Bob Grieve, makes his case against the Government's proposals very clearly, writing:
      "the new rates would force some operators out of business with others opting out of HGV recovery altogether;
      many parts of the country would end up with only limited capacity for removing broken down or accident damaged heavy lorries horn our roads, leading to longer delays in road clearance and raising the question of public safety."
      That, I feel, is very pertinent to the interests and needs of my constituents.
      My constituency is remote, and is served by only one major road. It is 40 miles from the M6, and even further from larger centres where there are other garage service providers. We are heavily dependent on local providers of HGV recovery services. I see no reasonable justification even for the modest changes that the Government propose. The law as it stands is very simple, and .given what my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) said about the few occasions on which heavy vehicles are used, I feel that there is obvious justice in keeping that law in place until we have had an opportunity to examine some of the wider issues raised by the proposed change.
      748
      I hope that the Government will re-examine the provision in schedule 4 that exempts police vehicles from vehicle excise duty, and ask whether there is scope for improvement in the drafting to specify the exempted vehicles more accurately.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on a fascinating speech, anti particularly on what he said about police vehicles.
      I should first declare that I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation, although I have no particular brief from the federation tonight. While listening to my hon. Friend, I thought of two more issues that might arise, in regard to police vehicles unless the Government. provide the clarification that he rightly demanded: given all-party interest in the matter, the Government should, accept the need for such clarification.
      I refer to conditions affecting unmarked surveillance vehicles. Such vehicles raise all sorts of questions in relation to when they are used. Some of them are quite old and, for obvious reasons, their dilapidated state is intended to make them less conspicuous. Some police officers, especially those in rural areas, drive home at night in police vehicles and return to work in them the following day. Obviously, when an officer is driving home he is not using the vehicle for a police purpose for which it is normally used. There is an obvious need for clarification.
      My main objective in the debate is to raise the concerns of constituents who came to see me in my surgery. Harvey and Madeleine Wasson own Harvey's Recovery and Repairs of Exhall in Bedworth. Mrs. Wasson recently came to see me because she was concerned about the Government's proposals on vehicle excise duty. The company owns seven vehicles and has three employees. The husband and wife also work in the business. They were appalled by the proposals because they had just bought a four-axled vehicle of the type which is to be taxed at the highest rate. It was obtained at considerable sacrifice and they anticipated that the vehicle excise duty would be £85. They have suddenly found that it will be about £5,000.
      I accept that, to some extent, the Minister has listened to representations from the industry and from hon. Members, including me, in all parts of the House because there is an alternative proposal considerably to reduce the tax on these vehicles.
      Mr. and Mrs. Wasson have a good business but it is by no means making them millionaires, and the Minister should consider what he is doing to that couple. He is proposing to raise VED on their vehicle by about 800 per cent. That is a massive and unacceptable rise and the Minister should think seriously before going ahead with it.
      Large recovery vehicles perform a public service. Without them, or with a reduction in their number, there would be increased congestion on our motorways and an increase in the cost of police and other time in dealing with accidents. If the only benefit to the Exchequer is a 1 per cent. increase in the take from VED it will be far outweighed by the extra expense of traffic congestion and more police inconvenience. The Minister should consult further.
      I agree that the Minister has made considerable concessions, but why at the last minute has he had to amend his proposals? The reason is that he had not

      749
      consulted properly. His civil servants do not seem to have given him the detailed advice on which Ministers have to rely about the market in which heavy recovery vehicles operate. He did not seem to understand that the market would be damaged and he had to amend his original proposals.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) outlined other inadequacies in the Bill. The Minister should accept, as he has already accepted to some extent because of his climbdown on VED, that he has not properly consulted or has inadequately considered some of the effects of the proposed changes. He should consult properly with industry and councils that will be affected, look in detail at the impact of his proposals, and consider the reality of the market. If he does that, he will find that his proposals will reduce the availability of heavy recovery vehicles and he will change his mind on some of the detail. We ask only for consultation. The Minister got into a mess by not consulting and his proposals are the result.
      Mr. George Stevenson: I should like to hear more from my hon. Friend about the use of the word "concessions". There is a danger of us falling into a trap. The Government set outrageous objectives and in a state of sheer panic they reduced them and claimed that they had made concessions. The Minister said that the trade welcomes these concessions. Of course it does, but that is because of the outrageous figure that was first proposed.
      Mr. O'Brien: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I was about to come to that issue. The Minister said that the trade associations have accepted the "concessions". That is not surprising, because, matters could have been far worse. However, my constituents will not welcome the damage that will be caused to the small business which they struggled to establish by an 800 per cent. increase in VED. That is unacceptable. Such vehicles are rarely used and any extra burden placed on small businesses is damaging. The Minister should think carefully before imposing it.
      The Wassons have told me that they will not go out of business if the changes are imposed, but they think that they will have to lay off staff and will probably get rid of the biggest vehicle. The Government should try to prevent them from doing that by changing the proposals. Our amendment asks merely for consultation. It is accepted that the various exemptions have many deficiencies, but people do not accept that the Government have found the correct way to deal with difficulties that have been around for a long time.
      The proposals will be costly and are potentially damaging not only to the police and businesses but to everyone who uses our roads. The Minister should accept that the Opposition have made sensible suggestions on various issues and he should agree to consultation. That would be reasonable and it would mean that we would not have to press the matter to a vote.
      Ms Primarolo: In opening the debate the Minister explained why there was a need to restructure vehicle excise duty. He said that there were anomalies, that the system was complex, and that we needed to make arrangements to simplify and ease understanding of the duty. As we have heard, the Government proposals do
      750
      anything but that. They replace one nightmare of anomalies with a series of other anomalies. That point was ably made by my hon. Friends.
      The Government claim that their proposals are good taxation and that they need to press ahead with them. They are doing that for the sake of, initially, a 1 per cent. increase in revenue. He fails to understand, however, that he started with a bad proposal, that he has amended it slightly so that it is not as bad as it was, but that it is still based on premises that are incorrect. It is hardly surprising that the Road Rescue Recovery Association is prepared to accept a reduction as a concession, when it was threatened with such a massive increase.
      Companies are still faced with a massive increase in taxation and draw on resources, even as a result of the concessionary rates that the Minister has announced this evening. For instance, Link Assistance in North Yorkshire, which is paying an excise bill of £1,020 a year, and which is looking at a possible bill of £19,740 on the originally proposed rates, will find, even with the concession, that its taxation will be increased by £9,000.
      In the debate, Labour Members have repeatedly said that the Government scheme is ill thought out. The increased costs will be transferred from the Government to either the private motorist or car user. They will be absorbed by companies or passed on to the consumer. It is simply not acceptable that the Government should behave in that way. My hon. Friends have made that case.
      In echoing the points about road safety, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made clear the particular variations in Northern Ireland. He asked why we cannot if the scheme is so badly thought out, pause, undertake the review and bring back the proposals next year. It would be worth forgoing the 1 per cent. increase in revenue if the scheme were in place and operating correctly.
      8 pm
      In a detailed and knowledgeable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who has obviously, in his bedtime reading, compared the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 with schedule 4 of the Bill, made clear the definitions of a police vehicle, its purposes and the varying purposes that would count under the definition. Again, he raised the point about the prison escort service. If those points have not created further anomalies in this so-called clear and simplified system, I do not know what will, or how the Government will understand the mess that they are getting themselves into.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) echoed the points about road recovery difficulties. The Minister has not said whether the arrangements that he has announced tonight will be permanent, or whether they will stand simply for the next 12 months. He has not said that, in next year's Finance Bill, we will not face another debate on an incremental increase on the vehicle excise duties of all the vehicles that we have discussed this evening. Why not stop? Why not undertake the review? Why not undertake proper consultation instead of last-minute, knee-jerk reaction, and come up with a decent scheme for vehicle excise duty which deals with anomalies and which gives us a firm foundation to tax? That is a good taxation policy.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In this evening's debate, no hon. Member on either side of the House has disputed that

      751
      the existing system is riddled with anomalies, that it is out of date, and that it has great difficulty in coping with new vehicles that arrive on the scene and with technological changes. I have described some examples that give rise to those difficulties. My proposals are major, simplifying measures. They will make it a great deal easier for the trade, for users of the vehicles and for the Vehicle Certification Agency. They will reduce the classes of vehicles by more than 90 per cent.
      Of course, no reform is painless and any group of users of vehicles affected by any increases are bound to argue against them, but I answered those points in my introductory remarks. The additional points raised in the debate cover a specific group of amendments which will arise later in the debate, so they will be covered.
      I am disappointed that the Labour party is persisting, apparently, with a number of amendments that continue and take forward local authority privileges. I have already shown that, under its proposals, some of the vehicles that it wants to be exempt will face full duty if used in a mode on a Monday, but complete exemption if used with a slight adaptation on a Tuesday. That cannot be right. It invites evasion and, administratively, it is unworkable.
      I will, however, answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) because the police vehicle issue may not arise again. I assure him that the definition used for police purposes is common in transport legislation—it is used, for instance, in the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965. It will not give rise to litigation or ambiguity of the sort that he fears.
      I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that leased vehicles will be covered if they are leased for more than a month, but commandeered vehicles will not be covered and the owner will not be able to claim exemption, unless the vehicles are commandeered for whole months at a time. In answer to the point about unmarked police surveillance vehicles, they will benefit from the exemption, but, for obvious reasons, they will display a tax disc, as if vehicle excise duty had been paid. As we are taking forward a definition that is used in other legislation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the clause, as drafted, is sound.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 208, Noes 297.

      Division No. 54]

      [8.07 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Blunkett, David

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Boateng, Paul

      Ainger, Nick

      Boyes, Roland

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bradley, Keith

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

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

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Burden, Richard

      Ashton, Joe

      Byers, Stephen

      Austin-Walker, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Banks, Tony

      Callaghan, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Canavan, Dennis

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cann, Jamie

      Benton, Joe

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Church, Judith

      Berry, Roger

      Clapham, Michael

      752

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Clelland, David

      McAllion, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Coffey, Ann

      McCartney, Ian

      Cohen, Harry

      McCrea, The Reverend William

      Connarty, Michael

      Macdonald, Calum

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McKelvey, William

      Corbett, Robin

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Cousins, Jim

      MacShane, Denis

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Madden, Max

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mahon, Alice

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marek, Dr John

      Darling, Alistair

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Davidson, Ian

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Martlew, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Maxton, John

      Denham, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Milburn, Alan

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Miller, Andrew

      Eastham, Ken

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Enright, Derek

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Etherington, Bill

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Morley, Elliot

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Fisher, Mark

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Foulkes, George

      Mudie, George

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mullin, Chris

      Galbraith, Sam

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Galloway, George

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Gapes, Mike

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      George, Bruce

      O'Hara, Edward

      Gerrard, Neil

      Olner, Bill

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Paisley, The Reverend Ian

      Graham, Thomas

      Parry, Robert

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Patchett, Terry

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pearson, Ian

      Gunnell, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Hall, Mike

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hanson, David

      Pike, Peter L

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Heppell, John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hoey, Kate

      Purchase, Ken

      Home Robertson, John

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Radice, Giles

      Hoyle, Doug

      Randall, Stuart

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Reid, Dr John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Hutton, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Illsley, Eric

      Rogers, Allan

      Ingram, Adam

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jamieson, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Janner, Greville

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Short, Clare

      Keen, Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Khabra, Piara S

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

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Snape, Peter

      Lewis, Terry

      Soley, Clive

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Spearing, Nigel

      Livingstone, Ken

      Spellar, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      753

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stevenson, George

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Stott, Roger

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wilson, Brian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wise, Audrey

      Turner, Dennis

      Worthington, Tony

      Vaz, Keith

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Wardell,Gareth (Gower)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mr. Eric Clarke and

      Watson, Mike

      Mr. Peter Mandelson

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surry)

      Cran, James

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

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

      Alison,Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Amess, David

      Davies, Quentiin (Stamford)

      Ancram, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Arbuthnot, James

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Delvin,Tim

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Dicks, Terry

      Ashby, David

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Douglas-Harnilton, Lord James

      Atkins, Robert

      Dover, Den

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Duncan, Alan

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Baldry, Tony

      Dunn, Bob

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Elletson, Harold

      Bates, Michael

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Batiste, Spencer

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Beith,Rt Hon A J

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Evennett, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Faber, David

      Booth, Hartley

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Bottomley.Rt Hon Virginia

      Forman, Nigel

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Bowis, John

      Forth, Eric

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Brazier, Julian

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      French, Douglas

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gale, Roger

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gallie, Phil

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Garnier, Edward

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gill, Christopher

      Burns, Simon

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Butcher, John

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Butter, Peter

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Butterfill, John

      Gorst, Sir John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Cash, William

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hague, William

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chidgey, David

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clappison, James

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Harris, David

      Congdon, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Conway, Derek

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Heald, Oliver

      Couchman, James

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      754

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hicks, Robert

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Norris, Steve

      Horam, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Page, Richard

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

      Paice, James

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow-West)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Pickles, Eric

      Jack, Michael

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Jessel, Toby

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rendel, David

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Richards, Rod

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Riddick, Graham

      Key, Robert

      Robathan, Andrew

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Knapman, Roger

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knox, Sir David

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Sackville, Tom

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Legg, Barry

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Leigh, Edward

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lidington, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Sims, Roger

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lord, Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Luff, Peter

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spring, Richard

      Maclean, David

      Sproat, Iain

      Maclennan, Robert

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Maddock, Diana

      Stephen, Michael

      Madel, Sir David

      Stern, Michael

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Stewart, Allan

      Malone, Gerald

      Streeter, Gary

      Mans, Keith

      Sumberg, David

      Marland, Paul

      Sykes,John

      Marlow,.Tony

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Thomason, Roy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mills, Iain

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Tracey, Richard

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Tredinnick, David

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Trend, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Viggers, Peter

      755

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Walden, George

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Walker,Bill (N Tayside)

      Willetts, David

      Wallace, James

      Wilshire, David

      Waller, Gary

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Ward, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Yeo,Tim

      Waterson, Nigel

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Watts, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitney, Ray

      Dr. Liam Fox and

      Whittingdale, John

      Mr. Timothy Wood

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 4

      VEHICLE EXCISE AND REGISTRATION
      Ms Primarolo: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 164, leave out line 23.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 22, leave out line 26.

      No. 23, leave out line 27.

      No. 24, leave out line 28.

      No. 25, leave out lines 29 and 30.

      Ms Primarolo: The amendments cover similar ground to the previous debate. I do not intend to delay the Committee by referring to each amendment, but I shall make special reference to amendment No. 27, which would maintain the status quo for electrically propelled vehicles. All the amendments would maintain the status quo of vehicle excise duty, as plan B in persuading the Government to undertake the review for which we argued in the past debate but, so far, have failed to secure.
      There are no precise figures on the number of electric milk floats in use, but it is estimated that there are 25,000 milk rounds in England and Wales alone and on at least two thirds of those, electric vehicles are used. The imposition of even a reduced rate of £35 vehicle excise duty represents a considerable annual increase in costs to the industry. Any increase in cost targeted directly at doorstep delivery is a further threat to the viability of the milk round. The Government have maintained their support for the delivery of milk to people's doorsteps and we are sure that, on reflection, they will wish to reconsider the imposition.
      A statement that the use of electric vehicles should not be penalised would be a positive contribution to the Government's professed claim to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Because of their very nature, the use of electric vehicles should be encouraged, not penalised by the imposition of vehicle excise duty. Since taxation is used by the Government as a method of encouraging environmentally friendly use of vehicles, it is absolutely absurd that they now propose to extend to all vehicles of this class an initial vehicle excise duty which, no doubt in subsequent years, they will seek to increase.
      Ministerial responses to representations made so far have been inconsistent, to put it politely. The Secretary of State for Transport has stated that the imposition of a £35 rate of duty on electric milk floats will
      756
      "reduce evasion and be easier to understand and administer."
      What gobbledegook; what rubbish. How can there be any evasion if there is no tax in the first place? Perhaps the Government will explain why we need to propose a tax to prevent evasion in a category in which there can be no evasion because there is no tax.
      The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said that it is a matter for the Treasury and that the imposition
      "will make fraud more difficult and increase efficiency of administration."
      What utter rubbish. The whole purpose of introducing this taxation is to open up a new area of indirect taxes—a rich vein into which the Government hope to tap, in their efforts to establish for themselves a war chest of booty from the electorate that the Government can try to give back in electoral bribes by reducing direct taxes just before the general election.
      The Minister added insult to injury by calculating the additional tax on a cost per pint of milk in an attempt to hide the reality that the industry will face enormous difficulties. The imposition of costs which in the first year may be as much as £500,000 will undermine the milk rounds' ability to continue to exist.
      We stand by the speeches made by Opposition Members in previous debates. We urge the Minister to withdraw the imposition of vehicle excise duty on (he vehicle classes listed in schedule 4 and to consider bringing before the Committee a more rational, sensible and logically argued case for a new regime of vehicle excise duty.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We recognise that electric vehicles have certain environmental advantages. That is why they will be taxed at such an advantages. That is why they will be taxed at such an advantageous rate. Some would say that the enviornmental advantages are not overwhelming because an electrically powered vehicle has to use power generated elsewhere; in a sense, one is therefore simply shifting the pollution from the vehicle to the generating plant.
      I recognise that such vehicles have certain advantages, especially because they produce less noise, which is why they will be placed in a concessionary class and charged £35 per annum only. However, it is right that they should be removed from the totally exempt category, which we are reserving for emergency vehicles and those used by the severely disabled.
      Electric vehicles have an additional advantage in that there is no excise duty payable on the fuel that they use—electrical power.
      Ms Primarolo: VAT is paid on it.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Lady suggests from a sedentary position that VAT is payable on the electricity. That is, of course, not the case. If she were to think more carefully, she would realise that the electricity is supplied commercially and, therefore, the VAT payable on the electricity supply is recoverable as input tax.
      The other amendments in the group cover snow-clearing, ice-gritting, street-cleansing vehicles, and so on. We covered the point in relation to those vehicles fairly comprehensively. However, the hon. Lady must face up to something that she persistently avoids: she wants street-cleansing vehicles to be exempt from excise duty even though it has been explained to her that when

      757
      the same type of vehicle is used for marginally different activities—for example, cleaning out an underground drain or sewer—it will bear, according to the Opposition amendments, or lack of them, a full rate of vehicle excise duty.
      How can Labour Members tolerate the continuance of a glaring anomaly when their whole Budget strategy was apparently based—or so we were told at the time—on ending anomalies and loopholes? Until they clear up that confusion in their own thinking, I do not think that the Committee will take the amendment seriously.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 276.

      Division No. 55]

      [8.30 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dalyell, Tam

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Darling, Alistair

      Ainger, Nick

      Davidson, Ian

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Denham, John

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dixon,Don

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Ashton, Joe

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Austin-Walker, John

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Eastham, Ken

      Barnes, Harry

      Enright, Derek

      Battle, John

      Etherington, Bill

      Bayley, Hugh

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bell, Stuart

      Fisher, Mark

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Benton, Joe

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foulkes, George

      Berry, Roger

      Fyfe, Maria

      Blunkett, David

      Galbraith, Sam

      Boateng, Paul

      Galloway, George

      Boyes, Roland

      Gapes, Mike

      Bradley, Keith

      George, Bruce

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Burden, Richard

      Graham, Thomas

      Caborn, Richard

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Grocott, Bruce

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Canavan, Dennis

      Harvey, Nick

      Cann, Jamie

      Heppell, John

      Chidgey, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hinchliffe, David

      Church, Judith

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clapham, Michael

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hutton,John

      Clelland, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Clwyd,Mrs Ann

      Ingram, Adam

      Coffey, Ann

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jamieson, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Janner, Greville

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Keen, Alan

      758

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Pope, Greg

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Purchase, Ken

      Lewis, Terry

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Radice, Giles

      Livingstone, Ken

      Randall, Stuart

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Reid, Dr John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rendel, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      McAllion, John

      Rogers, Allan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooney, Terry

      McCartney, Ian

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCrea, The Reverend William

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ruddock, Joan

      McKelvey, William

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maclennan, Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      MacShane, Denis

      Short, Clare

      Madden, Max

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maddock, Diana

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mahon, Alice

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

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Snape, Peter

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Soley, Clive

      Martlew, Eric

      Spearing, Nigel

      Maxton, John

      Spellar, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Meale, Alan

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Stevenson, George

      Milburn, Alan

      Stott, Roger

      Miller, Andrew

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morley Elliot

      Turner, Dennis

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Vaz, Keith

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Wallace, James

      Mudie, George

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mullin, Chris

      Wareing, Robert N

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Watson, Mike

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      O'Hara, Edward

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Olner, Bill

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Paisley, The Reverend Ian

      Wise, Audrey

      Parry, Robert

      Worthington, Tony

      Patchett, Terry

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Pearson, Ian

      Pendry, Tom

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pickthall, Colin

      Mr. Peter Mandelson and

      Pike, Peter L

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Amess, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Ancram, Michael

      Booth, Hartley

      Arbuthnot, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Ashby, David

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Atkins, Robert

      Bowis, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Baldry, Tony

      Brazier, Julian

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Bates, Michael

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      759

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Harris, David

      Burns, Simon

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Butcher, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butler, Peter

      Hawksley, Warren

      Butterfill, John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Heald, Oliver

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Cash, William

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Channon,Rt Hon Paul

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Clappison, James

      Horam, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

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

      Congdon, David

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Conway, Derek

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Jack, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cran, James

      Jenkin, Bernard

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

      Jessel,Toby

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Day, Stephen

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Key, Robert

      Devlin, Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dicks, Terry

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Duncan, Alan

      Knox, Sir David

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Elletson, Harold

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lidington, David

      Evennett, David

      Lightbown, David

      Faber, David

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lord, Michael

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Luff, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Forth, Eric

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Maclean, David

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Madel, Sir David

      French, Douglas

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gale, Roger

      Malone, Gerald

      Gallie, Phil

      Mans, Keith

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Marland, Paul

      Garnier, Edward

      Marlow, Tony

      Gill, Christopher

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mates, Michael

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mills, Iain

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hague, William

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hannam, Sir John

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      760

      Nelson, Anthony

      Spring, Richard

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Sproat, Iain

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Stephen, Michael

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Stern, Michael

      Norris, Steve

      Stewart, Allan

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Streeter, Gary

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Sumberg, David

      Page, Richard

      Sykes, John

      Paice, James

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Pickles, Eric

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Thomason, Roy

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Richards, Rod

      Tracey, Richard

      Riddick, Graham

      Tredinnick, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Walden, George

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Waller, Gary

      Sackville, Tom

      Ward, John

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Watts, John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Whitney, Ray

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Whittingdale, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Shersby, Michael

      Willetts, David

      Sims, Roger

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wolfson, Mark

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Yeo,Tim

      Soames, Nicholas

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mr. Bowen Wells and

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mr. Timothy Wood

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 164, leave out lines 31 and 32.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in page 164, line 38, at end insert—
      '3A. In paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 to the 1994 Act the following shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (b)—"and,
      (c) for the purposes of agriculture, horticulture, and forestry.".'.
      Government amendments Nos. 42 and 43.
      No. 35, in page 172, leave out lines 44 and 45.
      No. 36, in page 173, leave out lines 14 to 19.
      Mr. Bruce: This is an innocuous little amendment in terms of its place on the amendment paper and its length, but it is very important. It is astonishing that the Government should have thought that it would be possible to put into the Finance Bill the provisions which are enshrined in the lines that we wish to take out without accepting that that would create considerable concern in

      761
      the farming community. The exemption of farm vehicles from vehicle excise duty dates back to the 1920s. No Government have seriously considered changing that. Suddenly, without notice, farmers find that they are faced with having to pay vehicle excise duty on all farm vehicles. At least that was the situation until a couple of days ago, and I will refer to that matter in a minute.
      I am sure that hon. Members who have connections with farming or agricultural interests will know of a number of matters which are relevant to farm vehicles and which are the reason for exemptions having been granted for so many years. A significant number of agricultural vehicles are used for only a few weeks of the year. Some combine harvesters might be used for only a few days a year. The Government now propose that farmers must pay the full rate of vehicle excise duty on them, which seems to be unreasonable and unfair. The previous ruling was that the exemption was restricted to vehicles that travelled no more than six miles from their point of registration.
      Given the changes in agricultural holdings in recent years, there are fewer farms where there is no reason to take agricultural vehicles on to a public road simply to carry out the basic business of running a farm, because a farm straddles a public road, because fields can be reached only by going along a public road, or, increasingly, because holdings are physically detached and might be a mile or two apart.
      In such circumstances, a very modest farmer might be expected to find vehicle excise duty for three, four or five vehicles for which he has never previously had to consider such a payment and for which there has been no warning, no discussion, no consultation and no sign that the Government were considering it. There has been no opportunity for farmers or their representatives in the National Farmers Union to make representations about the implications or to seek exemption or modification. That is reprehensible.
      I represent a constituency in Scotland. Of course there are prosperous Scottish farmers. There are farmers for whom paying vehicle excise duty on three, four or five vehicles is a relatively small charge to their businesses, but there are an awful lot more farmers for whom that is a significant burden on top of other matters with which they must cope. In Scotland, 95 per cent. of agricultural land is in less-favoured areas. By definition, therefore, such farms require subsidy. The Government are providing a subsidy with one hand and clawing it back in additional taxes with the other hand. That does not seem to be fair, reasonable or even sensible.
      8.45 pm
      In the past few weeks, Scottish farmers have had a problem with sheep annual premiums that have not been paid, even though they have been paid throughout England and Wales. Scottish farmers were promised them in October-November. Two thousand farmers are due £8 million, but they have received no payment whatever, and they are told that the Scottish Office is unable to tell them when they might be paid, and that it could be some time after Easter.
      On average, that sum works out at £4,000 per head. It relates only to partnerships, but a partnership business is often a husband and wife or, possibly, a son or a daughter. Such businesses are being deprived of £12,000 of basic salary. Farm support income has been cut, hill livestock compensation allowances have been cut, and farmers now
      762
      have to pay additional taxes. That is unreasonable and unfair, especially without adequate consultation or consideration.
      I welcome one matter. It is clear that, after we tabled our amendment, vibrations got through to the Treasury that perhaps there was a potential problem and that there was some resistance and resentment. The National Farmers Union has been busy, no doubt, contacting hon. Members with agricultural interests to point out the implications of the clause and schedule.
      When we tabled our amendment, at least two Conservative Members put their names to it, as well as tabling their own amendment. Surprise, surprise, a couple of days later, the Paymaster General, apart from writing notes to several hon. Members, tabled his own amendment, which provides exemptions for all-terrain vehicles—no doubt he will tell us more about his proposals—and light farm vehicles. That is welcome. It is a recognition that the Government have overstretched the point, that they have not considered the matter, and that there is a need to respond. However, welcome as that response is, it means that all the arguments that I have put will still apply to the majority of farm vehicles affecting the majority of farms and farmers.
      In those circumstances, our amendment is justified and desirable. That remains the view of the National Farmers Union, which also welcomes the pressure that has been brought to bear by hon. Members and which has generated a response from the Government. I always welcome evidence that action in the House is observed, acknowledged and responded to, and I give due credit to it.
      Conservative Members who take the view that the Government amendment is adequate will find that the NFU does not agree, and many of their local farmers will tell them that the amendment neither affects nor benefits them. Farmers are faced with additional charges which have been introduced without warning or consultation at a time when Government support for many farmers is being withdrawn.
      It is a little mischievous of the Government to cut subsidies while trying to claw back additional taxes from farmers. Why has a measure which has been accepted for 70 years suddenly been brought into the net? It does not seem reasonable or fair. The Government may have acknowledged that their proposal as it stands is unreasonable and needs qualification. It would be helpful if the Minister undertook to take the measure away, to consult farmers and their interests, and to bring it back in a form which takes account of those consultations.
      I understand that one of the Government's arguments is that the administration of the scheme is somewhat bureaucratic. For 70 years, farmers have been perfectly happy to handle that bureaucracy and I have had no complaints about it from any farmer. It is funny that people in general think that bureaucracy is not a bad thing when they get a tax rebate, and that they are only opposed to it when they face a tax imposition. The serious point is that, if there is a bureaucratic problem, it can be addressed.
      The NFU has suggested that a possible solution is a one-off registration with a requirement to notify changes. Nevertheless, the subject of bureaucracy was raised by the Minister after the Finance Bill was published, and no doubt there was justification. The matter has not, I

      763
      understand, been raised by farmers' representatives complaining about the existing system. The NFU has simply responded to the Minister's assertion.
      A significant change has been introduced after 70 years of unchallenged and accepted practice, without warning or consultation. The Government could simply say that they still want the measure—if that is their position—but that they accept that it has implications which they had not fully considered. The measure is clearly resented within the farming community, and it is felt to be a burden for which the Government have not made a case to justify the change.
      The Government should take the measure away, reconsider it and possibly bring it back in a revised form after consultation. I would rather that they did not bring it back at all, but consultation has not taken place and I hope that the Minister accepts that it should now take place. Whether we press the amendment to a vote tonight will depend to a significant extent on the Minister's response, but I hope that he accepts that farmers are extremely unhappy about the way in which the measure is being introduced.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Government amendment No. 42 is, I think, entirely uncontroversial and removes an anomaly which might otherwise mean that a local authority which used tractors simply for the maintenance of roadside verges, hedges and trees would have to license them as haulage vehicles, and thus pay vehicle excise duty. They would also lose their entitlement to rebated diesel. As a result of the amendment, they will continue to enjoy their existing concessions to license them as agricultural tractors, and they will therefore pay £35 tax and use rebated diesel.
      Government amendment No. 43 concerns the all-terrain vehicles which are familiar to any hon. Member with an agricultural constituency. The vehicles have increased in use, and are now a common sight on hills where sheep are rounded up or hay is delivered. This is a clear example of where the old concessionary classes have simply not anticipated the development of such vehicles. If the legislation were being laid down today, those vehicles would undoubtedly be considered a form of small lightweight tractor. Under the amendment, we propose to recognise that farmers do use ATVs like tractors and, accordingly, we define them as light agricultural vehicles. That means that they will be taxed in the £35 a year class and, although most of them are petrol-powered, a number which are diesel-powered will be able to use rebated fuel because of the amendment.
      The other issue touched on by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) concerns the low-mileage vehicles which are often used by farmers between fields on a single farm. The legislation as drafted required farmers to pay vehicle excise duty for the first time. Most of the vehicles, of course, are tractors and therefore the duty was only £35. I must make it clear to the Committee that the proposals are not in this case driven by the need for extra revenue, but to end anomalies and to find a system which is administratively workable.
      I must make clear at the outset that the current system for the vehicles—whereby exemption is based supposedly on the vehicles doing fewer than six miles a week on public roads—cannot continue. It is self-evidently
      764
      impossible to police the scheme. It may be possible for a police officer to stop a vehicle and check its distance, but it is certainly impossible when the criteria for evasion is not just distance, but time and how many miles have been covered by that vehicle during the week. It will not surprise the Committee to know that prosecutions are unknown.
      The scheme is bureaucratic in the extreme. I have with me one of the forms which must be filled out each year by people claiming the concession. Of course, they do not complain about it. As the hon. Member for Gordon fairly said, who would complain about filling in a form if it means that one does not have to pay tax? However, it cannot be good taxation if every year, a person claiming the concession must fill in a detailed description of the route to be travelled, and any divergence or detour from that route—because of a temporarily blocked road, for example—must be sent in writing to the authority before that concession can continue.
      Hon. Members with agricultural constituencies will know what I mean when I say that, in private, farmers often concede that there is a certain amount of abuse of that concession. It is difficult for the authorities and bureaucratic for the users.
      I am not wedded to the concept of taxing genuine cases, however, when vehicles necessarily have to cross main roads in the course of business. If trade organisations—the National Farmers Union, Country Landowners Association and other trade groups—or hon. Members can come up with a system that involves none of the form filling, is workable and administratively simple and prevents evasion, I will willingly consider it in time to table an amendment on Report.
      Mr. David Harris: Before my hon. Friend sits down—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister has sat down.
      Sir David Mitchell: First, I warmly welcome what the Minister said about all-terrain vehicles, as those were causing some anxiety in the fanning community and his words will be widely welcomed.
      On exemptions from normal vehicle excise duty for certain agricultural vehicles, I have much sympathy with the Chancellor's wish to tighten the rules and to lessen abuse of former concessions that allowed six miles per week and were misused, especially as regards livestock. One could say that farmers have brought the problems on themselves because of the widespread abuse of the system, but the change means that the majority of law-abiding farmers are being penalised because of an unscrupulous minority.
      9 pm
      I must draw two genuine problems to the Minister's attention. The first concerns the substantial vehicle excise duty and the second, the subsequent need to MOT a vehicle to motorway standards, when it will be used merely for crossing a farm road or up a narrow lane to get to another part of the farm. Technically, the first change in vehicle excise duty would result in a further change in the MOT requirements. Those should not apply to harvest vehicles and others of that type.

      765
      I have here a letter from a farmer in my constituency, who says that I should be aware that
      "many farm harvest lorries have been un-MOT'd within the exempt ruling law, but will in future have to pay licence duty but also be liable to MOT to motorway standards. There must be many farmers with harvest grain transport trucks who will not MOT their vehicles to MOT motorway standard. We run two lorries for harvest work—that is all. Should the law change we would have to purchase two 14 ton trailers and hire two tractors—a considerable cost"
      to their farming enterprise.
      I also want to draw the Minister's attention to the views of the Country Landowners Association on "agricultural off-road vehicles", which is how it wants them to be described. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend say that he was open to suggestions. It suggests:
      "The licence will only be valid within, say, x miles of the owner's place of business (the exact amount of miles to be determined by the distance from the postal address of the business to the furthest outlying field in the farm". The licence disc should be a special colour and include the address of the place of business so that if the vehicle is stopped on the public highway it should be immediately obvious to any policeman whether or not the licence is valid."
      The inclusion of the business address would avoid the policing difficulties that have been encountered and which the Minister mentioned.
      I should have thought that that change from X miles per week to a specific distance from a farmhouse or tractor store to the boundaries of the farm plus two miles would eliminate the major problem to which my hon. Friend the Minister drew our attention. Will he consider that suggestion and consult the NFU, the CLA and other interests, as he said he would? I hope that he will be able to table an amendment at a later stage as a result of his consultations.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I must place it on record that I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the courteous way in which he received me last week to make representations on vehicle excise duty exemption for agricultural vehicles.
      I am also grateful for his announcement that he will consider further representations from the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union and colleagues. Perhaps I should declare an interest, as I am a member of the NFU and the CLA.
      I endorse some of the arguments by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). The Bill removes schedule 2, paragraph 21 of the Vehicle and Excise Registration Act 1994. It is worth dwelling for a minute or two on what we are doing and what we are abolishing. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said, the provisions have been in place for 70 years. Paragraph 21 of schedule 2 to the 1994 Act states:
      "Where an applicant for a vehicle licence for a vehicle satisfies the Secretary of State that the vehicle is intended to be used on public roads—

      (a) only in passing from land in his occupation to other land in his occupation, and

      (b) for distances not exceeding an aggregate of six miles in any calendar week,

      the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, declare that the vehicle is an exempt vehicle when it is being used on public roads as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b)."
      So we are abolishing a concise and precise exemption, which has been in operation for 70 years for a good reason. The reason is that the agricultural business
      766
      involves travelling from one piece of land to another. It therefore seems onerous that farmers should suddenly be brought into the licensing net.
      I understand the Minister's explanation that, by abolishing the exemption, he is making the law easier to enforce and police. It is generally acknowledged that the current concessions are widely abused, so we must come up with a better system, but I hope that he will listen carefully to suggestions made by the agricultural industry because, in some cases, the abolition of the concession will cause hardship.
      The schedule shows that proposals with respect to some restricted HGV lorries, which may be used only on odd occasions in a year, such as during the harvest period or to transport a few sheep from one piece of land to another, could mean that a farmer who currently pays nothing may pay up to several thousand pounds under the new system. I accept that most tractors and agricultural vehicles, such as combines, will, under the concessions granted in the Bill, pay only £35. Under those circumstances, the obligation for farmers is not too onerous, but small farmers who must pay substantially more than £35 for HGVs which are used only on the odd occasion each year and which may only cross a road, may suffer hardship.
      My hon. Friend the Minister already mentioned some of the ways in which the exemption could be kept. The Bill provides a new definition for "tractors" and makes it clear that we are dealing with vehicles that can travel at only up to 25 miles an hour, except the concession for ATVs, which I warmly welcome. As it is therefore unlikely that anyone in his right mind will drive those tractors or combine harvesters far on a public road, it must be possible to come up with a system whereby farmers apply for a normal licence but answer a question on the licence form about why they should be entitled to the exemption.
      The exemption would specify the address from which the vehicle operated, and it would be reasonable to have a different colour licence that specified up to what range the vehicle could go. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give that idea serious consideration. If a vehicle crosses a road only once or twice a year, it is unnecessary to go through the rigmarole of paying a considerable extra amount.
      Sir David Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just a case of crossing a road through a farm, but it may be a case of going a short distance along a road to enter another field?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I entirely accept that.
      My suggestion about how the matter could be implemented and enforced by the police so that it would not be abused as at present would be less bureaucratic and easier to enforce than the present arrangement.
      May I make a final plea to the Minister? I understand that the Department of Transport is carrying out an investigation into which agricultural vehicles should be subject to the MOT and what provisions should apply to them. It is ludicrous to suggest that combine harvesters should jam up MOT testing stations which are not big enough to cope with them in any case. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make representations to his colleagues in the Department of Transport to ensure that those types of agricultural vehicles will not be subject to the same testing and plating regulations that currently apply to commercial vehicles.
      Mr. Nick Ainger: I support amendment No. 28. I represent a farming constituency in west Wales and the representations that I have received from my constituents about vehicle excise duty have led me to believe that the Government have made a big mistake in not accepting the opposing arguments that have been advanced. Following tonight's debate, I hope that they will begin to listen both to their own Back Benchers and to the Opposition.
      Farmers throughout the country are saying, "What has the Tory party got against the farming industry?" At the end of last year, the Government announced that hill livestock compensatory allowances would not be increased, even though hill farming incomes had declined by more than 20 per cent., and they also cut grant aid for pollution measures. That shows that, for some reason, farmers are not particularly popular with the Government.
      As several hon. Members have said, the Government should have consulted widely before introducing the proposal to remove farm vehicles from the exemption from duty. We are not talking just about tractors or heavy goods vehicles; Britain has a successful, specialised farm sector and the farm engineering industry has produced an enormous range of vehicles to service it. One has only to visit agricultural shows every summer to see the enormous range of specialist vehicles that are now available to farmers.
      Most of the vehicles are designed to perform a specific function and cannot be used for any other task. Recent developments with large bales of hay and silage require the use of extremely specialised vehicles and there is no question but that such vehicles can be used only on the farm to perform legitimate farm business.
      In order to run a successful enterprise, farmers must own a great variety of farm vehicles—these are usually well maintained, although sometimes, sadly, they are not. Because of the Government's move, the introduction of MOT and the licensing of farm vehicles as HGVs may impose enormous costs on farmers.
      The Paymaster General has said that the measure was introduced not to raise revenue but to address certain anomalies in the system. As I said earlier, I am sure that he could have addressed those anomalies by consulting with the farm unions and the Country Landowners Association and coming up with some more favourable, concrete proposals.
      Several Government Members have made very sensible suggestions about how those anomalies could be addressed and, at the same time, how the Government could reduce the size of the bureaucracy and solve enforcement problems. I urge the Paymaster General to listen not just to what the Opposition are saying but to his own Back Benchers and to bring forward a sensible amendment to solve all our problems.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I must declare an interest in the debate as I am a farmer and I have to cross a road in order to get to part of my land. It is outrageous to suggest that I should have to license my farm vehicles in order to do so; and many of my farming constituents are in a similar position.
      I do not wish to annoy my hon. Friend unduly, but I must point out that small farmers such as those I represent often do not buy new machinery—we rely on wealthy
      768
      farmers like him to sell us their second-hand machinery. Therefore, we are the ones who will be clobbered by the MOT; his vehicles are new.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I cannot give way to my hon. Friend. I have been told that I must be brief.
      Such an imposition would be disastrous. Some farmers use combine harvesters that are 20 years old. That machinery could not be expected to pass the MOT test, yet it does a perfectly good job of bringing in the harvest. The same applies to silage-making machinery—it may not be new, but it works. To insist on MOT testing would be outrageous. I ask my hon. Friend the Paymaster General to temper the wind to the shorn sheep. It would be difficult for some farmers to go through all that rigmarole, and I hope that my hon. Friend will think again.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I emphasise the comments of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and welcome the indication by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General that he is prepared to re-examine the issue. He did so in sufficiently open terms to satisfy the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce indicated dissent.
      Mr. Haselhurst: The hon. Gentleman is not as reasonable as he presents himself to the Committee. My hon. Friend said that he is prepared to consult. I find that satisfactory, and I am sure that that is true of the farmers in my constituency.
      As my hon. Friend said, it is not primarily a revenue-raising matter. I wonder whether it is such a burning issue that it must be resolved for the purpose of removing an anomaly. In so far as there has been an increase in diesel and petrol duties, any extra mileage covered by such vehicles will cost farmers more in any case—so additional revenue will be raised if there is the supposed abuse of the present system.
      The point has been made well that certain vehicles are used so little that it would be unreasonable to impose on them the panoply of taxation and regulation. I hope that a common-sense solution can be found. We should be attempting not to remove anomalies but to find a sensible answer relevant to the needs of the industry.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am fully persuaded by the Committee that there is a good, strong case for trying to, find a way of responding to the case for agricultural vehicles that occasionally cross public roads or travel short distances along them. The present system is administratively too complex, and more or less impossible to enforce. In the pursuit of good government and administration, we must find a better way of granting exemptions, and one that is easy to understand and possible to enforce. Together with the industry and other hon. Members, I shall seek a way forward over the next few weeks.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) and others raised the question of MOT testing. It is my understanding that no requirement exists for tractors or harvesters, but vehicles such as lorries that are used on public roads even for short distances must meet MOT test basic safety requirements. My hon. Friend's former Department, the Department of

      769
      Transport, is examining the whole question of vehicle testing. It may even be that he started that review, given that the good that Ministers do is generally harvested by those who succeed them. I undertake to draw to the Department's attention the remarks made by members of the Committee this evening.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister seems a little confused. He accepts that the matter should be reconsidered but places the onus for devising alternative options on hon. Members and farmers' representatives rather than on the Government and civil servants, who have the resources and responsibility for doing that. When a Minister says, "I accept that this matter needs to be reconsidered," he usually accepts also the amendment to remove the measure in question, so that he can return with revised proposals after consulting. The Minister has introduced a measure granting exemption across the board to all-terrain vehicles. They are precisely the kind of vehicles whose owners can abuse the system—yet they are to be entirely exempt.
      A farmer who keeps a combine harvester, however, will in future have to pay tax, as will farmers who keep balers or hayrollers on their farms. The Minister has acknowledged that that is unreasonable. His hon. Friends have said that they are unhappy with the idea, but they have more confidence than I do that the Minister will come up with an answer.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's reference to haybalers. Usually they are towed vehicles, not self-propelled.
      Mr. Bruce: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that all sorts of farm machines never leave the farm but will now be taxed. She herself has said that this is an unreasonable proposal—
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman seems confused. If vehicles never travel on public roads, there is no question of catching them—that is certainly not our proposal.
      Mr. Bruce: As I said earlier, farms are increasingly divided by public roads, or farmers need to use roads to gain access to other fields, separate from the farm. It is extraordinary that a rule which has worked perfectly satisfactorily for 70 years should suddenly be abolished without notice or consultation.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that some farmers, such as those with farms along the A1, have chunks of public roads through their farms, and thus find that they have to move combine harvesters from one field to another along busy dual carriageways, as well as bearing a tax burden for doing so. If the Government think that farm vehicles can be moved about the farm without going on public roads, they do not know much about farming.
      Mr. Bruce: I agree. A number of farms in my constituency, for instance, are divided up by a railway line. Until the Government decided to privatise the railways, the farmers were allowed free access across the line, but British Rail now refuses to grant that access. Farmers are thus forced to go many miles around to get to fields on the other side of the line—and the Government now insist that the vehicles used for such journeys pay VED.
      770
      My main point is a simple one: the Government and the Minister have said that they accept that there is a problem. The Minister has admitted that wide consultation has not taken place. He has said that he is willing to hear alternative proposals. I suggest that he accept the amendment, consult and then consider the position. If he is not prepared to rise to his feet now and do that, we shall have no hesitation in pressing the matter to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 277.

      Division No. 56

      [9.22 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Dobson, Frank

      Ainger, Nick

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Dowd, Jim

      Allen, Graham

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Alton, David

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Eastham, Ken

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Enright, Derek

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Etherington, Bill

      Ashton, Joe

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Barnes, Harry

      Fisher, Mark

      Battle, John

      Flynn, Paul

      Bayley, Hugh

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Foulkes, George

      Beith.Rt Hon A J

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bell, Stuart

      Galbraith, Sam

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Galloway, George

      Benton, Joe

      Gapes, Mike

      Bermingham, Gerald

      George, Bruce

      Berry, Roger

      Gerrard, Neil

      Boyes, Roland

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bradley, Keith

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Godsiff, Roger

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

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

      Graham, Thomas

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Burden, Richard

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Byers, Stephen

      Grocott, Bruce

      Caborn, Richard

      Gunnell, John

      Callaghan.Jim

      Hall, Mike

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Harvey, Nick

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Heppell, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cann, Jamie

      Hinchliffe, David

      Chidgey, David

      Hodge, Margaret

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hoey, Kate

      Clapham, Michael

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clelland, David

      Hutton,John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Illsley, Eric

      Coffey, Ann

      Ingram, Adam

      Cohen, Harry

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Connarty, Michael

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jamieson, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Janner, Greville

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jowell, Tessa

      Davidson, Ian

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Keen, Alan

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Denham, John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Dixon, Don

      Khabra, Piara S

      771

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lewis, Terry

      Purchase, Ken

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Radice, Giles

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Randall, Stuart

      Loyden, Eddie

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Reid, Dr John

      McAllion, John

      Rendel, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      McCartney, Ian

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      McCrea, The Reverend William

      Rooker, Jeff

      Macdonald, Calum

      Rooney, Terry

      McKelvey, William

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Ruddock, Joan

      MacShane, Denis

      Salmond, Alex

      Madden, Max

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mahon, Alice

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mandelson, Peter

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Marek, Dr John

      Short, Clare

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Maxtor, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Meacher, Michael

      Snape, Peter

      Meale, Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Spellar, john

      Milburn, Alan

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Miller, Andrew

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stevenson, George

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Morley, Elliot

      Timms, Stephen

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Turner, Dennis

      Mudie, George

      Vaz, Keith

      Mullin, Chris

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Wallace, James

      O'Brien, William (Narmanton)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Wareing, Robert N

      Olner, Bill

      Watson, Mike

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Willams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

      Paisley, The Reverend Ian

      Wiliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Parry, Robert

      Wilson, Brian

      Patchett, Terry

      Wise, Audrey

      Pearson, Ian

      Worthington, Tony

      Pendry, Tom

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter L

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pope, Greg

      Mrs. Diana Maddock and

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Mr. Don Foster

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Amess, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Ancram, Michael

      Booth, Hartley

      Arbuthnot, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Ashby, David

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Atkins, Robert

      Bowis, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Baldry, Tony

      Brazier, Julian

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Bates, Michael

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      772

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Harris, David

      Burns, Simon

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Butcher, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butler, Peter

      Hawksley, Warren

      Butterfill, John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Heald,Oliver

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Cash,William

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Churchill, Mr

      Horam, John

      Clappison, James

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

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

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Congdon, David

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jack, Michael

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Couchman, James

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cran, James

      Jessel, Toby

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

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Day, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Dicks, Terry

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knapman, Roger

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Duncan, Alan

      Knight Greg (Derby N)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Knox, Sir David

      Dunn, Bob

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Elletson, Harold

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evennett, David

      Lidngton, David

      Faber, David

      Lightbown, David

      Fabricant Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lord, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Luff, Peter

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forth, Eric

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Maclean, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Madel, Sir David

      Gale, Roger

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gallie, Phil

      Malone, Gerald

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mans, Keith

      Garnier, Edward

      Marland, Paul

      Gill, Christopher

      Marlow, Tony

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mates, Michael

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mils, Iain

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Hague, William

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hampson.Dr Keith

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hannam, Sir John

      Needham. Rt Hon Richard

      773

      Nelson, Anthony

      Spring, Richard

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Sproat Iain

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Steen, Anthony

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Stephen, Michael

      Norris, Steve

      Stern, Michael

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Stewart, Allan

      Opponheim, Phillip

      Streeter, Gary

      Page, Richard

      Sumberg, David

      Paice, James

      Sweeney, Walter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Sykes,John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Pickles, Eric

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thomason, Roy

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Thurnham, Peter

      Richards, Rod

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Riddick, Graham

      Tracey, Richard

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tredinnick, David

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Trend, Michael

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Viggers, Peter

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Walden, George

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Sackville, Tom

      Waller, Gary

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Ward, John

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Watts, John

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Whitney, Ray

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Whittingdale, John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shersby, Michael

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Sims, Roger

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wolfson, Mark

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wood, Timothy

      Soames, Nicholas

      Yeo,Tim

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mr. Bowen Wells and

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mr. David Willetts

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 165, line 10, at end insert—
      '(c) if it is a vehicle with engine size under 1,200 cc, the fuel efficient rate.'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in line 12, at end insert—
      '(3A) The fuel-efficient rate is 60 per cent. of the general rate.'.
      Mr. Taylor: The amendment has two aims. First, it would help those who have been hard hit by rapid increases in petrol prices, a policy that the Government have pursued since the last general election. Secondly, it aims to reinforce the environmental benefits which the Government claim will flow from such changes.
      It is ironic that so many Conservative Members attacked the Liberal Democrats during the general election campaign for proposing fuel duty increases because, since the 1992 general election, petrol duty has gone up from 27.79p to 36.14p per litre. That is a 30 per cent. hike and an average increase of 9.1 per cent. a year. When VAT is
      774
      added to the duty, it means that people are paying nearly 10p a litre, or 44p a gallon, more at the pumps. That is double the rate of increase that we proposed, and those hon. Members—there are some in their places—who attacked us for that policy ought to reflect on their position if there is a vote on the amendment.
      The Government claim that their policy is intended to have a material impact on emissions and is part of their drive to tackle our environmental problems, not the least of which are air pollution and global warming; but such increases are a very rough tool with which to seek to achieve those aims. It is calculated that a 10 per cent. increase makes a difference of 1 per cent. or less in the amount of fuel consumed. The tool is relatively ineffective and falls hard on people in rural areas and those who depend on car ownership to get about.
      The alternative strategy is to use increases in petrol duty to cut vehicle excise duty. That has clear material benefits. First, it is vastly more effective in terms of the environmental aim. It gives people a direct incentive to invest in cars that are more fuel economic in the band that attracts lower vehicle excise duty. That means that the Government's emission targets can be achieved more effectively. People will have a direct financial incentive to downsize their vehicles.
      Ultimately, despite catalytic converters and other efforts to achieve greater fuel efficiency and lower emissions, the best way to cut vehicle emissions is to burn less fuel and only two options would achieve that: we can either directly dissuade people from driving, which is the hard option given the modern society in which we live, or persuade them to drive vehicles that burn less fuel. That is relatively easy with financial incentives.
      Everybody knows that a fuel-efficient vehicle will cost less to run, and we can add to that incentive by using revenues from petrol price increases to cut vehicle excise duty. Such cuts have another benefit in that they compensate those who are hardest hit by the Government's policy of increases in fuel duty; the money is put back in their pockets because they do not have to pay so much vehicle excise duty.
      Moreover, it is an affordable policy for those on low incomes for example, rural pensioners who need a vehicle to get to the shops and get on with their lives. Such people find it hard to keep a vehicle on the road because of the highs and lows of the expenses of doing so. If VED is cut to a notional level, they will find it easier to afford a vehicle, because at the moment ownership is taxed.
      However, those who cover an excessive mileage will pay more, because the use of the vehicle will be taxed. After all, it is the use and not the ownership of the vehicle that is a disbenefit to the wider community, whether it be through congestion or fuel emissions.
      The amendment takes a moderate approach to the matter. It accepts that money is tight for the Government. The proposal is for the smallest-engined vehicles only. It suggests only a relatively moderate cut. I should have preferred it if the Government had taken a stronger line on the matter. I should have liked the vehicle excise duty for smaller-engined, more fuel-efficient vehicles to be cut to a notional level—possibly no duty at all, with the policing of vehicle insurance and MOTs transferring to an MOT certificate on the window.
      If we considered cutting the duty to a notional level for smaller-engined vehicles, the vast majority of private motorists could easily be substantially better off. Some

      775
      people find that relatively hard to believe, but let me give an example. If we cut vehicle excise duty to a notional level on vehicles with engines of up to 1300 cc, but put an extra 10p duty on each litre of petrol, as the Government have done in the past few years, running an economical 1300 cc car with an overall fuel consumption of 40 miles per gallon—a real figure that is taken from an actual vehicle—would mean consuming 225 gallons of petrol a year. The extra 10p duty would therefore cost the average rural motorist, who does 9,000 miles a year, £98 a year. He would, however, be a net beneficiary by £37 a year if vehicle excise duty were reduced to a notional level.
      Most cars are not as economical as the one in the first example. Imagine a family car owner driving a 2,000 cc estate for 9,000 miles a year, at an average of 30 miles per gallon. On current figures, he pays £132 extra as a result of Government fuel price increases. The high-mileage car owner pays a whopping extra £366 per annum, but, under our policies, half the Tory fuel tax hike would bring in enough revenue to reduce VED to a nominal sum for cars up to 1,500 cc. People driving cars with 2 litre engines and above would not be entitled to any VED reduction, but they would have a substantial incentive to downsize their vehicles, again making substantial cost savings.
      The Government need to tackle emissions and to deal with the costs of motoring to the nation. There has been an increase in air pollution and in asthma levels. Increasing numbers of young school children suffer asthma. There is congestion in the cities and even in many rural areas. The Government's policy, however, has almost no impact on those problems, although it takes substantial amounts of money out of pockets, including the pockets of many of the poorest people in society.
      There is an alternative. I refuse to believe that Ministers' officials in the Treasury have not argued that abolishing VED and transferring the tax to petrol, so that it is a tax on the use rather than the ownership of a vehicle, makes sense. It makes sense to the people with whom we are most concerned—rural motorists, private motorists and the poorest motorists in particular. Poor motorists in rural areas do an average 7,000 miles a year. They would be clear net beneficiaries from the policies that we advocate.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: I am listening with great care to the hon. Gentleman and I have some sympathy with his remarks, but would not his policy benefit, as he put it, low-mileage motorists at the expense of high-mileage motorists? Would not that therefore tend to benefit urban motorists at the expense of rural motorists? The hon. Gentleman has many statistics. Will he assure me on that point?
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Taylor: First, let us bear in mind the fact that, if one is prepared to drive a smaller-engined vehicle, which we all want to encourage in order to reduce pollution, one could still be better off doing up to 20,000 miles a year, a substantial mileage. Secondly, we have argued for road-pricing schemes to tackle urban congestion and to encourage and finance the use of public transport, a policy that the Government are now considering. In those
      776
      circumstances, the rural motorist would be a beneficiary and the urban motorist might well find that he was paying extra, unless he opted to use public transport.
      The motorists who would be penalised by such a policy are a rather more specific breed, which may explain why the Government have decided not to pursue it—perhaps they feel that such people are their natural supporters. I refer, of course, to people driving very large-engined vehieles, by themselves, between cities and on a regular basis—in other words, people financed by large companies.
      It is not something that we want to encourage, and I suspect that it is not something of which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) sees a great deal in his constituency, so I do not think that he need worry. It may, of course, be something in which Members of Parliament have a particular interest, but I generally travel by train between London and my constituency.
      Mr. David Nicholson: Has the hon. Gentleman worked out how he would distinguish, in Cornwall or Somerset for example, between urban motorists—people in suburbs or villages perhaps two or three miles from a town—and rural motorists? Where would he draw the line? Would not his suggestion create a new tier of bureaucracy?
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. Some people have advocated specific compensation schemes for rural areas, which I do not believe could be made to work. We have argued for urban road pricing in areas of congestion, as the Government are increasingly doing. That is how the particular cost of driving in urban areas would be reflected. For other motorists, we would merely transfer the cost from VED to petrol.
      One of the basic principles of environmental protection involves not taxing something that is essentially good. I do not think that anyone would wish to prevent vehicle ownership; we seek to tax the bad, or the excessive, use of a vehicle—excessive in terms either of mileage or of a vehicle's fuel consumption. That matter should not divide the Committee. Given that the Government have pursued a policy of high petrol price increases and taxation, I am surprised that they have not adopted our policy. As I said, I do not believe that Treasury officials have not investigated it as a possible option.
      I hope that, while specifically offering the opportunity to compensate those in rural areas who have been penalised by the Government's policy, the amendment will also provide the Minister with an opportunity to explain why he has not accepted such an obvious way of tackling environmental problems without penalising those in rural areas, those on low incomes or those dependent on a car.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member says that the amendment is modest because money is tight, but it would cost £242 million a year to implement. As the Liberal Democrats have criticised other Opposition parties for their financial irresponsibility in recent years, I think that it is up to them to apply the same criticism to the amendment. They did not say how else the money was to be raised. As usual, they were extremely good at arguing for tax cuts and public expenditure increases, but that is not a responsible position to adopt.

      777
      Another reason why we oppose the amendment is that it would not deliver the desired environmental objectives efficiently. Higher fuel prices have a part to play in reducing harmful emissions because they encourage people to reduce fuel consumption in a variety of ways. They encourage people to purchase smaller cars, drive less and more efficiently, make shorter journeys and switch to other modes of transport, whereas the technique advocated by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) would not cover fuel consumption and would not penalise those who clock up high mileage or allow their vehicle's engine to fall into disrepair. Older cars, even if they are smaller, pollute more than newer cars, which have a larger capacity and are often fitted with catalytic convertors.
      The hon. Gentleman got into a bit of a muddle over the effect on the rural motorist. The effect of increasing petrol prices but cutting vehicle excise duties on some cars would not help those in rural areas. It would help those in urban areas who have a low mileage. I refuse to accept not only the hon. Gentleman's amendment but his logic.
      One other point—
      Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am responding to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
      If we were to relieve smaller cars of part of their VED, it would invite manufacturers to reclassify their engines at 1199 cc, which would have very little benefit for the environment and highly distort the automobile market. For all those reasons, I invite my hon. Friends to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Taylor: I do not think that the Minister's arguments are terribly coherent. First, manufacturers already have various incentives, mainly because of markets overseas, to classify vehicles under the various capacities and, in this country, under the level of company taxation. Government policy, indeed, even in this country, already anticipitates that. It would be extremely difficult, however, for a company to reclassify a 2 litre, a 2.5 litre, or a 2.8 litre engine as a 1.199 litre engine. Simply, that is not practical.
      Although it is true that particulate emissions and various other emissions from older vehicles are relatively high, the main aim of Government policy, as I understand it, is to reduce global warming gases, especially the emission of carbon dioxide. Whichever fuel is burned, carbon dioxide is burnt off and carbon dioxide levels are directly related to the amount of fuel used. Vehicles with smaller engines use less fuel.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: That is not true.
      Mr. Taylor: It is a fact. It is also a fact that, because people are relatively affluent and can afford faster and more powerful vehicles, the fuel-efficiency savings available with modern, small-engined vehicles have been used up in achieving higher acceleration rates and higher power rather than higher fuel efficiency. Vehicles bought in the 1950s and 1960s, when petrol prices were relatively high, had 650 cc, 850 cc and 1 litre engines, whereas now
      778
      they have 1.3 litre, 1.4 litre and 1.5 litre engines. There are no disincentives to buying larger-engined vehicles. We see a clear trend in—
      Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
      Mr. Taylor: I shall give way in just a moment.
      The Minister argued that there was no advantage for rural motorists. The figures that I quoted came from the Automobile Association. The average rural motorist does 9,000 miles a year. The poorer rural motorist does an average of 7,000 miles a year. They are not the high-mileage drivers; they are beneficiaries of the policies that we advocate. The amendment is directly beneficial to them.
      Even if we took the more extreme examples of policy that I gave earlier, rural motorists would benefit; indeed, all motorists in smaller cars would benefit up to 20,000 miles a year. That is a simple fact. I do not understand why the Government have not followed that path. It seems popular, effective in tackling environmental problems and far fairer than the policies that the Government have pursued. The only assumption to make is that the Government's proposals are a fund-raising measure rather than one to tackle the environment—in which case, the Minister should be more blunt in saying so, rather than dressing up the proposal in green language.
      Mr. Bruce: I wanted to intervene only on the basis that the hon. Gentleman was making an assumption that vehicle manufacturers had increased engine sizes, as they did in many smaller cars, which made them more expensive to run. In fact, the very opposite happened. Many vehicles that have a larger engine for the same weight of vehicle use less fuel. One cannot assume that the size of the engine means that it uses more fuel. Often, the opposite is true.
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The only people who benefit in financial terms from larger-engined vehicles, as far as I know, are Members of Parliament. In the real world, people know that, broadly speaking, smaller-engined vehicles burn less fuel. That is a simple fact. To understand my point, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) need only consider the fuel efficiency statistics and the rated fuel bands, as we did in working out this policy using figures from the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club and from motor manufacturers. If, at some stage, he loses his job in this place and decides to sell cars in a garage, if he argues with the customers who walk through the door that the bigger the engine size, the less fuel the car will use, he may experience a reaction similar to the one that he may receive at the next general election.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 246, Noes 277.

      Division No. 57

      9.55 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Ashton, Joe

      Ainger, Nick

      Austin-Walker, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Allen, Graham

      Barnes, Harry

      Alton, David

      Battle, John

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      779

      Bell, Stuart

      Grocott, Bruce

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gunnell, John

      Benton, Joe

      Hall, Mike

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hanson, David

      Berry, Roger

      Harman, MS Harriet

      Blunkett, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Boateng, Paul

      Heppell, John

      Boyes, Roland

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Bradley, Keith

      Hinchliffe, David

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hodge, Margaret

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Hoey.Kate

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

      Home Robertson, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Burden, Richard

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Byers, Stephen

      Hoyle, Doug

      Caborn, Richard

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Callaghan.Jim

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hutton,John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Illsley, Eric

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ingram, Adam

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cann, Jamie

      Jamieson, David

      Chidgey, David

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Church, Judith

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Clapham, Michael

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Clelland, David

      Keen, Alan

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Coffey, Ann

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Cohen, Harry

      Khabra, Piare S

      Connarty, Michael

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Corbett, Robin

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lewis, Terry

      Cousins, Jim

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Darling, Alistair

      Llwyd,Elfyn

      Davidson, Ian

      Loyden, Eddie

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McAllion, John

      Denham, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dixon, Don

      McCartney, Ian

      Dobson, Frank

      McCrea, The Reverend William

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Macdonald, Calum

      Dowd, Jim

      McKelvey, William

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Maclennan, Robert

      Eastham, Ken

      MacShane, Denis

      Enright, Derek

      Madden, Max

      Etherington, Bill

      Maddock, Diana

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Mahon,Alice

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Marek, Dr John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fisher, Mark

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Flynn, Paul

      Martlew.Eric

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Maxton, John

      Foulkes, George

      Meacher, Michael

      Fyfe, Maria

      Meale, Alan

      Galbraith, Sam

      Michael, Alun

      Galloway, George

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Gapes, Mike

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      George, Bruce

      Milburn,Alan

      Gerrard, Neil

      Miller, Andrew

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Godsiff, Roger

      Moonie.Dr Lewis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Gordon, Mildred

      Morley, Elliot

      Graham, Thomas

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      780

      Mudie, George

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mullin, Chris

      Short, Clare

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Skinner, Dennis

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      O'Hara, Edward

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

      Olner, Bill

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Snape, Peter

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Soley, Clive

      Paisley, The Reverend Ian

      Spearing, Nigel

      Parry, Robert

      Spellar, John

      Patchett, Terry

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Pearson, Ian

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Pendry, Tom

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stevenson, George

      Pike, Peter L

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Pope, Greg

      Straw, Jack

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Timms, Stephen

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Tipping, Paddy

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dennis

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Vaz, Keith

      Radice, Giles

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Randall, Stuart

      Wallace, James

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Reid, Dr John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rendel, David

      Watson, Mike

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Rogers, Allan

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wilson, Brian

      Rooney, Terry

      Wise, Audrey

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Ruddock, Joan

      Salmond.Alex

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. Simon Hughes and

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Don Foster

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Burns, Simon

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Butcher, John

      Amess, David

      Butler, Peter

      Ancram, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Arbuthnot James

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ashby, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Atkins, Robert

      Cash, William

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Churchill, Mr

      Baldry, Tony

      Clappison, James

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Bellingham, Henry

      Congdon, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Conway, Derek

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre Fo'st)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Booth, Hartley

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Boswell, Tim

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Couchman, James

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Cran, James

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

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

      Bowis, John

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Day, Stephen

      Brazier, Julian

      Delvin, Tim

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Dicks, Terry

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Dover, Den

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Duncan, Alan

      781

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Knight, Gregg (Derby N)

      Dunn, Bob

      Knox, Sir David

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Elletson, Harold

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Hatfield)

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Evennett, David

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Faber, David

      Lidington, David

      Fabricant Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lord.Michael

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Luff, Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Maclean, David

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      French, Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gallie, Roger

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gallie, Phil

      Malone, Gerald

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mans, Keith

      Garnier, Edward

      Marland, Paul

      Gill, Christopher

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mates, Michael

      Gorst Sir John

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mills, Iain

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hague, William

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hampson.Dr Keith

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Harris, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Norris, Steve

      Heald,Oliver

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Page, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Paice, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Peacock, Mrs Elzabeth

      Horam, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Porter, David (Waveney)

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

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hurt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Richards, Rod

      Hunter, Andrew

      Riddick, Graham

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jack, Michael

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jessel,Toby

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Key, Robert

      Sackville.Tom

      Kiffedder, Sir James

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      782

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Shersby, Michael

      Tracey, Richard

      Sims, Roger

      Tredinnick, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Trend, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Soames, Nicholas

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Viggers, Peter

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Walden, George

      Spink Dr Robert

      Walker.Bill (N Tayside)

      Spring, Richard

      Waller, Gary

      Sproat Iain

      Ward, John

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wateraon, Nigel

      Steen, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Stephen, Michael

      Wells,Bowen

      Stern, Michael

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Allan

      Whittingdale, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sumberg, David

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Sweeney, Walter

      Willetts, David

      Sykes, John

      Wilshire, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Wood, Timothy

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Yeo,Tim

      Thompson, Roy

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mr. Sidney Chapman and

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mr. Michael Bates

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 42, in page 168, line 14, leave out 'or forestry' and insert
      ',forestry or activities falling within sub-paragraph (2A).
      (2A) The activities falling within this sub-paragraph are—

      (a) cutting verges bordering public roads;

      (b) cutting hedges or trees bordering public roads or bordering verges which border public roads.'.

      No. 43, in page 168, line 22, at end insert—
      '413B.—(1) A vehicle is a special concessionary vehicle if it is a light agricultural vehicle.
      (2) In sub-paragraph (1) "light agricultural vehicle" means a vehicle which—

      (a) has a revenue weight not exceeding 1,000 kilograms,

      (b) is designed and constructed so as to seat only the driver,

      (c) is designed and constructed primarily for use otherwise than on roads, and

      (d) is used solely for purposes relating to agriculture, horticulture or forestry.'.—[Dr. Fox.]

      Ms Primarolo: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 168, line 22, at end insert—
      `4BA. A vehicle is a special concessionary vehicle if it is constructed or adapted to be used primarily for towing a disabled vehicle in such a manner (whether or not involving superimposition) as to cause a substantial part of the weight of the disabled vehicles to be borne by the vehicle in question.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 30, in page 168, leave out lines 42 and 43.
      Government amendments Nos. 44 to 47.
      Ms Primarolo: I do not wish unduly to detain the House. These are important matters which we discussed earlier this evening. The amendment seeks to delete the new proposals which the Government have introduced in vehicle excise duty for road recovery vehicles and to

      783
      maintain the status quo. These specialised vehicles are restricted by law as to the work which they can carry out, so the points made by the Minister earlier about multiple use do not apply.
      The amendment is particularly important because the majority of those vehicles are partial-lift vehicles which are not used extensively, and for long periods are waiting for calls and emergency requests from the police. The Minister told us that he needed to deal with anomalies, but, as this evening has demonstrated, he is creating more than he is closing. The Minister told us that the measures will bring in only another 1 per cent. of extra revenue to the Government, an amount they could easily forgo pending the important review of services. It is a commonsense answer to a practical set of problems and it totally beggars belief that the Government are prepared to make every concession possible to farmers, to keep their Back Benchers and the farming industry happy, yet they will not take vital steps to safeguard public safety and safety on our roads. The costs are minimal, but the principle is important.
      The Government have failed to respond to those arguments. While providing some concessions, their amendments do not go far enough. Some companies will still be adversely affected and a decline in the service will follow. We intend, therefore, to press our amendments to the vote at the conclusion of this brief debate.
      Mr. Edward O'Hara: Unlike the lighter vehicles used to recover cars and roadside rescue vehicles, heavy recovery vehicles are highly specialised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) pointed out. They are used to recover fully laden heavy goods vehicles and have a very low annual mileage. There are few jobs over which to spread the costs. They represent a long-term investment, with a long-term payback period and an annual income per vehicle that is extremely sensitive to the cost of overheads.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South said, the Government amendment makes some concessions, but operators will still have to pay a nine or 10-fold increase in excise duty from the present standard £85, instead of the proposed fiftyfold increase. That will force some operators out of business and lead others to opt out of heavy vehicle recovery, which could mean that many parts of the country will end up with only a limited capacity for removing broken-down or accident-damaged vehicles. That will lead to longer delays in clearing roads and poses questions for public safety.
      The proposals should be put aside, pending a review of the implications, and the standard flat rate should be retained meanwhile. Otherwise, heavy recovery vehicles will simply not be available to assist at emergencies when required.
      I am thinking of a heavy vehicle recovery operation in my constituency adjacent to my home. It is at the junction of the M57 and M62 motorways. The junction of the M57 and M58 is 10 miles up the road, as well as access.to the container depot at Liverpool docks. Believe it or not, just as much tonnage goes through the docks as it did in Liverpool's heyday, but nowadays it is in containers on heavily laden vehicles. The bottleneck of the Runcorn suspension bridge is 10 miles further away, leading to the
      784
      heavy chemical industrial area of Runcorn and onwards, via the M56, to the bottleneck access to north Wales. The junction of the M62 with the M6 and the notorious Thelwall viaduct are 15 miles away and the junction with the notorious M61 and M63 is about 10 miles further away, in Greater Manchester.
      The Government should take away their recommendation, or, when emergencies happen, no heavy recovery vehicles will be available for specialised roadside rescue, there will be inordinate delays and possibly life-threatening accidents.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) was here earlier today when we debated those matters extensively, but I made it clear then that the Government's amendments meet the concerns that he raises.
      The heavier recovery vehicles will now be taxed at a much more favourable rate than if they were heavy goods vehicles. For instance, middle-weight recovery vehicles will pay only £450 duty and very heavy vehicles that may be used only occasionally will pay £750, compared with up to £5,000 a year for heavy goods vehicles.
      The trade says that it is satisfied with that structure. The Retail Motor Industry Federation, which is important because it includes recovery vehicle operators, has written to me saying that it is satisfied with the proposals. If we have satisfied the trade, we should have satisfied the Committee.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 245, Noes 275.

      Division No. 58

      10.15 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Byers, Stephen

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Caborn, Richard

      Ainger, Nick

      Callaghan,Jim

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Alton, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cann, Jamie

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Chidgey, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Austin-Walker, John

      Church, Judith

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clapham, Michael

      Barnes, Harry

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Battle, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Clelland, David

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bell, Stuart

      Coffey, Ann

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cohen, Harry

      Benton, Joe

      Connarty, Michael

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Berry, Roger

      Corbett, Robin

      Blunkett, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Boateng, Paul

      Cousins, Jim

      Boyes, Roland

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Bradley, Keith

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Darling, Alistair

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Davidson, Ian

      Brown, Nicholas

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Burden, Richard

      Denham, John

      785

      Dixon,Don

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dobson, Frank

      McCartney, Ian

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McCrea, The Reverend William

      Dowd, Jim

      Macdonald, Calum

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McKelvey.William

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Eastham, Ken

      Maclennan, Robert

      Enright, Derek

      MacShane, Denis

      Etherington, Bill

      Madden, Max

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Maddock, Diana

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Mahon, Alice

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Marek, Dr John

      Fisher, Mark

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Flynn, Paul

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Martlew, Eric

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Maxton, John

      Foulkes, George

      Meacher, Michael

      Fyfe, Maria

      Meale, Alan

      Galbraith, Sam

      Michael, Alun

      Galloway, George

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Gapes, Mike

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      George, Bruce

      Milburn, Alan

      Gerrard, Neil

      Miller, Andrew

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Godsiff, Roger

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Gordon, Mildred

      Morley, Elliot

      Graham, Thomas

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mudie, George

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mullin, Chris

      Gunnell, John

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hall, Mike

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hanson, David

      O'Hara, Edward

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Olner, Bill

      Harvey, Nick

      O'Neill, Martin

      Heppell, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Paisley, The Reverend Ian

      Hinchliffe, David

      Parry, Robert

      Hodge, Margaret

      Patchett, Terry

      Hoey, Kate

      Pearson, Ian

      Home Robertson, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Pike, Peter L

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hutton, John

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Illsley, Eric

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Ingram, Adam

      Purchase, Ken

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Radice, Giles

      Jamieson, David

      Randall, Stuart

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Rendel, David

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Keen, Alan

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Rogers, Allan

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rooney, Terry

      Kifoyle, Peter

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lewis, Terry

      Salmond, Alex

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Short, Clare

      Loyden, Eddie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McAllion, John

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

      786

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Vaz, Keith

      Snape, Peter

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Soley, Clive

      Wardell, Gareth (Gomer)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wareing, Robert N

      Spellar, John

      Watson, Mike

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Wilson, Brian

      Straw, Jack

      Wise, Audrey

      Sutcliffle, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mrs. Estelle Morris and

      Turner, Dennis

      Ms Tessa Jowell

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Couchman, James

      Amess, David

      Cran, James

      Ancram, Michael

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

      Arbuthnot, James

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Day, Stephen

      Ashby, David

      Delvin,Tim

      Atkins, Robert

      Dicks, Terry

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Baldry, Tony

      Dover, Den

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Duncan, Alan

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dunn, Bob

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bendall, Vivian

      Elletson, Harold

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Booth, Hartley

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Boswell,Tim

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Evennett, David

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Faber, David

      Bowis, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Brazier, Julian

      Forman, Nigel

      Bright Sir Graham

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Burt, Alistair

      French, Douglas

      Butcher, John

      Gale, Roger

      Butler, Peter

      Gallie, Phil

      Butterfill, John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Garnier, Edward

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gill, Christopher

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Carttiss, Michael

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Cash, William

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Gorst, Sir John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Churchill, Mr

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Clappison, James

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hague, William

      Congdon, David

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Conway, Derek

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      787

      Harris, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Haselhurst,Alan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Norris, Steve

      Heald,Oliver

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Page, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Paice, James

      Hicks, Robert

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Pattie.Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Pickles, Eric

      Horam, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Richards, Rod

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wrral W)

      Riddck, Graham

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jack, Michael

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerten)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jessel, Toby

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sackville,Tom

      Key, Robert

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shersby, Michael

      Knox, Sir David

      Sims, Roger

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Legg, Barry

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Leigh, Edward

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Spink,Dr Robert

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spring, Richard

      Lidington, David

      Sproat, Iain

      Lightbown, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Steen, Anthony

      Lord, Michael

      Stephen, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Stern, Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Stewart, Allan

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Streeter, Gary

      MacKay, Andrew

      Sumberg, David

      Maclean, David

      Sweeney, Walter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sykes,John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Malone, Gerald

      Taylor, John M(Solihull)

      Mans, Keith

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Marland, Paul

      Thomason, Roy

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mates, Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Merchant, Piers

      Tracey, Richard

      Mills, Iain

      Tredinnick, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Trend, Michael

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Viggers, Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Walden, George

      Moss, Malcolm

      Walker,Bill(N Tayside)

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Waller, Gary

      Nelson, Anthony

      Ward, John

      Neubert Sir Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      788

      Waterson, Nigel

      Wilshire, David

      Watts, John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Wolfson, Mark

      Whitney, Ray

      Wood, Timothy

      Whittingdale, John

      Yeo,Tim

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Mr. Simon Burns and

      Willetts,David

      Mr. Michael Bates

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 44, in page 168, leave out line 43 and insert—
      '10.—(1) Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the 1994 Act (recovery vehicles) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In sub-paragraph (1)(annual rate of duty of £85) for the words "is £85" there shall be substituted "is—

      (a) if it has a revenue weight exceeding 3,500 kilograms and not exceeding 12,000 kilograms, the same as the basic goods vehicle rate;

      (b) if it has a revenue weight exceeding 12,000 kilograms and not exceeding 25,000 kilograms, 300 per cent. of the basic goods vehicle rate;

      (c) if it has a revenue weight exceeding 25,000 kilograms, 500 per cent. of the basic goods vehicle rate."

      (3) The following sub-paragraphs shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (5)—
      "(6) In sub-paragraph (1) references to the basic goods vehicle rate are to the rate applicable, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9, to a rigid goods vehicle which falls within column (3) of the table in that sub-paragraph and has a revenue weight exceeding 3,500 kilograms and not exceeding 7,500 kilograms.
      (7) Where an amount arrived at in accordance with sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (c) is an amount—

      (a) which is not a multiple of £10, and

      (b) which on division by ten does not produce a remainder of £5,

      the rate is the amount arrived at rounded (either up or down) to the nearest amount which is a multiple of £10.
      (8) Where an amount arrived at in accordance with sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (c) is an amount which on division by ten produces a remainder of £5, the rate is the amount arrived at increased by £5.".'.
      No. 45, in page 169, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 24.
      No. 46, in page 172, line 51, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 173.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      Mrs. Ray. Michie: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 173, line 13, at end insert—
      `(13A) Notwithstanding the above provisions within this, schedule, the rate of vehicle excise duty for vehicles in the Restricted Heavy Goods Vehicle tax class which are operating primarily within a region in which there has been previous exemption from plating and testing shall be £150 per year.'.
      This amendment was tabled because I want the Government to think again about the enormous burden that they are about to impose on small businesses and contractors operating on islands off the west and north coasts of Scotland [Interruption.]
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I would be most grateful if hon. Members in the vicinity of the Bar would go further beyond it to continue their discussions.
      Mrs. Michie: I make particular mention of the northern islands because my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) shares my concern.

      789
      I first raised this matter with the Department of Transport. I am sorry to see that there is no Minister from that Department in the House tonight. Formerly, island-based heavy goods vehicles paid a concessionary rate of £150 a year, because they are exempted from plating and testing. That is because there are no plating or testing stations on the islands.
      But the Government now want them to pay according to the manufacturers' plated weight for each vehicle. As a result, island-based hauliers will have to pay between £1,280 and £4,250 a year per vehicle. As well as adding to the islanders' transport costs, that is likely to force many smaller firms out of business, with a consequent reduction in employment on the islands.
      A concessionary rate should certainly be retained for the HGVs used only on the islands. The annual mileage is much lower than that of mainland HGVs, and the maximum payload is often limited by road restrictions. For example, a constituent of mine who runs a tanker to refuel fishing boats on the island of Mull does only 500 miles a year, yet he is threatened with an annual vehicle excise duty of £2,160. He will have to pass that on to the fishermen, and they cannot bear that sort of extra burden.
      Some lorries never leave the island, and other contractors are based on, and operate from and to, the island. Arguably, a concessionary rate should also apply to HGVs used solely for deliveries to and from the islands, on condition that they do not ply for mainland business between island runs. That is a reasonable suggestion, because ferry timetables effectively impose restrictions on the use of such lorries. Their total annual mileage is less than 50 per cent. of the national average.
      One of the busiest lorries on Mull does about 16,000 miles a year, compared with the national average of 47,000.
      There is another category of vehicle that will be caught, with devastating consequences for the economy of the islands. They are known as shunt units. One of the main hauliers of goods to the islands in my constituency uses elderly cab units to marshal trailers on board Caledonian MacBrayne ferries and terminals. They are currently exempt from VED, but from 1 July of this year they will have to pay according to the manufacturers' plated weight. That will cost £3,150 per vehicle per year.
      Although the contractor has been told that the increase will be phased in, with each vehicle paying £1,000 in the first year, I believe that the concession will last for only one year. Apart from travelling to and from the depot for occasional maintenance, shunt units do not use public roads; so why should they pay vehicle excise duty?
      This haulier therefore faces a total extra cost of £15,750, which he will have no option but to pass on to his customers, thus adding to the cost of living on the islands. And he has already had to face increases in the ferry fares.
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Lady makes a powerful case for concessions to lorries that operate on islands—presumably she means islands that do not have a road bridge. Would she extend that same concession to the Isle of Wight? What will happen to Skye and Anglesey?
      10.30 pm
      Mrs. Michie: The Isle of Wight is quite a wealthy island, and many wealthy tourists go there. I am particularly concerned with the islands off the coast of
      790
      Scotland, which struggle to survive with their farming and crofting communities. It is they who must be given help—indeed, they are given help in terms of ferry subsidies, so it seems ludicrous that the Government should give subsidies on the one hand and tax them on the other.
      I contacted the Department of Transport, which last year started to tell owners of HGVs that it was removing the concessionary rates for road tax on certain islands, and that would mean that island-based operators would be faced with the sums about which I have already spoken. I am sure that the Minister can understand and imagine the shock and dismay.
      The Minister responsible, at the time, however, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), responded in a worthwhile manner. He ended his letter by saying—[Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but there is a general hum of conversation. That is not polite to the hon. Member who has the Floor, and I must ask the Committee to be very much quieter so that I can hear, without straining my ears, what the hon. Lady is saying.
      Mrs. Michie: Thank you, Dame Janet.
      The Minister said:
      "I am afraid that in some cases this will have significant cost implications, particularly for the heavier vehicles."
      He continued:
      "Because of the effects this might have on hauliers whose vehicles never leave the islands, I have asked my officials to review the position and will write to you in due course to let you know the result of the review."
      I then had a letter in September 1994 from the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Transport. He said:
      "the law in this area is not as clear as it might be, and I have therefore decided that we will return to the criteria for qualifying for the basic rate VED for HGV's that applied before last April."
      In fact, the licensing people in Swansea had already started to increase the licensing fees to the lorry drivers. Fortunately, the Minister interfered; told it to stop and asked it to pay back—indeed it did—the lorry drivers who had paid the cheques that it had requested.
      The Under-Secretary of State went on the say—this is important—
      "This is an interim measure while we carry out a review … We are continuing to examine the position of off-shore islands in this wider review, which I expect to be complete in the Autumn. We will of course make sure that we consider the views of all interested parties."
      Perhaps the Minister can ask the Department of Transport if he does not know the answer. What was the outcome of the review? Whom did the Department of Transport consult?
      I wrote again to him on 30 December 1994, but to date have had no reply. Then I found all this being slipped, as it were, into the Finance Bill. If the Government go ahead with these massive increases and penalise the islanders in that way, the consequences for the economy and for the people will be very detrimental, for it will put not just the small contractors out of business—the man with one lorry, which never leaves the island—but people out of jobs. It will increase the cost of living for everyone.

      791
      Anyone who had heard tonight's speeches would think that the lorries were operating on mainland trunk roads. I wonder whether the Minister knows whether the roads involved are like: most are single-track, and some islands have only a few miles of roads—if they can be called roads.
      Replying to a debate on an earlier amendment, the Minister said that he wanted to give special treatment to those who most needed it—those with a very good case. I believe that the island businesses qualify on both counts. The Minister also said that inevitably there would be winners and losers; I thought from the tone of last year's ministerial letters that the islanders would be winners, but if these measures are passed, their impact will be severe and out of all proportion to the return to the Treasury.
      I feel badly let down, and my constituents will feel even more so. They believed what I told them, because I believed the Minister. [Interruption.] Some may say that that was a mistake, but I think that it is a shame. I genuinely believed the Minister, and I was sure that my constituents would understand the problem. On behalf of the islanders, I therefore ask the Ministers involved to reconsider the matter.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: I support the amendment. I must say that it is encouraging—and very unusual—to see such a large demonstration of interest in Hebridean affairs on the Conservative Benches.
      As the Minister to whom the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has referred is present, I shall pay a small tribute to him. Unfortunately, he is in fact an ex-Minister. The then Minister who wrote to me in similar terms is the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
      It was an unusual case, in which there was a specific constituency point for me—and for the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and one or two others. We argued a fine intellectual case; we got through to the Minister and his civil servants personally, made the case and defined its peculiarities, and we made progress. We received a very good response from the hon. Member for Salisbury: he was sensitive, he was intelligent and he was sacked. If I may say so, in other contexts what has taken his place is certainly no improvement in terms of the criteria that I have defined.
      Fragile island communities are heavily penalised by the current level of ferry charges. In those islands—including islands in my constituency—a concession on VED has historically been granted because its fairness has been recognised. I do not know what goes on in the minds of civil servants on cold grey winter mornings when they feel that they have to take it out on someone; perhaps, on the 6.30 am train from Chipping Norton, they decide that they are going to cancel an anomaly whereby island haulage operators benefit in comparison to others, and that in a vast Finance Bill they will incorporate a clause that, in financial terms, is probably not worth the time that has been devoted to it tonight.
      But it is absurd that they should go to such lengths to cancel out a tiny anomaly for the sake of financial gain to the Treasury—an action that will have an entirely disproportionate effect on the small number of communities that we are discussing.
      792
      That is the curiosity of it. Of all the matters on which we can legislate and of all the sources of revenue, we adopt the absurd idea of going for a small number of island contractors. That is why I make no apology for detaining the Committee and arguing that case. If Conservative Members intend to vote for such legislation they might as well pay for it by spending a little of their time hearing just how absurd it is.
      10.45 pm
      There are three categories of island hauliers, and I am sure that hon. Members will be interested to hear each of them described in detail. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said, the first consists of those who have lorries that never leave the island. I know that the hon. Member for Salisbury will confirm that it would be incredible anti totally at odds with the representations and responses for those hauliers to be brought within the ambit of the clause.
      There is a clear distinction to be made. The vehicles of those hauliers can travel only within their own island communities. On the island of Barra, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles there is one circular road. Cumbrae in my constituency is exactly the same, and in terms of road distance, Arran is not much greater. I see someone to whom I am not allowed to refer who is familiar with the island of Coll.
      The idea that such hauliers should pay the same taxation for road use as those whose vehicles thunder up and down the M1 and the M6 every day is such a patent absurdity that I hope it impacts upon some Conservative Members. There is a clear distinction to be drawn in terms of vehicles which never leave the islands.
      There is also an important distinction to be drawn for the second category of vehicles—those which legitimately ply between the islands and the mainland providing an island and not a mainland service. In providing that service, it is necessary for them to travel to the mainland to deliver and bring back goods. During that process, they attract charges which are not imposed on other haulage operators because they pay substantial ferry costs, which the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute has mentioned. Those charges are reflected in the costs that the hauliers pass to their customers. There is a separate case to he argued for them.
      The third category was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, and it is at the root of why the legislation has been produced. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is in his place and will recognise from another context the term quota hoppers. Such people recognise that they can gain advantages by registering on an island which has a certain privilege.
      The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and every Opposition Member as well as every Conservative Member, I hope, would say that such an abuse should be stamped out. That is the abuse against which the measure is directed, and it is practised by people who are not island operators but who can evade taxation by registering their businesses on islands.
      Is it not possible for Conservative Members to stamp out an abuse, which we all agree should be stamped out, without penalising that tiny section of the community which operates legitimately and which should be the beneficiary of the status quo? With the might of the civil service behind them, Ministers should be able to find a way of striking against those who abuse the system, while protecting those who legitimately use it.

      793
      The Scottish Road Haulage Association feels that its members, who operate on the mainland, are at an unfair disadvantage with those pirate operators who use the islands as a kind of flag of convenience. That is the abuse that Ministers, in so far as they know anything about the matter, should strike against. In doing so, they should not discriminate against legitimate island operators. That is a fair argument that should transcend party boundaries.
      I do not think that many of the operators I am arguing on behalf of tonight are my voters. I do not care or ask about that, but I suspect that they might not be Labour voters—employers in that industry do not traditionally vote Labour. I am arguing not from that point of view, but from that of fairness and of the legitimate interests of fragile island communities.
      Make no mistake: if the measure goes through, some small haulage businesses will go bust. They will have to take lorries off the road, make people redundant and pass on costs to users, so for heaven's sake, let us in Committee have a common-sense solution and retain the advantage for small island operators and for people who legitimately ply between island and mainland. Let us unite and stamp out the abuse of using islands as a flag of convenience to avoid taxation.
      Mr. James Wallace: My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) have deployed powerful arguments as to why the Government should rethink their decision to impose a substantial amount of vehicle excise duty on islands-based hauliers. I add my endorsement to their arguments.
      As has already been said, we are dealing with islands that often have poor roads that add up to small amounts of mileage. They are being asked to pay the same amount as hauliers who are based, for example, in Birmingham, and who have immediate access to hundreds of miles of motorway. That in itself is an anomaly.
      The Government have several times said that they are in favour of lifting the burden on small businesses. That does not square with the decision to impose on those businesses the financial burden that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute illustrated. If the measure goes through, in the first year the increase for small islands-based hauliers has been limited to £1,000. Even that is a significant increase. In subsequent years, it could be even more.
      I do not necessarily subscribe to the comment of hon. Member for Cunninghame, North that this is some conspiracy hatched by civil servants because they got out of the wrong side of bed or because the morning train from Chipping Norton did not arrive. I think that I am right in saying that there have been a considerable number of exemptions to the vehicle excise duty. That allows the basic rate of £150 to be paid. I suspect that the islands' case has been swept up along with the rest of the cases.
      I hope that the Paymaster General has heard enough arguments to persuade him to think again. By imposing the burden on many islands-based hauliers, he proposes a financial burden that many of them will not be able to accommodate in their businesses. If they do, it will mean considerable extra costs for their customers. We are talking about people who serve islands of only a few hundred people. The position is not the same as that referred to by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross).
      794
      In my constituency, the exemption is applied only to the smaller islands. It is not applied to the main islands of Orkney and Shetland, which, it is recognised, have historically had plating and testing stations. Therefore, they did not qualify. Equally, no pressure has been exerted for the exemption to apply.
      People would be horrified to discover, however, that additional costs will be imposed in the smaller islands. I hope, that the Minister will show some of the sensitivity and intelligence that was attributed to his hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), and that he will be prepared to reconsider the proposal and introduce a fair solution for islands-based hauliers.
      Mr. Harris rose—
      Mr. Barry Porter: There are more of them.
      Mr. Harris: Yes, there are more of them, and I am one of them. I also represent a group of islands—the Isles of Scilly—and I am horrified by what I have heard tonight. I thought that the issue had been settled by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Like others, I had correspondence with him, and I thought that we had come to a completely satisfactory and sensible solution. If that is not the case—it is news to me that, apparently, it has all been upset—I shall be after my hon. Friend tonight. I do not say that as a threat, but I look to the Minister to reassure me.
      Hauliers operating on the Isles of Scilly come into the first category. There are only a few hauliers there, and their vehicles never leave. Unlike the Scottish isles, the Isles of Scilly do not have a roll on/roll off ferry, and certainly do not have a subsidised ferry service to the mainland. It is a matter of great regret to my constituents, who look with envy at what their Scottish counterparts have.
      In those circumstances, it would surely be extremely unfair if the three or four haulage firms that operate lorries on the small island of St. Mary's—the only island on which there are hauliers—were penalised as has been suggested. I look to the Minister for reassurance and await his comments with interest. I am sure that there has been a mistake, but if not, I suggest that my hon. Friend had better think again.
      Mr. Calum Macdonald: I shall not go into great detail, as the arguments have already been well made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), whom I congratulate on moving the amendment, and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who I think was the first to support the move by the Department of Transport and pursue it with the Minister involved.
      I shall make three points. The first is self-evident: islands, especially the Scottish islands, are a special case. A mark of good-quality legislation would be that it took into account the special needs and distinctive nature of the Scottish and other island communities.
      It is ridiculous to think that one law and one regulation can properly cover all communities in the United Kingdom, from Tunbridge Wells to the Western Isles. There are clearly vast differences in the nature of the communities and the circumstances they face. We should be mindful of that fact and careful to reflect it in our legislation. That is why the exemption has existed for so

      795
      long. It is absurd to suggest that we should attempt to apply the same regulation uniformly the length and breadth of the British Isles.
      Secondly, having emphasised that islands are a special case, we need to emphasise that our communications are almost by definition of crucial importance to island communities, not only communications between them and the mainland but communications among the islands themselves. Anything that strikes a blow at the viability of our communications strikes a blow at the viability of the island communities.
      The third point is just as important as the first two. All of us who were in correspondence with the former Minister, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), received an assurance that the matter under discussion was to be reviewed. We then assumed that we would in due course receive a letter telling us the outcome of the review. It is outrageous that the Government have instead apparently reached a conclusion without having had the courtesy to inform us of what they intend to do.
      Will the Minister not only reflect on the points that have been made and—hopefully—respond positively to them, but also explain why none of the hon. Members who raised the issue with the Government and who were assured by the Government were approached before this matter was introduced in the Finance Bill?
      11 pm
      Dr. John Marek: I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). I think that I understand why the Government have proposed this extra tax. It does not affect the constituency of any Conservative Member—until tonight. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is an extremely valuable Member. If the matter were to affect his constituency, the Government would begin to worry.
      At the moment, the Government do not worry about those constituencies that they cannot win. They are concerned only with getting money for the Treasury. The Government get that money through vehicle excise duties in a haphazard way every year. I will not accept the Minister's view that we have an imperfect system and that this year they are looking at it and that they may get it right next year or the year after that.
      I want to bring to the Minister's attention a principle on which vehicle excise duty ought to be levied. It ought to be levied with some regard to track costs—the costs of road repairs that vehicles cause. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that many vehicles covered by the amendment do not travel on roads. Therefore, presumably the track costs would be very light.
      I refer the Minister to "The Allocation of Road Track Costs", a statistics bulletin issued by the Department of Transport. The 1995–96 edition is ready, and I have it. It says:
      "Tracks costs for vehicles of over 3.5 tonnes GVW are covered by the ratio of 1.4:1."
      Another category of vehicles consists of crown, disabled, other vehicles exempt from vehicle excise duty, haulage, machines, three-wheeled motor vehicles, special types, recovery vehicles and non-plateable vehicles. As I understand it, that category will catch all the vehicles which are the subject of the amendment.
      796
      Would we expect those track costs not to be covered? Would we expect them to be covered by a ratio of,perhaps, 0.7:1 or even of 1:1? That is not the case. The ratio is not even 1.4:1. Those vehicles are not covering their track costs by 1.4:1, they are already covering their track costs by 2.3:1. If they are already doing that, what on earth are the Government doing raising vehicle excise duty on those classes of vehicle? Is there any fairness in what they are doing? I do not believe there is. Is there any equity or justice in it? No. At best it is a muddle, and at worst it is mendacious.
      The Government realise that there are no votes in the issue; there are no seats to be won. Therefore, they are trying to get money out of people they will never represent, who can least afford to pay. Even though the Government are collecting a very small amount, they are prepared to implement this proposal.
      Instead of this proposal, if they had any integrity, they would put these extra charges on goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, which are covering costs on a ratio of 1.4:1, because those vehicles use the motorways and the roads on the mainland.
      Mr. Salmond: I shall speak not to irritate Conservative Members, but to make two quick points. First, I endorse the comments of the hon. Members who represent island communities about the substantial injustice of this proposal. Secondly, I want to ask the Minister a specific question. The Minister heard the definition of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) of the three categories of vehicles involved. I want to make absolutely sure that, when the Minister replies, he will estimate the cost of the change on the first two categories, and not give us the overall cost of stamping out the abuse in respect of the third category.
      Very precisely, when the Minister replies, will he give the Treasury estimate of the cost of imposing this unfair tax on the first two categories mentioned by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North—the vehicles that stay within the islands and the vehicles that ply an island trade—and not fob us off with the overall Treasury estimate of the cost of the third measure?
      Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Some little time ago, the House voted more or less with enthusiasm for something that I understand was called the Jopling reforms. What has happened?
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): The Jopling recommendations do not apply to Committee stages.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I, too, represent an inhabited island—the island of Rathlin. When I was appointed to represent that island in this House, there were no roads on the island, no running water and no lighting system. No public housing had been built for years, and the harbour did not exist.
      After 25 years, I am glad to tell the Committee that a good harbour exists now. We have public lighting, public water and public housing. At last we have roads. However, if I have to go back to Rathlin island and tell the people there that, with regard to the new ferry, they are going to pay through the nose for the little track of

      797
      road to allow them to get their vehicles across to Ballycastle to have them reloaded to bring back their goods, they will cry out and say,
      "Oh, that we had been left alone, for our estate now is worse than it was at the first."
      Mr. Morris, in case you were not aware, that was a quotation from scripture.
      The case has been made for people in the quandary about which we are speaking. It is not very late: I have sat in the House until 3, 4 and 5 am. Surely we should have enough sense tonight, and the Minister instead, of sleeping, should have enough sense, to be wide awake and say, "Yes. There is an anomaly here, and I must face up to it and see that justice is done." I make that plea.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Committee has heard that vehicle excise duty at a concessionary rate of £150 is payable on some islands, irrespective of the weight of the lorry concerned. The only requirement is that the operators concerned are registered on those islands. There is no legal provision for that concession under existing law. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has granted and continued that concession because of the absence on those islands of a plating and testing station. That point was made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).
      However, the introduction of revenue weight as the criterion for setting vehicle excise duty means that that consideration is irrelevant, as plating and testing are no longer going to be used for establishing the eligibility for vehicle excise duty or its concessions.
      In addition, in practice there is no limit to the use that can be made of the vehicles elsewhere in the United Kingdom, because a vehicle that is validly licensed in one part of the UK can be used elsewhere. There is nothing to prevent them from competing directly with hauliers for services—
      Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will finish the point that I am making.
      There is nothing to prevent those vehicles from competing for services between the islands and the mainland. Indeed, there is nothing to stop them working wholly on the mainland. That might have been the issue of abuse which was raised. We have seen the ridiculous situation of a vehicle being advertised for sale "with the benefit of Scottish island registration". That is clearly unfair.
      Mr. Harris: The Committee appreciates the point, but the Minister says that there is nothing to stop a lorry moving from one island to the mainland. My hon. Friend knows the isles of Scilly. There is everything to prevent a lorry from moving from the isles of Scilly to the mainland, because there is no roll on/roll off ferry. Does my hon. Friend therefore accept that the isles of Scilly at least should be treated as a special case in that regard?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is not quite right. A vehicle does not even need to be transported from the island to the mainland. It can be registered in the island, but bought and used entirely on the mainland. That is clearly unacceptable.
      798
      For both legal and practical reasons, I invite—
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am not giving way.
      For legal and practical reasons, I invite the Committee to regard the United Kingdom, for taxation purposes, as a single unit, and to reject the amendment.
      Mrs. Ray Michie: I thank hon. Members, not least the hon. Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), for their support. I know all about Rathlin island, and that we want a ferry to come from Ballycastle to Campbeltown in my constituency.
      Mr. Wilson: And Ardrossan.
      Mrs. Michie: As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) says, and Ardrossan.
      I am seriously disappointed by the Minister's reply. I hoped that he would say that he would discuss the matter with the Department of Transport, and would come back to the Committee with something worth while.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: I had hoped to ask this question of my hon. Friend the Minister, but has she ever put to him the fact that the vehicles that are not causing the abuse should have a special registration number?
      Mrs. Michie: That is a valid point. Perhaps the Minister will answer it. As for such vehicles being able to operate somewhere else, that is absolutely ridiculous. Many of those lorries are kept by farmers or builders. They work only on the island. They do not go off the island looking for work elsewhere. Like the hon. Member for St. Ives, I think that there has been a terrible mistake.
      Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend will have heard the Minister give as part of his main reason—indeed, it was almost the centrepiece of his resistance to the amendment—that there is no legal basis to distinguish between hauliers who are genuine and those who are causing abuse. Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that the Minister has been a Member of Parliament for eleven and a half years, and that it might not yet have dawned on him that part of our reason for being here is to make laws? That is what I thought we were doing. Therefore, the Minister's excuse is entirely fatuous.
      Mrs. Michie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We all know that, if the Minister and his Department want to do something, they have the political will to do it, and they can change things if they need to be changed. I am asking the Minister to change something on behalf of the islanders of Scotland.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Lady will know that I made a brief intervention to ask only one question of the Minister, which he totally failed to answer. Does the hon. Lady

      799
      agree that it is a sign of weakness that a Minister sits down because his speech is so ridiculous that he is inciting the anger of Conservative Members behind him?
      Mrs. Michie: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in no uncertain terms. I hope that we will be able to press—
      Mr. Anthony Steen: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Michie: I do not want to detain the Committee. [Interruption.] I am happy; I thought that Conservative Members wanted to go to bed.
      Mr. Steen: Will the hon. Lady give the House some idea of how many vehicles she is talking about? I have an island in my constituency which lies half a mile off the coast. It does not have a haulage contracting business but—from what the hon. Lady has said—I am quite sure that the last thing anybody would do would be to start a haulage contracting business on that island.
      Mrs. Michie: One of the bigger contractors about which I told the House and which operates shunt units carries perhaps eight vehicles in a day's passage of ferries. Those shunt units are now to be subject to vehicle excise duty.
      On the island of Islay, there are probably eight or 10 lorries used in the building of houses or by farmers for carrying hay and that sort of thing. If one includes all the islands of the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland, there are plenty of contractors and small lorry operators.
      We will put the amendment to a vote, because many Conservative Members have spent lots of happy holidays on the islands of my constituency. They know lots of people on the islands and the people know them, and they will be very interested to see who will vote against the islanders of Argyll and Bute.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Macdonald: It is unfortunate that the Minister is detaining the House because of the inadequacy of his reply. The reasons that he gave in reply to hon. Members were shallow indeed. The notion that there is currently no way of distinguishing between those vehicles which remain within the islands and vehicles which abuse the system by being used on the mainland is no excuse.
      I pointed out in my initial remarks that the Department of Transport had said to a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House that it was conducting a review to discover a legal basis for distinguishing between vehicles which are abusing the system and genuine vehicles. That review must have happened, because the Minister at the Department of Transport said that it would be happening. We need to know what conclusions were reached and what options were considered and discarded.
      The Minister cannot simply stand up and say that there is no legal basis for distinguishing between vehicles, because the Government have said that they are looking at the matter. It is wholly inadequate for the Minister to sit on his haunches and leave it at that. Even if he does not answer tonight—he may not have the papers from the Department of Transport with him—the Minister ought at least to have the courtesy to say that he will reconsider the matter. Unless he can provide an answer to the questions—I shall be happy to give way if he wishes to
      800
      do so—the Minister should ask his colleagues at the Department of Transport what the result of the review was, and then inform the Committee.
      Most especially, the Minister should have the courtesy to inform those hon. Members who were promised by a former Minister at the Department of Transport that there would be a review. As hon. Members were given that promise, the Minister cannot simply wash his hands of the whole matter. It is a simple matter of courtesy, if nothing else.
      Dr. Marek: I shall be brief. I listened carefully to the Minister, and he did not provide answers to any of the different questions which were put to him. I have searched my memory and, in the 11 years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have never heard such a wooden and stilted response from a Minister who saw common sense staring him in the face, and turned away. The Minister does not do the House, the people in general or the people on the islands a service by behaving in that wooden and disinterested manner.
      Can the Minister consult his officials and the Department of Transport? He can see what the will of the House is. If he has any respect for it, instead of dragooning his hon. Friends, by inviting them to vote for a measure in which they do not believe, he should promise at the Dispatch Box to reconsider the matter and table amended proposals on Report.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: I have considerable respect for my hon. Friend the Paymaster General. Can he answer one question? I had hoped to ask him while he was speaking, but he would not give way and I also mentioned the matter to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). Why cannot those vehicles that are restricted to the islands and never allowed to go anywhere else have a special registration number and a coloured plate, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) suggested? Why cannot they alone be exempt and given favourable treatment? It would cost very little, it would satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and most of the other hon. Members who have spoken, and it would show that my hon. Friend had listened to the arguments.
      Mr. Wilson: I am speaking again not merely because of the inadequacy of the Minister's reply, but because of the bogus point of order raised by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). The House should understand one thing. We have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House state a rational case in defence of a small number of people and of fragile communities that do not have much representation in this House. It is completely unacceptable for an hon. Member to chastise us for making that case on the ground of the Jopling report and it is even more unacceptable for him to stagger out of the Chamber as soon as he has made that point. If anyone thinks that the Jopling report will be used as a device to stop the weak being heard late at night, they should relieve themselves of that view now. I hope that every hon. Member in every part of the House will agree with that.
      The Minister's reply was grossly inadequate. The hon. Member for South Hams asked for numbers. He should not have had to do so because the Minister should have given them in his reply. If he had done so, the small number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who

      801
      are affected could almost have done the arithmetic on their hands and feet, and told the Government how many genuine operators are affected in each of our constituencies. We could guess how many operators are using the islands as flags of convenience and could say that the problem is, for example, 10:1—one is legitimate and 10 are illegitimate, or whatever the figure might be.
      The Minister's incredibly inadequate answer revealed the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued a reasonable case and that he has no answer. Will the Minister tell me what part of Tory philosophy it is to penalise a small number of legitimate business men—small businesses in island communities—because the Government have not the courage, vision or skill to clamp down on abuse? Why should the people who engage in abuse win? They will do so, in the sense that the Government believe that the only way to deal with that abuse is to clamp down on the people who are not guilty.
      Why should the big operator, who has never even had a lorry on the island in which he or she is registered according to the Minister's statement, be able to ensure that operators in the Isles of Scilly, in a marginal Tory seat, pay the full, whack? Why should someone who runs their lorries out of Birmingham be able to discriminate against my constituents on Arran or Cumbrae because Ministers do not have sufficient interest to clamp down on abuse and would rather clamp down on the legitimate operator?
      If the Minister can answer any of those questions, he should get to his feet. If he cannot answer them, he should withdraw the proposal for the time being, seek further advice from the people who have given him bum advice and bring back the issue later.
      Rev. William McCrea: Earlier in this debate, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) made a carefully presented and thoughtful speech. Powerful arguments were put and questions were posed which have not been answered. The Minister does the House a great discourtesy and his reputation a disservice by failing to answer those specific questions.
      If the House is being asked to decide and vote, questions should be answered honourably. The Minister should therefore come to the Dispatch Box and answer the questions before a Division is called.
      Mr. Harris: I make an earnest and sincere appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister. He has shown great flexibility in handling the Bill and I am grateful for the changes that he has made. I went to see him with colleagues last week. I am sure that he appreciates the fact that there is real feeling on this matter. I plead with him to take it away and look at it again, otherwise he will put me in a difficult position.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The House and the Government have many ways of helping various parts of the United Kingdom, including the islands, which are the subject of this amendment. But it is not right to use the taxation system for vehicles as the amendment requires.
      We have an opportunity to remove not just an anomaly but an abuse. Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have described how and agreed that such an abuse takes place. It is right that island communities around the United Kingdom should receive differing amounts of help through various systems. Vehicle excise duty is a United Kingdom tax and, in answer to my hon. Friend the
      802
      Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack), I am not prepared to see various licence plates for different parts of the United Kingdom solely on the basis of concessions granted in those other parts of the United Kingdom.
      We assert the unity of the United Kingdom for taxation purposes, which is why I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Macdonald: The Minister's response is as inadequate as the previous one, because it ignores the fact that several hon. Members were assured that the Department of Transport was looking at the matter.
      The Minister said that he has ruled on principle that the exception is to close, yet that is not what the Department of Transport told us. It specifically said that it understood the point being made and would actively seek ways to deal with it. We have had no response from the Department of Transport or any other Department on that issue, so it is wrong for the Minister now to say that the matter cannot be considered in principle
      The Department of Transport has already conceded the value of the exception and said that it would look at the mechanics of trying to achieve a solution. For the Minister now to turn round and simply say that the review should not have taken place is wholly inadequate. We were promised a review and still need to know what the review discovered.
      I do not see the Minister's problem. The wheels of Government will not grind to a halt, nor will their revenues dry up if he takes this opportunity to consult the Department of Transport and return with full information on Report.
      Ms Primarolo: Will the Minister reconsider his statement to the House? He conceded that certain island communities will experience difficulties because of the Government's decision to standardise vehicle excise duty. He also admitted that those communities require additional help because of their vulnerabilities and unique position.
      So that the Committee can make progress, I suggest that we proceed with the Minister's proposals for vehicle excise duty, but I ask him to give an undertaking that we will deal with the question of concessions to the islanders—whose case has been put this evening—on Report. If he fails to give that assurance, the Committee will be deadlocked and I am sure that he does not want that to occur this evening. We must find a way of drafting solutions to meet the islanders' demands.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Salmond: The Minister has been asked on several occasions to quantify the cost of exempting the proper cases which were outlined by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I have listened to the Minister reply to questions about many Opposition amendments during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and every time he has begun by saying that the amendment will cost the Revenue and the Treasury so much money that he cannot concede it.
      Although he has been asked about the cost several times tonight, he has chosen not to reply to that question. That leads me to two conclusions: first, that the Minister does not know the cost of retaining the concession for those deserving cases, which means that the matter has

      803
      not been considered properly and the Minister should withdraw it; or, secondly, he knows how much it will cost but he is not prepared to tell the Committee because the sum is so embarrassingly small that it will expose the Government as doing island communities a grave injustice for the sake of perhaps a few million pounds.
      For the third time, I ask the Minister to quantify now the cost of retaining the concession in the category 1 and 2 cases that were outlined earlier by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: There are no inhabited islands off the coast of my constituency, but I have been following the debate with great interest. It is one of the most extraordinary debates that I have witnessed during my career in the House of Commons.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), the hon. Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) explained that they corresponded and had meetings with the former Minister for Transport, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who has been in his place during the debate. He assured them, as a Minister of the Crown and on behalf of the Government, that ways would be found to ensure that island hauliers were provided for appropriately in any future framework.
      However, in responding to the debate a Treasury Minister has discounted all of those assurances and has tried to give the Committee the impression that the discussions never took place. That is a most intolerable position for hon. Members to be in and I do not think that the Committee should accept a reply like that from any Minister in any Government.
      I hope that the Minister will return to the Dispatch Box tonight and demonstrate that he is speaking on behalf of a united Government, instead of the Department of Transport saying one thing and the Treasury saying something else. That is no way to run a Government and it is certainly no way to manage fragile island communities in the Western Isles or anywhere else. It will be to his eternal discredit if the hon. Gentleman does not reply to the debate sensibly.
      Mr. Wallace: I endorse the proposal put by the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo); it is a sensible way to proceed. The Minister should give such an undertaking and we can then return to the matter on Report.
      Judging from the way that he replied to the Committee this evening, it appears that the Minister was given a brief to deal with an amendment at the fag-end of a sitting which failed totally to address many of the substantive issues that were put to him from both sides of the Committee. No hon. Members on either side of the Committee have attempted to defend the abuse which has taken place; that point was conceded. We ask the Government to devise a means to stamp on abuse so that people who genuinely want to proceed with their businesses—and who do not have a basis for increasing their revenue or the turnover to withstand the amounts in question—can do so. I am not sure what would happen if, a year down the track, some businesses go under and valuable haulage services are lost.
      804
      It is no use the Paymaster General repeating the mantra of a united taxation system. That principle has already been breached by what has gone before. We heard that the Department of Transport is already reviewing the system and is prepared to countenance a different situation.
      Mr. William Ross: The same taxation system has not always applied. I ask the Committee to consider what happened in respect of the community charge.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent and obvious point. Some of us well remember that we had to pay the community charge long before other parts of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. William Ross: Northern Ireland never paid it.
      Mr. Wallace: As the hon. Gentleman says, Northern Ireland never paid the community charge. The Government's weak arguments have not addressed the substantive issues. It would be helpful and consistent with the mood of the Committee if the Minister would say that we can return to this matter after it has been given proper consideration and we know the outcome of the review promised by the Department of Transport to me and to many other hon. Members.
      Dr. Marek: The Paymaster General said that he was responsible for United Kingdom taxation, and the implication was that if duty for a vehicle in central London is to be £500, the same duty would be payable for a vehicle in Canna or any of the other Scottish islands. That cannot be right. Taxation should be fair and seen to be fair. How can a comparison be made between a vehicle on a small Scottish island that can travel only in a circle, for a distance of 12 miles—
      Mr. Home Robertson: Or less.
      Dr. Marek: Or less, as my hon. Friend says—with a vehicle in London that might travel 10,000 or 12,000 miles a month? It cannot be right for both vehicles to be taxed the same amount.
      The Paymaster General says that he is responsible for taxation as a Minister of the United Kingdom Parliament, but he is not weighing all the considerations properly. He must take into account equity and fairness, and appreciate that the public must be satisfied that his proposals are fair. I cannot imagine any member of the public in the British Isles arguing that because a vehicle on a small island in Scotland is to be taxed at £500, the same amount must apply to a vehicle registered in central London. That arrangement would be blatantly unfair.
      We are not asking the right hon. Gentleman to make up legislation on the spot, at the Dispatch Box. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee implored hire to think about the points that have been made. Most importantly, the excellent point put by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack) deserves consideration in the quiet solitude of the Minister's room, rather than in Committee.
      It is clear that both sides of the Committee believe that a gross unfairness will be perpetrated unless the Minister does something. Unless we can be sure that the Minister will take cognisance of that, hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will be most disgruntled. I urge the Minister, as a matter of common sense, to think again.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Of course the House can return to this issue on another occasion—certainly on Report. But I ask the Committee to reject the amendment in the full knowledge that the procedures of the House allow the House to return to it another time.
      Mr. Wilson: I make no apology for keeping the debate going. Why on earth should people legislate when they have not the slightest idea of the consequences of what they are legislating for? The moment the Minister rises to give us some information in response to the points that we have been making, I shall sit down. That will be the end of it.
      How many vehicles are affected by the provision? How many of them never leave the islands? How many of them have never been on the islands in question?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is asking me a question that is impossible to answer. How can anyone know whether a vehicle has left an island? We do not run a police state in which vehicles are followed from the islands to the mainland. It is self-evidently absurd to ask me for information that does not and cannot exist, either in my Department or in the public domain.
      The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked me about three categories of expenditure on which no information exists. Indeed, they are not possible to identify. If they were, I would be the first to give the hon. Member the information that he requires—
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The Minister is already intervening. We cannot have interventions in interventions.
      Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the House return on Report to a matter dealt with by the Committee, unless the Government move an amendment dealing with it?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: It is a matter for Madam Speaker whether to select amendments or new clauses on Report.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can we make up our minds when the Minister has told us that he cannot possibly give us the information? He says that there is abuse, but he cannot have it both ways. If he cannot give the numbers to the Committee, how does he know how many people are abusing the system?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches.
      Mr. Wilson: This is a rare parliamentary occasion. Every time the Minister rises to his feet, he exposes just how little he knows about what he is trying to put into statute. Is he talking about hundreds or thousands; about millions of pounds or tens of thousands of pounds? He can give us no inkling, because he does not know.
      Even worse, the Minister does not know how many vehicles are involved, or how many of their owners abuse the system. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) promised to explore the point when we contacted him. Surely the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency knows the answer to this problem. Let us say that 500 legitimate
      806
      companies benefit from the islands allowance and 10,000 abuse the system—but the Minister does not know. He would then be under the impression that the number of firms affected by the provision was the total. The Minister has had no briefing on the substance of our point, which is that only a tiny number of firms is involved.
      What the Minister is hoping for here is to brass-neck it through to a vote, to push it through, and then that would be the end of the matter. Opposition Members who represent island communities are not disposed to let him do that. He is being humiliated by his own ignorance and he should accept that.
      He should withdraw the proposal. He should accept the fact that he has no idea about the amount of revenue or the amount of abuse that is involved, and therefore he does not know what he is legislating for. Afterwards, he can take it up with the people who failed to advise him, who told him that this was a little thing that would slip through late at night because of the Jopling report, who said that only a handful of yokels in the furthest periphery were affected.
      I hope that the Minister has learnt a lesson tonight, because when he starts messing about with people on that basis, he will not get away with it. When he starts messing about with islands, the interests of which some of us work very hard to defend, he will not get away with it. He cannot tell us anything that he is trying to do tonight in any detail. Until he does, we shall make him talk. We shall make him explain. We shall continue to ask him for the statistics on which the proposed legislation is based. So the Minister had better bring some statistics to the Dispatch Box, or else recognise that he is in for a long night.
      11.45 pm
      Sir David Steel: I have been listening to the entire debate. I do not represent any islands, and came to the subject completely new. I do not think that the Minister has treated the Committee fairly. Having listened to the strength of the debate—hon. Members from six different political parties have spoken—I know that it is not a party issue. It is clearly an issue on behalf of a geographical minority.
      When the Minister invites the Committee to reject the amendment and says that the matter can be raised at some later stage, he is not correct. He knows perfectly well that, if it is rejected, the chance of this issue being selected on Report is remote. We all know that. What he should do is invite my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) to withdraw the amendment, on the assurance not that he can solve the problem but that he will discuss it with his colleagues in the Department of Transport and come back to the House on Report with a more lucid explanation and, if possible, a solution. If he did that, we could make real progress.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In saying that the matter could be raised on Report, I meant that if it is the wish of the House to discuss the issue further on Report—you said, Dame Janet, that it is a matter for Madam Speaker—I shall certainly do what I can to ensure that the House has an opportunity to discuss it. I have no reason or motive to prevent fair discussion on a matter that is clearly of interest to hon. Members and their constituents. I am certain that I gave a reason for rejecting the amendment, which is based on studies of the existing situation—an anomaly that is not founded in law and that invites abuse.

      807
      I gave examples earlier of people advertising that abuse of the system in newspapers. The precise number of people abusing the system is, by definition, unknown. It is rather like fraud. One cannot quantify it precisely because it is unmeasurable. I am very happy to give the assurance that, if the House wishes to discuss the matter later on Report, I will do what I can to ensure that it is given that opportunity.
      Sir David Steel: The Minister has a deserved reputation for intelligence and courtesy. I think that he should go a little further and invite my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment so that it could be raised again on Report. Having listened to the debate, he is under an obligation to discuss with his colleagues in the Department of Transport what happened to the review and to the assurances that were given in letters to various hon. Members. That is the least that the Committee is entitled to expect of him. If he would just go that far, I am sure that we could make progress and return to the matter again.
      Mr. Macdonald: We are making a little progress, but we still need some clarification. The Minister said that the House could return to the matter on Report, but he knows as well as anybody that the procedure—the proper way to ensure that the matter is discussed on Report—is for him to invite the mover of the amendment to withdraw it. The Committee will then read that as an understanding, a commitment, that the Minister will genuinely look at the matter to try to find out what happened to the reports that were drawn up by the Department of Transport.
      I hope that he will use the time between now and Report to meet hon. Members who raised the matter with the Department of Transport, to talk it through with us and to make available to us the reports that the Department drew up—or was thinking of drawing up at one stage—plus any additional material that he thinks germane to the discussion.
      It is not right to leave the matter hanging by simply saying that the House can return to it at a later stage. If the Minister invited the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) to withdraw her amendment, we should all know where we stood. The Minister knows the forms and courtesies of the House as well as anyone; if he genuinely meant the offer that he appeared to be making—the offer to deal with the issue at a later stage—he would follow it through by inviting the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
      If the Minister proves not to have made such an invitation, however, we must conclude that he did not really mean what he said about the House being able to consider the matter on Report. He has left confusion in the minds of hon. Members, and I think that it is incumbent on him to clear it up.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Whether the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) presses her amendment must be a matter for her. I have said that, if she does so, I must invite my hon. Friends to reject it; but I have also said that the House is fully entitled to debate further issues on which it feels strongly, and I assert its right to debate issues of public importance.
      808
      I go further than that, and say that the proper procedure is for the matter to be returned to on Report. I shall certainly endeavour to ensure that that is done, if the desired result cannot be achieved simply by the hon. Lady tabling her own amendments. That would enable the House to take a further look at the issue by using its regular and proper procedures.
      Mr. Macdonald: Another inch of progress has been made, in that the Minister has suggested that the proper procedure is for us to discuss the matter further on Report, thus implying that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute should withdraw her amendment. He would clarify matters further, however, if he assured us that, if she does so, he will, before Report, meet all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have raised the matter. We have had letters from the Department of Transport saying that the matter would be considered; it would be only courteous of the Minister—the courtesy that I would expect of him—to agree to meet us before Report.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Responding to an intervention from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the Minister referred to the existence of studies of the detailed implications of the concession and the amendment. It might be helpful to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members representing island constituencies if copies of those studies were made available: perhaps they could be placed in the Library of the House, in anticipation of further discussions of the subject.
      Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Before meeting the Minister, we would have to have whatever information he considers relevant.
      The Minister seemed to suggest that he would not be willing to meet his hon. Friends, along with Opposition Members, to discuss the matter before Report, even after the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute had withdrawn her amendment. That is a startling and even shocking thing to say.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have never refused to meet hon. Members on matters within my public responsibilities. If the hon. Lady or any other hon. Member wishes to discuss the matter with me, I shall naturally accede to that request.
      Mr. Macdonald: We are making progress bit by bit. My understanding is that the Minister is saying that the proper way to proceed would be to discuss the matter on Report. If the hon. Lady withdraws her amendment, all interested Members would have an opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss the matter in a more measured way and, hopefully, at a better hour. That is one way of proceeding with the matter. The Committee is disturbed that an issue, which in one sense is small but is nevertheless vital, is being dealt with in a way that does not do it adequate justice. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have recognised that simply to reject the issue out of hand would not be justice.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: On my own behalf and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) may I appeal to the Minister and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie)? The Minister need only recognise that it is virtually unprecedented for an issue that has been voted upon to be brought back on Report. He should show that he has some of the sympathy for

      809
      islanders that the House unitedly demonstrated in 1982. We need the hon. Lady to recognise that perhaps she may not have enough troops at her command and the only chance of the matter being debated again is if she recognises that she has many allies in all parts of the Committee and begs leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mrs. Ray Michie: If the Minister will tell me and the Committee that he will discuss the matter with his Department of Transport colleagues and will agree to meet me and other hon. Members from all parts of the House to discuss the issue further, and if he will present proposals, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. All that we ask him to do is to consult colleagues and meet us.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not propose to repeat myself. I have already offered to discus this matter or any other within my responsibility with the hon. Lady or any other hon. Member. I am happy to give that assurance again. If the matter borders on the responsibility of another Department, I shall endeavour to obtain from the Minister concerned the authority to discuss on his behalf the matter being debated.
      Mrs. Michie: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Macdonald: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Hon. Members who are trying to represent their constituents have been treated twice this evening to a grave discourtesy. First, we received from the Minister with responsibility for transport letters saying that the matter would be considered. We never had any follow-up to that and the undertaking was not kept to. Secondly, we appeared to have an understanding from the Paymaster General that, if we withdrew the amendment, it would be considered at the third stage, and we would have a meeting.
      Clearly, an orchestrated manoeuvre by the Government Whips pushed the Question on the amendment to be put. Therefore, when he appeared to make the offer, the Minister was either unaware of what his Whips were doing, or, if he was aware, he was misleading hon. Members, who understood him to be offering to reconsider the matter at the third stage. That is a grave matter.
      12 midnight
      The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair. I can operate only the rules that exist and a single dissenting voice is sufficient not to permit an amendment to be withdrawn.
      Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Dame Janet. In view of what we have just seen, within the orders of the House, is it possible to emblazon on the Standing Orders the words, "Never trust a Tory Minister"?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair. Mr. Brian Wilson. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Wilson: I am happy to give way.
      Mr. Beith: On point of order, Dame Janet. Recently, within the hearing of the Committee, you advised the
      810
      Committee that it was for Madam Speaker to decide what could be selected on Report. It was in the light of what you said that an exchange took place, involving hon. Members of all parties, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute and the Minister, in which, after some considerable persuasion, the Minister agreed that it would be possible for Madam Speaker to exercise her discretion, so that the matter could be raised again.
      Then it clearly happened—not within your sight, but within your hearing—that the Government Deputy Chief Whip called a vote to prevent the amendment from being withdrawn, with the obvious intention of defeating the understanding that the Minister had reached in the light of what you had said. Therefore, I ask you to consider whether that action should be deprecated by you because it sought to set at naught the advice you had given the Committee.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Let me make it quite clear. I do not have the discretion, but Madam Speaker has full and total discretion in selecting amendments or new clauses on Report. I have no doubt that she will take all matters into consideration.
      Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can we have your assurance that you will give a full report to Madam Speaker of what has just transpired? Tonight, we have seen the excreta of political life in the person of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), who has cheated the House—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I know that the evening is late and that feelings have been running high, but we can conduct this debate in a civilised way? May I make the point again to all hon. Members: Madam Speaker has complete discretion. She is not bound by anything that may be said or done and, of course, she, as all other hon. Members, will be able to read a full account of the matter in Hansard.
      Mr. Wilson: The Committee, which has listened in large numbers to the debate, heard the agreement that was reached between the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and the Minister. Within minutes, one hon. Member cheated on that agreement. That is why we are still discussing the matter. If the Minister had a shred of honour in him, he would do what is within his power to rescue the situation, by saying now that the Government will table their own amendment on the subject to ensure that it is debated further. If what the hon. Member for Derby, North has done in the name of Government is followed to its logical conclusion, not only this small issue, but the whole arrangement for late-night proceedings of the House will be affected, because no one will ever trust those people again.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I have already made clear what the position is from the point of view of the Chair, and I have nothing to add to that.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Dame Janet. The Committee has listened tonight to the debate. The needs of a special proportion of our community, which stretches from Northern Ireland to Scotland, England and Wales, were put and, after much exchange, the Minister gave a clear undertaking. We accepted in good will that an arrangement would be made, that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) would withdraw her amendment, and that, at another time, we would have the

      811
      opportunity to come back. We all thought that the hon. Lady would be permitted to withdraw the amendment. After 25 years in this place, I am staggered to see something that has taken us all this time to get established being destroyed in a matter of seconds. If there is no trust in the House, how can we represent the people who send us here?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I repeat that Madam Speaker retains full discretion as to how she may handle any amendment or new clause that hon. Members seek to table on Report—nothing alters that.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. You will be reporting to Madam Speaker on the conduct of business under your chairmanship tonight. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said, what is causing the Committee considerable concern is that we have this evening witnessed an unusual but proper use of this place, which is to draw assurances from the Government. The Government were not willing but we were making progress.
      What concerns me is whether the Minister—reluctant as he was—knew in the very process of giving the undertaking that he would support the matter being discussed again on Report that the Government Whip was going to prevent the amendment being withdrawn. It is important that you find out, Dame Janet, and ensure that Madam Speaker knows exactly what happened.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I have nothing to add to what I have already said on that point.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: In reaching her decision—[Interruption.] I have listened to all the debate and I represent a constituency containing an island with three inhabitants.
      If Madam Speaker is to judge fairly what happened and take everything into account, she will no doubt be extremely interested to know the attitude of the Minister in charge of the debate whose words induced my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) to seek to withdraw the amendment. It would be fair to the Committee if the Minister gave a sign at this stage, which Madam Speaker could read and which would help her to make up her mind, as to his intention.
      The Minister will know that a motion voted against in the way that happened tonight is unlikely to reappear in the usual course of events unless he explains what the Government were seeking to do and that what the Deputy Chief Whip did was in the nature of a distraction, perhaps due to a lack of communication between the Minister and his colleagues further along the Bench. I therefore ask the Minister to tell us his intention; that is only fair to Madam Speaker and to the Committee.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is repeating points that have already been made. It is very clear: Madam Speaker will have a full account of what has happened in Hansard, supplemented by answers to any questions that she may ask of me.
      Rev. William McCrea: Hon. Members who have listened carefully to the debate heard the Minister promise that he would do all in his power to ensure that the matter could be raised again on Report. Does that promise still
      812
      stand? If the Minister does not intervene to reassure the House that it does still stand, will you, Dame Janet, ensure that Madam Speaker will has that fact passed on to her?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My words will have been recorded in the Official Report and I do not retreat one inch from what I said. I am certainly content, as I hope is the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), to let the matter rest with Madam Speaker.
      Amendment made: No. 47, in schedule 4, page 189, leave out line 6.— [Mr. Wood.]
      Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
      Mr. Wilson: Dame Janet, I am delighted to be informed, as I trust that you will confirm, that the schedule is debatable. That, of course, gives us an opportunity to return to the question of vehicle excise duty affecting island communities.
      I think that I can reasonably lay claim to a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the islands affected by the amendment in the schedule. I shall, of course, be anxious to take hon. Members through each of the islands affected. I am sure that Conservative Members will be very willing and interested to listen to the precise implications of their proposed legislation.
      The terms of the schedule are especially important as they affect islands in my constituency and, therefore, I shall start with them. As you would expect, I shall move on to talk about islands in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), in which I have a certain journalistic interest, islands in the constituency of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie)—
      Mr. Michael Carttiss: Name all the islands.
      Mr. Wilson: No, not yet. I feel that it is far too early in my speech. I had the privilege of being born and growing up in the constituency of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. Indeed, I am a frequent visitor to the islands in the constituencies of other Opposition Members.
      Unfortunately, I have not yet had the opportunity to visit the islands in the constituency of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who spoke so eloquently in support of amendment No. 41. I am sure that he feels every bit as cheated by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) as I do. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives will understand that the Conservative interest will read at least as badly in his local press as it will in the local press in the areas represented by the rest of us. That is something with which he will have to learn to live. I hope that he will manage to secure a meeting with the Minister in which the hon. Gentleman will understand that treating little people in this way is not very clever. To paraphrase words that could be used by hon. Members behind the Minister, "Even as you do unto the least of our children, so you do unto me."
      That is the basis on which we set out to discuss the schedule and the impact on island communities of what is being proposed. Nobody should be in any doubt about the economic impact of the proposal. To talk about £4,000 vehicle excise duty on a vehicle which runs up and down the motorways—I could mention many roads along which vehicles run—is, of course, a reasonable charge over a

      813
      year. When one applies—I think that every hon. Member in the House will understand this—that same principle to vehicles which operate in very small island communities, it is easy to see the absurdity of such a proposal.
      If any Conservative Member, including the shamed Minister, cares to come to the Dispatch Box and tell me that it is right for a vehicle which circulates round an island which may have 10, 12, or 20 miles of road to pay the same as a vehicle which operates throughout the length and breadth of Britain, I shall be willing to give way. I suspect that they would have some difficulty in saying so. There is no logic in such a case. The reason that is coming forward is nothing to do with the islands which are being punished by the proposal and everything to do with the rigid bureaucracy of the Treasury and of the people who have advised Ministers.
      At this stage, I want to stress how badly let down Opposition Members feel about the way in which we have been treated—not, I should stress, by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who acted honourably. He listened to the case which we put on behalf of the island communities and he responded reasonably. Then this great hiatus appeared. The hon. Member for Salisbury lost his job and we heard no more about it. The promise that the Government would come back to us to discuss the reasoned case that we had put forward was ignored.
      It was a source of astonishment to me, as it was to Conservative Members and other Opposition Members, when out of nowhere I received a letter from a haulier in my constituency, Mr. Bannatyre of Arran Haulage, in which he said that he had heard on the grapevine that the proposal was coming back through the Finance Bill.
      Hon Members who had dealt with the matter received no notice. The promised review had not been carried through. We heard nothing about the proposal until it appeared in this form in the Bill.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Dame Janet. The annunciator system in the Chamber seems to have gone down. I am concerned that hon Members who may wish to come in and listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and many of my colleagues who wish to take part in the debate may not know that the Committee is still sitting and is likely to sit for some time yet. Although I see that the time—12.15 am—now appears on the monitor, the name of the hon. Member speaking is not revealed. It is important that the annunciator system should be functioning and I am glad to say that it is functioning once more. I am grateful to you, Dame Janet.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): It is obviously more convenient if the system is working, but it is not beyond the capacity of any hon. Member to walk to the Chamber to discover who is speaking.
      Mr. Wilson: I am grateful for the fact that the annunciator is working, because it will allow me to keep an eye on the time as the hours go by.
      I have not yet begun my tour of the islands. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in the Chamber. Not only was he born on the island of Islay, his middle name is Islay. It is not often that I regret the departure from the House of a Tory
      814
      Member, but instead of the present pretty ghastly hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), it would have been helpful to have the former Member for City of Chester here because he owned half of Islay—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Although the hour is late, I deprecate adjectives of that kind. I ask the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) to guard against such language as he deploys his case.
      Mr. Wilson: I apologise for my crude Celtic tongue. If the former Members for Devizes and for City of Chester were here, we would have a pair of Morrisons and between them they would own most of Islay. No doubt they would have argued with us this evening.
      I do not want to intrude on the territory of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, but Islay is one of the most beautiful Hebridean islands. It is quite significantly different in terrain from the others, but it is economically very similar. It depends on its agriculture. Hon Members on both sides of the House will appreciate that the economic prospects of the distillery industry on Islay depend on the freight industry.
      If I have time tonight, I will break Islay down into nine separate entities and talk about them in terms of the distilleries.
      Mr. Thomas Graham: My hon. Friend will be aware that Strathclyde regional council carried out a poverty survey in the islands some years ago which showed that folk in that area desperately needed help and support. The welfare rights scheme showed that people were entitled to claim millions of pounds worth of unclaimed benefit. The terrible poverty was clear. The Government's proposals will create further poverty and the people on the islands will have to pay through the nose to buy food, groceries and all the rest because of the dramatic increase. As my hon. Friend will know, that increase will probably cause a repeat of the clearing of the highlands under the Tory landlords.
      Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rightly highlights the reality of rural poverty in island communities. It is too often perceived that poverty is an urban phenomenon, whereas hon. Members who are familiar with island communities know that there is great poverty there, not least because of the disgracefully low wages paid by the estates and the people who subscribe to that philosophy.
      The major factor—this point takes us back to the schedule—in conditioning the economy of the islands is freight costs and freight charges. That is why the issue is so important. To many hon. Members who live in large urban communities, the idea that £4,000, £10,000 or £20,000 in vehicle excise duty is a major economic factor within a community might seem absurd, but if one is running a fragile business within such a community and one is incurring extra costs, it is a major factor.
      In terms of Islay, I remember the campaign by Strathclyde region. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) is absolutely right. However, I return to the point about the distilleries. In the old days, everything which came into Islay—the supplies for the distilleries—and everything that went out again in terms of the finished product went by puffer or by small cargo ships—namely, Caledonian MacBrayne cargo

      815
      ships. I was saddened recently to receive a letter which told me that, because of a cut in Government subsidy, the very last puffer has disappeared from the whole of the western isles. The decline of the puffers, which is an interesting subject in itself, could—
      Mr. Sam Galbraith: Before my hon. Friend thinks about leaving Islay, he will realise that the island beside it is Jura, which one gets to by going through the roads of Islay and then taking a small ferry, which, incidentally, is not a MacBrayne ferry. How will the tax affect the people on Jura? My hon. Friend knows that there is a small section of road. That produces particular problems, my hon. Friend will agree, for those on Jura. The economy depends on tourism and people climbing to the top of Jura, and so on. If they have to face a terrific charge, what will that do for an island as beautiful as Jura, which is threatened by the tax?
      Mr. Wilson: I am some way from Jura yet, despite its being very close to Islay. Indeed, many times from Islay I have looked across to Antrim. I have a family connection with Rathlin isle, which I might discuss some time with the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who have been very supportive tonight.
      It will be interesting to have the views of the distillery industry on Islay, because the tax will significantly increase costs of incoming grain and everything else that has to be brought in, and also outgoing products. With the decline of the puffers and MacBrayne's cargo fleet, everything has moved on to roll on/roll off ferries. They are primarily affected by the measure.
      I bow to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, because I did not know until she said so tonight that the little shunting vehicles which take trailers on and off ferries are also to be covered. I can think of nothing more absurd. Where does anyone go with a shunting vehicle? Would a Conservative Member like to tell me where those little vehicles which are used on piers at ports operated by Caledonian MacBrayne go? They never go outside the marshalling area, never mind on an exotic journey down the M1. I see that we have now been joined by the Chief Secretary—
      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The next Prime Minister.
      Mr. Wilson: I will not go down that road. In view of Dame Janet's strictures, I had better not say too much about that, even to prolong the debate—not that that is my purpose. I mean enrich the debate.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will enrich the debate by sticking closely to the schedule.
      Mr. Wilson rose—
      Mr. Salmond: I am puzzled by the narrowness of the speech of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). Is he aware that the schedule includes paragraphs on electrically propelled vehicles, road construction vehicles, roadrollers, snow clearing vehicles, street cleansing vehicles, power wagons used solely in
      816
      connection with street lighting and vehicles used for short journeys between different parts of a person's land? When will the hon. Gentleman deal with those important topics?
      Mr. Wilson: I do not want to be selfish and deal with them all myself. By the time I have dealt with the islands issue comprehensively, someone else may feel the muse upon them. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) invited me to refer to Jura, and there is no more appropriate place to move to than Jura.
      At every isle we mention, I regret the passing of Conservative Members. Is there no longer an Astor in the House? If there were, surely he would be putting the case for Jura because that family owns half the island.
      The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): He is in the Lords.
      Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman speaks for them all—the entire British aristocracy is epitomised in his beatific form. If the hon. Gentleman cares to intervene about Jura and its requirements, I shall certainly give way.
      The metaphor that springs to mind regarding Jura is that what we are dealing with tonight is positively Orwellian. Orwell lived in Jura and wrote some of his greatest works there. The House is debating a taxation measure for which the Minister responsible cannot give the remotest estimate of the amount of money involved. The entire might of this great institution is devoted to an issue where the Minister cannot tell us how many vehicles are involved or what proportion of them are believed to be operating fraudulently.
      If the Chief Secretary cares to intervene where his colleagues signally failed, I would be pleased to hear from him. There is plenty of time. The right hon. Gentleman can send out for the information which is somewhere in the files of his Department. I am shocked and astonished that the Chief Secretary has not been provided with the information, and that he has not been made aware of the previous correspondence of hon. Members with the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). It is an Orwellian situation, in which the little people are supposed to accept what is happening to them because some mighty machine has told them.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not just the hon. Member for Salisbury who has given an undertaking? My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has said that she has had a similar undertaking from the present Under-Secretary at the Department of Transport. It appears that the Department of Transport has been wholly persuaded by the argument and recognises the case, but it has not communicated with, the Treasury. The Department of Transport seems unwilling even to ask the Treasury while the issue is still being dealt with. Is not the position even worse than the hon. Gentleman describes?
      Mr. Wilson: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), because I did not know that. To be honest, I have not corresponded on the issue with the present Under-Secretary. I was asked about the matter recently, and I told my constituents—I thought in good faith—that the matter was pending, because I had an assurance from the hon. Member for Salisbury that it was under review.

      817
      I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport two or three weeks ago and I passed on the renewed concern of my constituents. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute if, in the interim, she has been in touch with the present Under-Secretary. It is obvious either that none of the information has been communicated to Treasury Ministers, or that they have just brushed it aside, saying that it is all nonsense and that nobody cares about promises given in the House any more.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: Surely my hon. Friend is not surprised at the Government's indifference to those highland communities. About eight or nine months ago, he and I met the Minister of State at the Scottish Office to discuss the real fears surrounding the Glenlight shipping company, which has now ceased to trade largely because of the Government's failure to provide the subsidies that it needed.
      Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and the problem is compounded. Not only did the Glenlight shipping company—a privately operated company—go out of business because that arrangement was ended, but at least two of the other coaster companies that operated at that time and whose existence Ministers used as a justification for not supporting Glenlight, have also gone out of business since. The Easdale Island company was the most recent. It operated the last puffers in the western isles and it too has gone out of business. The relevance of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that, as coastal shipping declines, everything else is piled on to the roads and on to the car ferry system, and vehicle excise duty becomes crucial to all trade between the islands and the mainland.
      12.30 am
      Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend will be aware that the headquarters of Caledonian MacBrayne, which services most of the isles, is in my constituency. Tonight's announcement will create terrible stress and problems for my constituents who service the islands. They will be wondering whether the change in duty will mean a reduction in jobs because there will not be enough money to go around. Does that mean that, once again, my constituents will have to suffer further unemployment? Does it mean that the islands will suffer further unemployment because there will not be enough money to invest?
      Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend's concern for the employees of CalMac is well known. Indeed, we and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) once jointly fought quite a successful campaign to keep CalMac's headquarters in Gourock. More recently, we fought a successful campaign to keep the company in the private sector.
      I do not want to disturb the Minister responsible for cricket, who is nodding off—
      Mrs. Helen Liddell: I am impressed by my hon. Friend's comments about the effect of the coastal trade in Scotland. Our Scottish heritage has a great impact on our tourist trade. Is it not ironic that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been very attracted by the stories of the Vital Spark and the history of Scotland that is connected with the puffers? When we study the background to our coastal trade and the effect that this schedule could have on it, we realise that we are
      818
      losing a vital part of our community, of our heritage and of what makes Scotland different—a vital part of our vital spark.
      The Chairman: Order. This debate is about vehicle excise duty, which is not part of Scotland's heritage, or indeed that of any part of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Wilson: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
      The Chairman: Order. I am the Chairman this evening.
      Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) makes a vital point, Mr. Morris. Our national heritage has many dimensions. I contend that the economic well-being of island communities is a very important part.
      The Chairman: Order. I am not denouncing that, but we are dealing with schedule 4 of the Finance Bill and heritage is not a part of that.
      Mr. Wilson: I accept the fine distinction, Mr. Morris, but if there are no people on the islands, there is very little heritage. Dead communities are—
      Hon. Members: "Dead?"
      The Chairman: May I help the hon. Gentleman? He obviously has important matters to raise on schedule 4 concerning vehicle excise duty. Perhaps he will deal with those rather than worrying too much about the dead.
      Mr. Wilson: One of the major conditioning factors of the economic well-being of island communities is freight and transport costs, which is why we are talking about island communities.
      Mr. Macdonald: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the principle which the Minister announced to us tonight, that taxation must be absolutely uniform throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, and must apply to Lewis in the Hebrides as it does to Lewes in Sussex? Where does my hon. Friend think that that law—if it is a law—comes from? Does he agree that it is absurd to apply it to the Scottish islands?
      Mr. Wilson: I agree entirely. It is not a law. If we were here long enough, and if you, Mr. Morris, allowed us to deviate far enough, we could give several examples of exceptions and anomalies that are allowed in recognition of geographical circumstances. I do not blame the Minister for what he said on the ground that he did not know what he was talking about. It was an ad hoc response.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It was not ad hoc at all. I referred to vehicle taxation. If the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) wishes to quote me, he should get that correct.
      Mr. Wilson: The Minister should do his homework even on that narrow point. He will then find that he is not right about that, either.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a number of exemptions apply even to vehicle taxation. For example, police vehicles are exempt from vehicle taxation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) says that the lorries on the islands could be fitted with blue flashing lights, which

      819
      would enable them to be exempt. Alternatively, they could be reclassified in some way. There is no uniform vehicle excise duty for police vehicles.
      Mr. Wilson: There is no need to go as far as fitting vehicles with blue flashing lights.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde mentioned Caledonian MacBrayne. It is a dreadful confession from the Minister that he has no idea which vehicles commute between islands and mainland and which are fraudulently based on the mainland. It would not be difficult to check the returns of the ferry operators to find the activity pattern of each of those vehicles.
      The Minister has consistently failed to say why he refuses to distinguish between fraudulent and legitimate operators. [Interruption.] Now he does not even have the courtesy to listen to the debate. Will he make some effort tonight to distinguish between those who operate fraudulently and those who operate legitimately, or are they all part of the same picture in the Tory book?
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend mentioned fact that the Minister had not the decency to listen to what he was saying. I suggest that he was not listening to my hon. Friend because the Tory Whips were in a huddle proposing that, despite the fact that my hon. Friend has been speaking for a relatively few minutes, they try to move a closure on this specific debate. The plan is that the Tory Whip will ask the Chair, Mr. Morris, to have a closure. It will be argued on the basis that, as there has been an important debate on the amendment beforehand, that time and this should be added together in order to gag my hon. Friend or anybody who follows him. That is the plan.
      Mr. Wilson: I am always grateful for my hon. Friend's parliamentary insights. If that is the Government's ploy, I had better hurry on.
      I wish to return to a serious point which the Government must answer. This debate has now been going on in correspondence with Ministers for about nine months. Why have they never sought to identify vehicles that are genuinely island-based? Why is the Tory party the party of legitimate fraud? Why have the Government allowed people to act fraudulently and advertise island licences when they know perfectly well that they are not island operators? Why have the Government done nothing about that? Why is their only solution based on a refusal to draw a distinction and therefore discriminate unfairly against the island operators?
      The Minister has not made the slightest effort to answer any of those questions. I think that that is a discourtesy to the Committee—more than that, it is a disgrace—although
      820
      it is a very minor discourtesy compared with the sleazebag activities of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight).
      The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman might like to rephrase his earlier statement.
      Mr. Skinner: He said "sleazebag activities"; he did not call him a "sleazebag".
      The Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North rephrase his statement?
      Mr. Wilson: I will use the phrase "grossly disreputable", Mr. Morris.
      Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend will be aware that the vehicle excise duty will affect snow ploughs. There were blizzards in Scotland the other day and if snow ploughs are taxed to the hilt it will affect the lifeline to the islands. Will the roads be cleared or will Scotland suffer once again because the Government have not seen fit to recognise the difficulties of island living? Snow ploughs are essential to living on the islands and we must ensure that the roads are clear and free of snow. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that point in his deliberations on the schedule.
      Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I do not want to get on to the subject of snow ploughs. Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate tonight, and in light of the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I will bring my remarks to a close.
      Mr. Matthew Banks: No.
      Mr. Wilson: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to hear a bit more about the islands. I was going to ask him if there is any particular island that he would like me to dwell upon, but that might be a dangerous invitation.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. There is a lot of meat in the schedule. I think that paragraph 23, which refers to "false or misleading information", is particularly relevant to the position tonight. Sub-paragraph (3A) states:
      "A person who, in supplying information or producing documents for the purposes of any regulations made under section 61A—
      (a)makes a statement which to his knowledge is false or in any material respect misleading or recklessly makes a statement which is false or in any material respect misleading … is guilty of an offence".
      Does it occur to my hon. Friend that the Minister, and more specifically the Government Whips, were "recklessly misleading" in their conduct in relation to an earlier amendment to the schedule? If people will be guilty in future of an offence under the terms of the schedule and subject to legal sanctions, why are Ministers not prepared to live up to those same standards?
      Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes his own point. I believe that the little things which happen in the Chamber have much greater reverberations outside it. The story of what happened earlier this evening will be told for months and years to come. In one fell swoop, the hon. Member for Derby, North wrote off any chance that the Tories had of winning back the marginal seat of Argyll and Bute. He has also made a significant contribution to doing in the

      821
      hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), and there may be an effect on other seats because many people who do not live on the islands are interested in them.
      The Tories will pay for their actions earlier tonight in one way or another. They do not have the wit to realise it when the events are taking place—they think that everything can be stitched up in here. If they can cheat and deceive and use those sorts of tactics—
      The Chairman: Order. Firstly, the hon. Gentleman is not talking to the schedule; and, secondly, I would be grateful if he would again rephrase the word that he used. Does he know which word I am referring to? The hon. Gentleman used the word "cheat", which is not appropriate.
      Dr. Godman: How about "sleekit"?
      Mr. Wilson: That is a very seasonal word. Would "sleekit" be all right, Mr. Morris? It is used in a well-known poem by Robert Burns as an adjective to describe vermin, so I will halfway compromise on it and we will bear in mind Bevan's famous maxim.
      Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a strange philosophy is being advanced tonight? The Government, instead of taking action against people who act fraudulently, intend to put legitimate island operators out of business to solve the problem.
      Mr. Wilson: I agree. That is something for which the Paymaster General should answer, but he refuses. The Government's philosophy is that it is easier to use a sledgehammer than to make sensible adjustments, to separate the wheat of legitimate island operators from the chaff of fraudulent operators who are abusing the system.
      12.45 am
      Dr. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the sleekit behaviour of Ministers tonight may damage the interests of people who are attempting to bring some prosperity to remote communities? I refer to the importance of transport costs to fish farms in remote island communities. The measure could damage not just hauliers but fish farms and the employment that they offer.
      Mr. Wilson: I could talk at length about fish farms but will not do so. The same argument applies to distilleries. Island economies are dependent on transport and transport costs. The Government are gratuitously heaping an additional cost on transport, which will affect the cost of everything else.
      Mr. Home Robertson rose—
      Mr. Wilson: I will not accept any further interventions because I do not want to prolong my speech, and I do not want this debate to descend into farce. It is not a farcical matter, but a serious one. This speech is not a ploy. I am making it because I care passionately about the well-being of the islands and particularly of those in my constituency.
      Even after seven years in the House, I was naive enough to believe that, if one argued a good non-political case—which in this instance concerns communities in my constituency that generally do not vote for me—one could win it, because virtually nothing is at stake. I was
      822
      encouraged by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who encouraged a good dialogue—but out of the blue, the whole thing was dashed in a most insulting way.
      I am not sure whether the Minister acted alone or in a conspiracy with the hon. Member for Derby, North. They dealt with the matter in a way that I am not allowed by you, Mr. Morris, to describe. The judgment will out, and this debate will have its reverberations. Hell mend those responsible.
      Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend said that Tory Members will pay for their activities this evening. They are already beginning to pay, because they could have been home a long time ago if their Whips had not scored an extraordinary own goal, trying to scupper the possibility of returning to this debate on a future occasion. They did not succeed in that either, because—
      The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Committee is debating schedule 4 stand part, not something that occurred earlier this evening.
      Mr. Macdonald: I was reflecting, Sir Michael—
      The Chairman: Order. I am not yet Sir Michael.
      Mr. Macdonald: After this evening's activities, Mr. Morris, you deserve a knighthood.
      I will not confine myself to the topic touched on earlier, because schedule 4 concerns many other relevant matters.
      I cannot refrain from mentioning what the Minister described as the principle involved in not allowing the exemption for island vehicles. The schedule itself offers a simple way of resolving the problem, which is how to identify vehicles used only on the islands and not misused by being taken to the mainland. The Minister said that this could not be done because the Treasury does not make geographical or regional exceptions in the matter of vehicle taxation.
      Part II of the schedule, paragraph 2(h), mentions
      "vehicles used for short journeys between different parts of a person's land".
      Why not rephrase that to read "vehicles used for short journeys between different parts of an island"? That would offer a good definition of the sort of vehicles for which we are seeking an exemption. It does not refer to the Scottish islands, so it does not pose the regional problem that the Minister says goes against the Treasury grain.
      Vehicles used for short journeys within islands could then be marked to ensure that they could not be taken to the mainland, thus putting an end to the abuses that the Minister is so keen to stamp out.
      The Minister has been unable to give us a single statistic to show the extent of a problem with which he is clearly obsessed. He is willing to deal this heavy blow to fragile island communities in order to get rid of the problem, yet he has told us that he has no idea of how great the problem really is. That is quite extraordinary.
      The Minister thought that the abuse was so considerable that he had to take action against island communities and ignore the work being done by the Department of Transport. We might have expected him to make an effort to ascertain the scale of the problem first: how many operators are abusing the exemption? How much money is being lost to the Treasury—thousands or tens of thousands of pounds?

      823
      The Minister has no answer to these questions, yet he is willing to detain us all here—
      Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend is being unfair to the Minister. Surely the Treasury must know how many vehicles are covered by the current exemption. By the simple process of calculating the difference between the discounted rate and the top rate, and multiplying by the number of vehicles covered by the exemption, even this Minister should be able to work out the answer. Is my hon. Friend telling us that the Minister and the Government do not even know that?
      Mr. Macdonald: The Minister told us all earlier that he had no idea of the total number of vehicles claiming the exemption, or of the total revenue lost to the Treasury thereby. He could not even hazard a guess as to what proportion constitutes abuse. If he had an idea of the total number, he could have simply given us some kind of ceiling, above which the abuse could not be said to take place. He could say that the amount being lost because of the abuse was a certain figure below that amount, because there would be a total amount involved in terms of vehicles claiming the exemption.
      I do not want to press that particular point with the Minister, but he must go back tomorrow morning and ask those who advise him in the Treasury how we came to be discussing the matter at this hour of the morning, when it could all have been settled and resolved with a little foresight and thought, a little consideration, a little bit of communication between his Department and the Department of Transport, which is currently considering the issue. Does he believe that the principle of uniform vehicle taxation throughout the United Kingdom is so important that it cannot be deviated from in this specific instance, which has the support of both sides of the Committee? Is it threatened at all as a principle by the exemptions that we propose?
      I suggest that, if the Minister asked the civil servants to exercise a little bit of ingenuity and brain power, they would soon come up with a form of words that would achieve the purpose that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee wish to achieve, but which would also not break the principle that he so cherishes.
      I would like to move away from that specific topic in case hon. Members believe that it is becoming exhausted, bearing in mind the strictures of the hon. Member for Bolsover about the two debates potentially being added together.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the Minister's cherished principle, I would like to clarify one point, because I studied very carefully the manifesto issued by the Conservative candidate in East Lothian at the last general election and I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing was in it about an undertaking to get to the root of the vicious problem of islanders freeloading on the mainlanders because of the exemption. Did the Conservative candidate in Western Isles promise in his manifesto to do away with the exemption?
      The Chairman: Order. That has very little to do with schedule 4.
      Mr. Macdonald: What my hon. Friend said is hardly surprising given that we could not believe what the
      824
      Minister was apparently telling us a few seconds before the conclusion of the debate, and given the actions of his hon. Friends the Whips in undermining the commitment that he had apparently made to hon. Members about being able to return to the matter on Report.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No undertaking has been undermined. I stand by the remarks that I made, which were that the House clearly wishes to return to the issue. It is most appropriately done later on Report. If there was any procedural difficulty about the matter being raised by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), I would use the Government Benches to ensure that the matter was raised on Report. I gave that undertaking, but I also indicated, in response to a question, that I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady or other hon. Members to discuss it, because I have never refused to meet an hon. Member about an issue of public concern.
      I am very happy to repeat those points for the benefit of the Committee. At this late hour, I do not think that it is very fruitful for me to continue to debate the issue with the hon. Gentleman, but in the light of the assurances that I have given, I hope that he will agree that it is my full intention—as it has always been—to return to the issue in due course.
      Mr. Macdonald: That is a welcome announcement, which makes it all the more extraordinary that the Whips should have forced a Division in the first place. They have saved themselves no time tonight, nor have they precluded a subsequent return to the issue. This is the most self-defeating action that I have ever witnessed on the part of a Whip.
      Mr. Skinner: I think that the Minister now appreciates the political significance of what the Government Whips have done tonight. The consequences could be very severe.
      Does my hon. Friend agree that double standards are operating here? A Tory Minister says that it is wrong to have variation in relation to taxes for the islands, yet the Government are prepared to attack the Labour party when it talks about devolution because they say that it will put up taxes for Scotland. They cannot have it both ways; this really is hypocritical.
      1 am
      Mr. Macdonald: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the Committee of that, but I should like to return to the Minister's offer. He said that the matter could—indeed, I think he said "would"—be returned to on Report following a meeting between the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and other hon. Members.
      Dr. Godman: In the light of the Minister's offer, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he believes that schedule 4, suitably amended, would meet the needs voiced by him and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute?
      Mr. Macdonald: I have not been a Member of Parliament as long as the Minister, but one thing that puzzles me is how the matter can be returned to on Report when a vote has already taken place.
      The Chairman: Order. Let me make it clear that that decision rests entirely with Madam Speaker: there is no point in debating it now.
      Mr. Macdonald: I am grateful for your clarification, Mr. Morris. It would be helpful to all hon. Members if

      825
      the Minister suggested that, if a proposal emerges as a result of meetings that he held with the hon. Lady and others, the Government might be willing to consider tabling such an amendment on Report. I must consider the impact of schedule 4 on certain operators in my consituency: it is likely to drive them out of business. If the Minister suggested that the Government might table amendments as a result of meetings with hon. Members, that would relieve my constituents and, I am sure, many of his hon. Friends who are present tonight.
      I remember a parallel case—almost—in last year's Finance Bill, involving the passenger tax. A similar principle was invoked then. It might have been more applicable then because some people were seeking regional exceptions. However, I do not see how the principle applies in this instance. It should be easy to find a simple way to define the matter in a manner that does not breach Treasury guidelines.
      The matter is hugely important to my constituents because transport communications are crucial to the livelihood of people in the Scottish islands. Communities there are fragile and average incomes are considerably below the United Kingdom average. Car ownership is proportionately high precisely because communications in remote rural areas are impossible by any normal means of public transport and car ownership is a necessity. Any measure that increases the costs of transport to my consistituents and other island inhabitants strikes at the very root of those communities and their ability to survive.
      I hope that when the Minister meets the hon. Lady and other hon. Members he will be open-minded, will look at the issues afresh, and will have requested a report from the Department of Transport. I hope that he will ask his Treasury officials to look as hard as they can for a means to achieve this exception.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad that I waited until the end of this debate, because if what the Minister said had been said a little earlier, we would not have reached such an impasse. I am critical of what the Whips did but I shall look carefully at what the Minister does. He has said that he will use the Government's power to return the issue to the Floor of the House. Time will tell, but I accept that assurance. As I have said, if it had been given sooner and more fully we would not have reached the impasse.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
      Bill (Clauses 2, 5, 8, 15, 52, 64 and 91, Schedules 1, 4, 11 and 14, and any new clauses first appearing on the Order Paper not later than 19 January and designed to continue the statutory effect of the Ways and Means Resolutions of the House of 13 December) as amended, to be reported.
      To lie upon the Table.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

  COUNTY COURTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.
  That the draft County Court Remedies (Amendment) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

  INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Milk Development Council Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

  INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft World Trade Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organisation) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  EUROPEAN DOCUMENTS

    SUGAR REGIME
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11141/94, relating to the Common Agricultural Policy sugar regime; and supports the Government's policy to press for reductions in sugar prices to bring them into line with those for other arable crops, to defend the United Kingdom beet sugar quota and to support measures which ensure the viability of cane sugar refineries and provide additional access opportunities for developing country suppliers.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    Question agreed to.

Association Football
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
1.8 am
Ms Kate Hoey: It gives me no pleasure whatever to initiate this debate. Everyone who really cares about the good name of football and about its future must be distressed about the variety of allegations, scandals and corrupt practices which have surrounded the game in recent years.
In the past few days, the newspapers have been full of one incident—the attack on a Crystal Palace supporter by the Manchester United player Cantona. Shocking as that incident was—and I congratulate the Football Association on taking immediate action—it is less significant than what has been happening off the field. At least the Cantona incident was in full view of the public via television.
I want to talk tonight about the many allegations that have yet to be proved or disproved. It is commonly agreed that a great deal of evidence exists. I have seen some of it, and the Minister should have as well. I want to raise with the Minister with responsibility for sport a demand for more action to get to the bottom of these matters.
Some people, both within and outside football, have stated that football has nothing to do with Parliament, and that politicians should not be sticking their noses into "private business". I heard that some people in football have a view, which I hope and believe the Minister does not share, that it is especially shocking that a mere woman Member of Parliament is getting involved in what is clearly an industry run by men, for men. I make no apology for that involvement.
Football is our national game. It gives pleasure to millions of men and women, and its future is much too important to be seen as the private preserve of a few. Crucially, it is an industry that receives millions of pounds, both directly and indirectly, from Government. In the past year, it received £23 million via the Football Trust from a specially reduced betting tax on the pools industry. That special reduction was granted in 1990, and was recently extended for another five years to the year 2000. A sum of £14 million comes into the Football Trust from the pools companies' special deal on the spotting the ball competition each year.
Privileged loans are approved by the Department of the Environment from local authorities. There is money to help with the young trainee footballers scheme. Money will be going to help with the staging of the European Championships in 1996. The Government have rightly given the football industry special privileges, unlike any other leisure activity. Special privileges using taxpayers' money mean special responsibilities, which the Minister must ensure are carried out.
In response to my letter before Christmas asking for an independent inquiry, the Minister shared my concerns about recent allegations of financial irregularities in professional football. I welcome that. He also said that the issue of transfer irregularities was primarily one for the governing body of the sport to pursue. He said:
"The FA Premier League has set up a Commission of Inquiry and I await the outcome with interest."
He continued:
"So far as there are any tax implications, the Inland Revenue will and are taking close interest."
828
He ended:
"My officials are in touch with the FA Premier League and will continue to monitor the situation."
Fifteen months ago, on 4 November 1994, the Premier League Commission was set up to inquire into allegations of undercover payments during "transfer deals" and into the role of agents in an attempt to restore the public's faith in the propriety of football. Members were Steve Coppell, the former Crystal Palace manager and England international, and secretary of the newly formed Managers Association, Rick Parry, chief executive of the Premier League, and Robert Reid QC. At the time, Mr. Parry said that his aim was to have a short, sharp exercise. So far, they have failed to report.
The inquiry, however, is entirely concerned with the laws and regulation of football. The Government should be considering the whole tax evasion scam that is taking place in football. The Inland Revenue involvement is limited both by scope and time—the limits is two years in time, one year to be chosen by clubs and one by the Inland Revenue, and only six players. Customs and Excise, the collector of VAT, is taking no specific steps and is conducting no specific investigation of the transfer turnover of some £70 million a year.
From the information that I have had from Customs and Excise, it was, to put it in football parlance, "shown the yellow card". In other words, it was warned off, not just from delving too deeply, but from delving at all. Why is the Inland Revenue not passing information on to the VAT commissioner, to the financial reporting review panel or to the Director General of Fair Trading?
Perhaps the Minister can tell the House why the Government are stopping a full inquiry into the evasion of taxation by some football clubs. We know that 15 premier division clubs have, under the Government's formula, already paid £16 million in back tax and penalties. That is for only a two-year period—what would be owed if the process were extended to cover all clubs for perhaps 10 years?
Will the Minister confirm that there is an under-the-counter deal being done, and that guilty clubs are being told unofficially, "Co-operate, pay up and we will not pass on any information, not to other tax bodies or, where there is criminality, to the police or, crucially, to the football authorities for their further action"?
The important thing for the House and the Minister to understand is that, not only is the taxpayer being ripped off, but the supporter is being forced to pay more as a result of the dirty deals which cause money that should be in the game to be siphoned off in back-handers, bungs and fixes. Indeed, it has been suggested that the figure could be as much as £1 a ticket.
The particular problems of player transfers and illegal payments are not confined to deals done within this country. In the past few years, increasing numbers of players have been imported to play here. They originate from Scandinavia, eastern Europe, Spain, Africa and Australia. One of these transfers—that of Jensen from the Danish club Brondby to Arsenal—is currently under investigation.
It is alleged that the Danish club took only £900,000, and that the rest of the total price of £1.57 million paid by Arsenal went to the Guernsey company Interclub, run by the Norwegian agent Rune Hauge. Therefore, some £600,00 was paid needlessly by Arsenal, and George

829
Graham has not denied that he admitted to the Inland Revenue that he received an unsolicited cheque—a gift—for £285,000, which he subsequently handed back to Arsenal. Other clubs are involved with the same agent and all of them bought Scandinavian players. Those clubs include Liverpool, Manchester United and Oldham. More than 60 foreign players were being investigated before the even bigger influx of players last summer.
In Spain, using a British agent, two players were transferred back to Aston Villa from Real Sociedad. That transfer—a £2 million deal in total—is subject to Inland Revenue and other inquiries. The manager at the time of the deal was Ron Atkinson. Two east German players transferred from German clubs and played fewer than 30 games before returning to their home country. I understand that the Inland Revenue is investigating.
It is to Australia, from where the Minister has just returned, that I wish to draw his particular attention. An internal inquiry by the football authorities, which took some time and found very little evidence, was superseded by a Parliament Senate Committee of inquiry which, using its judicial powers, is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into, among other things, the transfer of football players to England. So far, the inquiry, which is currently meeting, is concerned with two English clubs—Blackburn Rovers and Brighton and Hove Albion—which used the services of an English agent, Mr. Tom Lawrence.
Commenting on the Brighton FC transfer of David Clerkson, who has returned to Australia, the report said:
"the English FA became involved, but does not seem to have clarified anything."
As for Blackburn Rovers and the transfer of goalkeeper Frank Talia, the inquiry reports that the Talia transfer is an example of what happens when an agent acting for the transferee is involved, and that the Australian club Sunshine George Cross does not believe that it received the full moneys due to it. Blackburn paid £115,000, whereas the Australian club received only £8,500, which means that more than £100,000 has gone walkabout. It is interesting that the Australian Parliament seems to know more than the Minister about what is happening in respect of transfers of footballers to England.
As for internal transfers, the original reason for setting up the Premier League commission of inquiry was to investigate an allegation of wrongdoing and bribes involving the transfer of Teddy Sheringham from Nottingham Forest to Tottenham. That involves the England team manager Terry Venables and the former Nottingham Forest manager Brian Clough. Does the Minister know whether any evidence of financial fraud has been passed on to the police authorities in this case—or, indeed, any other? Is it not only fair to everyone, especially Brian Clough, for someone, somewhere to say whether he is guilty or not guilty?
The Commission has already in front of it much information, including an invoice regarding the transfer of Paul Gascoigne to Lazio for £200,000, and an invoice from First Wave Management for £58,000. Those should be dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry under the Companies Acts 1985 and 1989.
The problem of money and its misuse is far too big, far too difficult and far too close to home for the football authorities to cope with by themselves. Can we expect club chairman to find themselves guilty? Can we expect club managers to judge themselves objectively, especially in a culture which has turned a blind eye to wrongdoing?
830
It must be remembered that all the allegations and investigations now being discussed come from outside the game, or from newcomers to the game. Particular credit must be paid to the consistent investigative reporting of Harry Harris of the Daily Mirror, to Patrick Barclay of the Observer, and to The Mail on Sunday, among others.
The evidence in front of the Commission relating to Terry Venables is, I believe, damning. Leaving aside his business dealings, the evidence present in the order 14 application in the case when the agent Eric Hall sued Tottenham for £23,500 for
"public relations and commercial activities on the Club's behalf",
raises grave questions at the least about Mr. Venables's judgment. Indeed, it is possible that he could have contravened the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. There is certainly clear evidence of the breach of Football Association regulations, in that Venables knew that Eric Hall was acting for him, while at the same time acting for the players.
In simpler terms, the Prevention of Corruption Act means that a football agent cannot take money from a club which at the time is in negotiation with that agent's clients. Eric Hall was an agent for three Tottenham players: Justin Edinburgh, Paul Moran and John Hendry. Tottenham's lawyers discovered that Hall took money from those players while acting as their agent for new contract negotiations. Unbeknown to those players, he also took money from Tottenham for the same reason.
Section 1(1) of the Act contains similar provisions regarding persons who agree to give any such gift or agree to pay a fee. Terry Venables swore an affidavit to help Eric Hall in his fight against Tottenham. In that affidavit, he fully admits that he asked Hall to convince the players to sign contracts. Venables knew that Hall was the agent for those players, because players always have to notify their club in writing of their agent. To me, the evidence speaks for itself; no wonder the Minister awaits the commission's report with interest.
The Premier League commission of inquiry has already been overtaken by evidence and new allegations. The commission has narrow terms of reference. It is not looking into things such as the free use of credit cards valued at £2,000 a month, subsidising the purchase of houses with unreported capital sums, and cash payments to parents when signing on school-age footballers.
The reality is that most sensible suggestions to monitor financial dealings of clubs have been rejected by the Premier League chairmen. The Professional Footballers Association suggested a compliance unit. Why does the Football Association not insist on that? Indeed, Graham Kelly of the Football Association has said that that is a difficult area.
We cannot wait for them to sort themselves out. The situation is too important. But let us not forget that there are many decent, dedicated men and women involved in the football industry. They also want to clean up professional football. As a long-time Arsenal supporter, I know the pain it has caused, not only to me but to other supporters, when we hear of wrongdoing in our favourite clubs.
The Minister for Sport will not need reminding that this is the game we gave the world. Hosting the European championships in 1996 is a special honour. With it goes the responsibility of the Government, the FA and all those in football to ensure that the financial aspects of the game are seen to be perfectly honest.

831
There is a real danger that what is being discovered is so widespread that any admission of guilt or breach of the rules would bring the whole edifice of the football establishment down. No one wants to be the first person to pull his finger out of the dyke.
It is important that the football authorities do not pick on one person as the official scapegoat. The only way to counter that is for the Government to set up an inquiry along the lines of the Taylor report or other reports into football, independent of the cosy relationships in football and with the power to subpoena evidence, to examine accounts and to make a full and impartial report. That is what the country wants and that is what is needed if we are going to get back that confidence in football—the national game.
1.25 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I must begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) on securing this debate, and on her persistence in pursuing allegations of improper payments and behaviour in the sport.
I welcome this debate entitled "Government Policy on Association Football", and the opportunity it affords to discuss a number of important questions which have been raised as a result of recent speculation about the conduct of certain clubs and individuals. Those are issues which worry a lot of football supporters, and the hon. Lady has set out her concerns very thoroughly.
Although football is, of course, privately run and administered by independent governing bodies, there is a legitimate public interest involved, and for that reason, both my Department and the Inland Revenue have been monitoring those issues very carefully, and I will respond to the hon. Lady's specific points about financial irregularities in a moment.
Given the title of the debate, let me begin by explaining that the Government's role in football, as in other sports generally, is to encourage the development of, and participation in, the game through appropriate policies and expenditure programmes.
The Government do not, and indeed should not, attempt to run football itself. That is the responsibility of the properly constituted governing bodies, such as the Football Association, the FA Premier League and the Football League, and my Department does not have any jurisdiction over their day-to-day affairs. That is not to say, however, that the Government do not take firm action when that is appropriate.
The title of the hon. Lady's debate is "Government Policy on Association Football", so, although I will come to the issue of financial irregularities in a moment, I must start by looking at our policy in the round. Following the terrible tragedies at Bradford and Hillsborough, the Government passed the Football Spectators Act 1989 and stipulated that all clubs in the Premier League, and the First Division of the Football League, must convert to all-seated accommodation.
In addition, the Government established the Football Licensing Authority and funded the Football Trust through a 2.5 per cent. reduction in pool betting duty. Government funding of the Football Trust, which began in 1990, was
832
originally due to end this year, but, as hon. Members will know, it was decided in August 1993 to extend the arrangement for a further five years.
As a result of those actions, football grounds have been transformed. From old, dangerous and uncomfortable grounds, often with inadequate facilities, and uncovered terraces, we have moved to a position where our stadiums are among the finest in the world.
Also, £387 million has been spent so far on major ground redevelopment projects, of which £121 million has been contributed by the Football Trust, which assesses all grant applications to take into account the club's own resources. Together with smaller ground improvement schemes, that represents a major investment in the future of football, and it was a significant factor in UEFA's decision to award the finals of the 1996 European championships to England.
Responsibility for organising the championships rests with the FA, but my Department has been fully involved and has provided advice and assistance as necessary. As I have said on a previous occasion, the decision to award the finals to England was a vindication of all the work that the clubs have put into upgrading their stadiums to provide the facilities and comfort which spectators are entitled to expect as we enter the 21st century. It was also a vindication of the Government's policies on football.
Financial assistance from pool betting duty has not been limited to clubs in the top divisions. Clubs in the second and third divisions have received more than £14 million, and that does not include the funding provided to those clubs, and those in the GM Vauxhall Conference, from the Football Trust's income from the 'spot the ball' competition.
Now that the all-seating policy has largely been implemented, we can look forward to increasing the resources available to clubs in the lower divisions to achieve improvements in the safety of terracing and the quality of facilities. As can clearly be seen, the Government are concerned to help the modernisation and development of all football clubs, not just those at the top. That support extends right down to the grass-roots level, with the sportsmatch scheme, which is funded by my Department, providing grants worth more than £900,000 to football, and stimulating an equivalent level of support from private sponsorship. Without a healthy and thriving base, no sport can flourish, and I am very keen to support and encourage that base.
The Football Licensing Authority, on behalf of the Department of National Heritage, is responsible for licensing grounds at which designated football matches are played, and for ensuring that safety certification under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 is properly implemented, to avoid any repetition of the tragedies that we have seen in the past. Looking ahead, the Sports Council is responsible for distributing sport's share of the money which the national lottery will contribute to good causes, and I have no doubt that football will be one of the beneficiaries.
My colleagues in other Departments are responsible for other aspects of football. The Home Office, for instance, has a very important role in ensuring public order, and I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the police have been very successful in reducing the level of violence associated with football games, and will join me in welcoming that improvement.

833
The reduction in violence can be seen from the fact that, over the past five seasons, arrests at league games have fallen by 30 per cent. I have no doubt that that has played an important role in the rise in attendances, and particularly the increasing number of families who now go to football games.
Having set the framework within which football can operate safely and successfully, it is right that private clubs and governing bodies should be allowed to operate freely without Government interference—as long, of course, as they are seen to be acting in a responsible manner.
Complaints that increases in admission prices are driving spectators away and that clubs are exploiting their supporters by over-frequent changes of their strips are not new, but they should also be seen in the proper context. For example, attendances at football matches have risen every year since the 1986–87 season. Again for example, supporters are not obliged to buy replica kits and all the other souvenirs on offer at clubs these days.
It is also an interesting fact that 70 per cent. of replica kits are sold in large or extra-large adult sizes, which shows that, at least in the majority of cases, it is not children who are being targeted. Besides, a club's commercial activities help to keep admission prices down. It must also be remembered that football is not only a sport but a business, and that, if clubs are to be successful on the field, they must also be successful financially.
As well as paying for the essential ground improvements which I mentioned earlier, clubs must be able to buy quality players, which will enhance their teams' performance and attract more supporters. There have been complaints that transfer fees and players' wages are too high, but, although multi-million-pound transfer fees may seem like lottery money, clubs in this country must compete not only with each other but with those in other countries.
If we want British clubs to be successful in Europe, they must compete for the very best players with the likes of AC Milan and Barcelona. It is also worth remembering that footballers have very short playing careers, and that the majority of the money paid in transfer fees stays within the game.
Complaints about the role of television should also be seen in context. I know that a number of hon. Members are concerned about premier league matches being shown live exclusively on satellite television, but it is for footballing bodies to decide how to market their sport and where best to strike a balance between income and television viewing figures. BSkyB and the BBC are paying the FA over £200 million over five years, which is almost four times as much as television was previously paying, and that is without taking into account the ITV contract with the Football League. It is again worth remembering that these moneys all help keep down the cost of football to the supporters who go and watch their teams on Saturday afternoons.
The hon. Lady listed a number of concerns involving financial irregularities. I would urge her to send all the evidence she has to the appropriate authorities. As she is
834
aware, the Inland Revenue is responsible for these matters, and for some years now it has had a special team which has looked at payments in football.
These are very wide-ranging inquiries covering football clubs, players, management and agents, and involving teams at all levels of the game. The hon. Lady and other hon. Members can be assured that, if there are cases which merit prosecution, this will be done, as it was in the case of Swindon Town in 1992, when the chairman, secretary and treasurer were all successfully prosecuted.
Ms Hoey: Why is the Inland Revenue saying—at senior levels—that it has been told that what the Minister says should not happen?
Mr. Sproat: I do not know if that is true. I can assure the hon. Lady that I will speak to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury. I shall find out the answer, and send it to her.
Football is not helped, however, by exaggerating the problem—I am not saying that the hon. Lady is, but it has been known—and it is very important to note that Premier League clubs have agreed voluntarily to commission independent accountants to prepare reports for the Inland Revenue, which has agreed the scope and content of these reports with the Premier League. The aggregate cost of this exercise will be half a million pounds. I am happy to see that the clubs have decided to put their own house in order, and the Inland Revenue is very pleased with the co-operation it has received from the Premier League.
The FA Premier League is conducting its own inquiries into allegations of financial irregularities, and have set up a commission of inquiry whose membership includes an independent QC, who is also a recorder and deputy High Court judge. I am sure that the inquiry is conducting a thorough and rigorous investigation.
The inquiry had already been set up before the latest allegations of transfer irregularities were made, and it was quite rightly decided that it should look into those allegations too, rather than having a separate FA inquiry. The inquiry's terms of reference give wide-ranging powers, and I am confident those powers will be fully used.
The FA Premier League has made it clear that there will be no cover-up, and that it wants to produce long-term solutions, which will prevent a recurrence of these problems. The priority is to complete the inquiry properly rather than quickly, but I understand that the findings in the Arsenal case will be available very soon. I certainly agree that it would help public confidence if the findings of the inquiry were made public, and I urge the Premier League to ensure that this is done.
The serious allegations concerning Bruce Grobbelaar are being investigated by the FA and the police.
I see no need for a public inquiry. The Inland Revenue is looking into the financial aspects. I am satisfied that the—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Two o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Advertisements
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what factors lead to the description of advertisements in public places, newspapers or periodicals as being placed on behalf of a Minister of the Crown rather than on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Within the framework of collective responsibility, there is no practical distinction between publicity described as being issued by a single Minister or Her Majesty's Government. The terminology used may properly reflect the content and context of the advertising.

TREASURY

  Oil Fuel Excise Duty
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what types of oil fuel are subject to a reduced or rebated rate of excise duty; what are the rates on rebated fuel; what are the unrebated rates; and what are the most common uses for the rebated fuels.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are two classes of oil: light oil and heavy oil.

  The full, unrebated, rate of duty on light oil is 36.14p per litre. This is levied on leaded motor spirit.

  These are two types of rebated light oil: unleaded motor spirit which is rebated to a rate of 31.32p per litre is used in cars, taxis, light goods vans, and motor cycles; and furnace fuel which is rebated to a rate of 1.66p per litre is burned by approved furnace operators.

  The full, unrebated, rate of duty on heavy oil is 31.32p per litre. This is levied on diesel road fuel and kerosene when used as a road fuel.

  There are four types of rebated heavy oil:
  Kerosene which is fully rebated is used for heating and lighting in the domestic, industrial, and agricultural sectors, and as aviation turbine fuel to power jet aircraft;
  Gas oil which is rebated to a rate of 2.14p per litre is used as a heating fuel, as power for heavy industrial and marine diesel engines, and can be used instead of diesel road fuel in certain off road situations, for example, in agricultural or construction plant;
  Fuel oil which is rebated to a rate of 1.66p per litre is used mainly as a power source in electricity generation and in manufacturing industries;
  Other heavy oil which, by chemical analysis, falls outside the preceding categories is fully rebated and is used in grease making, road building, and as lubricating oil.

  Wessex Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen to the Financial Secretary regarding the Wessex regional health authority dated 9 December 1994.

  Sir George Young
  This letter has been passed to the Minister for Health for answer. I understand that my hon. Friend intends to issue a reply to the hon. Member shortly.

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies during the last 12 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisations engaged, the total cost of each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by the Department or agency.

  Mr. Nelson
  For the calendar year 1994 the information requested is:

  Course description

  For HM Treasury:

  Title:

  Finance programme for generalists

  Objective:

  To enable and prepare non-specialists—in finance—to work more effectively in the specialist finance areas of Treasury

  Organisation:

  Management Development Associates Ltd.

  Responsibility of participants:

  Senior managers

  Evaluation:

  Evaluation forms from course participants from which written reports produced

  Title:

  Management training programme—four separate courses

  Objective:

  For good management skills to be perceived as integral for performance effectiveness

  Organisation:

  Sundridge Park

  Responsibility of participants:

  Senior managers

  Evaluation:

  Evaluation forms from course participants from which written reports produced

  Title:

  Economics for generalists

  Objectives:

  To enable officials with general responsibilities to work more effectively with specialist economists

  Organisation:

  London business school

  Responsibility of participants:

  Senior managers

  Evaluation:

  Evaluation forms from course participants from which written reports produced

  Title:

  Equal opportunities seminars

  Objective:

  To increase the understanding of equal opportunities with Treasury

  459

  Course description

  Organisation:

  Pearn Kandola

  Responsibility of participants:

  All staff

  Evaluation:

  Evaluation forms from course participants and post-course evaluation workshops

  For the Royal Mint:

  Title:

  Commercial systems analysis

  Objective:

  To increase the understanding of new computer systems and bow they can be applied

  Organisation:

  W S Atkins Management Consultants

  Responsibility of participants:

  First-line supervisors

  Evaluation:

  Evaluation forms from course participants and feedback to departmental manager

  Title:

  Operators training course

  Objective:

  To become fully conversant with new equipment supplied and familiarise operators with the operator input to System 21

  Organisation:

  Davy International Ltd.

  Responsibility of participants:

  Shop floor operators and shift managers

  Evaluation:

  Evaluation forms from course participants and shop floor feedback

  Title:

  System 21 integrated training

  Objective:

  Familiarisation operation and maintain the ability of the system

  Organisation:

  Davy International Ltd.

  Responsibility of participants:

  Plant electricians/technicians

  Evaluation:

  Evaluation forms from course participants and feedback to departmental managers

  Title:

  1st year off-the-job Apprentice training

  Objective:

  To gain initial skills/qualifications as part of the engineering apprenticeship

  Organisation:

  Pontypridd technical college

  Responsibility of participants:

  1st year engineering apprentices

  Evaluation:

  Achievement of NVQS and evaluation by EnTRA assessor

  Title:

  Total quality facilitator training

  Objective:

  To provide training for newly appointed facilitators as part of a total quality programme

  Organisation:

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Responsibility of participants:

  Cross-section from first line

  Evaluation:

  Evaluation forms from course participants and feedback to quality manager

  For the Central Statistical Office:

  Title:

  Leadership and management programme

  Objective:

  To improve the leadership and management skills of CSO staff

  Organisation:

  Centre for Action learning

  Responsibility of participants:

  All staff

  Evaluation:

  Questionnaire

  460

  Course description

  Title:

  Aspects of hardware communication

  Objective:

  To train staff in aspects of information systems

  Organisation:

  Networks

  Responsibility of participants:

  Information systems staff

  Evaluation:

  Questionnaire

  For Paymaster:

  Title:

  Customer care/Telephone skills/Letter writing

  Objective:

  To give the pensions staff the necessary skills to deal with both pensioners and customers in various media

  Organisation:

  West Sussex Training Association

  Responsibility of participants:

  All staff up to higher executive officer grade in pensions sections

  Evaluation:

  Questionnaire

  For the Valuation office:

  None

  Providing the actual costs paid in each case could be unfairly advantageous to possible future competitors. However, the total cost of the above training is £113,718 for the Treasury and £239,734 for the agencies.

  Profit-related Pay Schemes
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the annual cost to the Exchequer of the tax reliefs afforded to profit-related pay schemes; and what margins of error should be attributed to such estimates.

  Sir George Young
  An estimate of the cost of income tax relief for profit-related pay schemes is published in table 1.6 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1994", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Bonus Payments
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual cost to the Exchequer of(a) bonus payments to employees paid gross of tax, in terms of the interest opportunity cost to the Exchequer and (b) bonus payments paid by employers in such a way as to temporarily or permanently avoid paying employers' national insurance contributions on such payments.

  Sir George Young
  In the Finance Act 1994 and subsequent regulations, the Government introduced measures to counter the avoidance of pay as you earn and national insurance contributions. These measures are expected to end the deferral of about £300 million in PAYE tax and the avoidance of about £75 million of NICs.

  These costs relate to all forms of remuneration paid to employees by their employers. Employers are not required to identify bonus payments separately from other payments, and figures on bonus payments could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Since these measures were introduced, the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced further measures to combat other NIC avoidance devices.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the absenteeism rate for(a) his Department, (b) the Central Statistical Office, (c) the office of the Paymaster and (d) the Royal Mint in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Nelson
  The table gives the average number of days sickness absence per member of staff:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  HMT

  7.5

  6.9

  7.1

  9.2

  CSO

  9.8

  9.2

  8.9

  19.9

  Paymaster

  10.6

  10.6

  10.4

  13.7

  Royal Mint2

  5.9

  5.3

  5.7

  8.4

  1 Provisional figure

  2 Non-industrial staff only

  Mortgages
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to assist self-employed workers who are part of the new flexible work force to overcome difficulties they experience in obtaining a mortgage when purchasing a home; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The lending policies of mortgage providers are matters for their own commercial judgment, though it is clear that lenders remain keen to do business with those who can sustain the costs of home ownership in the longer term. Lenders have a responsibility to ensure that mortgages are adequately secured, and that borrowers are in a position to meet the repayments.

  VAT (Private Health Care)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would be raised if VAT was charged at 17.5 per cent. on private health care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Treasury publication "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" suggests that the exemption from the standard rate of VAT of health services—a category which includes private health care—costs £300 million in a full year. These figures make no allowance for behavioural responses.

  Building Society Takeovers
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for reviewing the Building Societies Act 1986 so that all long-term investors are treated equitably when a building society is subject to a takeover bid.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been engaged in a comprehensive review of the Building Societies Act 1986. I intend to announce the outcome shortly.

  Credit Cards
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he estimates would be raised by placing a £10 tax on the possession of each credit card.
  462
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: A £10 tax on the 25 million existing credit cards would yield £250 million on the assumption of no behavioural change.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates his Department has made as to the effects on credit card usage of the imposition of a £10 tax on credit cards.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: No such estimates are available.

  Ms Primarolo: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if his Department has considered charge cards and credit cards to be similar for tax purposes;

  (2) what differences between credit cards and charge cards have implications for the imposition of a tax on each.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: There is no taxation of either charge cards or credit cards.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue a consultation paper on the taxing of credit cards in the coming year.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which organisations he has consulted in respect of taxes on credit cards.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: None.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 25 January 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 25 January 1995, Official Report, column 116, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent during 1994 on recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies; and how many staff were recruited.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]: The table shows the number of permanent or fixed-term appointments to HM Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's executive agencies during 1994, together with the cost of recruitment arrangements.
  463

  Number of staff

  Cost including VAT £

  HM Treasury

  27

  216,750

  Central Statistical Office

  72

  202,388

  Paymaster

  3

  1,148

  Royal Mint

  20

  17,214

  Valuation Office

  61

  nil

  Total

  183

  437,500

ENVIRONMENT

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out for each of the next steps agencies in his Department, 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 his 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 corporate clothing and at what cost; and what is the cost of specially designed and printed corporate stationery.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There are five next steps agencies within the Department of the Environment:

  The Building Research Establishment

  The Buying Agency

  The Planning Inspectorate

  The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  The Securities Facilities Executive

  Responsibility for the subject matter of the question has been delegated to the chief executive of each agency. I have asked each of them to reply to the right hon. Member in respect of their own agency.

  The Secretary of State for the Environment is also responsible for Ordnance Survey, a separate Department and next steps agency. I have also asked its chief executive to reply to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from R. G. Courtney to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 30 January 1995:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for the Environment to reply to this PQ in respect of the Building Research Establishment.
  The relevant information is:
  BRE's headquarters are unchanged since becoming an Executive Agency.
  Devolution of personnel, finance and estates responsibilities from DOE and PSA has led to the creation of four additional posts at Grade 7 and above; overall, however, support staff numbers have fallen by 30.
  The BRE Annual Review has not changed in style. The cost of preparing the 1994 Review was £49k (including staff costs).
  BRE's use of cars is unchanged; the annual cost of its two cars in 1993/4 was £14.6k.
  The BRE logo has not changed.
  BRE does no provide corporate clothing.
  BRE's stationery was redesigned in 1994 at a cost of £3.36k because the previous stationery referred to a site that was closed.

  464
  Letter from S. P. Sage to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to reply to your Question about various items of expenditure incurred by The Buying Agency (TBA), one of DOE's executive agencies. The details are as follows:
  TBA remains in the same premises it occupied prior to agency status in 1991.
  TBA staff numbers have varied only slightly since becoming an agency. In 1991 they averaged 105; in 1995 they will average 110.
  We publish newsletters to TBA's 10,000 customers and suppliers three times a year. In 1994 the cost was £20,000. The newsletters provide an update on goods and services available through TBA.
  We operate 13 lease cars for our network of national and regional account managers. In 1994 the cost was £75,000.
  Following its launch as an agency TBA modified the logo used by its parent, The Crown Suppliers. There was no development cost.
  Each member of staff has a TBA tie (men) or scarf (ladies). The cost for design and printing these was about £1,000.
  On becoming an agency TBA modified its stationery in line with its logo. Again there was no development cost.

  Letter from C. Shepley to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 30 January 1995:

  1. The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to this Parliamentary Question insofar as it relates to the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency.

  2. In the Planning Inspectorate we have incurred no expenditure on most of the items you refer to. Specifically, we have not acquried our own buildings; we do not publish a journal; we do not have executive cars; and we do not have a specially designed logo, corporate clothing or corporate stationery as a result of changing to Agency status.

  3. The question of support staff is more difficult to answer with precision because a number of functions have been transferred to us by the Department and some of the requirements relating to those functions have since changed. Wherever possible we have carried out these functions with fewer staff than had previously been deployed by the Department for the same tasks. For example our typing unit consists of 8 staff in Bristol and replaced previous arrangements which utilised significantly more staff located away from our Headquarters building. In total we have taken on 31 staff for such tasks—mainly in the typing, personnel and finance areas. This has provided us with more immediate higher quality support services, with increased accountability for the actions they take. Over the period from the launch of the Agency in April 1992 staff numbers in comparable terms have fallen from 649 to 585 despite the arrival of the additional staff.

  Letter from Marcus C. Buck to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 24 January 1995:
  I have been asked to reply on behalf of The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre (QEIICC) to the range of questions you have asked of Next Steps Agencies in Question 866.

  (I) The QEIICC Executive Agency occupies the conference centre building at the discretion of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Since 1993–94 it has paid an annual rent of £6.4 million.

  (II) Being a purpose-built conference centre, the QEIICC's operations did not exist prior to the completion of the building in 1986. No staff figures exist within the QEIICC prior to its launch as an Executive Agency in 1989. However the number has reduced from 68 in July 1990 to 64 in January 1995.

  465

  (III) The QEIICC is required to produce an Annual Report and Accounts each year. The most recent—that for 1993–94—cost £11,000.

  (IV) The QEIICC has no executive cars.

  (V) The QEIICC's logo was designed in-house at no cost.

  (VI) Approximately half of the QEIICC's staff (those working on events) wear uniforms. The 1994–95 annual budget for uniforms is £6,000.

  (VII) The QEIICC's 1994–95 annual budget for corporate stationery is £22,000. This covers letter-headed and continuation paper, envelopes delegate writing pads and pencils, business cards, job application forms, performance assessment forms, three-part invoices, cheques and remittance advice.

  Letter from John King to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 25 January 1995:
  You have asked the Secretary of State for Environment for information about the Next Steps Agencies in his Department. My reply deals exclusively with the Security Facilities Executive (SAFE). The information which you have asked for is given below:
  SAFE does not have its own headquarters building. It shares its HQ accommodation with other Government Departments.
  A similar number of support staff are employed in the Agency compared with when it was part of DOE.
  No periodical journals are published by the Agency.
  The Agency does not have any executive cars for senior staff.
  Our new logo was designed to coincide with the launch of the Agency, and is used on brochures, presentation packs tender documents and corporate stationery. The cost of the new logo cannot be separately identified.
  The Agency does not have corporate clothing. However, drivers from the Government Car Service, the InterDespatch Service and Custody guards have always had their own uniforms. The only change has been that the drivers now wear ties incorporating the Agency logo.
  The cost of designing new stationery for the Agency was £13,855 plus VAT. This included all general and financial stationery used in dealing with our customers. The cost of the initial print run was £8,054 plus VAT.

  Letter from David Rhind to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked to reply to your question about the additional costs attributable to the establishment of Ordnance Survey as an Executive Agency.
  Ordnance Survey has always been and remains a department in its own right and the move to operation on Next Steps Agency lines did not of itself incur new or additional costs. The answers to the specific parts of your question are as follows:
  Ordnance Survey occupies the same headquarters building that it occupied prior to becoming an Executive Agency;
  no additional support staff were required;
  Ordnance Survey continues to publish an Annual Report (with Trading Accounts) and a Corporate Plan;
  no fleets of executive cars or single executive cars have been purchased;
  the Ordnance Survey logo has not changed since becoming an Executive Agency;
  Ordnance Survey does not use corporate clothing;
  stationery costs have not varied as a result of the change to Executive Agency status.
  I hope the foregoing provides all the information you need.

  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet the creditors of the Merseyside development corporation; if he will provide for their claims for compensation from public funds; and if he will make a statement.
  466
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Any matters which might arise between the MDC and any creditors it may have would be for the parties concerned.

  Housing, West Midlands
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations underlay the proposal in the draft Government regional planning guidance for the west midlands that the 20-year housing needs assessment should be reviewed in June; what account this took of(a) population projections and (b) shortage of land; and if he will make it his policy to introduce a quinquennial review of land needs.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The draft regional planning guidance for the west midlands proposes that the Forum of Local Authorities should review the housing figures by June, in order to take into account new household projections, which are to be published shortly. The housing figures in the draft guidance were based on the figures submitted by the Forum of Local Authorities, which took account of household projections and the current land availability. Regional planning guidance is expected to be revised on average every five years, providing an opportunity for the review of land needs.

  Fuels
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects on the environment of the use of(a) petrol, (b) diesel and (c) oxygenated petrol.

  Mr. Atkins
  Petrol and diesel have known environmental benefits and disbenefits for both global and local environments, but the environmental case for oxygenated petrol is not yet clear. Government will continue to keep these under review, and participate fully in the setting of standards for vehicle emissions and fuel formulation at a European level, in particular in the light of the forthcoming report from the European tripartite initiative on future engine and fuel technologies.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the Departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document "Focus on Ability".

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following information covers non-industrial staff in my Department, excluding Property Services Agency Services:

  Registered disabled staff

  Non-registered disabled staff

  Combined percentage of total

  70

  68

  2.0

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies during the last 12 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisations engaged, the total cost of

  467
  each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by his Department or agency.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Construction Contracts
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to implement the recommendations of the Latham report with particular reference to a construction contract Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to report and legislate on the recommendations of the Latham report.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will chair a meeting of the standing strategic group for the construction industry on 7 February, at which the recommendations of the review implementation forum for taking forward the proposals in the Latham report will be discussed. We have made it clear that we are prepared in principle to legislate on these proposals subject to agreement on the need for and form of such legislation.

  Opencast Coal Sites
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many suggested opencast coal sites are registered in the national land bank;

  (2) if he will publish the names arid the locations of opencast coal sites registered in the national land bank.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This Department does not hold a register of opencast coal or proposed opencast coal sites.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the opencast coal sites working as at 3 January giving details of locations.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally.

  Business Rates
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance he can offer to any business which is facing economic difficulties because of high increases in business rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The 1995 revaluation of all non-domestic property takes effect on 1 April. Transitional relief will ensure that rate bills will not rise because of the revaluation by more than 10 per cent. a year after allowing for inflation. Maximum increases for properties with a rateable value less than £10,000£15,000 in Greater London—will be 7.5 per cent. after allowing for inflation. The Government have pledged some £500 million towards the cost of the relief for England in 1995–96.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the impact the increased valuation of non-domestic properties will have on business in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We estimate that without transitional relief, the average increase in rates bills in 1995–96 as a result of the 1995 revaluation for North 468
  Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire taken together would have been 36 per cent. Transitional arrangements will limit these increases to 7.5 per cent., after allowing for inflation, for property with a rateable value below £10,000. Property with a rateable value above these thresholds will have increases limited to 10 per cent. after allowing for inflation. The average increase in rate bills in Yorkshire after transitional relief is 9 per cent. This relief is worth £185 million.

  Business Rates
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average increase in valuations being received by businesses in the Normanton constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Information for the Normanton parliamentary constituency is not available. However, the average increase in rates bills for 1995–96, after transitional relief, in the Wakefield metropolitan district is 10 per cent. Without transitional relief the average increase would have been 32 per cent. The relief is worth £11 million to ratepayers in Wakefield.

  Agenda 21
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring he is undertaking of the progress by local authorities in the implementation of Agenda 21; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local authorities' implementation of Agenda 21—the report from the UN Conference on Environment and Development—is carried out individually and through their national "local Agenda 21 initiative". Monitoring this is a matter for local government. I have regular discussions about progress, however, with local government representatives in the central and local government environment forum.

  Leasehold
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 111, if he will make it his policy to introduce modifications to part 2 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, to remedy shortcomings identified in the interim report of the leasehold enfranchisement advisory service.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I consider it far too soon since the enactment of the 1993 Act to be considering major revisions to the enfranchisement rights which it contained. With the help of the leasehold enfranchisement advisory service, we will, of course, continue to keep these provisions under review.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the outcome of consultation on the local government finance settlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am today laying before the House the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1995–96, the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1995–96 and the Special Grant Report (No. 12). These reports establish the
  469
  amounts of revenue support grant and non-domestic rates to be paid to local authorities in 1995–96, and the basis of their distribution; specify the amounts which are to be used as the basis of comparison for measuring increases in certain local authorities' budgets in 1995–96 for the purpose of capping, and provide for a special grant to be paid to certain authorities for 1995–96. Two hundred authorities made written representations and Ministers met 90 delegations from local councils.

  I shall be sending copies of these reports to all authorities as soon as possible, together with a table showing each authority's standard spending assessment and its entitlement to RSG, NDR and special grant. I have also placed copies of the reports and the table in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what reserves are currently held by each county council;

  (2) what reserves were held by each county council at the latest date for which figures are available.

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

  Estimated Level of Reserves1 at 1 April 19942

  Outturn £000

  Avon

  27,608

  Bedfordshire

  22,788

  Berkshire

  83,457

  Buckinghamshire

  47,590

  Cambridgeshire

  56,532

  Cheshire

  48,563

  Cleveland

  22,713

  Cornwall

  31,725

  Cumbria

  11,336

  Derbyshire

  311,600

  Devon

  51,858

  Dorset

  10,201

  Durham

  20,359

  East Sussex

  35,010

  Essex

  74,504

  Gloucestershire

  19,293

  Hampshire

  92,717

  Hereford and Worcester

  24,376

  Hertfordshire

  56,403

  Humberside

  32,436

  Isle of Wight

  3,774

  Kent

  47,747

  Lancashire

  72,114

  Leicestershire

  16,845

  Lincolnshire

  46,650

  Norfolk

  33,850

  Northamptonshire

  12,820

  Northumberland

  18,239

  North Yorkshire

  36,604

  Nottinghamshire

  13,203

  Oxfordshire

  25,557

  Shropshire

  7,232

  Somerset

  36,476

  Staffordshire

  48,424

  Suffolk

  28,102

  Surrey

  74,955

  Warwickshire

  15,591

  West Sussex

  16,818

  Wiltshire

  23,957

  Notes:

  1 These reserves include those held for local management of schools and other purposes which may not be available to the council for general use.

  470

  2 Source: Level of reserves—outturn—at 1 April 1993 +/-appropriations to/withdrawals from reserves 1993–94—(RS return for 1993–94.

  3 Level of reserves—revised estimate—at 1 April 1994—RA returns for 1994–95.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total proposed expenditure in each local authority area by(a) urban development corporations, (b) English Partnerships and (c) inner-city tasks forces for 1995–96.

  Mr. Curry
  Planned gross expenditure in 1995–96 by each urban development corporation is set out in table A. Where the urban development area crosses local authority boundaries, each local authority is listed.

  Planned expenditure by English Partnerships in 199596 is expected to be £263.2 million including the use of receipts.

  The national allocation for task forces in 1995–96 is £13.0 million and the local authority areas where task force expenditure is expected are set out in table B. Budgets for individual task forces have not yet been decided, but those task forces which remain open for the whole financial year will each receive a budget of about £1 million. For task forces which have closed, expenditure will be limited to commitments made before closure.

  TABLE A: Planned gross expenditure by UDCs in 1995–96

  UDC

  Gross expenditure £000

  Local authority

  Birmingham Heartlands

  13,438

  Birmingham City Council

  Black Country

  37,270

  Sandwell BC Walsall BC Wolverhampton BC

  Bristol

  13,322

  Bristol City Council

  Central Manchester

  12,558

  Manchester City Council

  Leeds

  200

  Leeds City Council

  London Docklands1

  89,900

  LB Newham LB Southwark LB Tower Hamlets

  Merseyside

  34,000

  Liverpool City Council Sefton BC Wirral BC

  Plymouth

  11,750

  Plymouth City Council

  Sheffield

  17,156

  Sheffield City Council

  Teeside

  52,650

  Hartlepool BC Langbaurgh BC Stockton on Tees BC Middlesborough BC

  Trafford Park

  29,400

  Trafford BC Salford City Council

  Tyne and Wear

  53,731

  Newcastle City Council North Tyneside BC South Tyneside BC Sunderland BC

  Note:

  1 Excludes DLR proposed gross expenditure of £38.7 million.

  TABLE B: Local authority areas with task force expenditure in 1995–96

  Local authority area

  Task force

  Bradford

  Bradford

  Kingston upon Hull

  Hull

  London Borough of Lewisham

  1Deptford

  London Borough of Hackney

  Hackney

  London Borough of Southwark

  2North Peckham

  London Borough of Haringey

  Tottenham

  471

  TABLE B: Local authority areas with task force expenditure in 1995–96

  Local authority area

  Task force

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  2West London

  South Tyneside

  South Tyneside

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton and Thornaby

  Derby

  Derby

  Nottingham

  1Nottingham

  Birmingham

  Newtown/Ladywood

  Birmingham

  2East Birmingham

  Manchester

  1Moss Side and Hulme

  Wirral Metropolitan Borough

  Wirral

  Liverpool

  Granby/Toxteth

  Plymouth

  Plymouth

  Bristol

  2Bristol

  1Closing at the end of 1994–1995.

  2Closed.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the allocation made to each local authority in 1993–94 from(a) the urban partnership (b) estate action and (c) the derelict and grant programmes.

  Mr. Curry
  Expenditure by local authority area in 1993–94 on the urban partnership fund, estate action and derelict land grant is set out in the table.

  Expenditure in 1993–94 on the Urban Partnership Fund (UPF), Estate Action and Derelict Land Grant (DLG).

  £000s

  Local authority

  UPF

  Estate action

  DLG

  Allerdale

  —

  900

  898

  Alnwick

  —

  866

  —

  Amber Valley

  —

  —

  47

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  —

  254

  Barnet

  —

  1,202

  —

  Barnsley

  —

  4,599

  1,576

  Barrow in Furness

  —

  600

  52

  Basildon

  —

  850

  —

  Bassetlaw

  —

  —

  1

  Bath

  —

  1,195

  152

  Bedford

  —

  —

  11

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  4

  Bexley

  —

  —

  14

  Birmingham

  245

  19,342

  1,008

  Blackburn

  —

  4,953

  39

  Blackpool

  —

  650

  75

  Blyth Valley

  —

  1,277

  —

  Bolsover

  94

  106

  Bolton

  224

  2,025

  569

  Boston

  —

  81

  —

  Boothferry

  —

  —

  12

  Bradford

  —

  4,800

  1,312

  Braintree

  —

  —

  6

  Brent

  125

  —

  36

  Bristol

  500

  6,285

  —

  Broxbourne

  —

  323

  —

  Burnley

  137

  2,291

  103

  Bury

  —

  485

  1,260

  Calderdale

  —

  3,230

  3,278

  Cambridge

  —

  4

  26

  Camden

  —

  305

  4

  Cannock Chase

  —

  300

  278

  Canterbury

  —

  156

  —

  Caradon

  —

  —

  677

  Carlisle

  —

  2,255

  —

  Carrick

  —

  —

  87

  472

  Expenditure in 1993–94 on the Urban Partnership Fund (UPF), Estate Action and Derelict Land Grant (DLG).

  £000s

  Local authority

  UPF

  Estate action

  DLG

  Charnwood

  —

  —

  17

  Cheltenham

  —

  323

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  3,229

  Chester

  —

  750

  20

  Chesterfield

  —

  659

  154

  Chester le Street

  —

  250

  —

  Chorley

  —

  —

  970

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  6

  Colchester

  —

  481

  —

  Congleton

  —

  —

  86

  Copeland

  —

  1,050

  —

  Corby

  —

  2,900

  1,811

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  536

  Coventry

  2,600

  5,937

  123

  Craven

  —

  778

  —

  Crewe and Nantwich

  —

  300

  1

  Croydon

  —

  —

  27

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  4,123

  Darlington

  —

  535

  235

  Dartford

  —

  —

  22

  Daventry

  —

  —

  57

  Derby

  175

  6,577

  11

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  2,221

  Derbyshire Dales

  —

  —

  92

  Derwentside

  —

  3,062

  2,203

  Devon

  1,239

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  70

  1,867

  1,629

  Dudley

  282

  2,834

  3,742

  Durham

  —

  130

  1,065

  Ealing

  —

  510

  36

  Easington

  —

  1,572

  117

  East Yorkshire

  —

  270

  —

  Eden

  —

  300

  —

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  —

  2,239

  1,990

  Enfield

  —

  141

  —

  Erewash

  —

  413

  1,346

  Fenland

  —

  155

  —

  Forest of Dean

  —

  —

  36

  Gateshead

  378

  200

  2,169

  Gedling

  —

  —

  5

  Gillingham

  —

  272

  —

  Glanford

  —

  —

  5,164

  Gloucester

  —

  721

  —

  Gosport

  —

  —

  5

  Gravesham

  —

  —

  84

  Great Grimsby

  —

  600

  4

  Great Yarmouth

  —

  532

  47

  Greenwich

  345

  2,970

  266

  Guildford

  —

  —

  33

  Hackney

  125

  9,081

  —

  Halton

  —

  1,956

  1,166

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  81

  2,077

  —

  Haringey

  —

  4,616

  —

  Harrogate

  —

  298

  —

  Hartlepool

  150

  1,486

  —

  Hastings

  —

  —

  35

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  14

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  14

  High Peak

  —

  1,055

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  750

  —

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  —

  —

  6

  Hounslow

  —

  2,221

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  50

  Huntingdonshire

  —

  378

  12

  Hyndburn

  —

  1,494

  297

  Ipswich

  —

  292

  17

  Islington

  1,040

  5,233

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  1,450

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  48

  Kerrier

  —

  —

  1,502

  473

  Expenditure in 1993–94 on the Urban Partnership Fund (UPF), Estate Action and Derelict Land Grant (DLG).

  £000s

  Local authority

  UPF

  Estate action

  DLG

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk

  —

  —

  2

  Kingston upon Hull

  25

  4,323

  176

  Kingswood

  —

  —

  3

  Kirklees

  1,140

  4,013

  1,927

  Knowsley

  1,000

  3,174

  610

  Lambeth

  —

  6,652

  263

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  243

  Lancaster

  —

  —

  3,276

  Langbaurgh on Tees

  127

  1,523

  85

  Leeds

  300

  6,472

  253

  Leicester

  233

  7,127

  4

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  404

  Lewisham

  9,884

  32

  Lichfield

  —

  —

  103

  Lincoln

  —

  290

  313

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  55

  Liverpoool

  1,065

  19,338

  986

  Luton

  —

  —

  8

  Macclesfield

  —

  191

  217

  Maidstone

  —

  744

  —

  Manchester

  350

  17,327

  3,249

  Mansfield

  —

  500

  1,812

  Melton

  —

  106

  —

  Merton

  —

  199

  23

  Middlesbrough

  36

  678

  44

  Newark and Sherwood

  —

  790

  188

  Newcastle under Lyme

  —

  213

  433

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  250

  3,064

  455

  Newham

  326

  7,600

  292

  North Cornwall

  —

  —

  7

  North East Derbyshire

  —

  363

  323

  North Kesteven

  —

  158

  —

  North Norfolk

  —

  —

  49

  North Tyneside

  729

  2,723

  518

  North Warwickshire

  —

  —

  12

  North West Leicestershire

  —

  —

  46

  North Wiltshire

  —

  110

  —

  Northampton

  —

  100

  9

  Northavon

  —

  —

  245

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  789

  Norwich

  —

  631

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  65

  —

  2,085

  Nottingham

  370

  6,111

  333

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  —

  500

  152

  Oadby and Wigston

  —

  100

  —

  Oldham

  340

  3,050

  1,805

  Peak National Park Joint Planning

  —

  —

  —

  Board

  —

  —

  110

  Pendle

  —

  —

  82

  Penwith

  —

  —

  24

  Peterborough

  —

  253

  —

  Plymouth

  960

  1,411

  54

  Poole

  —

  503

  —

  Portsmouth

  —

  220

  10

  Preston

  348

  2,716

  —

  Reading

  —

  1,150

  1

  Redbridge

  —

  2,738

  —

  Redditch

  —

  605

  —

  Reigate and Banstead

  —

  —

  6

  Restormel

  —

  —

  63

  Ribble Valley

  —

  116

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  75

  —

  Richmondshire

  —

  —

  36

  Rochdale

  240

  3,826

  354

  Rossendale

  —

  710

  378

  Rotherham

  685

  —

  3,354

  Rushcliffe

  —

  —

  1

  Rushmoor

  —

  574

  —

  Salford

  870

  6,002

  2,225

  Sandwell

  215

  9,285

  5,412

  474

  Expenditure in 1993–94 on the Urban Partnership Fund (UPF), Estate Action and Derelict Land Grant (DLG).

  £000s

  Local authority

  UPF

  Estate action

  DLG

  Scunthorpe

  —

  486

  —

  Sedgefield

  —

  1,346

  148

  Sefton

  310

  2,798

  561

  Sheffield

  675

  6,625

  664

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  1,569

  South Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  34

  South Derbyshire

  —

  —

  16

  South Hams

  —

  245

  15

  South Lakeland

  —

  —

  29

  South Ribble

  —

  174

  7

  South Staffordshire

  —

  —

  6

  South Tyneside

  500

  718

  139

  Southampton

  —

  679

  —

  Southwark

  1,000

  17,223

  21

  St. Edmundsbury

  —

  213

  17

  St. Helens

  —

  5,415

  787

  Stafford

  —

  444

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  616

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  —

  —

  10

  Stevenage

  —

  496

  —

  Stockport

  —

  3,260

  1,117

  Stockton on Tees

  119

  2,035

  532

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  1,969

  1,021

  Stroud

  —

  963

  —

  Sunderland

  1,000

  5,511

  520

  Surrey

  —

  —

  31

  Sutton

  —

  565

  —

  Tameside

  —

  —

  1,075

  Teesdale

  —

  —

  6

  Teignbridge

  —

  —

  1

  Thamesdown

  —

  100

  16

  The Wrekin

  —

  —

  383

  Thurrock

  —

  1,000

  2

  Torbay

  —

  —

  25

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  11,767

  236

  Trafford

  —

  751

  —

  Vale Royal

  —

  835

  2

  Wakefield

  —

  2,144

  2,790

  Walsall

  —

  1,549

  4,325

  Waltham Forest

  —

  3,797

  16

  Wandsworth

  670

  —

  —

  Warrington

  —

  600

  20

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  4

  Watford

  —

  242

  —

  Wealden

  —

  —

  111

  Wear Valley

  —

  1,701

  290

  Westminster

  —

  179

  —

  West Devon

  —

  —

  8

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  54

  Weymouth and Portland

  —

  131

  —

  Wigan

  420

  2,147

  3,058

  Wirral

  75

  4,681

  496

  Wolverhampton

  250

  2,293

  915

  Worcester

  —

  1,050

  —

  Wyre

  —

  763

  —

  York

  —

  1,280

  30

  Total

  22,409

  357,437

  104,148

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has now made of an unclassified document emanating from the air intelligence agency department of the United States air force, sent to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, asserting that Ali Akbar Mohrashemi paid cash and gold to terrorist organisations to carry out terrorist activities, and to destroy Pan Am flight 103 in retaliation for the United States shoot-down of the Iranian airbus.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 26 January 1994,Official Report, columns 299–300.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library his correspondence with Mr. English of Chard, Somerset, in relation to Libya and Lockerbie.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my normal practice to do so.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for deregulation in each Government Department.

  The Prime Minister
  The deregulation initiative is headed by the right hon. Michael Heseltine, President of the Board of Trade. Ministers are appointed in each of the regulatory Department's to be responsible for deregulation issues. They are:

  Department

  Minister

  Her Majesty's Treasury (Revenue and Customs)

  Right Hon. Sir George Young MP Financial Secretary

  Department of Transport

  John Watts MP Minister of State

  Scottish Office

  Allan Stewart MP Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Welsh Office

  Roderick Richards MP Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Home Office

  Michael Forsyth MP Minister of State

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Earl Howe Parliamentary Secretary

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Jonathan Evans MP Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Department of Health

  Hon. Tom Sackville MP

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Department of Employment

  Hon. Philip Oppenheim MP

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Department of Social Security

  James Arbuthnot Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Department of Environment

  Right Hon. Viscount Ullswater Minister of State

  Northern Ireland Office

  Baroness Denton of Wakefield

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Ministry of Defence

  Righ Hon. Roger Freeman Minister of State

  Department for Education

  Eric Forth MP Minister of State

  Office of Public Service and Science

  Robert Hughes MP Parliamentary Secretary

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  John Taylor MP Parliamentary Secretary

  Department of National Heritage

  Iain Sproat MP Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Correspondence
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to reply to the letters of inquiry sent to him six months ago by Mr. R. Nimmo of 202 Morville street, London E3.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of Employment replied on my behalf on 28 July 1994, a copy of which has recently been sent to Mr. Nimmo.

  Common Currency
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his current attitude towards the introduction of the hard ecu as a common currency within the EU.

  The Prime Minister
  Although the United Kingdom advocated the hard ecu during the Maastricht treaty negotiations, it was eventually agreed that the route set out in the treaty would avoid the problems of the control of the money supply that a parallel currency would inevitably involve. We therefore agreed to a three-stage process in which responsibility for our monetary policy will remain firmly in national hands unless and until Parliament agrees that we should seek to join a single currency.

  World Summit for Social Development
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to attend the world summit for social development in Copenhagen in March; and if he will list those who will be representing Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  I will make a decision on attendance nearer the date.

  EU Fraud
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to persuade the French Government to include the issue of the eradication of fraud in their objectives for their EU presidency.

  The Prime Minister
  At the Essen European Council, I made a number of proposals on the subject of fraud, waste and mismanagement which were agreed by the Council. I refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 12 December,Official Report, columns 613–30.

  The French presidency has made clear that it intends to pursue these measures vigorously. This was endorsed by the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers at its meeting on 16 January when the presidency work programme was discussed.

  The reports from member states, commissioned at Essen, on the measures member states are implementing domestically to combat waste and the misuse of Community resources will be examined under the French presidency.

  The French presidency fully shares our views on fraud, as the French Prime Minister made clear to me at our Chartres meeting last December.

  Chequers (Entertainment)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) dates of (b) nature of and (c) individuals present at each occasion at Chequers in the period from 2 December 1994 to 20 January 1995 which has involved

  477
  the provision of food, drink and other forms of reception or entertainment paid for out of public funds.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 January 1995]: There was one such occasion on 13 January 1995. This was a meeting of Ministers reviewing British foreign policy. It is not my normal practice to provide a list of individuals present on such occasions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Wellcome-Glaxo Merger
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the long-term effect on research and development of the proposed takeover of Wellcome by Glaxo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The relevant competition authorities will be considering the proposed merger in due course. Therefore, it is not appropriate for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to comment.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the absenteeism rate for(a) his Department, (b) the Accounts Services Agency, (c) Companies House, (d) the Insolvency Service, (e) the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, (f) the NEL, (g) the National Physical Laboratory, (h) the National Weights and Measures Agency, (i) the Patent Office and (j) the Radiocommunications Agency in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The average number of days sick leave per employee for the Department and its agencies is shown in the table.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Department excluding Agencies listed below

  8.1

  8.1

  10.3

  9.5

  Accounts Service Agency1

  —

  —

  13.9

  13.0

  Companies House

  10.9

  13.4

  17.4

  16.8

  Insolvency Service

  7.8

  8.9

  11.4

  10.8

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  5.4

  7.0

  7.9

  6.6

  NEL

  6.0

  5.5

  6.6

  10.6

  National Physical Laboratory

  5.4

  7.3

  7.6

  6.4

  National Weights and Measures Agency

  3.9

  4.1

  8.1

  13.3

  Patent Office

  7.0

  8.2

  12.0

  11.5

  Radiocommunications Agency

  8.2

  9.1

  11.5

  8.8

  Total

  7.9

  8.6

  11.0

  10.3

  1 For 1991 and 1992 ASA figures are part of the departmental figures.

  Northern Electricity
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade by how much domestic electricity prices for Northern Electric customers have changed since 1991 in relation to the UK average.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Using the normal assumption that the average domestic household buys 3,300 kWh of electricity per year, Northern Electric's standard tariff rose by 1.9 per cent. between 1991 and 1994. If allowance 478
  is made for inflation, as measured by the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator, this represents a fall of 7.4 per cent. in real terms. For customers on Northern Electric's Economy 7 tariff, the price of electricity rose by 2.4 per cent. in current price terms and fell by 7 per cent. in real terms (assuming consumption of 6,600 kWh per year—3,000 day units and 3,600 night units). VAT has been excluded from the above figures. This tax (8 per cent.) was imposed from 1 April 1994, but an unspecified number of consumers paid in advance and will not have paid any VAT during 1994.

  For all regional electricity companies in England and Wales, the corresponding average change over this three-year period for standard tariff customers was -0.9 per cent., (9.9 per cent. in real terms), and for Economy 7 tariff customers it was +0.9 per cent., (-8.4 per cent. in real terms).

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of the takeover of Northern Electric by Trafalgar House on the sale of the National Grid Company.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is awaiting the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading on the proposed takeover by Trafalgar House of Northern Electric.

  Company Accounts
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have had penalties imposed upon them by Companies House for the late submission of accounts in each of the past five years; and what has been the total amount of such penalties in each of these years.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to Companies House under its chief executive, Mr. Durham. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Durham to Dr. Tony Wright, dated 30 January 1995:
  Jonathan Evans, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, has asked me as Registrar and Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency, to reply to the following Parliamentary Question which you tabled:
  How many companies have had penalties imposed upon them by Companies House for the late submission of accounts in each of the past five years; and what has been the total amount of such penalties in each of these years.
  The late filing penalty system was introduced on 1 July 1992. Details of the number of penalties levied and the sums involved are set out in the table below.

  Late filing penalties raised: Great Britain Financial years 1992–3; 1993–4; 1994–5

  Number

  Value (£ million)

  1992–93 (July-March)

  79,928

  12.5

  1993–94 (April-March)

  84,384

  20.8

  1994–95 (April-December)

  55,053

  13.8

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many statutory instruments requiring affirmative resolution he expects will be brought before the House in the current Session; and how many of these he expects to be considered by(a) Standing Committees or (b) on the Floor of the House.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what communication he has received from the President of the European Parliament concerning its resolution of 10 February adopting the proposal for a constitution for the European Union, as proposed by its Committee on Institutional Affairs; and what action he has taken consequent on any requests therein.

  Mr. Newton
  The European Parliament did not adopt the draft constitution prepared by the Committee on Institutional Affairs, but only took note of it. I have received no communication from the President of the European Parliament concerning the resolution of 10 February 1994.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Register of Available Personnel
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many prospective candidates seeking employment in the United Kingdom's overseas aid programme had their details held on the Overseas Development Administrations's register of available personnel for each year since 1979; how many of them were appointed; and how many of them were removed from the register after two years.

  Mr. Baldry
  The historical information about the register of available personnel, which has only existed since 1987, is not available. Information about recent years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Consultants
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which are the four main consultancies and recruitment agencies supplying personnel to the United Kingdom's overseas aid programme since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  Individuals employed under the aid programme are normally recruited directly by the Overseas Development Administration. No records are kept which distinguish between contracts with consultancy firms relating solely to the supply of expertise to the aid programme and those which also cover the supply of other services.

  Aid, Africa
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decisions have 480
  been made in the past six months by the European Commission about the provision and destination of aid within Africa.

  Mr. Baldry
  Tables providing details of EC projects approved between July and December 1994 which benefit sub-Saharan Africa under (i) the European development fund, (ii) European Community food and humanitarian aid and (iii) the special programme for South Africa, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  In October 1994, a framework agreement creating the first bilateral treaty relationship between the EC and South Africa was signed. In November 1994, the Development Council agreed a programme of 67 mecu— about £53 million—to rehabilitate social and production structures in Rwanda.

  Arun Project, Nepal
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what topics were discussed at the recent informal briefing with members of the inspection panel of the World bank; and what conclusions were drawn by the United Kingdom executive director;

  (2) if he will instruct the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank to support the preliminary recommendations of the inspection panel of the World bank on the Arun III project.

  Mr. Baldry
  There has been a preliminary exchange of views on the inspection panel's report on a request for an inspection of the Arun III hydroelectric project in Nepal. Executive directors decided to defer further action pending receipt of the views of the newly elected Government of Nepal, and also pending a review by the panel of its report in the light of additional information to be supplied by bank management.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has about the current position of the Government of Nepal on approval of the Arun III project.

  Mr. Baldry
  We understand the newly elected Government have expressed broad support for the project, but wish to take stock before reaching a firm view on whether to proceed.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the board of the World bank will consider the full appraisal report of the Arun III project.

  Mr. Baldry
  No date has been set.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what organisations he will consult before deciding the British Government's policy in the World bank on the Arun III project;

  (2) what organisations will be consulted by the board of the World bank before it reaches a final decision on the Arun III project;

  (3) what organisations he will consult before deciding the British Government's policy on implementing the recommendations of the inspection panel of the World bank on the Arun III project;
  481
  (4) what organisations will be consulted by the board of the World bank before it reaches a final decision on implementing the recommendations of the bank's inspection panel on the Arun III.

  Mr. Baldry
  The board as such does not normally consult outside organisations, but will want to be assured that the borrower and the bank have consulted fully, in accordance with bank policies and procedures. Individual members of the board will have their own arrangements for consultation. We have received views from a number of organisations, notably the Intermediate Technology Development Group, on the proposed project and have encouraged the bank to consult widely with informed groups, particularly those active in Nepal. We shall take account of these views when considering the proposed project and in relation to the report of the inspection panel.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the minimum projected rate of return on the Arun III project which would be required for the United Kingdom to support this project.

  Mr. Baldry
  As a minimum, we would expect the economic rate of return to exceed the opportunity cost of capital of 10 per cent. used for this project.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current policy towards the Arun III project in Nepal.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Arun project raises complex economic, environmental, social and institutional issues. Debate on these issues is continuing, especially given the new Government's desire to take stock of the project; and the independent inspection panel's report.

  World Bank Inspection Panel
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the initial work of the inspection panel of the World bank.

  Mr. Baldry
  The inspection panel became operational only in August 1994, and to date has received only one request for inspection. It is too soon to draw conclusions about its effectiveness.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank attended the recent informal briefing with members of the inspection panel of the World bank.

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes.

  Somali Refugee Camp
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits have been made to refugee camps containing Somali people and in which countries; and what view Her Majesty's Government have formed of the conditions there.

  Mr. Baldry
  United Kingdom officials visited Somali refugee camps in Kenya in September 1994 and in Ethiopia in December 1994. The condition of refugees in Kenya is generally stable; that of Somali refugees in Ethiopia is more variable, with some groups remaining vulnerable to food and medical shortages. We have 482
  provided over £11 million since 1991 to help refugees in Kenya and Ethiopia, most of whom are Somalis.

TRANSPORT

  Nuclear Waste Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek an urgent meeting with the EU Transport Commissioner to discuss the safety arrangements under Council directive 92/3Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste into and out of the European Community, as they apply to the imminent shipment of radioactive waste from La Hague in France.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. Council directive 92/3/Euratom sets out provisions for the authorisation of shipments of radioactive waste, into and out of the European Union and between member states, by the competent authorities of the country of origin. Authorisation of the shipment referred to is a matter for the French competent authority.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Channel Islands in regard to the forthcoming sea shipment of high-level nuclear waste from La Hague in France to Japan.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December,Official Report, column 880, which posts were filled as a result of the employment of executive search agencies; which executive search companies were involved in this exercise; and what were the values of the individual contracts involved.

  Mr. Norris
  The two posts filled with the help of executive search agencies were:

  1. The Highways Agency chief executive. Korn Ferry International

  assisted in carrying out the search and selection: the cost was £23,500.

  2. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency chief executive. Saxon Bampfylde International plc carried out the search and administration; the cost was £31,800.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what jurisdiction local authorities have over noise made by aircraft while on the ground.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 24 January,Official Report, column 110, by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document "Focus on Ability".
  483
  Mr. Norris
  As of 1 July 1994, 181 Department of Transport staff were known to be registered as disabled. This is 1.4 per cent. of the total staff—12,929. In addition, 134 DOT members of staff have responded to questionnaires and declared themselves to have a disability which is not registered. This is 1 per cent. of the total staff.

  Coventry Airport
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 98, what local authorities, including parish councils, have contacted him about noise and nuisance at Coventry airport in the last 12 months; how many of the complaints relate to (a) day and (b) night flights; how many complaints there were in each of the previous five years; and if he will divide them into complaints about (i) day and (ii) night flights and list the local authorities involved.

  Mr. Norris
  Of the 14 representations mentioned in my answer of 24 January, 11 related to noise generally at Coventry airport, of which four also made specific reference to night flights. The remaining three representations concerned night flights alone.

  The number of complaints received in each year since 1992 is as follows:

  Total complaints

  General noise

  Day flights

  Night flights

  1992

  3

  1

  1

  2

  1993

  5

  3

  0

  3

  1994

  14

  11

  0

  7

  Some complaints covered more than one topic. Information for earlier years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  In addition, since January 1990 my Department has had one contact from a local authority about noise and nuisance at Coventry airport. This took the form of a meeting in July 1994 between the Minister for Aviation and Shipping and a delegation from Warwick district council led by my hon. Friend himself. At this meeting the subject of aircraft noise at Coventry airport was discussed generally, but with a particular focus on ground noise and night flights.

  Lobbying Organisations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a list of all those who were received by him, his fellow Ministers or senior officials in the past six months, indicating which ones were representatives of lobbying organisations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No; it is not our practice to do so.

  Coaches
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have died in coaches 484
  crashing in the right-hand lane of carriageways with more than two lanes, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not available.

  Stafford's Railway Bridge
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional safety measures have been undertaken in the past 12 months on the Stafford's railway bridge in Exeter.

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack has informed me that, between November 1993 and February 1994, additional bracings were installed between the piers and the upstream side of the main girders of the Stafford's railway bridge to increase its lateral stability. I understand that the work undertaken allows the bridge to remain open longer during periods when the River Exe is in flood.

  Mayday Call (Olympic Airways)
  Mr. MacKinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what circumstances caused the Mayday call of Olympic Airways Boeing 737 Flight 265 from Athens on 17 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Olympic Airways Flight 0A265 on 7 January 1995 was inbound from Athens to London Heathrow at a time air traffic control was advising all aircraft of 40-minute delays in landing. When given the delay, 0A265, then holding in a "stack" at flight level 180, requested an earlier approach, stating engine de-icing problems. Air traffic control advised that a priority approach could be given only if the aircraft declared an emergency.

  The pilot promptly made a "mayday" call, which is a distress emergency call to signify that an aircraft is threatened by grave and imminent danger and requests immediate assistance. This is for the captain to judge. However, there seems some doubt about the seriousness of the situation in this case: for example, there is no evidence that one engine had been shut down, as was reported in the press.

  ATC offered the captain an immediate diversion to Gatwick airport, which he declined. Accordingly, the aircraft was then cleared for a direct approach to Heathrow airport, which instigated full emergency procedures. The aircraft landed safely and a subsequent examination apparently revealed no damage or technical malfunction.

  The Civil Aviation Authority's safety data units received notification of the incident as an ATC occurrence report. Details of the incident have been passed to its flight operations policy department for consideration of any possible subsequent action by the authority.

  Heathrow
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the districts of Greater London over which aircraft normally fly while making their final descent into Heathrow airport; and if he will make a statement.
  485
  Mr. Norris
  The London Boroughs normally overflown are: Wandsworth, Richmond, Hammersmith and Fulham, Spelthorne, Hillingdon and Hounslow. In addition, aircraft skirt the southernmost boundary of Kensington and Chelsea.

  Mr.Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department now has as to the statistical analysis for a major crash on Greater London by an aircraft using Heathrow airport; and when such an incident last occurred.

  Mr. Norris
  The statistical analysis available to the Department is derived from worldwide accident data and is not specific to individual airports. The last major crash of an aircraft using Heathrow airport occurred near Staines in 1972.

  Aircraft (City Approaches)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at which cities in Europe and north America, other than Greater London, airliners routinely fly over more than 15 miles of the city during an airliner's final approach to landing at the normal airport destination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not available.

  Oxygenated Petrol
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has carried out into oxygenated petrol; what plans for research into the environmental suitability of oxygenated petrol he has; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 26 January 1995,Official Report, column 367.

  Fishing Vessels (Medical Supplies)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from fishermen's organisations about regulations governing the carriage of medical supplies on fishing vessels.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 26 January 1995]: Ministers have received 28 representations from fishermen's organisations via hon. Members about the regulations governing the carriage of medical supplies on fishing vessels. Of these, 22 have come from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, one from the Leigh and Southend Joint Fishermen's Association and one from the Fleetwood Fishermen's Association. Direct representations to the Department have also been received from the NFFO, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the Southern Sea Fishermen's Council.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Birth Control
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what specialist provision exists in Northern Ireland to offer contraception advice and counselling to young people; and what plans he has to extend these provisions following the findings of the recent study of the director of public health into the eastern health and social services board on abortions and contraception.

  Mr. Moss
  Family planning services are available to young people in Northern Ireland through family planning clinics, general medical practitioners and voluntary agencies. The provision of these services is a matter for health and social services boards to determine in the light of local needs and priorities. I understand that the Eastern health and social services board proposes to target family planning services on areas of social deprivation and high teenage pregnancy.

  Atmospheric Pollution
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to change existing policy on atmospheric pollution in Northern Ireland following the recent Eastern health and social services report on the link between atmospheric pollution and the incidence of lung cancer.

  Mr. Moss
  In his fifth annual report, the director of public health for the Eastern health and social services suggested that a link may exist between atmospheric pollution and the incidence of lung cancer in certain parts of Northern Ireland, particularly in the Belfast area and that atmospheric pollution may be one of several environmental factors linked to the causation of disease. It presented no specific evidence however to show that such a link exists.

  The Government have made a firm commitment to ensure that statutory air quality standards set to protect public health are achieved and maintained throughout Northern Ireland. They also have an on-going programme of major initiatives designed to improve air quality and inform the public when conditions are such that those at greatest risk are made aware of the situation.

  Last week, a joint statement was issued by the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment setting out proposals for a new air quality management strategy for the United Kingdom taking account of the nine most significant pollutants. Northern Ireland has been consulted and will be fully involved in the evaluation and implementation of initiatives flowing from the strategy.

  Queen's University
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total public funding for the Queen's university of Belfast in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Academic year

  £ million

  1989–90

  56,126

  1990–91

  65,152

  488

  Academic year

  £ million

  1991–92

  67,177

  1992–93

  72,404

  1993–94

  78,078

  Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average number of parents in attendance at the annual meetings of parents held in 1993 and 1994 in(a) controlled primary schools, (b) controlled secondary schools, (c) controlled grammar schools and (d) maintained schools in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Murders, Londonderry, East
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many murders against(a) civilians and (b) members of the security forces were committed in the Londonderry, East constituency and on what dates in each of the last five years; and in how many cases (i) charges have been brought and (ii) convictions have resulted.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 26 January 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

  Murders in East Londonderry constituency

  1990

  Civilian/security forces

  Location

  1 December

  Civilian

  Kilrea

  To date no one has been charged or convicted for this murder.

  1991

  Civilian/security forces

  Location

  16 August

  Civilian

  Kilrea

  25 August

  Civilian

  Coleraine

  30 August

  Civilian

  Coleraine

  16 September

  Civilian

  Magherafelt

  17 September

  Security Forces

  Maghera

  6 November

  Security Forces

  Bellaghy

  One person has been charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter for the incident on 25 August. One person has been charged and convicted of the murder on 30 August.

  1992

  Civilian/security forces

  Location

  3 March

  Civilian

  Greysteel

  2 April

  Civilian

  Kilrea

  30 July

  Civilian

  Castledawson

  One person has been charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter for the incident on 3 March. One person has been convicted of actual bodily harm for the death which resulted from the incident on 30 July.

  >1993

  Civilian/security forces

  Location

  25 March

  4 civilians

  Castlerock

  30 October

  7 civilians

  Greysteel

  Four persons have been charged with the eight murders at Greysteel. One person has been charged with the murders at Castlerock.
  489

  1994

  Civilian/security forces

  Location

  14 April

  Civilian

  Greysteel

  24 April

  2 civilians

  Garvagh

  12 July

  Civilian

  Coleraine

  One person has been charged with the murders on 24 April. One person has been charged with the murder on 12 July.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judiciary (Secret Societies)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to require members of the judiciary to declare membership of secret societies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has no such plans.

  Transsexuals (Marriage)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what plans he has to recognise British post-operative transsexuals who marry legally abroad as being married in their acquired gender; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if post-operative transsexuals who have married under New Zealand law will be recognised as married under British law; and if will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The position in the law of England and Wales is that a marriage to which parties are not respectively male and female is void. What sex a person has for this purpose is a question of fact, but the present legal position is that the biological criteria for determining sex are established at birth. The Government have no plans to change the law.

  Custody
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many times the Official Solicitor recommended that the children that he is acting on behalf of are given into the custody of(a) the mother, (b) the father or (c) the local authority in the last year for which figures are available.

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

  Automatic Party Status (Divorce Proceedings)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to give children automatic party status in divorce proceedings.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has no such proposals.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mutual Defence Agreement
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his 490
  answer of 20 January, Official Report, columns 740–41, if there are any further amendments to the 1958 United States-United Kingdom mutual defence agreement, which are still in force at the present time, made prior to 1965.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The 1958 US-UK mutual defence agreement was also amended in 1959.

  Mrs Shazia Noreen
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when is a decision to be taken by the United Kingdom post in Islamabad on the application of Mrs. Shazia Noreen, ref: IMM/C5048, to join her husband in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have asked the entry clearance officer in Islamabad to let me have a report on the application by Mrs. Shazia Noreen. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to press through the appropriate United Nations authorities to establish whether the Rwandan nationals accused of the murder of their countrymen and countrywomen have been brought to justice.

  Mr. Ethrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United Nations to assist the Rwandan authorities to indict those who are responsible for the murder of Tutsis.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom was a co-sponsor of UN Security Council resolution 955 of 8 November 1994 which established an international criminal tribunal for Rwanda.

  In addition, the UN has drawn up a plan to help reconstruct the Rwandan judicial system.

  World Summit for Social Development
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what documents have been published by his Department in preparation for the world summit for social development in Copenhagen in March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We will be issuing an information brief on the world social summit in early February.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what follow-up mechanisms he favours in order to ensure that commitments given by member states at the world summit for social development are adhered to.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The summit documentation makes clear that follow-up at the national level will be the responsibility of national Governments. The UK is already addressing most of the issues that the summit will cover. We will note carefully any further action required and will seek to implement it through existing mechanisms.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the UN social summit in Copenhagen in March.
  491
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A final decision on attendance at the summit will be made nearer the date.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will be representing his Department at the world summit for social development in Copenhagen in March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A final decision on attendance at the summit will be made nearer the date.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation his Department has undertaken with non-governmental organisations regarding the draft plan of action for the world summit for social development.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information about the summit has been disseminated to over 200 contacts from a wide range of organisations in the United Kingdom. Of those who wish to be involved, some are in direct contact with the Government; others are in touch with a central contact point in UNED-UK, the United Kingdom branch of the United Nations environment and development non-governmental organisation, which we are funding specifically to disseminate information about the summit and to ensure any NGO with an interest in the summit's issues can make its voice heard. We welcome their interest and involvement and will remain in close touch with United Kingdom NGOs during the preparatory process and at Copenhagen itself.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the Departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document, "Focus on Ability".

  Mr. Goodlad
  On 1 July 1994, the number of non-industrial civil servants employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration and its agency, who were registered disabled was 52, representing 0.67 per cent. of the whole. Figures for the number and proportion of non-registered disabled staff are not available.

  Mrs. Surraya Ashraf
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a solicitor, based in Bradford, visiting Pakistan asked officials at the United Kingdom post in Islamabad to review the refusal of an application by Mrs. Surraya Ashraf and her daughter Miss Noreen Akhtar, ref. GV100/24649, to enter the United Kingdom; when the request to review the application was agreed; what was the outcome of the review; when was that information sent to the solicitor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have asked the entry clearance officer to let me have a report on the applications by Mrs. Surraya Ashraf and her daughter, Miss Noreen Akhtar. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able 492
  to reply to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North on 18 July 1994, Official Report, column 28, on entry clearance applications and appeals.

  Mr. Baldry
  The answer to the hon. Member's question of 18 July 1994, was conveyed, in full, in a letter to him from me on 13 September. Arrangements were also made for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library.

  Regrettably, the answer to the hon. Member's other question of 18 July has not been answered in full. I am therefore taking this opportunity to ask posts to update their final returns and will give the hon. Member the answer he seeks as soon as possible.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the total number of applicants at the British embassy in Addis Ababa for permission to travel to Britain by nationality, waiting tune for interviews and decisions for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have asked the entry clearance officer in Addis Ababa to let me have a report. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth office as soon as possible

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken by his Department to further progress on the United Nations referendum on the future of the Western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As a member of the UN Security Council group of Friends of the Western Sahara, we have supported the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to bring about a resolution of the conflict in the Western Sahara. We have helped to broker various Security Council resolutions on the subject. Until September 1993, the United Kingdom contributed military personnel to the mission for a referendum in the Western Sahara.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which countries to which asylum seekers are forcibly returned British embassy officials meet them on arrival or monitor their return.

  Mr. Baldry
  None other than Vietnam where our embassy both meets on arrival and monitors repatriated Vietnamese migrants from Hong Kong who have been screened out as non-refugees.

  Kurdistan
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings and discussions have been held with the PUK, KDP and Kurdish national parliament in recent months; and if he will make a statement on the internal conflict in Kurdistan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have sent messages to the leaders of the Iraqi Kurd political parties involved in the recent fighting urging them to reach an early and lasting settlement.

  We understand that the parties have indicated a willingness to seek peace through the auspices of the Iraqi National Congress. We fully support those efforts, not

  493
  least because the only beneficiary from violence in northern Iraq is Saddam Hussein.

  Iran
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations on human rights issues have been made to the Government of Iran; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European Union sponsored a strong human rights resolution on Iran which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 23 December 1994. The Union also raised human rights issues in recent discussions with Iran.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the main functions of the chargé d'affaires in Tehran; and what proportion of his time is spent on visa applications.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our chargé d'affaires in Tehran, as head of mission, has a wide range of responsibilities which include political, representational, commercial and management functions. He supervises all embassy work including consular and visa matters.

  East Timor
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Indonesian Government concerning the action of their army in East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The European Union expressed concern in July and November 1994 about heightened tension in East Timor. The UN Secretary-General made an appeal on 9 January 1995 to East Timorese of all shades of opinion to exercise restraint. We look to the Indonesian Government to act similarly.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts at preventive diplomacy are being made by(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the UN, (c) the European Union and (d) the Organisation of African Unity, in respect of the internal security situation in Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are very concerned at the recent deterioration in the security situation which had led to the abduction of a number of Sierra Leonean and foreign nationals, including six Britons. We are following developments closely and have reinforced our high commission in Freetown with experienced hostage negotiators. We are in touch with the Sierra Leone Government and our Commonwealth, EU and other partners in the region. We have also given strong encouragement to the UN Secretary-General's proposals to send a special representative. We hope it may be possible to bring about a peaceful solution in Sierra Leone and we are ready to contribute in any way we can to resolve the present difficulties.

  Ivory Coast
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of the safety of deportees from Britain is undertaken in the Ivory Coast; and if he will make a statement.
  494
  Mr. Baldry
  We have no mechanism to monitor what happens to deportees from Britain returning to Cote d'Ivoire.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the human rights situation in the Ivory Coast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question of 10 January 1995,Official Report, column 59.

  Liberia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the activities of the west African peacekeeping forces in Liberia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received reports from many sources on west African peacekeeping activities in Liberia.

  We continue to follow developments closely. We welcome and support the efforts of regional leaders and the United Nations to bring about a peaceful solution to the conflict in Liberia.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts Her Majesty's Government have had with representatives of different factions in Liberia in the past year.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our diplomatic missions in the region monitor developments in Liberia and have been contacted by representatives of most of the factions at some time.

EDUCATION

  Emotionally Disturbed Children
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will outline his policy for dealing with emotionally disturbed children within the education system.

  Mr. Forth
  Children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, the term usually applied to children and young people whose symptoms lie between those associated with stressed but normal behaviour and those associated with psychiatric illness, have special educational needs. It is for schools and local education authorities to see that their needs are assessed and suitably met along with those of other children with learning difficulties. The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs provides targeted advice and this is expanded in the joint Department for Education-Department of Health circular "The Education of Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties", DFE ref: 9/94, both documents being available in the Library. They point up the vital importance of close collaboration between services. The Office for Standards in Education continue to monitor the quality of the education provided for this group of children.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many institutions there are who deal with the education of emotionally disturbed children; and how many there were in each of the last 10 years.
  495
  Mr. Forth
  Time series data are not available centrally, but recent returns from schools suggest that about 380 maintained and non-maintained special schools and independent schools would describe themselves as making special provision for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. In addition, all mainstream schools are required to identify and where appropriate make suitable provision for individual pupils who fall within this category, following the guidance in the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. Further provision is made within pupil referral units in most local education authorities.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children from the borough of Rotherham receive assisted places at independent schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information about the local education authority area from which assisted pupils originate is not collected centrally. There are no schools participating in the scheme within the borough of Rotherham.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many assisted places have been awarded in the current academic year to pupils attending former direct grant schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Figures are not yet available for the current academic year. In academic year 1993–94, 17,445 such pupils held assisted places.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of pupils with assisted places comes from households where the parents are in full-time salaried or waged employment paying pay-as-you-earn tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information concerning the occupations and tax position of parents in the assisted places scheme is not collected centrally.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the departments and agencies for which she has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document, "Focus on Ability".

  Mr. Forth
  The number of registered disabled people employed by the Department and the Teachers Pensions Agency is 60, representing 2.9 per cent. of the total. Figures for the number of all disabled people employed by the Department and the Teachers Pensions Agency are not currently available.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children were statemented in each year from 1965 to 1980 inclusive.

  Mr. Forth
  The arrangements for issuing statements of special educational needs were introduced under the Education Act 1981. In England, the number of pupils newly assessed as requiring special educational treatment in calendar years 1977 to 1980 inclusive were 23,210;496
  22,972; 21,570 and 22,243 respectively. Information for England is not available for earlier years.

  Standard Spending Assessment, Devon
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the percentage change between the proposed education standard spending assessment for 1995–96 and the comparable figure for 1994–95 for Devon county council.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The proposed education standard spending assessment for 1995–96 for Devon is 2.2 per cent. higher than the comparable figure for 1994–95.

  Direct Grant Schools
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many former direct grant schools are now independent schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are 120 registered independent schools which were formerly direct grant grammar schools.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what was the estimated cost of the development of computer systems for the fast-track applications system introduced by the Student Loans Company;

  (2) what remuneration has been received by the assessor of the Student Loans Company in each year of the existence of the position;

  (3) what was the expenditure by the Student Loans Company on computer systems development in each of the last two financial years for which figures are available; and to what specific purposes this expenditure was directed.

  Mr. Boswell
  These matters are for the Student Loans Company. I have asked the acting chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students in London she expects to be in receipt of the new rate of loan for those who could conveniently live at home in 1995–96.

  Mr. Boswell
  The new rate of loan will apply from the academic year 1995–96 to students studying in London and living away from home whose grant is limited to the "parental home" rate of grant because their local education authority judges that they could conveniently live at home. Information is not collected centrally about the number of students in respect of whom LEAs have exercised this discretion.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each year since January 1991 for the grant-maintained secondary school sector(a) the number of full-time equivalent pupils, (b) full-time equivalent qualified teachers and (c) the pupil-to-teacher ratio.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  497

  Pupil: teacher ratios in grant-maintained secondary schools in England 1991–94 Position in January each year

  Full-time equivalent pupils

  Full-time equivalent qualified teachers

  Pupil teacher ratio

  1991

  36,400

  2,390

  15:3

  1992

  105,800

  6,690

  15:8

  1993

  221,400

  13,780

  16:1

  1994

  485,300

  29,800

  16:3

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those grant-maintained schools in Liverpool that have received loans from the Funding Agency for Schools; and whether these loans have been repaid or renewed.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information relating to loans made to grant maintained schools is held by the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what statutory or discretionary provision exists for the provision of free school meals to pupils under the age of 19 years whose parents are in receipt of income support

  Grade equivalent

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  (FTE)

  (FTE)

  (FTE)

  (Headcount)

  (FTE)

  (Headcount)

  Grade 3

  2.0

  3.5

  3.5

  4

  3.5

  4

  Grade 7

  55.5

  61.5

  73.0

  80

  74.0

  87

  Executive officer

  521.5

  472.5

  482.5

  500

  471.5

  499

  Administrative officer

  932.5

  926.0

  883.5

  943

  848.0

  924

  Administrative assistant

  859.0

  830.0

  829.0

  880

  817.5

  862

  Total women

  2,689.5

  2,623.5

  2.627.0

  2,792

  2,595.0

  2,774

  Arable Aid Payments
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hectares of land established as grassland or soft or bush fruit during the years 1987 to 1991 which were initially ineligible for arable aid payments were subsequently deemed eligible by the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department after farmers had submitted completed HCAP 009.114 forms.

  Sir Hector Monro
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Crown Office was first informed by the United States authorities of the possible involvement of Ayatollah Mohtashami in the Lockerbie bombing as suggested in the US Air Force Intelligence Agency de-classified documents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Crown Office was aware of allegations of involvement of the former Iranian Interior Minister in the Lockerbie bombing at an early stage of the investigation. The allegations were examined by the competent authorities but no evidence has so far been found to substantiate them.498
  in (a) incorporated colleges of further education and (b) incorporated sixth form colleges.

  Mr. Forth
  Provision of this nature is encompassed within discretionary awards and access funds which are administered by local education authorities and FE colleges respectively. The rate of grant payable to students and the method of assessment are for the authority to determine. FE colleges decide which students who are suffering hardship they will support from access funds.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Employees
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees for which his Department is responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994; and of these, how many were (i) at grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Mr. Lang
  The numbers of women employed in the Scottish Office, its executive agencies, excluding the Scottish Prison Service, and associated departments at 1 April in the years from 1991 to 1994 and those at grade 7, grade 3, executive officer, administrative officer and administrative assistant levels were as follows:

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence the United States legal authorities gave to the Crown Office to support the indictment of Libyan suspects in connection with the Lockerbie bombing; when the evidence was received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Lockerbie investigation was carried out in close co-operation with the United States authorities. Criminal proceedings are pending and it would be improper to give details of evidence in the case.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the Crown Office first learned of the existence of the de-classified US Air Force Intelligence Agency files which refer to the bombing of the Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Crown Office first learned of the existence of this report from a press enquiry on 23 January 1995.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the Crown Office received a copy of the de-classified United States Air Force Intelligence Agency files which refer to the bombing of the Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie; and if he will make a statement.
  499
  Mr. Lang
  The Crown Office received a copy of the report on 24 January 1995.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the Crown Office was first informed of the contents of the de-classified United States Air Force Intelligence Agency files which refer to the bombing of the Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Crown Office was first informed of the contents of the report on 23 January 1995 but was already well aware of allegations which are set out in that document.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the dates of the meetings which have been held between the Crown Office and the United States Air Force Intelligence Agency to discuss the contents of United States Air Force Intelligence Agency de-classified files which refer to the bombing of the Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie, the names of the individuals present and in what capacity they attended; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  No such meetings have been held.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the dates of the telephone discussions which have been held between the Crown Office and the United States Air Force Intelligence Agency to discuss the contents of United States Air Force Intelligence Agency de-classified files which refer to the bombing of the Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  No such discussions have taken place.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish details of delegations involving United States law officers and representatives of US Air Force Intelligence Agency to the United Kingdom to discuss the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing, the meetings they attended and the matters discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  No delegations involving United States Air Force Intelligence Agency representatives have taken part in discussions in the United Kingdom concerning the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. United States law enforcement officers, based in the United States and in the United Kingdom, have met Scottish police and prosecution authorities frequently during the Lockerbie investigation and a liaison officer of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation was based at Lockerbie during much of the most active period of the Lockerbie investigation. The discussions of such officers were confidential.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish details of trips involving representatives of the Crown Office to the United States of America as part of the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing, the meetings they attended and the matters discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  Representatives of the Crown Office have visited the United States on a number of occasions for confidential discussions concerning the Lockerbie investigation, which was carried out in close co-operation with the United States authorities. It would be inappropriate to give details of these meetings and discussions.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment the Crown Office has made of the relevance of the de-classified US Air Force 500
  Intelligence Agency documents for the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The report quotes an untried source relying on "second and third party information" as stating that the former Iranian Interior Minister paid $10 million to have the Lockerbie bombing carried out. It contains no evidence to substantiate a story which was already well known and has not so far been otherwise substantiated. It has, accordingly, no present relevance to the investigation.

  Instruments of Torture
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assurances are sought from United Kingdom companies active in the manufacture, marketing and supply of(a) electro-shock weapons and (b) instruments of torture that such assistance as is given to them will not be used to facilitate trade in and support the marketing of electro-shock weapons.

  Mr. Stewart
  In considering applications for licenses for the export of such equipment the DTI, together with advisers in other Government Departments, take special care and consider very carefully the political and military implications of allowing consignments to go overseas. Particular attention is paid to proposed exports to countries with poor human rights records, where the equipment might be used for internal repression.

  I understand that ICL Technical Plastics has now confirmed that its company's export records show that no such equipment was ever sold or export licenses sought or approved by the DTI.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the manufacture, marketing and supply of(a) electro-shock weapons and (b) instruments of torture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My Department has received a small number of letters from members of the public on this matter.

  ICL Technical Plastics
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions were held between his Department and ICL Technical Plastics in order to promote its products in the foreign market place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Scottish Trade International, the export arm of the Scottish Office and Scottish Enterprise, had some discussions in 1993 with the company about the marketing of a range of conventional riot gear which had been already sold to police forces within the United Kingdom. No mention of electro-shock weapons or similar products has ever been made to officials.

  The Scottish Office has conducted extensive investigation and is satisfied that the allegations made against the Department by the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme are unsubstantiated.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance was given to ICL Technical Plastics in Glasgow for sponsoring sales trips abroad; and what sum was involved.

  Mr. Stewart
  Scottish Trade International, the export arm of the Scottish Office and Scottish Enterprise, has given no financial assistance to ICL Technical Plastics, Glasgow, either for sponsoring sales trips abroad or indeed for any other business activities.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all sites in Scotland where depleted uranium is stored in any form; what is the quantity stored in each case; and what measures are taken to protect the public from any potential dangers.

  Sir Hector Monro
  In Scotland, depleted uranium is stored on nuclear sites at UKAEA Dounreay and British Nuclear Fuels plc, Chapelcross.

  Tonnages stored at these sites are:

  Dounreay: 110 tonnes

  Chapelcross: 5,000 tonnes

  At these sites, similar controls are applied to depleted uranium as for all other nuclear materials.

  From time to time the Ministry of Defence stores small quantities of depleted uranium at the test and evaluation establishment at Kirkcudbright. They are stored in accordance with current licensing regulations, arrangements are overseen by the Health and Safety Executive, and Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate is aware of them. It is also held at other munitions stores and depots, but it is not the Ministry of Defence's practice to disclose the quantities of or locations where, specific types of ammunition are stored. However, all such material is held in safe and secure facilities in accordance with the requirements for radioactive materials.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines are operated by his Department as regards the use of executive search agencies to fill vacancies within his Department and his Department's executive agencies; and in what circumstances his Department employs executive search agencies instead of relying fully on Departmental resources to fill vacant posts.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 January 1995]: Executive search agencies are used in cases where my Department and its agencies consider posts will be difficult to fill and where suitable candidates are probably currently in employment and therefore unlikely to apply simply on the basis of an advertisement in the press.

  Students
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discretion exists under current Scottish Office Education Department regulations and guidelines to allow institutions to make payments from access funds to students who are eligible for, but have not applied for, a student loan.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]: The guidance issued to institutions indicates that if an eligible student has not taken out a loan, and there are no exceptional circumstances, it would be reasonable to conclude that his or her circumstances were not sufficiently difficult to warrant assistance from the access funds.

  We therefore expect the provision of assistance from the access funds to such students, other than on as
  502
  short-term immediate need basis, to be very much the exception.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many students applied for assistance from the access funds in Scotland for the academic year 1993–94; and how many received payments;

  (2) what was the amount disbursed to students from access funds in respect of fees, books, equipment, accommodation, child care, or other needs for each higher and further education institution in Scotland for the academic year 1993–94.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]: A full breakdown is not available since not all institutions have been able to provide the information requested. The table sets out the available information by institutional sector based on returns submitted to date.

  Access funds 1993–94

  Higher education institutions

  Further education colleges

  Total

  Number of students applying1

  13,500

  4,600

  18,100

  Number of students assisted1

  8,600

  3,800

  12,400

  Amounts disbursed1

  £1.9 million

  £0.7 million

  £2.6 million

  Amounts available to all institutions

  £2.7 million

  £1.1 million

  £3.8 million

  1 No adjustments have been made for outstanding returns.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the percentage changes in the number of students applying for assistance from access funds between each year since the system began and the academic year 1993–94.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]: The available information, based on returns received to date, is set out in the table.

  Figures for 1993–94 are not comparable with earlier years due to inclusion of returns from Scottish universities which, prior to that session, received their access funds resources from the then Universities Funding Council.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Number of students applying

  11,000

  12,600

  12,700

  18,100

  Percentage increase on previous year

  —

  14 per cent.

  1 per cent.

  42 per cent.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the results of the monitoring returns for Scotland and higher education institutions on the use of discretionary funds for 1993–94.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to access funds.

  The detailed information so far available for academic year 1993–94 is not sufficiently comprehensive to justify publication. We will consider how best to disseminate the information when we have a more complete picture.

  Cardiac Surgery
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make it his policy that no patients awaiting cardiac surgery in the Borders health board area will be put under pressure to accept referral to Health Care International in Clydebank unless they and their general practitioners are convinced that it is in the patients' best interests to do so;

  (2) what consideration he or his ministerial colleagues have given to the waiting list initiative taken by the Borders health board in respect of the referral of Borders patients waiting for cardiac surgery to Health Care International in Clydebank; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what discussion was held between the NHS Executive in Scotland and the Borders health board before the recent initiative to refer Border patients awaiting cardiac surgery to HCI in Clydebank; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the standard of cardiac surgery in HCI in Clydebank relative to the range of treatment available at the Royal infirmary in Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]: This is a matter for Borders health board. It is appropriate for NHS purchasers to buy services from independent hospitals, in order to reduce waiting times for patients. The NHS in Scotland Management Executive was aware of Borders health board's proposal to purchase cardiac surgery services from HCI.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Pucklechurch Remand Centre
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of whether security at the Pucklechurch remand centre is adequate for the custody of category A prisoners.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyles dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about security at Pucklechurch prison.

  Category A escapes

  Type of establishment

  20 June 1988-31 March 1989

  1 April 1989-31 March 1990

  1 April 1990-31 March 1991

  1 April 1991-31 March 1992

  1 April 1992-31 March 1993

  1 April 1993-31 March 94

  1 April 1994-9 January 95

  Dispersal

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  8

  Local

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Escorts

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  2

  0

  4

  2

  0

  8

  Incidents of escape from custody of other than prisoners in category A are recorded according to the security category of the prison from which the prisoner escapes and not by the security category of the prisoner.

  Information about these escapes has only been recorded centrally since 20 June 1988. During the period 20 June 1988 to 9 January 1995, the number of prisoners who escaped from dispersal prisons and category B and C prisons is as follows:
  504

  An assessment has been made of the security arrangements needed to hold a category A prisoner at Pucklechurch prison and appropriate arrangements have been put into effect.

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted category A prisoners have escaped in each year since 1965.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Jack Straw, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about how many convicted category A prisoners have escaped in each year since 1965.
  Category A was introduced in June 1967. The following table shows the number of convicted category A prisoners who escaped in each calendar year since then.

  Year

  Number of prisoners

  Year

  Number of prisoners

  1967

  0

  1987

  2

  1968

  1

  1988

  0

  1969

  0

  1989

  1

  1970

  1

  1990

  1

  1971

  0

  1991

  1

  1972

  4

  1992

  1

  1973

  1

  1993

  0

  1974 and 1975

  0

  1994

  6

  1976

  3

  1995

  2

  1977–1986 (inclusive)

  0

  —

  —

  In addition, in 1980 there were three escapes, and in 1991 two escapes, by remand/unconvicted category A prisoners.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A, category B and category C prisoners have escaped from custody in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. John Hutton, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, to reply to your recent Question about how many Category A, B and C prisoners escaped from custody in each year since 1979.
  The information is not available in exactly the form you request. Information about escapes of category A prisoners is in the following table:
  505

  Type of Establishment

  20 June 1988-31 March 1989

  1 April 1989-31 March 1990

  1 April 1990-31 March 1991

  1 April 1991-31 March 1992

  1 April 1992-31 March 1993

  1 April 1993-31 March 1994

  1 April 1994-31 March 1995

  Dispersal

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Category B

  49

  15

  34

  50

  45

  24

  23

  Category C

  82

  99

  153

  170

  126

  104

  77

  Closed Young

  Offender

  10

  29

  37

  75

  58

  50

  23

  Closed Female

  —

  —

  1

  10

  7

  1

  5

  Escorts (Male)

  95

  106

  107

  140

  138

  116

  51

  Escorts (Female)

  7

  5

  4

  14

  13

  9

  7

  Total

  243

  255

  336

  459

  387

  296

  187

  The above information also includes escapes from closed young offender establishments and those escapes form closed female establishments during this period. Young offenders and female prisoners are not classified as Category B or C, but as suitable for either closed or open conditions.

  Prisoners (Private Cash)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weekly limit of private cash that a prison inmate in prisons in England and Wales is allowed to spend.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the weekly limit which prisoners are allowed to spend from private cash.
  The private cash limit for convicted prisoners is expressed in annual rather than weekly terms. The basic national limit, set in 1987, is £115 and excludes phonecards and newspapers. Higher levels can be set by governors with their area managers' agreement and some establishments have separate allowances for items such as hobbies materials and food. There are no such limits applying in general to unconvicted prisoners.
  In his statement to the House on 19 December 1994 about the Woodcock enquiry into events at Whitemoor, the Home Secretary announced that amounts of private cash that prisoners are permitted to spend will be reduced, and in time the use of unearned private cash will be eliminated altogether.

  Prison Security
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what salary has been or will be paid to the person or persons who will advise his Department on United States prison security; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the salary of prison security advisors from the United States.
  No decisions have been taken on the appointment or remuneration of a prison security advisor from the United States. A former warden of a maximum security prison in the United States has been invited to discuss the contribution that he might make to the Prison Service.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons have had their locks 506
  changed because of key compromises in the last three years; and what was the average cost for each such prison.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisons where locks have been changed because of key compromises in the last three years.
  Since January 1992 there have been 28 key compromises resulting in a change of locks. This includes the recent compromise at Parkhurst prison.
  The cost of replacing the locks varies according to the size of the prison and the class of locks. Typical costs are in the range of between £40,000 and £64,000.

  Prisoners (Self-inflicted Injuries)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give figures for the numbers of self-inflicted injuries in Her Majesty's prisons, according to prison category, in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) the last year for which figures are available.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of self inflicted injuries during 1979, 1985 and the most recent available year.
  In 1979 a total of 1,906 incidents of deliberate self injury were recorded. In 1984 reporting periods changed from calendar to financial years and therefore we do not have a specific figure for 1985. During the year 1985–86 a total of 1,567 incidents of deliberate self injury were recorded. The most recent available year 1993–94 had 4,187. Incidents of deliberate self injury are normally categorised as those with apparent suicidal intent and other less serious incidents. These are summarised in Table 1.
  507

  Table 1: Number of incidents of deliberate self injury

  Number of incidents of deliberate self injury

  Year

  With apparent suicidal intent

  Other less serious incidents

  Total

  1979

  300

  1,606

  1,906

  1985–86

  256

  1,311

  1,567

  1993–94

  825

  3,362

  4,187

  The significantly higher figures for 1993–94 result from the Prison Service introducing a revised strategy for caring for potentially suicidal prisoners in April 1994. This was designed to enable a high quality of care to be given to prisoners who are identified as being at possible risk of self-harm. It reflected a decision to move away from a primarily medical model of suicide prevention towards a more integrated approach which emphasises the responsibility of the whole of the prison community for the care of those in distress.
  Included amongst the new procedures was a system for identifying those at risk of self-harm by the use of a new form (F2052SH), which was piloted in a number of establishments during 1993. The form acts as a basis for a team work, case-conference approach to dealing with those at risk. The new system encourages staff to consider the most appropriate location for potentially suicidal prisoners, be that within the Health Care Centre or on the residential unit, with appropriate levels of supervision and support in either case.
  It is possible that the introduction of the new form together with the higher profile which the strategy affords to identification of and support for potentially suicidal prisoners has affected recording procedures. Staff may have become more disposed to ascribe suicidal intent or alternatively have become more attentive to signs of self-injurious behaviour.
  Information on deliberate self injuries by prison type is not available for 1979 or 1985–86. Table 2 shows the breakdown for 1993–94.

  Table 2: Number of incidents of deliberate self-harm by prison type for 1993–94

  Prison type

  Number of incidents

  1per cent. of CAN

  Category D Trainer

  9

  0.3

  Category C Trainer

  295

  2.5

  Category B Trainer

  120

  3.2

  Dispersal

  116

  4.4

  Young Offenders (Male)

  907

  12.0

  Local

  1,750

  12.5

  Female

  990

  66.4

  Note:

  1 Percentage CNA refers to the number of incidents of deliberate self injury expressed as a percentage of certified normal accommodation (CNA).

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy on the regular movement of prison officers who deal with category A prisoners in prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  508
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about the policy on the regular movement of prison officers who deal with category A prisoners.
  Category A prisoners are located in prisons where the majority of prisoners are in lower security categories. Governors rotate staff as they perceive the need to do so.
  In the case of category A prisoners located in Special Secure Units, the Woodcock enquiry into the escape from Whitemoor recommended that there should be a firm policy for the rotation of staff to reduce the threat of conditioning. The Home Secretary accepted all the Woodcock recommendations and intends to publish a detailed timetable for their implementation shortly.

  Prisoners (Surveillance)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners who(a) are classified as a suicide risk and (b) are not so classified have 24-hour surveillance as of 3 January this year.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners classified as a suicide risk and the number of prisoners under 24 hour surveillance.
  During the period 3 – 18 January 1995 a total of 16 inmates spent periods of continuous observation in prisons in England and Wales. Of these, 15 had been identified at risk of suicide and one placed on observation on Headquarters instructions as a precautionary measure.

  Establishment

  Suicide risks on Continuous watch

  continuous watch for other reasons

  Pucklechurch

  1

  0

  Guys Marsh

  2

  0

  Swinfen Hall

  2

  0

  Moorland

  1

  0

  Wandsworth

  1

  0

  Durham

  1

  0

  Cookham Wood

  1

  1

  (13/14) HQ

  Instruction

  Birmingham

  1

  0

  Pentonville

  1

  0

  Highdown

  2

  0

  Parkhurst

  2

  0

  Mrs. Rosemary West
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who issued the instruction to keep open at all times the cell door of Mrs. Rosemary West, currently in custody at Pucklechurch remand centre, after the death of her husband on 2 January.
  509
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about who issued the instruction to keep open at all times the cell door of Mrs. Rosemary West, currently in custody at Pucklechurch Remand Centre, after the death of her husband on 2 January.
  After the death of Frederick West on 1 January 1995 at Birmingham prison, the Directory of Custody, Phillipa Drew, in consultation with me, took the decision to place Rosemary West under observation by two members of staff on a twenty four hour basis, to prevent her from self harm.
  Mrs. West's cell door is not kept open at all times. Her door is unlocked at approximately 20:45 and is locked again at 07.30. Every effort is being made to make the observation of Mrs. West as unobtrusive as possible.

  Electro-shock Equipment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the United Kingdom Prison Service has been equipped with, or trained with the use of, electro-shock devices.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about whether the United Kingdom Prison Service has been equipped with, or trained in the use of, electro-shock devices.
  I can confirm that the Prison Service in England and Wales is not equipped with electro-shock devices nor are prison officers trained in the use of such devices.
  It is for the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland to provide details for their own services.

  Prison Governors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons in England and Wales did not have a number one governor in post as of 16 January.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about which prisons in England and Wales did not have a number one governor in post as of the 16 January.
  Our planning arrangements ensure that the majority of governor-in-charge posts are handed over by the outgoing governor to the incoming governor. Where there is an interregnum, arrangements are made for the post to be temporarily covered by another senior governor grade, usually from the same establishment.
  On 16 January, the following prisons did not have a permanent governing governor in post:

  HMP Canterbury: appointment pending.

  HMP Coldingley: appointment made and new governor takes up post on 30 January.

  HMP Lindholme: appointment pending.

  510

  HMP Long Lartin: appointment made and new governor takes up post on 30 January.

  HMP Shrewsbury: appointment pending.

  The new governor of HMP Parkhurst took up post on 16 January, which in turn created a vacant post to be filled at HMP Albany.

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women who are classified as foreign nationals are currently serving a life prison sentence in a prison in England and Wales.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many (a) men and (b) women who are classified as foreign nationals are currently serving a life prison sentence in a prison in England and Wales.
  The latest available provisional information is for 30 November 1994. On that date there were 490 non-British citizens (474 males and 16 females) serving a life sentence in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. This includes 56 male and 4 female nationals from the Irish Republic.

  Leeds Prison
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 January,Official Report, column 202, for the non-payment of which types of fine the 11 people in Leeds prison are jailed.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. John Battle, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about fine defaulters at Leeds prison.
  On 14 December there were 11 prisoners serving sentences for non-payment of fines imposed as follows:

  Offence on warrant

  assault on police

  burglary

  traffic offence (4)

  criminal damage (2)

  reckless driving

  theft

  drunk driving

  Prisoners (Hospital Treatment)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the provision of security coverage to prisoners receiving outside hospital treatment; and who is responsible for the payment of costs incurred.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  511
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about security coverage during visits to outside hospitals.
  The level of security coverage to be provided is a matter for the governor in each case. Guidance is contained in section 60 of the Security Manual, copies of which are in the Library of the House.
  The cost of escorts to hospitals, as with other kinds of escort, is met by the prison.

  MI5 (Headquarters)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current annual cost per member of staff accommodated in the MI5 headquarters building at Millbank, London.

  Mr. Howard
  It is long-standing Government policy not to provide detailed information about the expenditure of the security and intelligence agencies.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the current version of the European Union's data protection directive contains provisions regarding personal data derived from DNA samples of the dead; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the current version of the European Union's data protection directive contains provision about access by the data subject to non-automated personal data; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether the current version of the European Union's data protection directive contains provision regarding the giving of consent by the data subject, in certain circumstances, to the use and disclosure of personal data; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if the current version of the European Union's data protection directive protects the individual by restricting the holding of sensitive personal data to those controllers authorised by the United Kingdom Parliament; and what plans he has to introduce such restrictions in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The most recent version of the draft data protection directive is an unpublished working document.

  This version contains no reference to DNA. It provides for similar rights of subject access to both computerised data and data in manual filing systems. It allows processing to be carried out if any one of a number of conditions is met. These conditions include the giving of consent by the data subject.

  The present text will not necessarily require the United Kingdom Parliament to authorise individual controllers to process sensitive personal data. If the directive is adopted, the Government will consider how to implement it in due course.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning progress towards agreement on the European Union's data protection directive; if he will indicate those areas where the United Kingdom Government still have major concerns; if he expects to vote against parts of the 512
  directive at a forthcoming meeting of the Council of Ministers in February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Negotiations within Council on the draft data protection directive are likely to be concluded under the French presidency. The Government continue to have reservations about a number of aspects of the directive: their final position will be determined when negotiations within the Council are concluded.

  Mr. John Marriott
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the salary paid to Mr. John Marriott when governor of Parkhurst prison; and what will be the salary paid to him in his new position.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 January 1995:
  Mr. Marriott is Governor Grade 1 and was and is paid the salary for that grade within the range £46,986 and £48,025. His salary will not change as a result of taking up his new position.

  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what procedures his Department has put in place for monitoring the success of the new arrangements for the entry of overseas domestic workers;

  (2) what safeguards he has put in place to ensure that employers of overseas domestic workers honour agreements made to their workers under the new agreements announced on 9 December, once they have entered the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I do not believe that detailed monitoring of the new arrangements is necessary, but I shall keep them under general review.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the new arrangements for the admission of overseas domestic workers announced on 9 December will clearly set out standards of employment which conform to United Kingdom labour laws.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The new arrangements include a requirement for the employer to provide a written statement, setting out the main terms and conditions of employment, a copy of which must be given to the domestic worker, who must confirm that he or she agrees to them. Contractual employment terms are generally matters for the parties concerned and are not regulated by United Kingdom legislation.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific guidelines as to what constitutes adequate maintenance and accommodation will be included in the new arrangements announced on 9 December,Official Report, columns 379–80 for the admission of overseas domestic workers

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Entry clearance officers already have guidance on the application of the maintenance and accommodation requirements of the immigration rules. Separate guidance has not been issued in relation to overseas domestic workers. A domestic worker must be provided with a separate bedroom.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the disbursement of national lottery funds to charities.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Twenty per cent. of available national lottery proceeds has been allocated for disbursement to eligible bodies by the National Lottery Charities Board. The board is an independent body, which will devise its own policies, practices and procedures, within the framework of the legislation. I understand that its present aim is to issue guidelines to applicants during the course of the year and to begin considering applications and making grants towards the end of the year.

  The other national lottery distributing bodies are also able to make grants to charities in their respective subject areas.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects charities to receive funds from the National Lottery Charities Board.

  Number of prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (as amended)1 and Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 by type of proceedings and month 1993

  England and Wales

  Type of proceedings

  Offence/month

  Apprehension

  Summons by police

  Summons other than by police

  Total

  Protection of Animals Act 19111

  January

  7

  28

  56

  91

  February

  7

  32

  61

  100

  March

  3

  30

  76

  109

  April

  4

  9

  58

  71

  May

  7

  21

  49

  77

  June

  7

  19

  78

  104

  July

  7

  19

  84

  110

  August

  5

  13

  61

  79

  September

  7

  18

  77

  102

  October

  9

  22

  67

  98

  November

  7

  15

  66

  88

  December

  5

  10

  40

  55

  Annual

  75

  236

  773

  1,084

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968—Sections 1, 2 and 6 (relating to welfare of livestock)

  January

  —

  —

  2

  2

  February

  —

  3

  2

  5

  March

  —

  —

  7

  7

  April

  —

  1

  2

  3

  May

  —

  —

  1

  1

  June

  —

  2

  1

  3

  July

  1

  —

  4

  5

  August

  —

  —

  1

  1

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  October

  —

  —

  2

  2

  November

  —

  —

  2

  2

  December

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Annual

  1

  6

  28

  35

  1 Cannot distinguish between offences involving livestock or other animals,

  Note:

  The statistics of court proceedings are based on returns made by the police to the Home Office and although these include offences where there has been no police involvement, such as those prosecutions instigated by government departments, private organisations and individuals, the reporting of these types of offence is known to be incomplete. Where proceedings involve more than one offence, the table records the principal offence.
  514
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  This is a matter for the National Lottery Charities Board. I understand however that it hopes to begin making grants towards the end of this year.

  Livestock (Cruelty)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions his Department has brought forward for cruelty to livestock in each month since 19 January 1994; and how many of the defendants in these cases used lawyers paid for from legal aid.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and not the Home Department is involved in proceedings for cruelty to livestock. No data for 1994 will be available until autumn 1995. The table shows the number of prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 by type of proceedings and month for 1993. Information held centrally does not identify the individual summoning body, nor the number of cases receiving legal aid by offence type.

  Essex Police
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the cost of the use of video and still camera equipment by the Essex police at Brightlingsea in each month since October 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I understand from the chief constable of Essex that such equipment has only been used in Brightlingsea during January 1995. As at 27 January, the cost was estimated at £1,100 for video equipment and £280 for still cameras.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to end the policy of detaining asylum seekers in Britain pending decisions on their applications.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Court of Appeal is currently considering a case involving the power to detain certain people who have sought asylum and the court's judgment will be given very careful consideration once it is received. In the meantime, it is not proposed to change our current general practice which results in the detention of only a very small proportion of people who have sought asylum.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what international conventions govern the practice of restraining failed asylum seekers in flight, and withholding their documents and handing them to the authorities of their country of origin;

  (2) what are the procedures when failed asylum seekers are returned under escort to (a) Angola, (b) Ghana, (c) Zaire, (d) Sierra Leone, (e) Sri Lanka, (f) Turkey and (g) Uganda;

  (3) what are the procedures for returning refused asylum seekers under escort to their country of origin; and if the passenger together with his travel documents is handed over to the security services at the receiving airport;

  (4) in what circumstances the tranquillising drug largactil or chlorpromazine is given in the forced removal of failed asylum seekers; who determines the dose; and who administers it.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The powers of the commander of an aircraft to authorise the use of restraints in flight flows from article 6 of the Tokyo convention 1963. I am not aware of any international convention governing the handling of travel documents in these circumstances. Escorted asylum seekers are normally invited to disembark at the country of destination in possession of their own documentation. The procedures for removing failed asylum seekers under escort are the same irrespective of the country of destination. The person would not normally be drawn to the attention of the authorities in the country of destination unless this was considered appropriate e.g. in relation to a criminal offence. The administration of medication is a matter for a medical practitioner to decide. Sedation is not used as a means to effect removal.

  Employment Vetting
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to publish his proposals on the disclosure of criminal records for 516
  employment vetting purposes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has for the introduction of conviction certificates for employment vetting purposes.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We plan to publish a White Paper outlining our proposals for new arrangements for the disclosure of criminal records in late spring. The White Paper may include the proposal that people should be able to apply for a certificate showing any convictions they may have which are unspent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Employers could then ask to see such a certificate before making a firm job offer.

  Police Grant
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to allocate the police grant in 1995–96.

  Mr. Howard
  Further to his reply 1 December, Official Report, columns 844–45: I have today laid before the House the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1995–96. The report sets out the amount of police grant to be made available to individual police authorities in 1995–96. It should be read in conjunction with the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1995–96, the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1995–96 and the Special Grant Report (No. 12), which was today laid before the House by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and, for Welsh police forces, with the information being given to the House this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  I am placing in the Library and in the Vote Office copies of a table showing by police force area the total effect of these announcements as they relate to police funding in England and Wales.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Consultants
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what conclusions the Church Commissioners have drawn from their independent actuaries' consultants reports.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners have accepted their actuaries' advice that in their endeavours to meet the commitments placed upon them they have been over distributing their income and that contributions should be collected from Church members to finance the cost of pension benefits accruing in the future.

  Schools (Acts of Worship)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if(a) beneficed clergy, (b) other clergy, (c) bishops and (d) archbishops are to be asked to conduct acts of worship in schools; and if he will make a statement.
  517
  Mr. Alison
  This is not a matter for the Church Commissioners.

  Churchgoers
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what assessment the Commission has made of the effect of changes in the average age of churchgoers on the finances of the Church of England.

  Mr. Alison
  None. The Central Board of Finance of the Church of England collects financial and membership information annually from the parishes, but does not hold data on the age profile of congregations.

  Disestablishment
  33. Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what recent representations he has received about disestablishment.

  Mr. Alison
  None.

  Investment (Arms Trade)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what is the Church Commissioners' policy in respect of investing in companies engaged in the arms trade.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners do not invest in any company whose main activity is in armaments. They have followed this policy for many years and monitor their investments accordingly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Jobseekers Allowance
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the safety of Benefits Agency staff dealing with income support claims and the proposed jobseekers allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support and the benefit-related aspects of the proposed jobseeker's allowance is the responsibility of 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. Ian McCartney, dated 27 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the safety of Benefits Agency staff dealing with Income Support claims and the proposed Jobseeker's Allowance.
  From April 1996, Jobseeker's Allowance will replace Income Support and Unemployment Benefit for those customers who are required to be available or register for employment. Other customers will still be able to claim Income Support but there are no proposals to have claims by them dealt with by Benefits Agency staff in Employment Service Jobcentres and there have been no representations about the safety of staff dealing with Income Support claims.
  Claims to Jobseeker's Allowance will be dealt with, as far as is possible, in Employment Service Jobcentres. To date, representations have been received from the Benefits Agency Trade Union Side about the safety of Benefits Agency staff working in
  518
  Employment Service Jobcentres. Discussions are taking place with the Trade Union Side following a generic risk assessment of the effects of handling the Jobseeker's Allowance in Employment Service Jobcentres. This will be followed by local risk assessments in each Employment Service Jobcentre. Benefits Agency Trade Unions will be consulted about the results of the risk assessment.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency (Assaults)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many assaults have been committed on Benefits Agency staff dealing with income support claims in each year since 1979(a) nationally, (b) by region and (c) by individual social security office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of Income Support is a matter for 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. Ian McCartney dated 27 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about assaults on Income Support staff in Benefits Agency Offices.
  Statistics on assaults on Benefits Agency Staff dealing with Income Support are not readily available in the format requested. This is because when collating these statistics, no differentiation is made with regard to the type of benefit in question, other than at a national level. Information relating to regions and individual offices could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  National statistics on the total number of reported assaults related to Income Support claims and supplementary benefit, which preceded it, are reproduced on the attached schedule. Figures prior to 1992 relate to the Department of Health and Social Security and Department of Social Security. Those for 1992 and 1993 relate to the Benefits Agency only. Statistics for 1994 are not yet available.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Year

  Benefit

  Total assaults

  Department of (Health and) Social Security

  1979

  Supplementary Benefit

  165

  1980

  Supplementary Benefit

  173

  1981

  Supplementary Benefit

  155

  1982

  Supplementary Benefit

  179

  1983

  Supplementary Benefit

  174

  1984

  Supplementary Benefit

  150

  1985

  Supplementary Benefit

  182

  1986

  Supplementary Benefit

  225

  1987

  Supplementary Benefit

  185

  1988

  Supplementary Benefit

  175

  1989

  Income Support

  148

  1990

  Income Support

  146

  1991

  Income Support

  112

  Benefits Agency

  1992

  Income Support

  68

  1993

  Income Support

  56

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to introduce proposals for the Child Support Agency which will enable a repayment or payments at once if an overpayment has been made to the Child Support Agency resulting from an error by the Child Support Agency.
  519
  Mr. Burt
  We have been considering the current provisions in the Child Support Act and regulations relating to overpaid maintenance and have concluded that some changes are necessary. We propose to amend regulation 10 of the Arrears, Interest and Adjustment of Maintenance Assessment Regulations to give the child support officer greater discretion in setting the amount by which current maintenance can be reduced when maintenance has been over paid. The amendment will be tabled in March for introduction in April.

  However, some cases will still remain where such an adjustment will not be possible or where it will give an unreasonable result. For example, there may be no current maintenance liability which could be reduced to take account of an overpayment, or only a small reduction will be possible meaning the overpayment would be repaid over an unreasonably long period. We therefore propose to include in the forthcoming Child Support Bill a measure to enable the Child Support Agency to reimburse the absent parent in such circumstances.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the national insurance number can be used for purposes unconnected with the tax and benefits system; what legislation would be necessary to legitimise any new purpose; what plans he has to make the number more widely available for such purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on Tuesday 29 November 1994,Official Report, column 627. The national insurance number can be used only for national insurance, tax and social security benefit-related purposes and we have no plans at present to introduce legislation to extend the use of the national insurance number.

  Medical Appeals Consultants
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the total budget in each year since 1993 for training courses provided for medical consultants working with the medical appeals tribunals section of the Northern area of the independent tribunal service;

  (2) if he will list for each year since 1993 and to the latest available date (a) all general training courses, their duration and numbers attending and (b) all specialist or medical training courses, their duration and umbers attending, which were provided for medical consultants working with the medical appeals tribunals section of the Northern area of the independent tribunal service;

  (3) how many medical consultants are employed by the independent tribunal service in each region.

  Mr. Hague
  These are matters for the President of the independent tribunal service, his honour Judge Bassingthwaighte. I will ask him to write to the hon. Member.

  Income Support
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants for income support have been refused owing to the habitual residence test per month since it was introduced; and of these how many were(a) British nationals and (b) non-British nationals.
  520
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Number of Income Support claimants recorded as having been refused benefit under the habitual residence test

  1994

  British nationals

  Non-British nationals

  August

  237

  758

  September

  372

  2,028

  October

  454

  2,724

  November

  585

  2,741

  December

  439

  2,234

  Total

  2,087

  10,485

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the savings which will result from his proposals to(a) reduce the cap for income support for mortgage interest payments to £100,000 from April, (b) pay income support for mortgage interest only after nine months on benefit for new borrowers from October, (c) pay income support for mortgage interest only after two months on benefit for existing borrowers from October and (d) pay income support for mortgage interest at a standard rate to all claimants, (i) in 1995–96 and (ii) in a full year.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated saving of reducing the cap on mortgage interest payments from £125,000 to £100,000 for new claims from April is £2 million for the year to April 1996. This estimate is based on the 1993 annual statistical enquiry, uprated to 1995–96 levels. The financial effects of the other changes will depend on the outcome of the consultation and the final detail of the scheme.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what considerations underlay his proposals to adopt a standard rate of mortgage interest payments for income support.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the current scheme, which calculates each penny of interest due and reflects every change in interest rates, is extremely complex. It has been the subject of criticism by both the chief adjudication officer and the National Audit Office. A standard rate will significantly ease this administrative burden as well as reducing the cost to the taxpayer.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his intention that income support should continue to provide long-term assistance to borrowers to cover mortgage interest payments.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Yes.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many existing claimants of invalidity benefit transferring to incapacity benefit he estimates will fail the new test of incapacity(a) at a threshold score of 15 or (b) if the threshold score were reduced to (i) 14, (ii) 13, (iii) 12, (iv) 11 and (v) 10;

  (2) how many existing claimants of invalidity benefit transferring to incapacity benefit he estimates will fail the new test of incapacity (a) in total and (b) in the age bands (i) 55 to 57, ii) 50 to 54, (iii) 45 to 49 and (iv) 40 to 44 years;
  521
  (3) what is his estimate of the cost of (a) setting the threshold score for incapacity benefit at 15 and (b) lowering the threshold score for eligibility to incapacity benefit to (i) 14, (ii) 13, (iii) 12, (iv) 11 and (v) 10;

  (4) how many new claimants of incapacity benefit he estimates will fail the new test of incapacity (a) at a threshold score of 15 or (6) if the threshold score were reduced to (i) 14, (ii) 13, (iii) 12, (iv) 11 and (v) 10;

  (5) how many new applicants for incapacity benefit he estimates will fail the new test of incapacity (a) in total and (b) in the age bands (i) over 58, (ii) 55 to 57, (iii) 50 to 54 (iv) 45 to 49 and (v) 40 to 44 years.

  Mr. Hague
  We estimate that in the next two years 220,000 existing invalidity benefit claimants will cease to be entitled to incapacity benefit earlier than they would under the current system due to the application of the new all work test. Around 55,000 new claimants each year who would have been entitled to invalidity benefit will be found capable of work under the new test. No information is available on a breakdown of these totals by age.

  The threshold for benefit in the new test has been set at 15. It has been derived from the development work and set at the point where it would be unreasonable to expect someone to work. It would not be appropriate to set it at any other level. Accordingly we do not have estimates of the number of claimants who would be found capable if a lower threshold score was adopted and the associated costs.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of passporting invalidity benefit recipients to incapacity benefit at the age of(a) 58, (b) 55 and (c) 50 years.

  Mr. Hague
  We estimate that the savings from applying the new all work test to exciting invalidity benefit recipients for the year 1995–96 is £140 million. This is on the basis that all claimants aged 58 and over who have been continuously in receipt of invalidity benefit since 1 December 1993 are exempt from the test as well as those who are terminally ill, those in receipt of the highest rate care component of disability living allowance and those suffering from certain specified severe and chronic illnesses. If all claimants aged 50 or over were exempt from the test on the same basis this amount would be reduced by £45 million. If all claimants aged 55 or over were exempt, the savings would be reduced by £15 million. In subsequent years the savings would be reduced by larger amounts.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants in each category will have their entitlements reviewed in relation to the new incapacity benefit; and who will qualify for the new benefit, in both numerical and percentage terms.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]:. An estimated 1.8 million people will be receiving invalidity benefit by the time it is replaced by incapacity benefit on 13 April 1995. They will automatically qualify for the new benefit. Around half will be exempt from the new medical test of incapacity. Around 220,000 people are expected to be found capable of work in the first two years. We estimate that an additional 55,000 new claimants a year, who would have qualified for invalidity benefit under the current rules, will be found capable of work as a result of the new test.

  Child Care
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total credit made to the national insurance fund each year by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of(a) women and (b) men each year as a result of their child caring responsibilities.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No actual sums of money are credited to the national insurance fund in these circumstances. The state pension position of people with child caring responsibilities can be protected by home responsibilities protection which works by reducing the number of years of contributions otherwise needed for the basic pension.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing (Spanish Vessels)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many ships in Britain's registered fishing fleet are Spanish owned.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Rupert Allason, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question, originally tabled for reply by the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, about Spanish-owned vessels in the British-registered fishing fleet.
  I have to explain that this information is not available. Following the coming into force on 21 March 1994 of the Merchant Shipping (Registration Ships) Regulations 1993, the only eligibility requirement for companies wishing to register fishing vessels on the UK register is that they be incorporated in a member State of the European Economic Area with a place of business in the United Kingdom. Therefore it is no longer necessary for the Register of Ships and Seamen to know the nationality of shareholders and thus the information you require is not collected.

HEALTH

  Administrative Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) managerial staff and (b) administrative and clerical staff have been employed by (i) regional health authorities, (ii) district health authorities and (iii) family health services authorities in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Malone
  In the following figures, managers are defined as those staff directly employed on general and senior manager terms and administrative and clerical staff are those directly employed on A and C terms. At 30 September 1989, there were 360 managers and 8,630 administrative and clerical staff in regional health authority headquarters, there were 30 managers and 4,360 administrative and clerical staff in family health services authorities. At 30 September 1990, the figures were 1,010 and 8,080, and 640 and 4,350 respectively. At 30 September 1993, the figures were 1,400 and 5,330, and 1,060 and 4,800 respectively.

  The increase in the number of managers is due largely to the reclassification of administrative and professional staff, including many senior nurses, as general and senior

  523
  managers. In FHSAs, the increase is also due to new or greater managerial responsibilities of FHSAs for primary care development, general practitioner contracts, medical audit advisory groups, budgetary control, health promotion monitoring—immunisation targets and increased roles in community care.

  Data for 1991 and 1992 cannot be provided because the figures were collected on an aggregate basis and it is not possible to identify staff in regional and district health authorities and FHSAs separately. Data for DHAs cannot be provided for 1989, 1990 and 1993 because the aggregate figures collected for those years do not identify staff in DHA headquarters separately.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many managers and administrators were employed by the national health service(a) in 1989 and (b) at present.

  Mr. Malone
  At 30 September 1989 and 30 September 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, there were respectively 121,450 and 152,660 whole-time equivalent directly employed staff engaged on general and senior manager and administrative and clerical terms in the NHS. The figures are not directly comparable. Many professional staff including many senior nurses, and other staff have been reclassified as general and senior managers. In addition, certain NHS functions, including finance, personnel and information, have been strengthened. Over a quarter of administrative staff work in direct support to clinicians, allowing clinicians to concentrate their skills and experience on direct patient care.

  Smoking
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many smoking-related deaths she estimates would be avoided by every 1 per cent. cut in the prevalence of cigarette smoking among the population.

  Mr. Sackville
  Estimates of the effect of reducing smoking on the number of smoking-related deaths are complicated by the fact that smoking attributable diseases develop at differing rates over long periods. In broad terms, it can he estimated that a 1 per cent. cut in smoking prevalence in the population could be expected to reduce the number of smoking-related deaths by 2,000 to 3,000 deaths per year in the long term.

  Negligence Claims
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the number of negligence claims which will be made against the national health service in each of the next five years; andwhat was the total cost of negligence damages against the NHS in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Malone
  We do not make estimates of the numbers of future medical negligence claims. Total costs for each of the last three years are estimated as £80 million in 1991–92, £100 million in 1992–93 and £125 million in 1993–94.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she will take to ensure that patients presenting themselves for treatment at dental surgeries are made aware of the cost of the treatment before its 524
  commencement; and also made aware of whether this treatment is available under the NHS.

  Mr. Malone
  Dentists are required to provide patients with treatment plans which include details of costs of national health service treatment and any private treatment proposed. Dentists are also required to display in their surgeries information about NHS charges and about entitlement to exemption from and remission of such charges.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practices in each health authority area in England are(a) providing national health service treatment to existing patients and (b) willing to provide NHS treatment to new patients; and what percentage of the population in each area is registered for NHS treatment.

  Mr. Malone
  Information about general dental service practitioners under contract to family health services authorities will be placed in the Library. Information about dentists willing to take new national health service patients is not available centrally. Patients may register with dentists in FHSAs other than in the area where they are resident. Information is not available centrally therefore on the percentage of population of any FHSA which is registered.

  Meningitis, Dover
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the three recent cases of meningitis in the Dover area and the risk to health in the area.

  Mr. Sackville
  Three cases of meningococcal meningitis-septicaemia were diagnosed in the Dover area from 28 December to 9 January. Each case was reported to and investigated by the consultant in communicable disease control at East Kent health authority. Immediate detailed tracing action was carried out and all those people who were contacts were given prophylactic treatment. Further preventative treatment was arranged via the local general practitioners.

  There is no evidence of increased reporting of cases and there is no evidence of an outbreak. There are no known links between these cases. It is not unusual for three cases to occur within a short period of time, especially durirg winter months.

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanner
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the operational use of the Stoke Mandeville magnetic resonance imaging scanner is(a) for patients and (b) commercial; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The magnetic resonance imaging scanner at the hospital is owned not by the national health service but by the Jimmy Savile Hospital trust fund. It is therefore up to the trust fund to determine its operational use.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase prescription charges(a) in this financial year or (b) in the financial year 1995–96.
  525
  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on 20 December 1994,Official Report, column 1144.

  GP Charges
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the services for which general practitioners are able to make charges.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is contained in paragraph 38 of schedule 2 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to resolve the difference in the legal opinions obtained by her Department and the Data Protection Registrar as to whether the national health service number is protected by Crown copyright; if she will summarise her understanding of the registrar's position; if under current proposals other Government Departments will be able to use the national health service number for internal administration purposes not associated with health care; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Data Protection Registrar's position is that statutory control of access to and use of the new national health service number is appropriate. The Department remains of the view that unauthorised use can be pursued without resort to legislation: a view that would be tested in a case where evidence of actual abuse arose. There is no intention that the NHS number should be used by any Government Department for purposes not associated with health care.

  National Register for Carers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the representations she has received in support of the National Register for Carers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have recently received a few letters from hon. Members about literature sent to them by the National Register for Carers. I have received no other recent representations on this matter.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each regional health authority, the number of patients in receipt of long-term benzodiazepines for the latest year she has figures; and what were the figures(a) five and (b) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Bowis
  Benzodiazepines are prescribed by general practitioners or hospital doctors on the basis of their diagnosis of a patient's condition and for whatever period the doctor considers appropriate. We do not require this information to be submitted to the Department.

  Redundant Hospitals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many redundant national health service hospitals following disposal have been returned to hospital or allied use by the new owners since 1979.
  526
  Mr. Sackville
  No records are kept of the use put by purchasers of surplus national health service hospitals following sale.

  Out-patients
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which NHS trusts over the past 12 months it has been reported that first-time out-patients' appointments have not been available within 13 weeks.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hospital Transport
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which national health service trusts, over the past 12 months, it has been reported that patients have waited more than an hour after transport has been booked to take them home from hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Blood
  Mr Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to carry out examination of blood serum in order to detect hepatitis C(a) donors and (b) recipients, prior to current screening methods.

  Mr. Sackville
  I announced on 11 January a look-back exercise to trace, counsel and if necessary treat those who may have been inadvertently infected with hepatitis C through blood transfusions. A working party of experts is currently meeting to draw up guidance on the procedures for undertaking the look-back exercise, including procedures for testing of serum samples to detect hepatitis C in donors and receipients.

  Testicular Cancer
  Mr. Hincliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action and expenditure is undertaken to encourage me to self-examine for the onset of testicular cancer; and if she will will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Health Education Authority, which is funded by the Department of Health, provides information and advice about health direct to the public, and acts as a resource to health professions and others in the health education field. It has produced a booklet "Cancer: how to reduce your risks" which includes a section on testicular self-examination.

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) fatal or (b) non-fatal instances of skin cancer have been detected within the national health service, in each of the last 10 years; and what steps her Department is taking to combat this condition.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information on cause of deaths is contained in Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publications available in the Library: Series MB I cancer statistics—registrations, and series DH2 mortality statistics—death by cause. A commitment to halt the rising incidence of skin cancer is one of the key targets set out in "The Health of the Nation". The Department's strategy in this area includes a national public health
  527
  campaign on skin cancer in partnership with the Health Education Authority and a programme of activity involving the national health service, commercial and professional bodies and other Government Departments to encourage healthy attitudes to exposure to sunlight.

  Headlice
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to assist health authorities to combat outbreaks of headlice in children; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Some health authorities have protocols for controlling this condition through co-operation between schools, school health service staff and parents. The voluntary organisation, Community Hygiene Concern, is also helping to raise awareness of the problem through its "Bug Busting" campaign. We will be making a contribution to the cost of this campaign for three years from 1995–96 and will also be referring to the work of CHC and other good practice in the national health service in guidance on child health care in the community which is currently in preparation.

  Intensive Care Units
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the intensive care units which are currently facing closure in London.

  Mr. Sackville
  Provision of intensive treatment units is a matter for local health authorities in consultation with their hospitals.

  GPs (Training)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she has plans to reform or abolish the post-graduate educational allowance for GPs; and if she will make a statement on post-graduate training for doctors;

  (2) what steps she is taking to improve the standards of GP doctors training in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  We have no plans to abolish the postgraduate education allowance.

  Ministers accepted in principle the improvements to postgraduate training for doctors recommended in the working group report on specialist medical training "Hospital Doctors: Training for the Future". Progress on implementation is outlined in EL(94)71 "Implementation of the Report of the Working Group on Specialist Medical Training" dated 22 September 1994; copies of which are available in the Library. Since then, substantial progress has been made with the medical profession through several working groups. The future arrangements for postgraduate training in general practice are likely to be significantly influenced by the recommendation of the general practice working group whose report will be published shortly for wide consultation.

  GPs (Out-of-hours Cover)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring her Department is doing into the effectiveness of local GP out-of-hours cover co-operatives and their cost-efficiency; if she has plans to reimburse in 528
  full GPs who join such local experiments; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  Individual family health services authorities are responsible for monitoring the provision and standard of general medical services within their localities.

  We are continuing to discuss the development of out-of-hours services with the profession, including appropriate reimbursement for providing those services.

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the median and mean waiting times for urgent in-patient treatment over the last three years.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will implement a system which will routinely gather and analyse out-patient waiting time data in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Malone
  We have recently implemented a system to collect information on the waiting times for first out-patient appointments. This system records how long patients seen during a quarter had to wait. The first provisional results, for the quarter ending September 1994, were published on 18 January.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research she has conducted which compares the number and extent of injuries inflicted by mentally ill people on themselves against the level of injuries inflicted by mentally ill people on others; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what research she has conducted which compares the number and extent of injuries inflicted by mentally ill people on others against the level of injuries inflicted by all sectors of the population on others; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has funded the Royal College of Psychiatrists to undertake a confidential inquiry into homicides and suicides involving mentally ill people in contact with or recently discharged from specialist psychiatric services. A preliminary report on homicides was published last year and copies are available in the Library. A full report on homicides and suicides will be published later this year.

  The Department is aware of independent research studies, from this country and the United States, which have looked at the relationship between mental illness and violent behaviour and violent offending. The findings of these studies have been taken into account in the development of policies for the care of mentally ill people.

  Ambulance Travel Times
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time of travel from collection point to hospital by ambulance.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if(a) recent large-scale investment, (b) a proven community need and (c) substantial health care staff unemployment are criteria used by the Government to avert the closure of a hospital; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The decision to close a hospital is initially for the local health authority after full local consultation. When a proposal to close a hospital is referred to Ministers following objection by a community health council, they will consider all relevant factors in reaching their decision.

  Orthopaedic Clinics
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of English and Welsh orthopaedic clinics are booking patients over a year in advance; and what assessment she has made of the reasons for this.

  Mr. Malone
  Information requested in respect of England is not available centrally. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mrs. Roberta Gerardo
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the death of Roberta Gerardo.

  Mr. Sackville
  I shall write to the right hon. Member.

  NHS Trusts (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the advice which she has given national health service trusts on the subject of sponsorship.

  Mr. Sackville
  Advice on commercial sponsorship of posts and of attendance by staff at relevant conferences, courses and other events is contained in HSG (93) 5, "Standards of business conduct for NHS staff'. Further advice is contained in "Income Generation: A Guide to Local Initiative", issued under cover of HN (89) 9. Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  Social Care
  Mr. Hinchlifffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to allow the purchasing of social care by fundholding general practitioners in pilot schemes on total purchasing.

  Mr. Malone
  Fundholding general practitioners in the total purchasing pilot schemes will be able to purchase all hospital and community health services on behalf of their patients.

  Asphyxia (Deaths)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the recorded numbers of deaths by(a) age and (b) gender by asphyxiation from chewing gum in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Children (Divorce Proceedings)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the workings of the Children Act 1989 in respect of children's rights during divorce proceedings.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no plans to conduct such a review.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Listed Buildings, Leicester
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will carry out a review of listed buildings in the city of Leicester.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no plans for a comprehensive review. Several significant buildings in Leicester have recently been spot-listed, and I am always ready to consider the case for listing, particularly where buildings are under threat.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress his Department is making towards full access for disabled people into sports venues.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government are keen to ensure that people with disabilities are able to gain access to sports facilities in order to both watch and participate in sport. The Building Regulations 1991 already require all newly built and most extended public buildings to be accessible to people with disabilities. In addition, the Disability Discrimination Bill will introduce new rights of access for disabled people.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with disability arts organisations about improving arts opportunities for the disabled.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department is in regular contact with disability arts organisations.

  23. Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration he has given to the needs of disabled people in framing his proposals to restructure the Sports Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  Under the proposals I have announced, I shall expect the Sports Council, and its successors, to give full weight to the needs of sport for able-bodied people and people with disabilities.

  Millennium Commission
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the progress being made by the Millennium Commission in achieving its objectives.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am delighted with the Millennium Commission's progress to date. The commission issued detailed guidance for applicants in November. Applications for funding for capital projects, large and small are now being invited, and the commission is consulting with experts on a festival for the year 2000 and a bursary scheme. A national competition for ideas for the festival will be launched in the spring.

  Arts, Yorkshire
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside regional arts council to discuss the development of the arts in the Yorkshire region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have had no such discussion with the chairman of Yorkshire and Humberside arts board. Development of the arts in the regions is primarily a matter for each of the 10 regional arts boards working with the Arts Council of England.

  Information Super-highway
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about his Department's involvement in developments for an information super-highway.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of National Heritage is working with other Departments, such as the DTI, on a number of initiatives in this area. The Department is involved in the work on the Global Information Society; is interested in the areas of "electronic libraries" and "electronic museums and galleries"; and is reviewing developments as part of its responsibility for broadcasting and media. It is examining service information delivery over the Internet.

  Fringe Theatre
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the planned level of spending on fringe theatre in London in 1995–96; and what is the figure for the current year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for the Arts Council and the London arts board. I understand that, in allocating money, these funding bodies do not distinguish "fringe theatre" from other forms of theatre.

  Cross-media Ownership
  27. Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to announce the conclusions of his review of the rules on cross-media ownership.

  Mr. Dorrell
  An announcement will be made once the Government have reached a view on the way forward.

  Archaeological Sites, Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will assist the Yorkshire Dales national park authorities to preserve the remnants of Victorian lead mines in the Yorkshire dales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action his Department is taking to preserve 19th century industrial archaeological remains; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will take action to preserve the Old Gang smelt mills in Swaledale, north Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Old Gang smelt mill, Melbecks has been protected as a scheduled ancient monument since September 1978. For a number of years the Yorkshire Dales national park authority has been carrying out recording and consolidation works to the structure 532
  supported by grants from English Heritage, so far totalling £36,932. It is one of five mills in the Yorkshire dales which are scheduled, the others being Grinton Lead smelt fuel house and flue, Marrick lead smelt mill, Surrender smelt mill and lead cupola, flue and chimney at Grassington. Grants for essential repairs have been made or remedial action has been taken by English Heritage to ensure proper repair in respect of all of these structures in the last 10 years.

  The Royal Commission on the historical monuments of England, together with English Heritage and the county and national park authorities, have since 1989 undertaken a major survey of archaeological sites throughout the dales. English Heritage is also currently carrying out a national survey of the remains of the lead mining industry which will lead to proposals for scheduling and listing an appropriate sample of nationally important remains. This is one of a number of surveys of the physical remains of the late 18th, 19th and 20th century industrial processes undertaken as part of the monuments protection programme which aims to evaluate all known archaeological remains in England.

  Tourism
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what initiatives he is taking to promote tourism in the rural areas.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Grant in aid to the English tourist board is used to support a range of development and marketing programmes including programmes which benefit tourism in rural areas. Many of these are delivered by the regional tourist boards, which receive substantial funding from the English tourist board. Examples in the Yorkshire and Humberside region include the walking holidays in the Wolds initiative and, in the North York Moors national park, the regional routes initiative.

  Rural tourism also benefits from the promotional activities of the British Tourist Authority, since the beauty of the countryside is a key element of Britain's appeal to overseas visitors.

  Regional Orchestras
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement concerning his policy on regional orchestras and their funding.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Arts Council and the BBC are responsible for formulating policy on regional orchestras. They are collaborating on a joint review of orchestral provision. Both bodies are awaiting the response to a discussion document that has been the subject of public consultation.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce his decision on the 1995–96 local government revenue settlement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have given careful consideration to the representations I have received on the provisional settlement proposals for local authorities and police
  533
  authorities in Wales, which I announced on 29 November, Official Report, column 59, and 1 December, Official Report, column 815. The Minister with responsibilities for local government in Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), has met representatives of Dyfed Powys and North Wales police authorities, and I chaired a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, at which settlement matters were discussed.

  Having taken account of all representations, I remain of the view that my proposals provide local authorities with an adequate level of funding for 1995–96, given the low level of inflation and opportunities for improving efficiency. Local authorities will need to assess their budget priorities carefully, but my plans ask no more of them than is being required of central Government and other public sector organisations.

  I have considered carefully the representations that I have received about my provisional settlement proposals for police authorities. In the light of those representations, I have decided to provide an additional £15.1 million in funding for Welsh police forces. This will bring the total available for police services in 1995–96 to £315.8 million. Of this, £156 million will be paid by the Home Secretary as police grant and I will provide £159.8 million as standard spending assessments. My plans clearly demonstrate the Government's determination to support the police and tackle crime. They provide the new police authorities with a strong financial base which will enable them to continue to provide a high standard of service to the communities they serve.

  To take account of the additional funding I am making available for policing, I have decided to set total standard spending at £2,782.1 million and aggregate external finance at £2,466.0 million for 1995–96. The settlement will increase the level of resources available to local and police authorities by over £87 million compared with 1994–95.

  Aggregate external finance will comprise £1,718.3 million in revenue support grant, £520 million in distributable non-domestic rates, and £227.7 million in specific and supplementary grants. My decisions are subject to approval by the House.

  The total standard spending I have announced for 1995–96 represents an increase of 3.2 per cent. on 1994–95, including £124.4 million for care in the community. My plans mean that 89 per cent. of total local and police authority revenue expenditure in Wales would be met by central Government, and should ensure a reasonable level of council tax for local taxpayers.

  I trust that local authorities will continue to budget prudently and play their part in restraining public expenditure.

  I propose to lay the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1995–96 before the House, for its approval, later this week.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are on waiting lists for council houses in(a) Wales and (b) Alyn and Deeside; and what steps he is taking to provide housing for them.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available for Wales on a consistent basis. Authorities compile their waiting lists in different ways and some are 534
  moving towards common waiting lists with housing associations. In its housing strategy and operational plan, Alyn and Deeside district council recorded 2,140 applicants on its general waiting list and 739 tenants on its transfer waiting list as at 1 April 1994. These figures represent a reduction of 24 per cent. on the previous year's. Authorities are encouraged to use their enabling role to secure housing to meet local needs and to make best use of their stock by for example reducing voids and under-occupation.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many empty council houses there are in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of empty council houses in Wales is published in table 6.9 of Welsh Housing Statistics No. 14, 1994, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Empty council houses represent 1.1 per cent. of total council housing stock. I look for further improvement.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in(a) Wales and (b) Alyn and Deeside were provided with council house tenancies in 1994.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of local authority dwellings let to new tenants is published annually in table 6.8 of "Welsh Housing Statistics", No. 14, 1994. A copy of the publication is in the Library of the House.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of households in Wales who lost their home through repossession because of mortgage arrears in the latest available year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1994, county courts in Wales made 1,485 mortgage possession orders together with 2,253 suspended orders, whereby the mortgagors are given an opportunity to clear their debts. Information is not recorded centrally on the number of cases in which mortgage possession orders led to warrants to have defendants evicted.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students are enrolled at each college of further education in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  The number of students at each college of further education in Wales in 1993–94, the latest available year, is set out in the table.

  Students at publicly funded Further Education Institutions in Wales in 1993–941

  Institution

  2Student number

  Llandrillo Technical College

  7,228

  Welsh College of Horticulture

  533

  Llysfasi College of Agriculture

  896

  Yale Sixth Form College

  3,625

  Deeside College

  4,647

  Carmarthen College of Technology and Art

  4,612

  Pembrokeshire College

  2,404

  Ceredigion College of Further Education

  1,380

  Gwent Tertiary College

  14,485

  Gwynedd Technical College

  3,455

  Coleg Pencraig

  1,272

  535

  Students at publicly funded Further Education Institutions in Wales in 1993–941

  Institution

  2Student number

  Coleg Merion-Dwyfor

  1,558

  Coleg Harlech

  149

  Merthyr Tydfil College

  2,112

  Aberdare College

  1,420

  Bridgend College

  3,989

  Rhondda College

  1,287

  Ystrad Mynach College

  2,838

  Pontypridd College

  3,623

  Pencoed College

  557

  Coleg Powys

  4,137

  Coleg Glan Hafren

  5,197

  Barry College

  3,413

  St. Davids Sixth Form College

  736

  Swansea College

  5,789

  Gorseinon College

  2,276

  Neath College

  4,134

  Afan College

  1,962

  Total

  89,714

  1 Excludes link students. Data are provisional pending publication.

  2 Student numbers include students on both higher and further education courses and for all modes of attendance.

  Local Authority Employees
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of(a) men and (b) women who are employed by county boroughs and district councils in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of people employed by local authorities in Wales is compiled by the Local Government Management Board. It is not immediately available in the form requested, but I will write to the hon. Member when the figures are available and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Home Renovation Grants
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in(a) Wales and (b) Alyn and Deeside received home renovation grants in 1994.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The numbers of completed home renovation grants made in the first nine months of 1994 are given in the table.

  Mandatory renovation grants

  Discretionary renovation grants

  Wales

  4,585

  318

  Alyn and Deeside

  61

  2

  Information for the last three months of 1994 is not yet available.

  Prescribing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the percentage figures for(a) brand name and (b) generic prescribing for (i) general practitioner fundholders and (ii) non-general practitioner fundholders in each family health service authority in Wales for each of the past three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 January 1995, c. 379–80]: The figure for South Glamorgan Fundholders, for October 1993 should have read 53.53.

  Sewage Discharge Outfalls
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list those sewage discharge outfalls on Welsh tidal estuaries and the coastline which have(a) primary treatment, (b) secondary treatment and (c) tertiary treatment;

  (2) if he will list those sewage discharge outfalls on Welsh tidal estuaries and the coastline which are planned for upgrading to (a) secondary treatment and (b) tertiary treatment.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Quarries
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will examine the implications for local environmental protection in Wales of the effect upon mineral planning authorities of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 in respect of the working of minerals in surface quarries; what representations he has received on this subject(a) from members of the public and (b) from local authorities; and if he will make a statement on quarrying policy.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since 1 January 1994, my right hon. Friend has received, in relation to those provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 relevant to interim development order permissions, one representation from a local authority about the operation of those provisions, and one representation from a local authority and 13 representations from members of the public in respect of IDO registrations and appeals. My right hon. Friend is considering the response to consultation proposals on the reform of old mineral permissions grated between 1948 and 1981.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales are grant-maintained; and what is this figure expressed as a percentage of Welsh local education authority schools.

  Mr. Richards
  Sixteen and 0.8 per cent. respectively.

  Trade Delegations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many trade delegations are expected by his Department in the forthcoming six months; where they are visiting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Trade delegations into the United Kingdom are hosted by appropriate trade associations and it is for these organisations to decide on a delegation's itinerary in conjunction with the overseas organiser. The Welsh Office is not involved in this process.

  Students (Council Tax)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that students sharing private sector accommodation with non-students are not held liable for the unpaid council tax of such non-students.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I do not propose to change the rules on residents' joint and several liability for the payment of council tax. It is for the members of a
  537
  household to determine how the council tax bill should be paid.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average grant paid to students in higher education at constant prices in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The average net maintenance grant, excluding any payment for fees paid by local education authorities in Wales to mandatory award holders in the academic years 1988–89 to 1992–93, the latest year available, is as follows. Since 1990–91, eligible students have been able to apply for a student loan to supplement their grant; loans have increased the resources available to students for their living costs.

  Average maintenance grants in constant prices 1to holders of mandatory awards:

  Wales: 1988–89 to 1992–93

  Academic year

  £

  1988–89

  1,830

  1989–90

  1,850

  1990–91

  1,740

  1991–92

  1,690

  1992–93

  1,690

  1 Based on the September retail prices index, excluding mortgage interest payments, at the beginning of each academic year.

  Mineral Planning Authorities
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will consider amending section 22 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 in order to assist mineral planning authorities in the exercise of their duties.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Section 22 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 provides for the registration of interim development order permissions—granted between July 1943 and July 1948—and the submission of schemes of operating and restoration for approval by the mineral planning authority. These measures ensure that the extent and terms of IDO permissions are known and that active sites are operated up to modern standards. We have no plans to amend this section of the act.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will carry out a study to determine the influence that private practice in the same unit or specialty has on the waiting list and waiting time for treatment in the NHS.

  Mr. Richards
  I have no plans at present for such study.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will implement a system which will routinely gather and analyse out-patient waiting time data in the NHS.

  Mr. Richards
  This already exists. The NHS provides information on a quarterly basis about the number of people waiting more than six months and one year for a first out-patient appointment, and this is published regularly by the Welsh Office.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the definition of reasonable as used in deciding how many half-days a consultant may take off for private practice if he or she is full time or maximum part time in the NHS.

  Mr. Richards
  NHS consultants are able to undertake private work as well as NHS work under their national terms and conditions of service. Whole-time consultants may not earn more than 10 per cent. of their gross NHS earnings from private work. Maximum part-time practitioners can carry on private practice but with a salary reduced to 10/11 of that of a whole-time consultant. Consultants employed on NHS trust contracts may have different provisions.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning the contribution agreed on 11 May 1989 by Associated British Ports towards the costs of infrastructure in Cardiff bay; and if he will list such payments as have been paid or are anticipated.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. A development agreement between the corporation and Associated British Ports was signed in March 1991. There is no agreement requiring ABP to make payments to CBDC in respect of infrastructure, but under the terms of the agreement the company is required to carry out development on its land. The chief executive of Cardiff Bay development corporation will write to the hon. Member giving details of the investments which have been made to date.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of his consultations with the Cardiff Bay development corporation into the promotion of Cardiff as a media centre.

  Mr. Redwood
  I made it clear to the corporation in February 1994 that promotion of Cardiff as a media centre should have a high priority.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from Sir David Attenborough concerning the implications of reduced budget allocations to the Countryside Council for Wales on the ability of the Government to meet their international obligations under(a) the bio-diversity convention of the Rio treaty, (b) the habitats and species directive and (c) the European Union NATURA 2000 programme and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not received any representations from Sir David Attenborough, although I understand he did refer to the matter in a recent speech.

  South Glamorgan Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the full membership of office holders on the board of the South Glamorgan training and enterprise council; if he will show in which way they met his criteria for TEC board membership; and on what date he approved their(a) membership and (b) any offices held.
  539
  Mr. Redwood
  The following are members of the board of directors of South Glamorgan training and enterprise council;

  P Rich (Chair): Managing Director, Allied Steel and Wire Holdings, plc.

  J P Sainsbury (V Chair): Partner, Pannell Kerr Forster

  R Helliwell: Group Director, William Cowlin and Son

  R W Peterson: Chairman, Peterson Partnership

  M Davies: Managing Director, VIP Advertising Photography

  J Mclean: General Manager, Marks and Spencer

  R Forster: Managing Director, Biomet Ltd

  P Sheldon: Chief Executive, South Glamorgan TEC

  M Goodyear: General Manager, Marriott hotel

  Councillor R B Goodway: Leader, South Glamorgan county council

  I Spence: Wales General Secretary, GMB Union

  T Wilmore: Chief Executive, Barry College

  Eligibility requirements for TEC board membership are that at least two thirds of the directors—exclusive of the chief executive of the TEC who is the sole executive director—must hold the office of chairman or chief executive of a company or top-level operational manager at local level of a company or senior partner of a professional partnership within, in each case, the private sector. The remaining directors are required to be chief executives or equivalent from education, economic development, trade unions, voluntary organisations or the public sector.

  The directors of South Glamorgan TEC meet the above requirements and the chairman, Mr. Paul Rich, meets the additional requirement for chairing a TEC in that he is managing director of a large company of more than three years' standing.

  As private companies, limited by guarantee, I do not approve appointments to the boards of TECs.

EMPLOYMENT

  South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now list the contractors to the South Thames TEC to whom letters of comfort have not been sent.

  Mr. Paice
  As the information is contained in a large list, I will write to the hon. Member with employer investment in people contractors who have been sent a letter of comfort and place a copy in the Library.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the Health and Safety Executive determined what part of the work of the field consultant groups was suitable for contracting out; and what factors made it possible to undertake this work separately from other duties at no extra cost to the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive reviewed the range of work carried out by the field consultant groups to determine what part of the work was suitable for contracting out. An important factor was to identify what functions required the powers and discretion 540
  of an inspector. The process of tendering for the remaining functions will determine what level of savings can be achieved.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans exist for the Health and Safety Executive to cut clerical and administrative posts in the field operations division following the introduction of laptop computers for inspectorial staff.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive is now beginning the development of a project to equip field staff with portable computers and, as part of that development, will assess the scale of extra efficiencies which will be achieved.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of the Health and Safety Executive's staffing budget between 1 September 1993 and 1 September 1994.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The amount spent on Health and Safety Executive staffing between 1 September 1993 and 1 September 1994 was £117.6 million.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what work is currently done by the scientists who work within the Health and Safety Executive's field consultant groups; and if he will make a statement on the place of this work in the investigation of workplace ill health, accidents and incidents.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Scientists in the Health and Safety Executive's field consultant groups are mainly concerned with chemical substance sampling and analysis, scientific measurements and surveys as a service to inspectors in HSE's field operations division who undertake the investigation of workplace ill health, accidents and incidents.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the Health and Safety Executive's professional and specialist staff have less than three years' service with the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There are 1,857 professional and specialist staff in the Health and Safety Executive of whom 408 have less than three years service with HSE.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why the Health and Safety Executive has found the need to consider an early retirement scheme for its specialists grades; how many posts it intends to lose by 1 April 1995; and how much money it expects Ito save on the payroll budget.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The voluntary early retirement scheme for the Health and Safety Executive managed grades and scientists was introduced to help restructure HSE management. Eighty-five management posts will be lost by 1 April 1995 through this scheme.

  The money from these posts will be used for a range of purposes including the recruitment of front-line inspectors. At this stage, it is impossible to predict what the net effect on payroll spend will be.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the total net savings in(a) costs and (b) staff years resulting from market-testing exercises in the Health and Safety Executive since April 1992.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive completed five market tests since April 1992. These have resulted in a net saving of 92 posts and a net cash saving of £560,000. The answer gives the number of posts saved rather than staff years as market tests are completed at
  541
  various times in the year and the HSE does not record fractions of staff years.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what reviews of the Health and Safety Executive's national interest groups are currently under way; when these reviews expect to report; and when recommendations are likely to be implemented.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  A review of national interest groups in the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division began in autumn 1994. The review is examining the purpose and function of NIGs; their staffing and location and the allocation of industry or topic responsibilities between them. A report is due to be submitted to HSE senior management in July 1995. Any recommendations are likely to be implemented during the following two years.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what workload formulae are being used by the Health and Safety Executive and for what purposes; and if he will provide full details of how they were calculated.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Workload formulae are used within the Health and Safety Executive as an aid to management judgments especially in deploying inspectors as between geographical areas, industrial sectors and types of risks.

  Such formulae are used, for example, to take account of real and perceived risks in different sectors and to assess the relative priorities in inspections, technical and policy work. They are managerial tools to be employed with discretion and not fixed indicators, and I see no advantage in their publication.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff the Health and Safety Executive has lost, and expects to lose, as a result of public expenditure survey settlements in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1996–97.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I am informed that the Health and Safety Executive made no changes to its staffing in 1993–94 because of the PES 1992 settlement, in which the Health and Safety Commission's bid for resources was met in full. The PES 1992 settlement provided for 4,661 staff in 1993–94. The PES 1993 settlement provided for 4,599 staff in 1994–95. Staffing levels for 1996–97 are currently being considered in the context of the forthcoming PES 1995 round.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what amounts of money the Health and Safety Executive has spent in employing consultants in relation to market-testing exercises since 1 April 1992.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Since 1 April 1992, the Health and Safety Executive has spent a total of £199,000 on consultancy in relation to market-testing exercises.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current annual cost of employing scientists to work within the Health and Safety Executive's field consultant groups.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The estimated current annual cost at 1994–95 prices to the Health and Safety Executive of employing scientists in its field consultant groups is £891,000.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has given to the Health and Safety Executive's director general on the subject of agency status for the Health and Safety Executive's health and safety laboratory.
  542
  Mr. Oppenhiem
  I have written to the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, on whose behalf the Health and Safety Executive acts, asking that work to make the health and safety laboratory an agency of the executive should be undertaken swiftly. The necessary work is in hand for the health and safety laboratory to become an agency from April 1995.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspectors employed in the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division have less than(a) three years' service and (b) five years' service for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Oppenhiem
  There are 914 inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive's field operation division. Of these inspectors, 153 have less than three years service and 336 less than five years' service in working for HSE.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what work is undertaken by the specialist inspectors who work within the Health and Safety Executive's field consultant groups.

  Mr. Oppenhiem
  Specialist inspector work is regulatory in character and involves applying expert health and safety knowledge of engineering and occupational hygiene to inspection, accident and incident investigation, standard setting and enforcement.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the Health and Safety Executive's salary budget for each year since 1988–89; and what is the proposed figure for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The available information which relates to the civil service pay bill of the Health and Safety Executive is given in the table:

  Year

  Civil Service pay bill outturn £s millions

  1988–89

  70

  1989–90

  77

  1990–91

  86

  1991–92

  98

  1992–93

  112

  1993–94

  117

  The final pay bill for 1994–95, and the pay bill for subsequent years, will depend among other things on the outcome of pay negotiations which have yet to be concluded.

  Employment Medical Advisory Service
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many doctors the Health and Safety Executive plans to employ within the employment medical advisory service in 1995 and 1996.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Plans for the staffing of the employment medical advisory service at 1 April 1995 were published in the Health and Safety Commission "Plan of Work 1994–95", which is available in the Library. Annexe 1, table 2 of the plan gives the figure of 90 staff for EMAS, of which 45 were doctors. The figure for 1 April 1996 will be set out in the Health and Safety Commission "Plan of Work 1995–96", due to be published in the early summer.
  543
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many nurses the Health and Safety Executive plans to employ within the employment medical advisory service in the years 1995 and 1996.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Plans for the staffing of the employment medical advisory service at 1 April 1995 were published in the Health and Safety Commission "Plan of Work 1994–95", which is available in the Library. Annexe 1, table 2 of the plan gives the figure of 90 staff for EMAS, of which 45 were nurses. The figure for 1 April 1996 will be set out in the Health and Safety "Commission Plan of Work 1995–96", due to be published in the early summer.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposal he has to ensure that the training and enterprise councils swiftly conclude their contracts for the next financial year with AST training.

  Mr. Paice
  None. It is for individual training and enterprise councils to determine with whom they contract.

  Health and Safety (Prosecutions)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average fine imposed by magistrates courts as a consequence of prosecutions taken by the Health and Safety Executive under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The provisional figure for average fines imposed in 1993–94 by magistrates courts following prosecutions taken by the field operations division inspectorates of the Health and Safety Executive is £1,874.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money was gathered in fines and costs, between 1 September 1993 and 1 September 1994 from cases taken by the Health and Safety Executive, as a result of the enforcement of health and safety law, in(a) magistrates courts and (b) Crown courts.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Between 1 September 1993 and 31 August 1994, the Health and Safety Executive received a total of £818,162 in costs following prosecutions by HSE inspectorates. Of this £319,464 resulted from prosecutions taken in the Crown courts and £498,698 from magistrates courts. Information is not available on fines gathered as a result of prosecutions taken by HSE.

  Work-related Illnesses
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives the Health and Safety Executive is currently taking to reduce the levels of occupational ill health.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Much of the Health and Safety Executive's everyday activity, such as modernising the framework of health and safety law, inspection of workplaces, provision of advice and formal enforcement action is aimed at reducing occupational ill health. HSE is giving priority in 1994–95 to implementing a coherent programme of action based on the conclusions of its recent strategic review of the 10 main occupational health risks—toxic substances, biohazards, noise, vibration, ionising and non-ionising radiation, manual handling, upper limb disorders, sick building syndrome and stress.544
  Action includes: obtaining better information on the scale and pattern of ill health; commissioning further research, for example on prevention techniques; and provision of practical guidance and publicity campaigns.

  HSE is also now planning a major new campaign, "Good Health is Good Business", which will start in May and aims to encourage and help employers to act to manage health risks more effectively.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the Health and Safety Executive's current estimate of the number of people whose health is affected by work activity.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  From the responses to a special set of questions in the 1990 labour force survey of 60,000 households, it can be estimated that in the 12 months prior to the survey 2.2 million people in England and Wales suffered from an illness which they believe had been caused or made worse by their work.

  Construction Design and Management Regulations
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Health and Safety Commission first sent a draft of the Construction Design and Management Regulations to him; and what has been the reason for delay in their introduction.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 24 January 1995,Official Report, column 184.

  Focus Project
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current cost of the Health and Safety Executive's Focus project; what are the expected final costs; what was the original estimate for the cost of the project; and when it is expected to be fully implemented.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The cost of the Focus project at 30 December 1994 was £6.221 million. The projected life cost is £9.758 million, compared with the original estimates of £10.026 million. The major part of the project is expected to be completed in late summer 1995. Further enhancements will be incorporated in the development of a project to equip staff with portable computers.

  Staff Safety
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding the safety of his Department's staff dealing with unemployment benefit claims, income support and the proposed jobseeker's allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]: Representations on this issue have been made to the Employment Service central health committee, by its trade union members. Their views are being taken into account in a generic risk assessment of the effect of the proposed introduction of a jobseeker's allowance on the safety of people working in Employment Service local offices.

DEFENCE

  UN Peacekeeping Force (Somalia)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to contribute to the operation to withdraw the UN peacekeeping force from Somalia.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom is contributing a Royal Navy ship to the UN operation to withdraw peacekeeping forces from Somalia. HMS Exeter will arrive in the area later this week and will operate as part of a task group led by the United States navy. A RN presence will continue to be available to the United Nations for this purpose until mid-March.

  Bullying
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents involving allegations of bullying or brutality have been investigated in each of the armed forces in the last five years; how incidents were drawn to the attention of the authorities; and what was the result of the investigations.

  Mr. Soames
  Details of allegations of bullying or brutality which have been investigated in each of the armed forces in the last five years are not held in a readily available form. To obtain this information would require a search of records held by each ship and service establishment.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the representations he has received in the last two years regarding incidents of bullying in the armed forces.

  Mr. Soames
  No central record is maintained of representations regarding incidents of bullying in the armed forces and the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what level in the armed forces investigations into complaints about bullying are held; what is the number of units at this level; and if his Department collates the information.

  Mr. Soames
  The level at which complaints of bullying are investigated by the services depends on the circumstances and seriousness of each case. Investigations may be undertaken at unit level or, in most cases, and always where a criminal offence is alleged, by the service police. Records are held centrally by the service police of all investigations undertaken by them.

  Air Show (Bratislava)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1994,Official Report, column 907, what was the total number of RAF personnel present at the Bratislava airport display on 20 and 21 August 1994; and what payment was made by the organisers of the air show towards the costs of the outward and return transit flights by the aircraft from their bases to Slovakia.

  Mr. Soames
  Seventy-six RAF personnel were deployed to Bratislava for the whole or part of the display.

  The costs of the outward flights were borne by my Department as the hours flown formed part of normal tasking. Fuel for the return flights was issued by the organisers without charge.

  Mines, Firth of Clyde
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all of the mines laid during recent mine-laying exercises in and nearby the Firth of Clyde have been recovered; if local fishermen have been made aware of the recovery programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Bad weather has delayed the recovery of exercise mines recently laid in and nearby the Firth of Clyde. Weather permitting, the mines will be recovered by mid-February. In accordance with normal procedures, local fishermen have been informed of planned recovery dates by means of a number of notices to fishermen.

  "Competing for Quality"
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 January,Official Report, column 109, if he will list those activities under the "Competing for Quality" programme for the period 1 April 1992 to 30 September 1994 which have been secured by (a) in-house bids and (b) private contractors; and if he will name the successful contractors.

  Mr. Freeman
  Listed are the activities which have been secured by(a) in-house bids and (b) private contractors, together with the names of the winning contractors, in the period April 1992 to September 1994.

  a. Activities secured by in-house bids

  Gardening at RM Units Poole, CTCRM Lympstone and COMMACHIO Group

  RAOC Print Section—Northern Ireland

  Air Weapon Range, RAF Cowden

  Support Services—Gateway House, RAF Brize Norton

  Aircraft Support Services, A and AEE Boscombe Down

  Experimental Flying, Bedford/Boscombe Down

  Mechanical Handling Equipment, repair and maintenance, Devonport

  18 Base Workshops, Army Base Repair Organisation, Bovington

  b. Activities secured by private contractors

  Royal Navy Helicopters Maintenance and Engineering Support, HMS OSPREY, HMS HERON and HMS SEAHAWK

  —Hunting A/C Ltd.

  Aircraft Maintenance, HMS HERON

  —Hunting A/C Ltd.

  Works Services, HMS SEAHAWK

  —PSA Building Management

  Helicopter Simulator, HMS OSPREY

  —Hunting A/C Ltd.

  Works Services, HMS DOLPHIN

  —PSA Building Management

  Gardening at Royal Marine School of Music, Deal

  —Oaklands plc

  Central Engineer Reserve Plant Hire, Long Marston

  547

  —Various local contractors

  Bielefeld Bakery, Germany

  —NAAFI

  Food Distribution in Rear Combat Zone, Germany

  —NAAFI

  Line of Communication Freight Service (Low Countries), Germany

  —DEPAIRE

  Food Distribution in BAOR (now UK Support Services). Germany

  —NAAFI

  Tailoring Service, Northern Ireland

  —Private Individual

  Ration Delivery Service in Northern Ireland

  —NAAFI

  Air Weapon Range, RAF Holbeach

  —Siemens Plessey Assessment Services

  Flight Checking, 115 Squadron, RAF Benson

  —Hunting A/C Ltd.

  Engineering and Supply, RAF Scampton

  —Hunting A/C Ltd. RAF/RN Elementary Flying Training, RAF Topcliffe

  —Hunting A/C Ltd.

  Inspectorate of Recruitment Exhibition Production Flight, RAF Henlow

  —SERCO

  Property Management of Buildings in Central London

  —Planned Maintenance Engineering Ltd.

  Information Technology Data Processing, Devizes Hoskyns PLC

  Domestic Services, MOD Police Training Centre —Gardner Merchant

  Works Services Maintenance, Belize, Cyprus, Gibraltar and Falkland Islands

  —Turner (FM) Ltd./Balfour Beatty/ACO

  Trident in Service Support

  —Rolls Royce/Devonport Management Ltd./British Maritime Technology

  Mess Catering, A and AEE Boscombe Down

  —Gardener Merchant

  Relocation Reconnaissance Visits for staff transferring to Bristol

  —Peter Carol Executive Coaches

  Security Guarding of Abbey Wood site, Bristol

  —CHUBB Wardens Ltd.

  Combat Systems Information Management TC0

  —EASAMS Ltd.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston

  —Hunting-Brae Ltd.

  Royal Navy Aircraft Second Line Engineering, Yeovilton —FR Engineering/SERCO

  Tri-Service Food Study

  —NAAFI

  Verbatim Court Recorders, Department of the Adjutant General

  —Harry Counsell and Co

  Catering at Mill Hill Industrial Mess, Defence Postal and Courier Service, London

  —Gardner Merchant

  Army Catering Strategy Study

  —Various contractors across a range of sites Electronic Warfare Training Tasks, 360 Squadron, RAF Wyton

  548

  —FR Aviation Ltd.

  Parachute Transport Flight, RAF Hullavington

  —Hallett Silbermann

  Operation of Air Weapons Range, Rosehearty

  —Assessment Services Ltd.

  Operation and maintenance of the Government Pipeline and Storage System

  —Simon Storage Group, SERCO Gulf Engineering, Unipen Maintenance Analysis and Computing Division, RAF Swanton Morley

  —Bull Information Systems Ltd.

  Airfield Services, Gibraltar

  —SERCO Ltd.

  Catering, cleaning and labouring activities, RAF Akrotiri

  —Compass Catering Services (Cyprus) Ltd.

  Support Services, Hong Kong

  —SERCO/Gardner Merchant

  Food Supply and Distribution, Hong Kong

  —Various contractors

  School Bus Service, Hong Kong

  —Hoi Tai Tours Ltd.

  Curtain Manufacture, Hong Kong

  —FCO Procurement Unit

  Furniture Repair, Hong Kong

  —Wing Cheung and Co Ltd.

  Data Entry, Meteorological Office, Bracknell

  —Alpha Numeric

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Fatchett
  To as the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of experiments involving animals at Ministry of Defence establishments in each year from 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  Animal experiments are an essential but small part of my Department's research and development programme, and as such the costs of these experiments are not recorded separately.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, column 573, if he will identify the country of origin and commercial source of the rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, sheep, goats, pigs, miniature pigs, marmosets and rhesus monkeys used in animal experiments at Ministry of Defence establishments; and if he will give the average cost of each animal by type.

  Mr. Freeman
  All experimental work carried out by the Department using animals is in accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Animals are used only when there is no acceptable alternative, and all the animals used are bred in the United Kingdom under conditions regulated by UK legislation. Animals are either bred on site, or purchased from suppliers at the prevailing commercial rate, and these costs are not separately recorded.

  It is not in the public interest to disclose the identities of the specific suppliers.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State of Defence what consideration his Department has given to using alternatives to animal testing at Ministry of Defence establishments; how much is being spent on exploring these alternatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Freeman
  All experimental work with animals at Ministry of Defence establishments is regulated by the Home Office under the conditions of the Animals
  549
  (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and related legislation. Before any project involving animals is begun, a project licence must be granted by the Home Office. A critical part of the project licence application is a closely argued justification of the proposed use of animals considering the ethical and scientific issues. At each stage, the use of non-animal alternatives has to be considered and the licence is granted only where none is possible. In some cases, in vitro methods which do not use living animals are scientifically superior. Such methods have been developed by my Department, and the results of the research published in scientific literature. Costs are not separately identified and recorded.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will define the categories of experiments carried out on living animals at Ministry of Defence establishments in each year from 1989; if he will identify the animals involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Animal experiments are carried out within the overall categories as defined by the project licences which are issued in accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The project licences currently in effect cover mild 7, moderate 15, substantial 4, and unclassified 1.

  It would involve disproportionate cost to identify the animals involved and the categories of experiment in each year since 1989.

  Equipment Exports (Human Rights)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, columns 690–91, if he will list the equipment which he considers could be used to violate human rights.

  Mr. Freeman
  Part III, group 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended is a list of those military, security and para-military goods and arms, ammunition and related material which require export licences. The possible use for human rights violations is taken into account when applications for export licences are considered.

  RN

  RAF

  Army

  United Kingdom

  Overseas

  United Kingdom

  Overseas

  United Kingdom

  Overseas

  Killed

  1989

  1

  —

  3

  —

  6

  13

  1990

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  3

  1991

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  7

  1993

  2

  4

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Injured

  1989

  118

  14

  672

  17

  84

  533

  1990

  90

  3

  636

  12

  106

  376

  1991

  82

  11

  508

  16

  104

  328

  1992

  88

  18

  381

  7

  51

  117

  1993

  71

  22

  367

  6

  39

  188

  Notes:

  1. The figures for the United Kingdom include Northern Ireland.

  2. The figures for RN personnel injured in the United Kingdom include the north Atlantic.

  Exports (Indonesia)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring of the levels of British exported military equipment is undertaken in Indonesia; and if he will make a statement.

  Support Helicopters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what consideration he has made of the purchase of Chinook support helicopters for the RAF;

  (2) how many support helicopters he expects to purchase to meet the RAF's requirements;

  (3) when he expects to make a decision on the procurement of support helicopters for the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  As announced in the 1994 Statement on the Defence Estimates, we are considering the Boeing Chinook and Westland EH101 to meet our requirement for additional support helicopters. Price and performance data for the two aircraft have been received. Those data are currently being assessed. No decision has been taken as to how many helicopters or of what type to purchase. An announcement will be made as soon as our negotiations are complete.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his policy to possess a mixed fleet of utility support helicopters for the RAF; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We recognise the potential advantages of a mixed fleet. Price is also a key consideration. Negotiations with industry are still continuing. No decision has yet been made.

  Training Exercises (Injuries)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces serving in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy have been (i) killed and (ii) seriously injured while on training exercises (1) overseas and (2) in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  From the records available, it is not possible to differentiate between the seriousness of injuries. Numbers of service personnel killed and injured are as follows:

  Mr. Freeman
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), on 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 894.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Haemophiliacs: Contaminated Blood Transfusions
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What information they have about the percentage of haemophiliacs who have Hepatitis C following infection from contaminated blood products, and whether they are planning a compensation scheme similar to that for haemophiliacs infected by the HIV virus.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, figures are not collected centrally for haemophilia patients who have contracted Hepatitis C through contaminated blood products. We have great sympathy for those affected, but have no plans to make special payments.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that haemophiliacs depend entirely on blood transfusions. Does she also know that virtually all of those who received blood transfusions before 1986 had been infected with the deadly Hepatitis C, and although no fault is involved, does the Minister agree that they need payment just the same as those haemophiliacs who were infected by the HIV virus through contaminated blood? The Minister is aware that they were treated humanely by the Government in 1990. Does the Minister agree that there is no difference in principle and there should be none in practice? Therefore, will the Government avoid discriminating against those with Hepatitis C by extending the role and funding of the Macfarlane Trust which helps the other group?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we draw a distinction between HIV and Hepatitis C. When compensation was given HIV was a very new disease and, unlike Hepatitis C, it was thought to be invariably fatal. It carries with it a range of health, social and financial effects which are devastating to those affected. Again, that is unlike Hepatitis C patients many of whom can lead very ordinary lives for decades. As regards hereditary haemophiliacs, they had all those disadvantages superimposed on their hereditary haemophilia.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not possibly a mistake to concentrate entirely on Hepatitis C? When I had jaundice in 1942 that was before the three kinds of hepatitis were differentiated. I was warned never to give my blood to anybody because
1250
it would be poisonous for the rest of my life. Therefore, should not one just speak generally on the subject of Hepatitis and not simply on Hepatitis C.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend. He is absolutely right. People are given the best treatment available at the time in good faith. As regards haemophiliacs, without the blood they would certainly have died. That risk had to be assessed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that following a recent Panorama programme on Hepatitis C there were very many concerned people who could not get through to the helpline because there were too many callers? What advice can the Minister give to all those people who have had blood transfusions? Further, is there any benefit in having interferon should the persons affected be positive to Hepatitis C?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we were very concerned by the Panorama programme especially as the programme editor did not co-operate with us on the helpline. We had to approach the makers and endeavour to ensure that the helplines we run were similar in terms of the advice given. In general, our advice is that if people are concerned they should immediately see their general practitioner. They should talk about the matter and take the advice given.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I know that the Minister was not in her present post at the Department of Health at the time, but is she aware that there was considerable and justifiable anger at the length of time it took the Department of Health to come to an opinion and a decision about the Macfarlane Trust on HIV and AIDS compensation? Will she seek to avoid a similar atmosphere developing and a similar sense of unjust treatment of people with haemophilia who have been infected by Hepatitis C? There is really no difference in the position which the Minister has explained between those infected who have Hepatitis C and those who have HIV and AIDS.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that there really is a very great difference and I outlined that in my initial response to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. HIV is very different in that people are likely to die of it. We believe that there is no cure or treatment for it, but there is with Hepatitis C. We know that interferon can have a very beneficial effect. Therefore, we have to draw a distinction. We also have to be careful not to open the floodgates to every case that is made for compensation. If that were to happen I believe that we would reach the situation which exists in the United States where doctors are very frightened to give quite ordinary treatment to people for fear of being sued. That would finish the National Health Service and we would all be the poorer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister has quite sincerely said, is she aware that I find it difficult not to agree with my noble friend Lady Jay? Can the Minister give the House some statistics about the number who are now

1251
suffering from Hepatitis C and about those who suffer from the HIV virus? I understand from what the Minister said in her Answer that the number in the first case is not very great at present.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have all those figures with me. In fact, they are difficult to obtain. That is why we have introduced a system of looking back at all those who have received blood transfusions from donors who have suffered from Hepatitis C. I have figures relating to the HIV cases—although not with me this afternoon—and I shall write to the noble Lord with that information.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I apologise for coming back on this point, but surely the Minister is aware that it is not a question of what happens once somebody is infected? We all understand that there are differences between the impact of Hepatitis C and of HIV. The issue is how those conditions are caused. In this case, both were caused by contaminated blood. Surely that is the position which the Government should seek to redress.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is only very recently that we have been able to detect Hepatitis C in blood products and to remedy that situation. As soon as we knew what was happening, and once we had a foolproof test, we took early action. That is the situation. There is no question at this time of compensating those who have contracted Hepatitis C through blood transfusions.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we run a risk every time that we go to the doctor and receive treatment but that, mercifully, owing to the skill of the medical profession and the admirable work of pharmaceutical companies the risk is very small? Does the Minister further accept that many Members of your Lordships' House agree with her in regard to the situation in the United States where doctors have to carry extremely heavy insurance cover against the risk of being sued by patients for improper treatment? If we go down the road of having a compensation scheme, we shall find that exactly the same thing happens in this country, at enormous cost.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. That was the point I was trying to put, although not as effectively.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that seven people died last year, and many more are going to die, so there is no point in the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and herself writing down Hepatitis C? It is a fact that this situation has been created by contaminated blood that was given through the National Health Service, so I hope that the Minister will think again about this very special case.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to stress just three points. At the time, the people concerned were given the best possible treatment. That treatment was given in good faith and, without it, they would certainly have died.

QEII: Safety Inspections
2.46 p.m.
Lord Monkswellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will set up an independent inquiry into the efficacy of the Marine Safety Agency in the light of the permission granted to the QEII to sail from Southampton to New York on 17th December 1994.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, no. While the Marine Safety Agency has confirmed that standard procedures were followed, the Secretary of State for Transport has asked the chief executive to consider the case as part of his review of the agency's survey and inspection instructions.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But is he aware that not only were passengers inconvenienced during the voyage and the image of Britain overseas heavily tarnished, but furthermore, given the decline of the merchant navy over the past 10 to 15 years by more than 50 per cent., surely we have a right to question the fitness for purpose of the merchant marine as demonstrated by this incident? What action are the Government taking to make sure that shipowners ensure that their ships are fit for the purpose when they sail from UK ports?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, clearly it is in the shipowners' and operators' own commercial interest to ensure that their vessels are in the best possible condition. The Government's role in this matter is to ensure that safety standards are adhered to.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister say when he expects to receive the report? Is the noble Viscount aware—he does not seem to have shown the awareness that the situation demands—that the incident concerning Britain's most prestigious liner certainly raised questionmarks about the efficacy of our surveying procedures, as well as causing grave concern to the international maritime world? Does the Minister believe that that ship should have been allowed to sail? If he does, is it not time that the international standards to which he referred were revised? Therefore, would he be prepared for the International Maritime Organisation to take the appropriate procedures to remedy a situation of this kind?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the prestige of the vessel concerned and the influence of such events on our country's international reputation. Again, however, the Marine Safety Agency, which was the agency responsible for surveying the vessel, has a worldwide reputation of the highest order for both integrity and expertise. Special considerations were taken into account at the time. The ship had undergone a thorough survey by the MSA during its refit period and was inspected before it left

1253
Southampton. Additional work was required, and the MSA issued only a limited passenger certificate to cover that number of passengers.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, while it may have been a case of poor commercial judgment rather than any breach of safety regulations, are Her Majesty's Government aware that, as a result of publicity surrounding such occurrences, there now exists a breed of person who, armed with a camcorder, makes a point of recording any breach of regulations (safety or otherwise) with a view to selling that information to newspapers for gain or to suing the company concerned? Is not that a process that is to be wholly deprecated?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is essentially right, but the Government are of course interested in any evidence or information of wrongdoing in the operation of ships, so in that sense the practice is not wholly to be condemned.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind that no one would condone some of the conditions on that ship and the inconvenience they caused to the passengers in view of the price charged these days for such a passage or holiday, have the Government any reason to believe that the passengers on the QEII were in any more peril than they are on the car ferries that sail to the Continent which are given full approval for every trip they make?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, one cannot draw an exact parallel. We make ro-ro ferries as safe as we can. The noble Lord will be aware of the inspection the MSA undertook of all bow doors and sealing arrangements of all ferries operating to and from the UK. So far as concerns the QEII and its voyage to New York, the vessel was given a limited passenger certificate for approximately half of her complement. We are satisfied that safety was at no point compromised.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, how does the Minister reconcile that response with the fact that the US coast guard detained the vessel because it was not satisfied as to the safety conditions under which it was sailing?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the MSA and the US coast guard were working extremely closely on this matter. They were applying the same international standards. I agree that there was a small difference of interpretation between the two agencies. At the end of the episode, the US coast guard chose to endorse its certificate, but the MSA was satisfied that the ship met the required safety standards and issued a full certificate. That was on leaving New York.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Minister has said that there was a small difference between the British and American authorities. Does he agree that the small difference meant that the ship was allowed to leave Southampton, and it was not allowed to leave New York?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no, that is not true. The ship was allowed to leave Southampton with a restricted certificate; that is, for approximately half the
1254
number of passengers that it would normally carry. In addition, other specific security and safety measures were put in place. Various parts of the ship were closed. There were increased fire patrols and so forth. The difference in interpretation occurred in New York. It concerned one of the vessel's vertical fire sections.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the height of the Falklands conflict my noble friend Lord Callaghan, who was then a Member of the other place, advised the nation that an early landing on the Falkland Islands was to be expected because it was impossible to keep troops sailing around in circles for long periods while still maintaining their fighting effectiveness? Does he recognise that troops using the QEII in this condition would have been rendered less fit for active service at the end of their voyage? Therefore it is something that the Government should take seriously into account.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a question that I did not expect him to ask. I am not sure that the condition of the aft swimming pool was of major consequence to fully armed troops about to embark upon an expedition to the South Atlantic. The condition of the vessel is a serious point. I have made it clear that extra safety requirements were put in place and insisted upon by the MSA before the vessel was allowed to sail to New York.

Friday Sittings: Starred Questions
2.53 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chairman of Committees:
What are the grounds for banning Starred Questions at Friday sittings of the House.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the House decided on 10th January to discontinue Starred Questions on Fridays after a suggestion by the Group on Sittings of the House. It was part of a package of proposals to reduce the burden of business on the Floor of the House; in particular, to enable the House to have more Friday sittings, allowing the House to rise earlier on other days of the week, so lightening the burden on all Members of the House. To have continued to take Starred Questions on Fridays would have added to the burden on Ministers, and would have taken up time that otherwise would have been saved.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but is he aware that to take Starred Questions on a Friday would in no way inhibit having a Friday sitting and that, on the contrary, Starred Questions are an effective part of the House's control of the Government? Can he seriously say that if they were restored on a Friday it would in any degree inhibit the House from sitting on a Friday?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, first, I would agree with the noble Lord that Starred Questions are one of the means of, as he has put it—

1255
I would not quite have used the word—"controlling" the Government. In our debate on the Procedure Committee's report which recommended the proposal, I ventured to suggest that part of the duty of the House was to protect Ministers. I took the view, as was clear during the course of the debate, that there is a clear distinction to be drawn between protecting Ministers in order that they can carry out their public duties for the benefit of the public as a whole and protecting them from proper scrutiny. Not only would that be wrong, but we should probably be failing in our duty if we did it. I come back to the point that the proposals stemmed from a recommendation of the Leader's Group on the Sittings of the House. The proposal was taken up by the Procedure Committee and recommended to your Lordships. Your Lordships felt inclined to accept that recommendation on 10th January.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will recall that I raised this matter during the debate on the Procedure Committee's report. To my recollection the House took no notice of what I said, and agreed the committee's recommendation. Will the noble Lord advise me whether it would now be in order for any Member of the House to put down a Motion providing for Questions to be asked on Fridays? Could that be discussed and voted upon?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord's final point first. It is of course open to any of your Lordships to put down whatever Motion your Lordships felt appropriate provided that it was proper, in order and within the procedure of the House. Perhaps I may comfort the noble Lord to some extent on his first question. To my certain recollection, it is not the case that your Lordships did not pay attention to what the noble Lord said. I paid close attention to it and responded to him during the debate.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that our performance should compare reasonably favourably with that of another place, is the noble Lord aware that in another place several score of Questions are tabled for answer by Ministers every day that the House sits and that about 12 or 15 are normally answered every day, whereas in your Lordships' House, even if we were to have four Questions tabled on a Friday, we should have had only 20 Questions in the whole week? Cannot that important factor of great distinction be borne in mind during further consideration of this matter?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that these are considerations which might well need to be borne in mind when this package of proposals falls to be reviewed, if that is your Lordships' wish, by the Procedure Committee in due course. So far as concerns the point about the number of Questions, there are benefits and disadvantages in them. The fact that we have four Questions each day from Mondays to Thursdays, when
1256
we sit on Mondays, exposes Ministers to greater scrutiny on those points than happens to be the case in another place. I venture to take a different view from the noble Lord about the amount of time which would be taken up on Fridays. The intention of the Group on the Sittings of the House, followed by the Procedure Committee and by your Lordships, was to save time and to expect that, if Friday sittings took place more often, we would aim to rise at about 2.30 p.m. That means that there would be a sitting of only three-and-a-half hours. If we were to have half an hour of Questions that would limit that time. That is a consideration which was very much in your Lordships' minds on 10th January.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, had no European connection whatever, I have no hesitation in supporting what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised an important point. Does the Chairman of Committees agree that it is one of the most important areas of our debate and that we should not be deprived of the opportunity of asking Questions on a Friday?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, there is substance in what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said. The proposals are seen as a package and therefore the intention, which arose out of our debate three weeks ago, is that they will be reviewed as a package. Undoubtedly, the comments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be taken into account if and when the occasion arises. I believe that it will arise.
I would not attempt to answer the noble Lord's first point. I well remember that when a couple of weeks ago a noble Lord suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, had not linked his Question with Europe he immediately came back and did so.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, looking at the matter from an entirely domestic aspect, and excluding any European aura, will the Chairman of Committees be kind enough to explain to the House how the answering of four additional Questions per week will effect the efficiency of Her Majesty's Government and their Ministers? I am sure that the noble Lord will answer the point indirectly if he wishes. However, if the capability of the Government and their reputation in the country depend on such a fragile consideration the Government must be in dire straits.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I do not believe that we can lay this matter at the door of the Government. I am not here to defend the Government or aspiring Members of any future government. It is not for me to judge; it is a matter for the House to decide.
There are still spaces for Starred Questions over the next 15 days; that is, until 14th February. As a matter of fact there is not so much pressure for spaces for Starred Questions during the first four days of the week as one might think.

Air Passenger Duty
3.3 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Taraasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the operation of air passenger duty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, yes. The duty will yield some £315 million in a full year. The consultation process, which began after the November 1993 Budget, is continuing and some significant changes to the duty have arisen from that consultation and have been welcomed by the air transport industry.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that it is a most complicated duty to collect? The duty is supposed to be £5 in respect of journeys to the European Community and £10 in respect of journeys elsewhere. However, is my noble friend aware that as regards flights to Norway, a country which decisively rejected membership to the European Community, the duty is only £5? Furthermore, when travelling to Switzerland, one pays only £5 on a journey to Geneva or Basle but £10 on a journey to Zurich.
Is it no wonder, therefore, that the cost of collection is estimated by British Airways to be more than £11 million per year for that company alone? Would it not be reasonable if the airlines were allowed to offset the cost of collection against the duty payable or if there were a more simple means of collection?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend implies that the tax is complicated. In fact, it is simple—£5 in respect of flights to EU or EEA countries and £10 in respect of flights elsewhere. That is why in respect of Norway, which is an EEA country, the duty is £5.
As regards airports in Switzerland, I am advised that Basle and Geneva straddle the border between Switzerland and France. It was decided, therefore, that for pragmatic and simpler reasons—one did not know into which country the passengers would offload—to treat passengers as though they were exiting into France and to charge £5. Zurich is totally in Switzerland and therefore outside EEA.
I am not prepared to accept the figure which my noble friend gave relating to the cost of collection to airlines. I appreciate the airlines' anxieties relating to the cost and that is why, following discussions between the airlines and Customs and Excise, it was agreed that we could use a special accounting system for air passenger duty that allows airlines to use samples and surveys of passengers. That will simplify procedures and keep costs down. I am confident that modern information technology should enable them to do the job relatively cheaply.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this tax is being levied in an inequitable and arbitrary manner? Is he aware that, for example, as regards the same round-trip journey between London and Glasgow,
1258
if the journey is made on a three-day return ticket the tax is £5 but if it is made on a return ticket valid for more than three days it is £10? Will the Minister explain that extreme difference in taxation on the same journey?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is simply a question of keeping such a tax as simple as possible. The noble Lord and others may laugh but there comes a point when a return journey ceases to be a return journey and becomes two separate legs of two different journeys.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Minister explain why, as regards my return journey from Aberdeen to London, leaving on Monday and returning on Friday, which is five days later, the tax is only £5?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I must take further advice on the matter because I am getting different figures from the noble Lady and the noble Lord. If the House will bear with me, it must accept that there are occasions when a return journey is one journey, and can be seen as that, and when it is not that but two journeys.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Goschen will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on security in the Channel Tunnel.

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Agricultural Tenancies Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time.
Clause 4 [Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 not to apply in relation to new tenancies except in special cases]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 27, leave out from ("applied") to end of line 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to a matter that has already been discussed. However, I thought it important to table the amendment again in order that the Minister will accept that it is worth consideration when the Bill reaches the other place. It relates to the important issue of surrender and regrant under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. I shall paraphrase what I said on Report. Preserving security for the existing tenant where there is an expressed surrender and regrant is as important as the surrender and regrant which occurred by the inadvertent operation of the law.
We accept that the Government's intention is that all tenants with existing protected tenancies shall have that protection continued and shall not inadvertently lose their security when the Bill becomes law.

1259
I have discussed the matter with a number of practitioners since it was dealt with on Report. They are anxious about an inadvertent surrender and regrant or an expressed surrender and regrant. It is entirely a matter of good law and practice and not a point of principle on the operation of the Bill. It seems that there is a strong feeling among those who must deal with these matters that if landlords and tenants wish to exchange land or rearrange an estate or if tenants are moved around within an estate, the tenant may find, without realising it, that he has lost the security which he has under the 1986 Act and he will end up with a farm business tenancy.
On Report the Minister put the point well when he said:
"As drafted, the clause provides protection for people who have an existing tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 against losing their rights under that Act—for example, their security of tenure—simply because a variation in their tenancy agreement has effect by operation of law as an implied surrender followed by the grant of a new tenancy".
The Minister seemed to accept an important point because he said:
"We accept that in those circumstances it would be inequitable for the new tenancy to be excluded from the scope of the 1986 Act when the parties had not intended that to happen".—[Official Report, 23/1/95; cols. 894–5.]
On Report, the Minister made a fair point when he said that the amendment as drafted would affect all tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and he was concerned about the effect of that. I understand that. However, I have tabled an amendment with the same wording but I accept that there is a weakness in it. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the point will be dealt with when the Bill reaches the other place. That would satisfy those practitioners—and there are a number of them—who are saying that there is a weakness in the 1986 Act with the new Act coming in. The Government's intention is that all tenants who are now secure under the 1986 Act should remain so unless they decide expressly to come away from the 1986 Act and have a farm business tenancy. But if they intend the security of the 1986 Act to continue, there should be some words in the Bill which will allow that to happen.
At present, that matter is causing anxiety. If, for reasons of good estate management, holdings are rearranged on an estate, tenants are concerned that they will be caught unless there is a provision in the Bill to take account of the problem. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, we discussed a very similar amendment last week on Report, as was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but I should like to explain again why the Government are resisting it.
The first reason is on policy grounds. We have proposed that new tenancies granted on or after 1st September 1995 should be farm business tenancies. In order to avoid legislative confusion, Clause 4 of the Bill therefore provides, as the side-heading so succinctly puts it, that the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 is not to apply in relation to new tenancies except in special
1260
cases. Those special cases do not include cases where people elect to make changes to the holding, or to their contract, and enter into a new tenancy agreement. Those people will know that they cannot have a new tenancy under the 1986 Act; but they will have the opportunity to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of exchanging their 1986 Act tenancy for a farm business tenancy. In such cases, the parties are taking a decision with their eyes open.
Clause 4(1)(d) deals with a different kind of case: our intention here is to protect people who have an existing tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act against losing their rights under that Act simply because of a variation in their tenancy agreement which has effect by operation of law as an implied surrender and regrant. These cases, which could occur inadvertently, will, by way of exception, continue to be subject to the 1986 Act even though they are, legally, new tenancies granted on or after 1st September 1995.
The noble Lord suggests that tenants who wanted to relocate to another farm within an estate would benefit from this amendment. I do not think it would have that effect. My understanding is that, unless the new holding included the whole or a substantial part of the land held under the 1986 Act tenancy, they would still fall outside the scope of Clause 4(1) (d).
When we discussed this amendment on Report, the noble Lord referred to the doctrine of estates and drew a distinction between a protected annual tenancy and a fixed term lease. That was because I had remarked that after the Bill comes into force a landlord can still offer the tenant a new long fixed-term farm business tenancy, including many of the provisions of the 1986 Act, which would confer considerable security of tenure on the tenant.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I apologise most sincerely for rising to intervene but it has become increasingly difficult to listen to the Minister's remarks because of discussions on the Benches opposite. Perhaps the noble Earl will continue his remarks and I hope that there will be less disturbance in future.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are conscious of the potential for distraction. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his wish to give my words the maximum possible airing. I am sure that those to whom the noble Lord's remarks are directed will take the appropriate action, although I should not like to say who they may be.
Of course, I appreciate that under a protected annual tenancy, it is open to the tenant to terminate the tenancy at any time by giving a year's notice. However, the fixed term tenancy could include suitable break clauses in the event of the tenant becoming ill or incapacitated or in such other circumstances as the parties agree. Therefore, I believe that my original point is still valid.
I remain of the view that the amendment is unnecessary since parties can make adequate arrangements. The amendment is defective in that it

1261
would not achieve its aim. Therefore, I hope that with that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment; but I am rather disappointed. The Minister started off by saying that it is a matter of policy, and almost immediately he pointed out that there is an exception which is allowed for in the Bill under Clause 4(1) (d).
I admit that the wording of the amendment is not perfect but its intention is to highlight a problem and to see whether the Government are prepared to consider the matter. I believe that tenants may become locked into situations. There may be a lack of flexibility. It seems a pity that on rather spurious policy grounds, the Government are not prepared to deal with the problem.
Obviously, the Minister was slightly stunned on Report when I mentioned a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of estates and the distinction between a protected annual tenancy and a fixed term lease. I am not sure that I am convinced by what he said about that; but he will realise that I was reading from the brief and I should not dream of accusing myself of a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of estates.
We have tried hard to bring the point home. Perhaps the problem will be dealt with in another place but we have not been able to change the Minister's mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Amount of rent]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No.2:
Page 7, line 30, leave out from ("tenancy") to ("which") in line 31 and insert ("(including those which are relevant for the purposes of section 10(4) to (6) of this Act, but not those relating to the criteria by reference to").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which we consider necessary to make the meaning of Clause 13(2) clear beyond doubt. Under the clause as drafted, an arbitrator at a rent review is required to take account of all relevant factors, including the terms of the tenancy, except those relating to the manner in which any new rent is to be determined. It has been pointed out to us by the RICS that this might possibly be taken to mean any provisions in the tenancy agreement relating to rent reviews. This was not our intention.
The amendment makes clear that the arbitrator should disregard provisions in the tenancy agreement relating to the criteria by reference to which any new rent is to be determined—in other words, any provision which purports to lay down a method for reviewing the rent—but not those provisions which relate to the intervals between rent reviews or the dates on which reviews are to take place. Those clearly have a bearing on the new open market rent and should be taken into consideration at the arbitration. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Tenant's right to compensation for tenant's improvement]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 34, at end insert ("save that where milk quota was registered in relation to land held under a tenancy to which the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 applied and which was let immediately on the expiry of that tenancy as a farm business tenancy, and where no claim was made for compensation in respect of that quota under the Agriculture Act 1986, that Act shall still apply to that milk quota which shall not be the subject of any other claim for compensation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the above amendment, we move to the vexed question of milk quota. We have already discussed the matter during the passage of the Bill, but I thought that it was important to have one last try to draw the attention of the House, and of the Government, to the problems which are foreseen in the situation outlined in the amendment. I refer to the transfer of the tenancy and the tenant somehow losing his compensation for milk quota while wishing to take such provision with him. I believe that that point was not answered by the Minister in his response on Report. At the stage where one was creating a new tenancy to deal with changes to the registered quota he said that it would be extremely complicated and very difficult; indeed, the Minister called it a nightmare.
It seems to me that if the landlord and tenant wished to crystallise the value of the quota at that point, and then, so to speak, to pass it on to the new tenancy they should be able—in the jargon—to massage it through into the new tenancy. That was the point that I was trying to make. I see that the Minister is nodding his head in agreement, so obviously the point has been picked up in his brief.
I should like to know why it would not be possible for the tenant to take the compensation for milk quota under the 1986 Act—he may, perhaps, be encouraged to move into one of the new tenancies—and have the value crystallised. In that way, it would be established so that there would be no fear of a double payment or, indeed, of no payment at all. I agree that the whole area is complicated as regards the compensation for milk quota. Obviously it is complicated because of the schedules to the 1986 Act. But clearly there should be the opportunity for the landlord and the tenant to crystallise the value of the milk quota, if they wish to do so, and to pass it on to the new tenancy.
The amendment gives me the chance to raise another point for the last time. I promise that it is the last time; indeed, it has to be. I refer to the point I made about the business of the Euro holding where the tenant has some quota under the 1986 Act and takes up a farm business tenancy with the same landlord. He then buys some quota for the new tenancy in the happy expectation that, as he has paid for all of it, it belongs to him. The tenant consequently leaves the two tenancies and, as I understand it, because of the European rules on Euro holdings, the landlord is entitled to some compensation for the quota which the tenant purchased outright, so to speak, for the new tenancy.
In his response, I believe that the Minister said that my understanding of the situation was correct. However, perhaps the noble Earl or the department would like to reconsider the matter. It has been drawn to my attention that it is not the intention that such a thing should happen, but the situation has to apply under European rules. I wonder whether there is any way to ensure that the problem can be dealt with when the legislation reaches the other place. The two related problems are the crystallisation of the value of the quota as outlined in my first example and the curious situation regarding the effect of the Euro holding as explained in my second example. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, once again for his explanations on milk quota matters. We have now considered the question of compensation for milk quota at every stage of the Bill since it received Second Reading in your Lordships' House. I must confess that I was unsure before the noble Lord's explanation whether he wished really to press the amendment or was in fact looking to me to shed further light on the complexities of milk quota legislation. I hope I am right in thinking that the noble Lord desires the latter.
I believe it is common ground between the noble Lord and myself that milk quota is already a fearfully complicated and technical subject. It would only add to those existing complications if tenants who take up a farm business tenancy immediately after a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act has ended were to be given the statutory right to use the current milk quota compensation provisions in the Agriculture Act 1986 in respect of the new tenancy. I should, however, make clear once again that the Bill does not prevent them from agreeing to do so. Such an agreement might be attractive in cases where the tenant occupies no other land than the holding in question. Where the tenant occupies some other land for milk production, he may find that matters begin to get extremely complex.
As I indicated on Report, in response to a question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, because of the operation of EC rules any additional quota acquired during the new tenancy would have to be aggregated with all the existing quota registered in the producer's name. Any subsequent disposal of quota from another part of the tenant's aggregated Euro holding would require the consent of the farm business tenancy landlord, as well as anyone else with an interest in that wider "holding". In that situation, the parties would be well advised to agree as early as possible apportionments of quota to the various areas of land used for milk production. Arbitration is available where parties are unable to reach agreement. Of course, the Bill in no way alters the existing position.
The noble Lord also asked me whether a tenant could transport the value of compensation between farms. The Agriculture Act gives a legal entitlement to payment of compensation at the end of a tenancy which is subject to the Agricultural Holdings Act (including one granted on a statutory succession) but does not provide for roll-over to any other holding. I therefore think that any
1264
such roll-over would only be possible with the agreement of the parties themselves. I cannot see any obvious way of enabling that to happen by means of a provision in the Bill.
The people best placed to make appropriate arrangements for compensation in respect of milk quota where a 1986 Act tenancy is immediately followed by a farm business tenancy are the parties themselves. It will, of course, be a matter for the tenant's judgment as to whether he wishes to end a current tenancy and take up a farm business tenancy. Milk quota compensation will be one factor—albeit a very weighty factor—among many to be balanced when reaching a decision.
To repeat what I said in Committee on 13th December, Clause 16(3) as drafted in no way prevents parties from agreeing the most appropriate arrangements on compensation to meet their own particular needs. The noble Lord asked whether the tenant might be able to crystallise the value of the milk quota under a 1986 Act tenancy before embarking on a new tenancy. A tenant can indeed do so; and should do so. Certainly, the Bill does not prevent him from so doing. However, the central point is still the value. After a decade or so of milk quotas, with the price of quota being as high as it is at present, I really cannot believe that parties will forget to deal with the matter before a tenancy ends. I doubt whether the noble Lord will be entirely happy with the fact that I cannot accept the thrust of his amendment. Nevertheless, on reflection, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister is correct. However, one never ceases to be amazed at what landlords and tenants do forget to deal with when they are rearranging their affairs. The Minister's response was most helpful. An interesting point has emerged from this last discussion. The fear was that if the value of the quota was crystallised, payment would actually have to be made under the Act when, in a sense, neither side wanted that to happen.
However, it is to be hoped that the noble Earl is correct and that the parties can agree to roll over the value of the quota from one holding to another. That meets the point, and is a most helpful explanation of the problem with which we are trying to deal. I agree that anything one attempts to do with milk quota will add to existing complications. In that respect, I must remind the noble Earl that he said that he did not wish to add to such complications but then went on to suggest the apportionment of quota and the possible referral to arbitration.
The point is, indeed, complicated but has been well aired during our debates. Anyone who reads the Hansard reports of the debates during the various stages of the Bill will soon realise the thrust of the arguments. I entirely agree with the Minister that the landlord and tenant should be extremely careful in such a situation and that applies especially to the tenant: he must not lose the value of the quota that he assumes is his. That fact needs to be spelt out in any agreement between the two parties. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1265
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 17 [Consent of landlord as condition of compensation for tenant's improvement]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 9, line 6, at end insert:
("() This section does not apply in any case where the tenant's improvement consists of one or more of the following—

(a) growing annual crops;

(b) pasturing;

(c) beneficial acts of husbandry;

(d) liming of land; or

(e) application to the land of purchased manure or fertiliser, unless there is provision to the contrary in an agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill as drafted provides that for a tenant's improvement to be eligible for compensation it must have the landlord's written consent. In all cases, except planning permissions, the question of consent is referable to arbitration before the improvement is made. The amendment lists five items of tenant right as specific exceptions to this rule. If approved, no written consent would be needed for these essentially operational matters to be eligible for compensation. The parties' freedom is preserved by allowing them to contract otherwise in a written agreement.
Under English common law, anything that is fixed to land becomes the property of the landowner. It is the peculiar position of the farm tenant that many of his day-to-day actions fix value to the landowner's land. Tenant right grew up to address this problem creating a customary claim to compensation which the law steadily consolidated until custom was finally abolished in 1947. The custom of tenant right reflected the fact that the agricultural year has no absolute end, neither has it a beginning. Something will always be left at the end of the tenancy and has the desirability of encouraging the tenant to farm as though he were the incoming tenant.
The Bill removes the legal basis for tenant right by insisting absolutely on the consent of either the landlord or the arbitrator. Nonetheless, it seems possible that over time the courts would intervene to recreate some customary claim to tenant right. Rather than face the cost and uncertainty of that process—and the denial of fair treatment to some outgoing tenants along the way—we feel it is best to tackle the question as part of the Bill. In contrast to this amendment, it is impossible to foresee how far-reaching might be the consequences of court intervention.
The approach taken in the amendment to Clause 17 is to identify five specific exceptions to the general rule requiring consent for compensation. This list has been prepared after discussion with valuers and farmers from all parts of the country and the items have been selected on the basis that they are operational rather than policy items. They should be significant enough to warrant statutory reference. The specific areas are, first, the growing of annual crops. This would not cover trees or orchards but would protect, say, a cereals crop on a tenancy which ends in late March. It would also protect
1266
crops that should have been harvested before the end of the tenancy but for difficulties of the season—a situation where it could be too late to apply for arbitration.
In the case of pastures, this would allow the tenant to be paid for pastures he has established on arable ground as might be required by a livestock enterprise meeting official stocking limit or extensification requirements. Beneficial acts of husbandry would cover the normal operations and cultivations of the farming year so that they are performed when the time is right and so unlock profit for the incomer or save him effort. The liming of land can be important to the status of some soils and has a significant cost, but the benefit carries forward for several seasons. Provision of tenant right for liming encourages the tenant to take the longer-term view. Finally, under this head, there is the application to land of purchased manures and fertilisers. Again, these are important to the fertility of the land and, particularly in root crop areas, can amount to significant expenditure which we believe should be recognised.
Most written agreements could be expected to cover these items, but there will be some tenancies with only a sketchy written basis and others that are purely oral. In those cases, the Bill's present form would require the tenant to seek the landlord's written consent—perhaps every year in a tenancy from year to year. This is likely to feel unnatural to both parties. The tenant may feel awkward about taking the matter to arbitration and sometimes may not even have the time: the requirement is for the arbitrator's prior consent. Most tenants will simply assume that the matter is covered and be badly surprised should they find the landlord making it clear that he is not required to pay. Without some cover as proposed in the amendment, other tenants will clearly feel more cautious about committing themselves to normal operations on the farm in the last years of the tenancy. That would not be in the interests of the incomer, the owner or the industry and would be bad for the reputation of the legislation. The amendment provides a general rule which would operate as a default, but does not give the parties the opportunity to make other provision in a written agreement, so honouring the approach of the Bill. It will be for valuers to address the claim in these circumstances.
At the Report stage the noble Earl expressed some sympathy with the intention of the amendment then before us but was concerned that there could be later pressures to add non-agricultural tenant right clauses. There is no evidence of such examples being found under business tenancy law and such diversification would almost always be by written tenancy agreement. It is the particular problem of farming that its operations almost inevitably fix value to the land. The tenant farmer is putting his money into the landlord's land to earn his income in a way that the factory, office or shop tenant does not.
The noble Earl said that the listed items needed further definition. Our view is that our terms are all of very long-standing familiarity to valuers—tenant right has a longer history than statute law in these matters. If this is really a key objection it can be addressed by practical discussion between the Ministry, industry and professional organisations rather than lose an important

1267
issue on a point of phrasing or definition. In practice, the introduction of new definitions may add to the problems rather than help them. We are agreed that we want sensible definitions and not excessive detail. It has been suggested that some items might be long term. The items listed capture the significant normal farming operations. Policy matters are indeed best addressed between the parties. If the landlord wants a lower level of fertility as a matter of policy—as some might for conservation reasons—that can be covered in the tenancy agreement, as this amendment allows. Otherwise, the tenant should be able to claim the value he has made available to an incomer through these items.
The noble Earl suggested that the tenant has time to secure consents. Our response to that is that he does not if the weather turns against him and crops that should have been harvested before the term date cannot be harvested. It will be too late to secure an arbitrator's prior consent. Finally, it could all be put in a standard clause. We believe that most written agreements may be expected to follow this route but this amendment provides a fall-back with legal force for the oral agreement on the issue of compensation which in our opinion is central to the framework of the Bill. I hope on this occasion for a sympathetic response from the noble Earl. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I wish to support this amendment and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on the comprehensiveness of his arguments. I see that he almost repeated the brief that I was sent as well. This is the second time that this amendment has come up. The more one looks at the amendment, the more one realises that it adds continuity to farming. As has been known for generations, and in fact since 1947, the one thing one could never do was to contract out of tenant right. It was a case of an operational improvement to the land accepted by custom and statute. I recall that as a student learning some of these intricacies, one had to understand how to value unexhausted manurial values and indeed farm-yard manure as well. The noble Lord rightly listed five key items which this amendment covers. The part of the amendment which I like best is the end which states that the measure would not apply if it specifically came under a written tenancy agreement. Therefore the amendment does not damage the Bill at all, it simply gives a continuity which I think is of value.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have much sympathy for the amendment. I wish to ask my noble friend one or two questions and I hope that he can clear my mind on those points. If nothing is mentioned in the lease, I rather understand from the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that it would have to be renegotiated each year. I believe he said that might be awkward. I would use a totally different word from "awkward". It would be totally impractical and no tenant would think of doing it each year. He would forget.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that tenant right is embedded in tenancy law. It would never occur to me to ask permission to apply lime. By the time I had asked
1268
for permission, it would have rained and I would not have time to apply it anyway, and that would be to the detriment of the farm.
If that is covered by the agreement, can my noble friend say whether it would be necessary therefore to obtain the landlord's permission for every single thing one intends to do? That is totally impractical. Although I do not want to press my noble friend on the matter this evening, I hope that when the Bill reaches another place it will be considered very carefully, because I believe that that is a mistake.
Earl Howe: My Lords, since our debate on this subject last week, I have looked carefully at the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, advanced in support of provisions on tenant-right in the Bill. I also listened with interest to the comments which he and my noble friends made in support of the amendment. I remain unconvinced that a provision in the legislation is necessary or indeed desirable.
As I said at Report stage, this is a matter which is best left to the RICS guidance. I would expect that the guidance might propose a standard clause giving the tenant consent to undertake various short-term improvements and tenant-right matters with the consequence that he will receive compensation for them. Such a clause could become a standard part of a tenancy agreement, perhaps balancing a similar clause giving the landlord the right to compensation for dilapidations since, just as for tenant-right matters, no dilapidation provisions are included in the Bill.
When a tenancy agreement does not contain a standard clause or any other provisions on compensation for tenant-right matters, it is true that the tenant would need to apply for his landlord's consent as soon as he received notice terminating the tenancy. In all cases there will of course be at least a year's notice of termination.
I hope that that answers one of the questions posed by my noble friend, who asked whether, when the lease was silent on these matters, they would have to be renegotiated each year. The answer to that question is, strictly, no. That would only be the case if it were a tenancy which ran from year to year. In a term tenancy, the question of compensation arises only at the end of the tenancy so there is no need for repeat consents.
At Report stage, I touched on the fact that the amendment as it stands would be inadequate and some definitions would be needed. I should like to return to that point for a moment and give an example of the problems which may arise, however familiar the concepts may seem. The amendment refers to "beneficial acts of husbandry". I have seen it suggested that that should cover "normal operations", but I doubt very much whether that would be adequate. Schedule 8 to the 1986 Act also refers to "acts of husbandry". There is a Statutory Instrument which sets out the methods for calculating the compensation for such acts of husbandry and it may be instructive if I quote part of that Statutory Instrument. It says that the value of compensation is to be the reasonable cost taking into account:
"(a) normal current costs, having regard to the current agricultural wage, the cost of horse and tractor operations, the size and shape of fields, and other relevant factors;

1269
"(b) reasonable costs of hired tractor cultivations;
"(c) increased costs over normal tractor rates, where owing to the size of the farm or fields, the shape of the fields or to other special circumstances, it was reasonable to use horse labour." '
Your Lordships will agree with me that that sounds more appropriate to the 1930s or 1940s than to the 1990s. There are other examples in the 1986 Act, for instance complicated provisions on sod fertility. The problem is that once something gets onto the statute book it is not so easily removed. Neither the Government nor Parliament needs to be involved in updating legislation all the time. That is why it is so much better for guidance of this nature to be provided by organisations such as the RICS.
Finally, the amendment does not have the support of the industry group. I hope that in the light of that fact and my comments the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his not unexpected reply. I am even more grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for their support. As they spoke, I reflected that I was hearing from a professional man on the one hand and a practical farmer on the other. To some extent that compensates for my own lack of knowledge of the subject, which I freely admit.
The noble Earl said that following our earlier discussion, he had looked carefully at the amendment. Having said that, I know the noble Earl has carried out that exercise very carefully. However, from my point of view it is disappointing that he remains unconvinced that there is merit in the amendment. As he developed his arguments against it I formed the impression that, far from containing merit not only was the amendment devoid of merit but that it contained the seeds for future difficulty and litigation. Since the object of the exercise is to avoid just that, it seemed to me a peculiar paradox that having put our hands to the plough we had produced more potential problems than we hoped to solved.
The Minister's position is firm: we should look to the RICS for guidance on these matters, with the possibility of a clause being devised by the RICS to form part of the standard agreement. No doubt that observation, which I have deliberately repeated in my response to the Minister, will be taken up by the industry. Certainly the industry should reflect upon both the principle involved and the practicalities.
I concede that the one-year notice of termination gives some protection. However, we do not operate in a perfect world and there may be situations in which problems arise simply because the deficiences of a sketchy oral agreement are only discovered when the agreement comes to an end.
The noble Earl also said that the amendment is inadequate. In support of that observation, he cited the fact that, for example, "beneficial acts of husbandry" are already defined by Statutory Instrument under the 1986 Act. He gave the House, in some detail, the benefit of what that SI contains. Undoubtedly that is an extensive piece of legislation. The noble Earl rightly pointed to the
1270
dangers inherent in trying to define in too much detail in statute matters which are perhaps best left to the parties concerned.
We shall go along with the proposition that this matter can be safely entrusted to the RICS. I am sorry that there has not been wider support for the amendment. Nevertheless, it has raised matters of continuing importance. As the Bill is to go to another place, I do not think that we have heard the last of it. The fact that the industry as a whole does not support the amendment does not rule out the validity of some of what the amendment contains. It would be a very sorry situation if a strongly-held minority view did not find expression in your Lordships' House at some point in the discussion of a Bill of this kind.
Having said that, we shall reflect on what has been said. We may even take the trouble to alert our colleagues in another place to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 not to apply
. For the purpose of drawing or preparing any instrument under this Act, subsection (1) of section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 shall not apply to any Fellow or Associate Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 is grouped with Amendment No. 6 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. To my untutored eye they are virtually the same type of amendment and have the same objective. Amendment No. 5 has been carried over from the Report stage of the Bill. The noble Earl promised a Government amendment on the same lines. In putting down our amendment, we wished to ensure that an amendment would be tabled for the Third Reading.
The noble Earl has kept his promise. Therefore I can be brief in speaking to Amendment No. 5 because I am anxious to hear what the noble Earl has to say on Amendment No. 6. If we are satisfied that the drafting of Amendment No. 6 is as good as or superior to that of Amendment No. 5 we shall not need to be hit over the head with a hammer in order to know what to do with Amendment No. 5. A point has arisen which is supplementary to our deliberations at Report stage. I shall bother the Minister with it although I do not expect him to give an answer today. Any pursuit of the point raised will have to be elsewhere.
Since the Minister gave his promise at Report, we have been told that full members of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers are fellows or associates of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers. We have been further told that the examinations of the latter body are at a similar level to those of the RICS. For good measure, full members must also pass the CAAV practical and written examinations which require practical experience in agriculture. Therefore, those qualified persons are specialists in agriculture in their own right.

1271
It has been suggested that the amendment as drafted may exclude some CAAV members; they may wish to pursue the matter in another place. I do not even ask the noble Earl for an answer to the point today; I merely state that the point has been raised with us. I know well that sometimes the chartered bodies and incorporated bodies have difficulty in coming to terms on such matters. I have done what I was asked to do in bringing the issue to the attention of the House and of the Minister. It is to be hoped that the matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, or at least one party, when the Bill goes to another place.
I move Amendment No. 5 without giving details in support of it because I have already done so. I look forward to listening to what the noble Earl says in support of his Amendment No. 6 which is grouped with the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, the noble Earl may wish arguments to be put at this stage although clearly we hope to accept his amendment. If there is one improvement in the Bill which I believe is much welcomed outside, it is the acceptance of the deregulation of the legal fiefdom on drawing up agricultural tenancies. It is a sensible, practical and wise decision of my noble friend and his department to accept that the RICS is capable and professionally competent to do so. I, too, have received communication from the CAAV. It explained that although 90 per cent. of its members are members of one of the other two bodies, in particular the RICS, 10 per cent. are not. That 10 per cent. are more than competent. They are practical practitioners who probably know more than most professionals about the subject. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will at least say that he will examine with sympathy the proposal that CAAV members will be accepted.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, if those other bodies will make up agreements, I hope that they will be properly insured for possible mistakes, as are members of the legal profession.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for introducing his amendment, the purpose of which is identical to government Amendment No. 6 that is grouped with it and to which I now speak. I am grateful to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for their support.
As I said at Report stage, the Government have concluded that it would be appropriate to amend the Solicitors Act 1974 to empower members of the RICS to draw up farm business tenancy agreements of more than three years' duration and prepare other instruments relating to farm business tenancies. This amendment adds a new exception in Section 22 of that Act which will allow RICS associates or fellows to undertake that work. I am satisfied that those RICS members have sufficient expertise to carry out that function and that they may be able to offer the service at a lower cost to the parties.
1272
It may be helpful if I explain why it is necessary to refer to the preparation of an instrument which the RICS member,
"believes on reasonable grounds will create a farm business tenancy".
Those are the words used in the amendment. This is needed to cater for the situation in which the instrument does not become a farm business tenancy because it fails to meet the conditions set out in Clause 1 of the Bill. This phrase avoids the RICS member committing an offence in that situation, provided, of course, that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that a farm business tenancy was being created.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked me to consider the proposal that fellows and associates of the ISVA should also be empowered to prepare tenancy agreements. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull referred to the CAAV in the same context. The first proposed amendment to enable RICS members to prepare tenancy agreements was debated at Committee stage on 13th December, as noble Lords will recall. Although my response at that time was not particularly encouraging, it was clear that certain noble Lords wished to pursue the matter. It is therefore a little unfortunate that these further proposals were not raised until after we had already debated the matter twice and the Government had consulted interested parties on what amendment should be tabled.
Before we could consider, in the amendment which I had tabled, extending the exemption to members of any other organisation we would have to be absolutely convinced that their qualifications and expertise were equal to those of associates and fellows of the RICS. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, indicated that he believed that that was so, but I have no independent information on that. What I can say is that those members of the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers who are also members of the RICS would, of course, be able to undertake that work.
My noble friend Lord Stanley expressed the hope that members of those bodies would be properly insured were they to be allowed to sit alongside RICS associates and fellows in that context of the Bill. We have raised that point with the RICS. It has told us that it will revise its general rules of conduct and will be advising its members to obtain adequate indemnity cover. I cannot speak for the CAAV members because we have not yet had discussions with that body. I have no doubt, nevertheless, that the matter will need to be considered further. The noble Lord has the privilege of moving his amendment, or not, as he decides.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the detail of his reply and for the sympathetic way in which he dealt with the problem which has arisen rather late in the day. I would have left the matter entirely for another place because I am a great believer in the avoidance of the short pass. Invariably, if you go for it you get your leg broken; and if you do not the home supporters boo you. Nevertheless, we have served sufficient notice to allow inquiries to be made and I warmly welcome that fact.

1273
The provision is a major concession for which we are extremely grateful. If it is to be extended in any fashion, the Government have a right and a duty to be satisfied that that extension is justified even though the number of persons involved may not be numerous. I also agree with the importance of full insurance for all who are likely to benefit from the concession.
I leave the nature of the consultation for the Minister to decide. However, the industry groups are close to the matter and may have a point of view of value to the Government in deciding what, if anything, they will do about the request.
I said at the outset that Amendment No. 5 had been tabled only as an insurance policy. From what the noble Earl said, I am satisfied that Amendment No. 6 fully covers what we are anxious to see provided in the Bill. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
Preparation of documents etc. by surveyors
. In subsection (2) of section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (unqualified person not to prepare certain instruments), after paragraph (ab) there shall be inserted—
"(ac) any Associate or Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors drawing or preparing any instrument—

(i) which creates, or which he believes on reasonable grounds will create, a farm business tenancy (within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995), or

(ii) which relates to an existing tenancy which is, or which he believes on reasonable grounds to be, such a tenancy;".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Security
4 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat the Answer to a Private Notice Question which has been given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in another place. The Answer is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, allegations were published yesterday that on certain specified days security arrangements for the Eurostar and Eurotunnel trains were inadequate. When these allegations were brought to my attention at the beginning of the weekend, I immediately called for urgent reports from the two companies.
"The Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 requires the operators of the tunnel and of the trains which go through it to carry out counter-terrorist security measures. Similar measures are applied in France and Belgium as agreed between our three Governments. The operators are responsible for ensuring that the security measures are properly applied: here my department's inspectors give instructions, offer advice and make both announced and unannounced inspections.
1274
"The Government's requirements have not changed since the tunnel was opened. The House will not expect me to detail the requirements. Suffice it to say that security measures are closely tailored to the threat, as assessed by the Government's security advisers. Among other measures, all traffic in the tunnel, passenger and freight, is liable to be searched. There is not and never has been a requirement for all passengers or vehicles to be searched. On the other hand, permitting a passenger to get off a train prior to arrival at his destination and leaving behind an unattended bag is a potentially serious matter, which could be a breach of security requirements.
"Madam Speaker, like other right honourable and honourable Members of this House, I take security issues very seriously. I will decide what further action needs to be taken in the light of the reports which I have commissioned and any further security advice which I receive."
My Lords, that concludes the Answer.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the Minister for repeating the Answer which was given in another place about a matter which will obviously give rise to a considerable degree of public concern about security at the various ends of the Channel Tunnel route—not only here but in France and Belgium. While we recognise that the Minister cannot be as transparent about security issues as he might be about other matters, nonetheless the public will remain very concerned until they have some further response from the Minister following the inquiries that he has indicated will be undertaken.
What was exposed in the Observer newspaper yesterday gives rise to serious allegations of breaches of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order. That order came into operation in February of last year. That the Government themselves are concerned about these matters is exemplified by the fact that they have ordered an inquiry to be undertaken. What concerns me is that the Minister gave assurances when the order was being debated last year that tunnel security would be as tight as security at international airports. Perhaps that was an unwise statement to make because I do not for the life of me see how that could be complied with. Nonetheless, the statement was made to Parliament and in a sense, therefore, Parliament was misled. The Minister shakes his head. In fact, the Minister of State wrote to members of the committee on 3rd March saying:
"John Taylor"—
that was the Member concerned—
"also sought assurances that the security of Channel Tunnel services will be comparable with arrangements at airports. I was happy to give him that assurance".
That is as plain as a pikestaff. I think it was an unwise statement to make, but it was made.
Is not an abundance of evidence disclosed in the newspaper article that luggage was not checked or X-rayed before passengers boarded trains and that passengers were not challenged, randomly or otherwise, by security officials? Indeed, I have to say that that

1275
appears to be borne out by the evidence of a number of lorry drivers, truck owners, journalists, and my own wife, who perhaps naturally was not challenged. She said to me last night that she should have told me about that experience. There has to be some proper security check when people are going on to the train.
The Minister has already alluded to the seriousness of one matter where a package was left on board the train when someone had disembarked. In another instance a passenger was asked the question, "Are you British?", and it seemed to be enough to assure everyone when he replied in the affirmative. I am not sure that that constitutes the greatest surveillance with regard to security measures.
I do not want to take the matter very much further except to say that the Government have an obligation to report further to the House as and when their current inquiries, together with the operators' inquiries, are completed. We do not ask them to go into great detail but we want to know that the situation will demonstrably improve from the present.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Answer given in another place. Certainly the press cuttings from yesterday are quite alarming and the chief concern of everyone must be that we can provide well-based reassurance to the public.
I wish to ask a couple of questions. Does the Minister recall that the Select Committee of this House on the Channel Tunnel Bill recommended that the Kent police should be responsible for security in the Channel Tunnel and that that recommendation was not accepted by the Government? Is that still the Government's view? In the light of these events, is it sensible to exclude the police in this way? Secondly, given that we are to expect a further statement after reports have been commissioned, will those reports which the Minister's colleague is commissioning include one from the Commissioner of Police on current security arrangements covering services through the Channel Tunnel at Waterloo and elsewhere?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have discussed very briefly the effect of the alleged potential breaches of security which were highlighted in newspaper articles yesterday. There is little beyond what I said in my original Answer that I can usefully add to what has already been said. I wish to make two points. First, there is not and never has been a requirement for all passengers and vehicles to be searched. As was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I do not intend to go into further detail as to the exact proportions, how and so forth, but it has never been a requirement that all passengers and all freight should be searched.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, highlighted an exchange between my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Freeman, and Mr. John
1276
Taylor. The quotation that I have—I believe it is within the bounds of order to give it; if not, I hope the House will give me leave—is:
"Security at the tunnel will be comparable to that of airlines and of airports commensurate with the threat".
That is the crucial element. We are not saying—to my knowledge it has not been said—that the security measures for the Channel Tunnel should be the same in all circumstances as those for airlines. There is a different level of vulnerability and a different level of threat. It has always been our intention to tailor our security arrangements to the level of threat—that is provided to us by our security advisers—and the level of vulnerability of the mode. Those are the vital important factors relating to this situation.
To respond very briefly to the point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, I do not believe that it helps anyone to insist on much more stringent measures than are necessitated by the threat. The Government's aim has been to balance the level of threat and the type of vulnerability against the requirement for security measures to counter those threats.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the tunnel is peculiarly vulnerable to terrorism and other outrages by the nature of its construction and operation? Are the Government satisfied that the precautions now being taken are sufficient to prevent a catastrophic incident?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Channel Tunnel does indeed have a high degree of vulnerability. But it must also be contrasted with aeroplanes, which also have a very, very high level of vulnerability. It is extremely easy to destroy an aeroplane, as we were tragically shown with the example of Pan Am flight 103 at Lockerbie. A very small amount of explosive can do very great damage to an aircraft. Of course the Channel Tunnel is vulnerable. That is why we have put in place security measures. We believe that that level of security is appropriate to the current level of threat.
The questions that have been asked have been about how those security measures are operated. As has been said, we have asked for reports from the operators of those measures. When we have received those reports we shall decide whether further action needs to be taken.
To reply to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, which I am afraid I earlier omitted to do, about the role of the Kent Police in this matter, it is important to note that a great deal of what has been said as regards the allegations concerning security has been about people travelling on the Eurostar service from Waterloo. That must be balanced against the role of the Kent police, who will clearly not have a role in London but they do elsewhere.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, has the Minister spoken with his counterparts in the French

1277
Government; and has he any information as to whether anxieties have been raised in France similar to those raised in the United Kingdom?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords. We are continually in touch with the French authorities on these matters. They have security concerns as indeed we do. That is why we have decided on certain levels of measures. It is important to recognise that a number of authorities believe that there is also a considerable risk of attack from the French side as well as from the British side.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the question of the role of the Kent police is highly relevant in relation to the case that was put to him by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who talked about the vulnerability of the tunnel? Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee of this House recommended specifically that the Kent police should he members of the safety authority? For some mysterious reason the Department of Transport would not accept that recommendation. Will he agree that it might be a good idea, in the light of general public concern on this matter, to look at that question again? It seems odd that the Fire Service is represented on that committee but that the police are not.
Secondly, on the matter of preparation for dealing with potential terrorist problems, is it not desirable, quite apart from getting reports from the two companies, to get one from the people who have direct experience; namely, the anti-terrorism branch of Scotland Yard?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I have indicated, the particular division of my department which deals with transport security issues liaises with the security services, the police and other bodies as it thinks fit to determine levels of threat, levels of vulnerability and how to go about preventing any attack.
The noble Lord referred again to the role of the Kent police. The Kent police are very important in that area and they have a particular role to play. I will investigate further the references that the noble Lord brought to my attention. If the noble Lord will permit me, I will write to him on the subject.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the Statement today, based on a PNQ in another place, has arisen because the Observer newspaper did what it did. Does the sub-department in the Department of Transport for which the Minister is responsible ever check to see that what Parliament intended is carried out; or do we have to wait for newspapers to do this from time to time?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords. As with aviation security, my department makes announced and unannounced visits; it checks security regimes by means of unannounced exercises.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, apart from terrorism, I understand that two outbreaks of fire have been reported. Can the noble Viscount say whether he knows
1278
anything about the causes of those fires and what is being done to increase precautions against such incidents?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, for the moment I cannot give the noble Lord the information that he asks. I will investigate the reference to the fires that he mentioned and I will make sure that he is made fully aware of the causes once the investigation is complete.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hesitate to introduce a slightly different slant to this question—still less do I wish to get into a debate as to whether I am pro or against Europe—but there is a different angle to this issue which I hope might just be considered. We live in an age when travelling is more and more common; we all do it increasingly. I hope that the time will come when a journey from Waterloo to Paris might be regarded as no more than a journey from Westminster to Green Park or St. James's Park on the London Underground. I am bound to say that I would regard an explosion in that tunnel as being at least as dangerous as an explosion in the Channel Tunnel and just as damaging to everybody's prestige. I hope that we shall not go overboard on the one without having regard to the fact that there is a wider implication.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I quite agree that my noble friend has made a very valuable point. He has highlighted the difference between vulnerability and threat levels.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, during the passage of the Bill a question was raised about the carrying of insurance for the tunnel. The Government refused an amendment that sought to make sure that the Channel Tunnel company would insure the tunnel against any possible risk. Can the Minister tell the House —and if not, perhaps he can put a reply in the Library—what insurance is carried in regard to the tunnel, who carries the risk and whether or not the people who are alleged to carry the risk have sufficient assets to meet any claim?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I will investigate the insurance information that the noble Lord seeks and I will place a reply in the Library.
4.19 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I should like to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure—I suggest for 10 minutes.
Noble Lords: Why?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness—and perhaps while I am speaking she can take instruction—what is the reason. There does not seem to be a case for adjourning for any purpose whatever. I assume that we are to continue with the Government's agricultural Bill. Why cannot that be

1279
done forthwith? There seems to me to be no case for an adjournment—unless someone would like to explain what that case is.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have here my noble friend who is to move the amendment; we do not need Ministers.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, perhaps I may very briefly reply to the noble Lord, whose interventions I always welcome, on the subject of the agriculture Bill. We have just taken a Statement and I of course welcome any intervention that the noble Lord would like to make in my particular remarks. We have taken a very important Statement on the Channel Tunnel security measures, and we will shortly be proceeding to the—I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wonder whether the Government would like to comment on the fact that at the start of business today we were advised that a Statement would be made "at a convenient moment" after 3.30. My understanding of that phrase is that it is at the convenience of the House that the Statement is made. The Front Benches and Members of the House have had to consider some amendments to the Agricultural Tenancies Bill which we probably had not expected to debate so early because we had the Statement at four o'clock rather than shortly after 3.30 p.m.
I wonder whether the Government could respond to the criticisms that I am sure Members of your Lordships' House will have about not only the delay in receiving the Statement but also—dare I say it?—the tardiness in resuming at the end of the Statement the business which the Government placed before the House.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the convenience of the House of course is of the utmost priority at all times. I regret to advise Members of the House that proceedings have been totally out of order because no Motion has been put. Therefore, we shall not move the proposed Motion.

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 34 [Service of notices]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 16, line 6, leave out from ("by") to end of line 7 and insert ("prepaid post").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has a familiar ring to it. Indeed, I have moved this amendment and variations of it at different stages of the Bill, so that I now feel a certain empathy with Postman Pat.
Nevertheless, this is a matter of some importance which we debated on Report. Largely as a follow up to the Report stage, we thought it appropriate to table an amendment on this matter today. We are concerned
1280
about the manner in which documents under the Act are to be served and in particular the evidence of proof of serving such documents.
Briefly, Amendment No. 7 has been retabled to ask whether the noble Earl has concluded the consultations with industry that he described on Report (Official Report, 23/1/95; cols. 920–921) and whether he can yet tell the House what Her Majesty's Government are likely to do about the service of documents when the Bill comes before another place. May I take it from him that discussions and consultations are still progressing and that those discussions and consultations have as their objective the tabling of an amendment in the Government's name to this particular part of the Bill, in order that the matters which we have raised consistently during debates on the Bill in this House can be fully dealt with in a satisfactory manner when the Bill reaches another place? In that spirit I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is for me to apologise to the House for the inconvenience caused by my absence from the Front Bench. I do so in the hope that I may be forgiven and in the expectation that it will not happen again. Nevertheless, I regret any inconvenience caused to your Lordships.
When we debated a similar amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, last week, I explained that if service by ordinary prepaid post was authorised by the Bill and then a dispute arose on whether a notice had been served, the onus would be on the recipient to prove that he had not received it. That would place someone who genuinely had not received the document in a very difficult position.
The noble Lord wonders whether I can add anything to what I said last week on that point. I can assure your Lordships that we are working on an amendment to Clause 34 to clarify the rules regarding the giving of notices. However, this is a complex area on which we shall want to consult the experts in the field before proceeding with changes to the Bill. At present we await comments from industry representatives. Once we have settled on some satisfactory wording, the intention is to introduce an amendment in another place. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he said and for his assurance about the introduction of a suitable amendment in another place. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Agricultural Holdings Act 1986: Review of rent
Paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 shall be amended to add at the end—
"(d) Without prejudice to the particularity of the foregoing, any increase or reduction of rent other than one consequent upon a comprehensive review of the rent payable by reference to current economic circumstances.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to a point raised on Report. Noble Lords will notice that the amendments that we tabled are intended to follow up the Report stage, when the Minister indicated that he was prepared either to reconsider the matter or to come forward with his own amendment.
I felt that this point was important to bring forward. It is technical and relates to an apparent anomaly in the 1986 Act. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the circumstances in which a reduction of rent is agreed, which was not intended to result in resetting the three-year time limit for rent review and which does not fall within the present exceptions, do not—as they presently would—reset the time limit for rent reviews. As I said, it is a technical point. We have discussed it before with the Minister.
I brought back the amendment because I was surprised when I came to read Hansard and took in its import. The Minister said:
"As I have just made clear, we do not wish to make retrospective changes, however meritorious a case could be made for those changes".—[Official Report, 23/1/95; col. 923.]
That seems to be an extraordinary attitude to a technical amendment to remedy a weakness in the 1986 Act. We do not often have a major Agricultural Tenancies Bill. There is a chance with this Bill—the Long Title is suitably drawn—to take the opportunity to put right such technical matters. It is not a point of great principle or a political point.
The Minister said that the departmental doctrine, whether through inertia or for other reasons, was that however excellent a case is made for a change, it has to be resisted just because it is a change in the 1986 Act. That seems to me unreasonable. The Bill gives us a chance to put right technical points, which are important for practitioners who are trying to use the 1986 Act. It is worth repeating that many tenants will be subject to the 1986 Act for a long time. In fact the majority of tenancies will be 1986 Act tenancies for a long time. We have a chance to use the Bill to put right a technical flaw in the previous Act of Parliament, but the Minister resists it, not on grounds of the merits of the case but simply because he does not wish to look backwards. That is not the best way to use the opportunity afforded by the Bill. I hope that the Minister has had time to reflect and will change his mind. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord warned us at Report stage that he would want to return to his proposed amendment to the rent provisions contained in the 1986 Act. I am sure that the noble Lord will have read in full the Hansard record of my remarks last week (cols. 922 and 923). I explained that no doubt the amendment was well intentioned. But I took care to avoid commenting on whether there was a technical deficiency in the rent provisions. Certainly, I did not accept that there was an obvious anomaly (as he then described it).
The noble Lord inferred from my remarks that the Act was bad law but that the Government would not change it. No doubt the noble Lord has received advice from the leading practitioner to whom he referred at
1282
Report stage. However, apart from the representations made to the noble Lord, I am not aware of any real concern in the industry at large that the paragraph in question is in need of amendment.
During the consultations over the past four years on tenancy reform, I have been asked by many people to address all kinds of matters dealt with in the 1986 Act. This is not one of them. As the noble Lord will know, many parties agree not to trigger statutory rent reviews at present but settle changes in rent without reference to arbitration. They are perfectly entitled to do so. A great deal of time and trouble is thereby spared, although the party who most wants the rent review will usually make sure that statutory notice is given, to ensure that arbitration will be there as a fall back.
I remain unpersuaded that there is a serious problem. The noble Lord said that there was not a point of great principle at stake, and I agree with that. Even if I were to agree with the noble Lord—which I do not—that there was a significant flaw which could in theory be corrected, I am not satisfied that the noble Lord's amendment would necessarily improve matters. I suggest to the noble Lord that the wording of the amendment could give rise to disputes about what should be disregarded for working out the statutory three-yearly rent review cycle in respect of a specific holding. There is no requirement that rent increases or decreases agreed at a rent review should be based on current economic circumstances. I could envisage much scope for litigation on whether or not a specific rent increase had been based on a comprehensive review. Nor does the amendment deal with cases where parties themselves agree (in writing or otherwise), when a rent review falls due, that the rent for the holding should continue unchanged.
The final point that I should like to make will be a familiar one. I am particularly concerned that the noble Lord's amendment would have an impact on existing tenancies. One cannot say with certainty that the consequences would tend to work more often to the advantage of landlords or of tenants, but one effect would be clear: it would undermine the industry's confidence that any holdings legislation would be free from the risk of subsequent retrospective amendment. That is why the Government—with the industry's support—stand by their commitment not to amend substantively the existing holdings legislation.
I am sorry that for those reasons I cannot even offer to come forward with our own wording for a government amendment. I am afraid I can only invite the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to reflect on what I have said, and to withdraw his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that answer was not wholly unexpected. The Minister refused to comment on the merits of the amendment at Report stage. He began his reply today by saying that he was refusing to comment, and then he proceeded to comment and tell me what was wrong with it.
We have made the point. The fact that nobody referred to it during the past three or four years does not mean that it is not a good point. I am pleased that we

1283
found a new point that the industry group somehow missed in its comprehensive review. I did not feel that the issue concerned arbitration. I understood it to be related to the setting of the time clock on the rent reviews. The comment in relation to retrospective legislation is a thin one. I have been involved with a number of Bills in this House concerning agriculture, social security and health. It is always the case, if the Long Title allows and there is an anomaly in a previous Act, that the opportunity is taken to put it right. I do not believe therefore that that is a major argument against the amendment.
It is clear that we are not going to change the mind of the Government. But I am glad to have brought to the attention of the House this extraordinary new doctrine that, even when there are merits in a proposed change, the Government will refuse to acknowledge them because of the doctrine they adopt of not looking back at previous Acts of Parliament which, though they were thought to be perfectly drafted at the time, are often found to contain anomalies. This was a chance to put a small anomaly right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Interpretation]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 18, line 12, after second ("a") insert ("written").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 was tabled to give the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the opportunity of returning to a subject which we discussed at Report stage and which he promised to look at again in the light of what was said at that time.
Clause 36 (3) provides that,
"A tenancy granted pursuant to a contact shall be taken for the purposes of this Act to have been granted when the contract was entered into".
Our advice is that, if there was a contract before 1st September 1995 for a tenancy which is granted after that date, the tenancy will be governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and will not be a farm business tenancy.
Contracts for leases of three years or under do not need to be in writing—Section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. It may therefore be that a landlord or tenant could find that they enter into a contract without being aware that they had done so or of the consequences. If the contract is in writing, then the parties will probably have applied their minds to what they were doing and therefore the accident would not happen. If they did not, there will be clear evidence that there is a contract and therefore the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will apply.
When that information was given at Report stage, the noble Earl told the House (at col. 924 of Hansard) that he did not wish to set traps in the new legislation and he thought that Clause 1(4), read with Clause 36(3), was satisfactory. However, in view of the unease expressed by myself at that time, the noble Earl said that he was prepared to look again at the matter and if necessary return with a government amendment at a later stage. My purpose therefore in moving Amendment No. 9 is
1284
to ask whether, in the week that has elapsed since we last met, the noble Earl has had time to look again and can give the reassurance that we are seeking this afternoon. Failing that, perhaps he will regard it as an ongoing item which will be taken by the Government to another place so that when the matter is raised there at an appropriate stage, either an amendment can be tabled or the necessary reassurance given that the insertion of the word "written", which is the object of Amendment No. 9 to Clause 36(3), is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will know from our discussion at Report stage that we want to avoid legal traps in the new legislation. Such traps have bedevilled the tenanted sector for far too long. The noble Lord has a serious point which we are studying with care.
We are still considering what amendment might be made to the Bill. Although the noble Lord's concern may be well-founded, I am advised that this particular wording may not do the job required, and that possibly some changes elsewhere may be needed instead. I am sorry that I am therefore not able to add a great deal to what I said last week. However, I hope the noble Lord will accept my further assurance this afternoon that this particular problem is being seriously considered and that this will persuade him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his comments and for his assurance that Her Majesty's Government are still considering this matter because of its importance. I take his point with regard to the wording as it stands; that it is perhaps not of a nature that will solve a problem if a problem exists. I fully understand also that in the week that has elapsed since we discussed the matter there may not have been time for the legal advice which the noble Earl requires to come to hand and therefore he is not able to say definitively what the Government's position on the amendment would be.
I leave the matter there in the knowledge that the Bill will go to another place. I shall certainly make it my business to ensure that the matter is raised appropriately in another place. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 9.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, remarked at Second Reading, I think with a touch of irony, how pleasant it was to be dealing with a government Bill which was largely popular and agreed by the industry to which it relates. I have to say that from where I stand it makes my task a great deal more congenial, also!
It is also my pleasure very genuinely to thank the noble Lords opposite—particularly the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher—for the amicable and constructive spirit in which this Bill was considered. If I may go so far as imputing motives to the noble Lords, I hope it is because they recognise that with this Bill we genuinely want to take real steps to revive the agricultural tenanted sector. The reason that I have had

1285
to resist certain amendments which they proposed is that we felt that they would detract from that overriding objective. Nonetheless, I am pleased to have been able to accept a number of amendments that they proposed, particularly the ones which had the support of the industry group. And throughout our debates I tried hard, though I am not certain that I succeeded, to avoid using the word "otiose" when resisting amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
I should also like to thank the many noble Lords from all sides of the House who have contributed to our debates during the Bill's successive stages. As the House will understand, there are too many names to mention them individually, but if I were to single out one name it would be that of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley whose knowledge and persuasiveness have, as ever, been of great value. I hope that he and all of your Lordships will agree with me that, in keeping with the best traditions of this House, the Bill will be leaving for consideration in another place in even better form than that in which it arrived.
I should now like to pick up two or three themes that have emerged during your Lordships' consideration of the Bill. First, noble Lords opposite have commented several times on the fact that the Bill will permit much greater diversification away from primary agricultural use on a holding. Indeed, at Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I believe, referred to this as extraordinary. The fact is that diversification is an increasing feature of the rural economy but, whereas under the present law it is necessary for the parties to set up a separate commercial tenancy covering the non-agricultural enterprises, the benefit of the Bill is that it will allow scope for such enterprises to flourish within a single farm business tenancy. We see nothing extraordinary about that; indeed, it is one of the features of the Bill that the tenant organisations most strongly support.
Secondly, we have heard a lot about the perils of unwritten agreements. I have made clear in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that such oral agreements are only valid for tenancies not exceeding three years' duration and for periodic tenancies. If we were to exclude these tenancies from the scope of the legislation, we would leave the parties in a state of great legal uncertainty. At the same time, we might provide a method for unscrupulous landlords to seek to avoid the provisions of the Bill by letting exclusively on oral agreements. We therefore decided to set a framework which accommodates oral agreements whilst in no way wishing to encourage the use of such agreements.
Thirdly, a recurring topic has been a concern expressed by my noble friends as well as by noble Lords opposite, about the hazards of leaving many matters to be settled between the parties in their tenancy agreement. I plead guilty to this charge. In my defence, I quote George Bernard Shaw, who said:
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
In this area we believe freedom is essential. Landowners and farmers need to be free to negotiate agreements to suit their own circumstances, within a legal framework that provides safeguards for their basic rights. I am sure that it is true that many people may be apprehensive about this. However, the main industry organisations
1286
realise that the time has come when agriculture needs the extra freedom that other business sectors enjoy, and believe that their members are ready to accept the extra responsibility that goes with it. That is where the guidance currently being prepared by the RICS in consultation with others, will, I hope, prove helpful to those facing this new responsibility.
I do not believe that this Bill could be described as a "courts' charter", as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would have it. In essence, the parties will need to adhere to the tenancy agreement that they have signed; and where there is a dispute, the matter can be referred to arbitration. But I believe that because the Bill does not seek to deal with every detailed aspect of the landlord-tenant relationship, there will be correspondingly less scope for disputes to arise.
Most of all, our hope, as I said earlier, is that the Bill will convince landlords that a new climate has dawned which is favourable towards letting of land, and that new entrants will benefit accordingly. The latest CAAV annual survey which was published last week reaffirms once again how desperately this reform is needed. It showed a further decline in letting of full tenancies and a further increase in short-term arrangements. Excluding succession tenancies, these short-term lettings now outnumber lettings on full tenancies by a ratio of more than 5:1.
I hope that when the Bill comes to be considered in another place the party opposite will show awareness of both the substance and the spirit of the debates that we have had in your Lordships' House. And I hope that they will feel able to be equally constructive in order to help us to achieve that underlying objective. It is clear, for example, that a statutory minimum term would nullify the beneficial effect of the Bill. That is why none of the main industry organisations apart from the Farmers Union of Wales support that proposition. But another equally important aspect is that landowners should not have to fear future retrospective legislation. Just as we have resisted amending the 1986 Act with retrospective effect, I would call upon the party opposite to pledge not to introduce any future legislation on this subject with retrospective effect. In my view, such a pledge would be the single biggest contribution that they could make to allow tenants to derive full benefit from this Bill.
I have one very important point to make in conclusion. At Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the fiscal disincentive to the letting of land. If I recall rightly, he expressed the view that the decline in the number of farms available to let had more to do with taxation than with the present legislation. He implied that removing this disincentive would do more for the tenanted sector than would this Bill. I did not agree with that view, but I am delighted by the fact that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to announce last Friday that the 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax which applies to owner-occupied agricultural land is to be extended to the agricultural value of land comprised in new tenancies that are granted on or after 1st September 1995. An amendment to the Finance Bill is expected to be tabled shortly. Without doubt this will enhance still

1287
further the major beneficial effect that this Bill will have on the letting of land once it comes into force. By making this change the Government have underlined their commitment to the agricultural tenanted sector. This is excellent news which I hope will be greatly welcomed on all sides of your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Howe.)
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I would like to begin, as always, by thanking the Minister for handling this Bill with his usual courtesy. That is not just a form of words. It is a technical Bill, and he has handled his brief with his usual lucidity. I believe that we have all enjoyed the work that we have done on the Bill. I am also particularly grateful to him and his officials for the meetings which I have had, together with my noble friend Lord Gallacher, outside the House to discuss the Bill at its various stages. It has been extremely helpful to us on this side of the House.
In particular, I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Gallacher who has shared the burden with me on the Front Bench. He has his own very effective approach in the handling of a Bill. It has certainly worked because I believe that all the amendments which have been accepted by the Government, at least in principle, were moved by my noble friend. Noble Lords will be aware that on the opposition Benches we do not have the resources which are available to the Government. Therefore, I have to say a particular thank you to our researcher, Mrs. Clare Cozens, who has been of enormous help to us in preparing for the various stages of the Bill.
I must also say a word about TRIG, the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers' Association and the Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs. I believe that they can be fairly described as the corporate midwives of the Bill. This is the first occasion on which I have been involved with a Bill where the Minister needed a nod from below the Bar as well as the usual briefing from the officials in the Box. I hope that this is a new doctrine where the Government listen to the views of industry. I shall not use the word "slavishly"—but certainly they listened on almost every occasion they were called in aid. I hope that that will now extend to all the other policies which the Government intend to introduce. The privatisation of the railways springs to mind. I hope that they will listen to what people in the industry say and will follow the excellent example of the department of agriculture and apply the doctrine to all their other policies.
Obviously, the Tenancy Reform Industry Group has worked extremely hard. There are some in the industry—and I am with them—who feel that some may have striven a mite too hard to go along with the Government's deregulatory and free market enthusiasm. They would be churlish not to note that the Country Landowners' Association, I am sure, is pretty pleased with the outcome of the Bill.
1288
I think that we can all agree on one thing: it is absolutely imperative that when the Bill becomes law, all parties (and particularly tenants) must take proper advice before entering into farm business tenancies. I entirely accept what the noble Earl said, and that it is up to the landlord and tenant to reach an agreement, but I am convinced—I know that the Government will agree—that the guidance notes which are to be prepared by the RICS and discussed with the industry will be of vital importance. The Government have not taken on the responsibility of giving them any form of statutory power, as we asked them to do, but we know that the RICS and other groups will work very hard on this matter. That is important if the Bill is not to turn into a lawyer's paradise. I do not think that it will. Indeed, there is a good hope that it will not if all of us in the industry can get the message across that the guidance notes are extremely important. This is a whole new area. Both landlords and tenants must take advice, look at the guidance, and make sure that they are forewarned, and can thus avoid, the pitfalls that still exist, some of which we have touched on in our discussions.
The Minister mentioned the news over the weekend about relief from inheritance tax. I refer to what I said at previous stages about the effects of such taxation; but, as I have been anxious to point out, it is the way in which it is done that is so important. I should have been surprised if the Minister had not mentioned the new proposal to give 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax for agreements reached after 1st September. Obviously, we shall have to see details of the amendments to the Finance Bill. I have seen only the press releases; but my first reaction—I stress that it is only a first reaction—is that the Government are showing a very odd sense of priorities. We have heard a great deal about the pressures on public expenditure. We know that local authorities are having to slash their community care budgets. We know that all the tax increases that the Government have introduced are equivalent to 7p on the basic rate, yet it seems that the Government can still find the wherewithal to give substantial tax relief to a not particularly impecunious section of the community.
As I have said, it is the way in which it is done that is so important. As I understand it, there will be relief of 100 per cent. on all let agricultural land on agreements after 1st September 1995. That means all those agreements and existing reliefs on owner-occupied land. The danger is that agricultural land could become a tax haven. We shall have to look very hard at the proposal. I am sure that when that amendment to the Finance Bill is tabled in another place, my colleagues there will be anxious to return to the point that we may be turning agricultural land into a tax haven. We must consider the effect of that on the price of land as well as all the other factors that will flow from it. When we form the Government, I am sure that my colleagues at the Treasury will wish to look at that very hard.
To repeat what I said on Second Reading: major agricultural tenancy Bills come but rarely. We have made no secret of the fact that we should have preferred a rather different Bill with more security for the tenant; but saying that does not in any way reflect on the Minister and the way in which he has handled the Bill.

1289
We shall now await with interest the changes to the Bill that may be made in another place. There will be several and although they are largely technical, they are nevertheless important and need to be carried forward to be dealt with there.
We must all hope that once the Bill becomes law, it will achieve the Government's objective, which we all share, which is to increase the supply of agricultural tenancies, particularly to new entrants to the industry.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has conducted the Bill through the House. There is no doubt in my mind that the noble Earl knows his subject inside out. I should like to thank him for being a very good listener and for being very sympathetic to our views.
Over the years, I have had the privilege of considering the 1976 Act (when I was a Member of the other place) as well as the Act that was passed in the 1980s. Many mistakes were made in the 1970s and 1980s, but here we are in the 1990s. Although I voted differently in the 1970s and 1980s, I have always held the view that an agricultural tenancy is a matter between two people, the landlord and the tenant, and that if we have good legislation which looks after the interests of both parties, people in the countryside will survive.
Let us hope that the passage of the Bill through another place will ensure that more land is available on the market in September for tenant farmers. I make a special plea to the landlords of this country to try to let more land to young farmers who want an opportunity to start on the farming ladder.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those that have been paid to my noble friend Lord Howe on his lucidity and command of the Bill. It is a very complicated Bill and he has shown great clarity and courtesy in handling it as well as giving us all a real sense that he has listened to our comments. One of the most encouraging aspects of the passage of the Bill through the House is that we have improved it.
My noble friend the Minister has been up against some doughty agriculturalists, including my noble friend Lord Stanley and the two noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Carter. As my noble friend said, both have been courteous but are very much in command of their subjects.
I should like to add my congratulations to the industry. It has taken something like four years to get this agreement among the industry. The committee must have shown great wisdom and patience in meeting the arguments of all the conflicting interests. I hope that that will prove a great benefit to agriculture.
Twenty years ago, the Northfield Committee, on which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, served, stated the urgent need to free farming. This is the first time that we have done that. As I have said, it has taken 20 years to achieve and needs great support. As a result of this legislation, the somewhat dubious partnerships and the one to two-year agricultural leases which were outside the scope of the Agricultural Holdings Act will now be gone.
1290
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors still has a very important role to play. My noble friend has shown that he has great confidence in its ability. I know that the committee that was set up some months ago is working hard. I am sure that it will rise to the responsibility and give the industry proper advice.
I am delighted about the relief that was announced last Friday. I am somewhat surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggesting that agricultural land might become a tax haven. I had thought that that is what he suggested on Second Reading. I am slightly sad that the provision will not apply to all tenanted land. Finally, I wish the Bill success and a fair wind in another place.
Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I may reply briefly. I am most grateful for your Lordships' kind words about the Bill and my part in its passage through this House. As I said earlier, dealing with the Bill has been more of a pleasure than a duty for me. The Bill is both wanted and needed by the agricultural industry and I very much hope that it will receive a speedy passage in another place.
I have noted the strong welcome that has been given by several noble Lords to the announcement about inheritance tax. I am delighted that we have been able to make that change now because it will enhance the effect of the Bill and, I hope, render it even more successful. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested that agricultural land might be in danger of becoming a tax haven. However, the intention is that the landowner will need to have owned the land for seven years before the relief that has been proposed by my right honourable friend would apply, so I believe that the noble Lord's fear is unfounded.
This is an important and useful Bill. I am grateful to noble Lords for the spirit in which they have debated it and helped us to improve it in certain ways. I invite the House to pass the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education: Student Support
5 p.m.
Lord Addingtonrose to move, That this House resolves that, before the commencement of the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1994 and the Education (Mandatory Awards) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1994, there shall be restored to students the same right to receive housing benefit and income support during the long vacation as the rest of the adult population.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion draws attention to a group of people—adult students in full-time education—who are denied the basic right of a safety net to guarantee a minimum standard of living. That is a long-winded way of saying that students have been denied the safety net of the social security system since the 1990 student loan regulations were introduced. That is a piece of legislation about which the House could probably stand up and say, "We told you so". Everything that we predicted when we debated the subject in 1989 has come to pass.

1291
Students have become increasingly worse off. They carry a heavy debt burden, and not just because of the student loan scheme. Even that, as we have all heard recently, is not working well. Students have been effectively left with a lower guaranteed standard of living than one could expect if one were receiving the basic income support and housing benefit package when unemployed. The majority of students will have a lower income than that regarded as the lowest capable of sustaining life in this country.
The history of the matter is interesting. With the indulgence of the House, I shall relate briefly what happened. Since coming to power, the Government have introduced a series of measures which, inch by inch, have effectively removed students from the social security system. For instance, students were unable to sign on and receive benefits during their first Christmas and Easter vacations. Then they could not claim housing benefit if they happened to be in university-provided accommodation. The present scheme then came into effect in 1990. When the scheme came into effect, there was a hardship allowance. That was withdrawn the following year.
I was in the Chamber when that happened. I remember being told that one of the reasons for the withdrawal of the allowance was that students were being encouraged to apply for it. In other words, they were being encouraged to take out a loan which was supposed to act as a backstop to enable them to have money during the long vacation.
The average student therefore can now expect an income of £61.35 a week throughout the year. The Department of Social Security calculates that a person on social security benefit paying rent at an average cost around the country would receive £71.15 per week throughout the year. There is therefore a shortfall of nearly £10 for people who have to buy textbooks. That person is receiving potentially £10 per week less than the basic income level. We then stick other expenses on top of that.
The Government's answer to the problem is that people can find jobs. Students can earn money in addition to the grant. We have heard from many distinguished academics in the House, including my noble friend Lord Russell, that we are encouraging most students to take on a full-time educational course. That means that they are not doing anything else. So how many hours a week is it acceptable for them to work during term? How many hours does that mean working behind a bar when one is lucky to get home by midnight having been on one's feet for several hours? How many hours will be acceptable when doing a course? Many educational establishments actively discourage their students from working.
The main issue we are debating relates to the long vacation. "Vacation" is probably no longer a good name for it, as it describes a period when there is potentially no income. The student can work. A student has 14 weeks in which to find a job. How many of those weeks will be spent searching for a job? It is conceivable that 14 weeks will be spent searching for a job. Once a job is found, what will the rates of pay be? We are talking
1292
about low paid casual work; for example, working in the local factory or stacking shelves. Many menial, low-paid jobs no longer exist in the production sector. I am talking perhaps about the packing industry, although I have probably offended members of your Lordships' industrial committee by using that expression. That type of work no longer exists because it is cheaper to do it by automation. We all know that large areas of the country have structural unemployment because unskilled employment no longer exists in many sectors.
We then turn to the service sector. Once again students may obtain part-time work at perhaps less than £3 per hour. If one works for 20 hours a week at less than £3 an hour, that provides £60 a week upon which to live. Students may be worse of then than they are during the term. So what is the case for not bringing them back into the system? I cannot see it. Students who will earn a good income during the greater part of the vacation will not sign on as an alternative. We are not talking about vast amounts of money.
Students now have to sign 12-month tenancies for their accommodation. That has occurred since I was a student. That means that students cannot even live at home during vacation and thus not have to pay for their accommodation. They have to maintain their term-time accommodation even if they are not there. They are legally obliged to ensure that the rent is paid. All those factors combine to result in students suffering financial hardship.
The ancient universities recently carried out a survey. They include Oxford and Cambridge and the four ancient universities in Scotland, in order of age—St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh. The survey found that about 15 per cent. of all students had considered leaving university due to financial hardship. The figures are hard to come by because when a student leaves a university he usually just leaves. Students are ashamed that they have not managed to complete the course. Financial considerations may play a part in this. If a student has financial problems he may have been doing a job and his academic work may have been affected. Many students in the surveys that I have seen have said that having to work has affected their academic performance. Students will not say that that is why they have left. That is why the figures are so difficult to collect. However, all the anecdotal and circumstantial evidence suggests that financial hardship is having a real effect.
The Motion asks merely that we restore to students the basic safety net. Students form a large group of adults who are undertaking a period of study which, it is hoped, will benefit the whole of our society because those people will be better qualified. It will undoubtedly benefit students themselves also. We are not suggesting a major change such as housing benefit during term time, although that too would be welcome. In the past, before the regulations were introduced, that acted as a regional balance. In expensive housing areas housing benefit rose and so that provided a form of levelling out. We do not call for that in the Motion. We ask merely that students should not find themselves without an income. It is not the most radical suggestion that the Chamber has ever heard.

1293
If we are to allow students to carry on falling into debt, we shall cause more of them to fail unnecessarily. We shall thus waste our investment both in time and money. That is the nub of the argument. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House resolves that, before the commencement of the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1994 and the Education (Mandatory Awards) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1994, there shall be restored to students the same right to receive housing benefit and income support during the long vacation as the rest of the adult population. —(Lord Addington.)
5.10 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the position advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. There is no doubt that for some time the real value of the student grant has been falling and therefore the financial position of students, in so far as they rely on that grant, has deteriorated. However, the background is that during the past 15 or 16 years there has been an enormous expansion in the number of students in full-time higher education. Expansion has occurred for longer than that but it has accelerated during that period. The fall in the real value of the grant is a direct consequence of that mass expansion.
The number of students in full-time higher education has doubled during the past 15 years and is now about 930,000. That is one-third of those in the 18 to 21 age group and includes a large increase in the number of women students. The expansion has been widely welcomed; in fact, it has been demanded. Everyone is extremely happy that an increasing proportion of people in that age group should be going on to higher education. It is good for the economy and for their own personal life chances.
However, it has inevitably strained the education budget, on which there are increasing demands. The demand for expansion is not confined to the higher sector of education. There have been worrying signs that literacy and numeracy levels have declined in primary schools. There is a big demand for extra expenditure in that area. Some would say that that is the main priority in the education budget and governments must decide how to distribute limited resources between the different claims. That is true in all areas but in education it has posed increasingly difficult problems.
It is not obvious that in a climate of scarce resources one should give a high priority to increasing financial support for university students who, in most cases, will be able to live at home and to borrow money via student loans and the banks. They will also have the opportunity to take vacation jobs if they need them. The problem is one of success rather than failure, and of special hardships created by the success.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that he is not asking for a large sum of money. I have worked out that if one-third of full-time higher education students receive these average benefit pay-outs as a result of the new entitlements that he suggests the cost for the long vacation will be about £443 million. That is a large sum of money. I plucked the figure of one-third out of the air. It may be much less than that but it is the possible
1294
magnitude of the amounts that we are considering. However, one thing is clear and all experience teaches it; that if one creates an entitlement the population claiming the entitlement will grow. Therefore, whatever the initial calculations, the amounts required to meet the entitlement will expand. We must bear that in mind.
Before supporting the proposals we must, first, establish the dimension of the problem and, secondly, decide how it might be met. The noble Lord failed to supply any quantitative data. He made general remarks, which were well taken—
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when asked in a Question for Written Answer for quantitative data the Minister said that he was unable to supply it? Therefore, I do not believe that it is possible to blame my noble friend for being in the same position.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I do not blame the noble Lord for being unable to supply the data. I say merely that policy should be based on information and if we want to find out how best to meet cases of hardship we must establish the quantitative amount of hardship. There are many ways in which we can try to deal with the issue and recreating the proposed entitlement may not be the most obvious. Further, what proportion of students cannot live at home during vacations because they have no homes or because family relations are too bad?
Lord Addington: My Lords, the point was not that they cannot live at home but that they must maintain property because of 12-month leases. Many students are legally obliged to maintain property throughout the long vacation.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, how many are legally obliged to do so? Those who have property with such leases are so obliged, but what proportion of the 930,000 students are in that position? My argument is that one does not establish a universal entitlement to crack a small problem, if it is a small problem. There are other ways of doing so.
I wish to know what proportion of students are in the situation in which they cannot live at home because they have 12-month leases which they cannot give up. How many full-time students cannot count on any parental support during the vacations? That is further data that we must have. I should be loath to create, or to recreate, a system of entitlements based on the idea that most students are homeless, are without parental support, or are so tied to leases that they cannot give them up during the long vacation. I believe that that is what the noble Lord is asking us to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned a safety net for students. Of course I agree that there should be a safety net but the question is how best to supply it. In 1994–95, £26.7 million has been provided for limited access funds. The noble Lord did not mention that. It is administered by universities and colleges to help students in serious financial difficulties. I believe that an expansion of such arrangements, if and when financial difficulties are established, is the way forward. After all, the people who administer the funds will know the personal circumstances of the students concerned and

1295
will be in the best position to judge the level of support that is needed. It should not be dealt with by way of entitlement to benefits that are generally associated with labour-market conditions and interruptions. One must deal with the problem through an extension of the facilities already available to students.
That brings me to the last general point that I wish to make. I am suspicious of any approach that treats full-time students as part of the labour market. They are not in that position. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Addington, believes that students should or should not be looking for vacation jobs. That varies in different countries. Many students would benefit from having jobs in the vacation, especially in the earlier part of their degree courses. But income support is related directly to the job market. If you do not believe that students should be in the job market because their studies will be disrupted, logically you cannot also call for income support under conditions related directly to the number of hours worked—less than 16 hours per week. Housing benefit is paid to people who cannot afford to pay their rent. That is not true of most students for most of the time that they are at university.
Everyone must be aware that there has been increasing hardship for students. There is a case for being more generous in order to meet that hardship. However, I do not believe that there is a case at all for recreating a system of entitlements which are bound to be demanded by more and more students as time goes on.
5.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for tabling this Motion for debate.
I begin by quoting from a Motion accepted by the General Synod of the Church of England. I should underline that that is a body elected from 43 dioceses of the Church of England and from all different sections of society. If a private Motion is debated there, it has to carry the maximum number of signatures. At the last meeting of the General Synod, the Motion was passed unanimously that it is:
"deeply concerned at the low level of financial support available to full-time students in higher education and requests Her Majesty's Government to consider means of alleviating the position".
Therefore, that is well in tune with the Motion before us.
I am connected most closely with Liverpool University which generously gives out doctorates in different directions. The welfare officer of the Guild of Students at Liverpool University has given me a very careful breakdown which accords with the calculations given earlier by the noble Lord that there is a difference of £9.82 per week between the income of a full-time student and that of someone who is receiving income support and housing benefit, with the reminder that those on benefit receive also free prescriptions and other benefits. That is a considerable difference. Therefore, there is a sense of deep injustice about that for those students living away from home rather than being unemployed.
1296
That concern is expressed in many ways. I am not concerned, neither can the Church be concerned, necessarily with those students who have parental support. Many of us, when we were students, benefited from parental support and many of us have suffered from having students of our own to support. We know that it is not an easy business and sometimes relationships become very difficult. But in speaking in the debate, my primary concern is with students who do not receive any such support; and there are quite a number of them. I do not believe that the figure is as high as one-third, but there are many such students.
Many students are living on a very tight budget. I wish to quote information given to me by a student who is a member of the chaplaincy at Liverpool University. Therefore, she is not a renegade or a beer-swilling student. She is trying to live sensibly and trying to get through her studies in order to graduate. She lives with three other girls in an apartment. On her careful budget that she has given to me, undramatically, she is left with £5 per week for food and heat. That girl does not want to take out a loan. The Government state that their reason for removing housing benefits and so on during the vacation is to make people more economically self-reliant. Her argument is that she wishes to be economically self-reliant and, therefore, does not wish to take out a loan. The argument goes both ways: she has been forced into taking out a loan against her will.
This subject is larger than the long vacation, but clearly we are concerned with the long vacation. However, before I turn to that, perhaps I may say that I know from my experience of Liverpool University that there has been an increase in the demands on the health and welfare resources of the university. More students are under stress and seeking counselling, and debt counselling is now commonplace in the university. That is a serious matter which we must consider.
However, we are considering the long vacation. How does one meet that challenge at a time when it is extremely difficult to obtain employment? Many of us, when we were students, found it extremely easy to obtain employment, but we are now living in a very different age.
Ideally, I should argue for an extra lock-on grant for the long vacation because the grant is already means-tested and that would be a way of taking it through into the vacation. I am sure that in that regard it will be argued that the grants are already thinly spread; that we wish to increase the numbers of people in higher education; and, therefore, to increase the size of the grant will reduce the numbers receiving higher education. Against that, I ask whether we want more students in increasing poverty or X number of students who can at least survive properly. I put that forward as a serious consideration. To my mind, that would be the best way forward.
The second way in which to tackle matters is for students to take out loans. The girl to whom I referred is very hesitant about the loan which she was forced to take out, as are many students, and, in particular, how it is to be repaid. Repayment is often to be made just at the time when students are taking on family responsibilities and just at the moment when they least

1297
want to repay it. Therefore, if that is the only answer, we should reconsider seriously how those loans are repaid. Linkage with income tax would take into account the circumstances of life at any particular time and I suggest that that would be a fairer way of repayment.
I imagine that neither of those suggestions will be acceptable. In view of that and in spite of the problems locally, which I recognise, in relation to administering housing benefit and income support, it seems that that is the only way in which to proceed unless the alternatives that I have put forward are accepted. If that is so, and the need is certainly there to be met in one way or another, I warmly support the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Addington for moving the Motion this evening. I should like also to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on what he said about it.
We now have a Secretary of State for Education who seems prepared to listen to some of the problems which confront those of us who are interested in educational matters. Therefore, I hope that she will consider very carefully this debate, and that the Minister who is to respond will consider all those suggestions which are intended to be helpful and positive.
Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, we are clearly moving towards a different philosophy of student support, whether for good or for evil. That new philosophy is to base student support on a mixture of loans and the ability to meet the costs of higher education from private sources and away from the concept of grants.
I suspect that that is the philosophy, and I believe that the 10 per cent. cuts which started in 1994 and which should conclude in 1997 will not conclude in that year. I believe that we shall see a steady decline in the grant system to the point at which there is no longer a grant of any kind for maintenance.
I merely wish to register that there are two great drawbacks which should be put on the record. The first is that that is a particularly harsh system for those whose earnings after graduation are low; primarily those who work in the public service. Some noble Lords will know that at present I am a professor at Harvard University. It is one of the great problems of American education that many former students in low-paid employment are unable to pay back the sums involved in their education—and many of them are engaged in some of the most socially necessary jobs which any society has to offer.
The second point that I should like to make is that the system we have adopted in Britain is one that is extremely harsh on students who suddenly experience a change in their life circumstances, perhaps because of the death of a parent or because of disability in the family or because, for one reason or another, they are affected as regards their ability to gain employment after graduation. As I said, the system is peculiarly harsh with no element of fairness to those students who, for a
1298
variety of reasons, encounter financial responsibilities and commitments which they could not have envisaged when they took out the loan.
With regard to the system, and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I should like to point out that of course one has to consider the numbers in higher education—indeed, the noble Lord is quite right in that respect—and we must also consider the desirability of an expansion in those numbers. However, one has also to consider how many students actually take degrees. As the noble Lord will know, in France and Germany, for example, and several other countries, a great many students enter university but far fewer actually complete their university and higher education studies. One of the great glories of this country is that a very large proportion of all our students goes from beginning to end of a university course because the work involved is so intensive and spread over a very short period.
I should also like to mention the fact that the British university structure is one with which the system that we are now moving to is peculiarly incompatible. Again, in American universities the provision for student jobs—many of them in the university itself, in libraries or in occupations such as a research assistant, a teaching assistant, and so on—actually complement the studies that the students are undertaking. That is not characteristic of the kind of jobs that our students undertake; for example, they take mostly bar jobs, waitressing jobs and jobs which are in direct conflict with the students' time and energy as regards their academic studies.
Implicit in what the Government want ought to be a major move towards discussing with the CVCP, and others in higher education, the possibility of deliberately planning for a much larger number of student jobs associated with and related to the university. Incidentally, I believe that it should also lead to a great willingness by the Government to pursue with employers within the public and private sectors the possibility of a major expansion of summer internships. In the United States and Canada, students find it relatively easy to get summer jobs which complement their education. As the right reverend Prelate has just said, it is increasingly difficult in Britain for students to find summer jobs. Moreover, summer jobs related to one's studies are virtually impossible to find.
My final subject relates directly back to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I respect the gritty frankness of his remarks and his willingness to associate himself with what is certainly an unpopular cause; namely, student loans as compared with student grants. However, I appeal to the noble Lord's own sense of intellectual coherence and his willingness to be frank about facts. I ask him whether he can really support the indefensible system of student loans which has been adopted in this country over the objections of the universities, of the other sectors of higher education, of students themselves and of virtually anyone else who knows anything about the subject.
The system is spread out over five years within which rigid, fixed amounts must be paid. There is virtually no flexibility at all under the system to allow for differences in circumstance, and the scheme is not

1299
related in any way to the income that students will earn. It means, for example, that those who enter the NHS as house doctors will find it incredibly difficult to repay loans because their earnings are so low in the early years of their profession. All of that makes the existing scheme quite straightforwardly indefensible. I am surprised—although, not altogether surprised—that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, did not address himself to the existing scheme.
If we are to support the idea of a move from grants to loans, we must, first, soften that move in the way suggested by my noble friend, Lord Addington: we must allow for some redress for hardship. Everyone from universities who is present in the Chamber knows perfectly well that the access funds do not amount to an adequate safety net; they amount to a ragged net which is full of holes. Secondly, we must accept greater flexibility and a link to the income earned after graduation in the way that has happened with the Australian scheme, which is a great deal fairer than ours. Thirdly, there must be recognition of the fact that students would not be entitled to universal benefit as suggested by the noble Lord but rather to the means-tested benefits such as housing benefit and income support. Until we have a much better framework, I urge the House to accept the annulment of the grant awards as suggested by my noble friend, Lord Addington. I am very honoured to be present and to be able to support my noble friend this evening.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. Since the noble Baroness faced me across the table of the Oxford examination school, some years ago, we have confronted one another on many occasions, usually on educational matters. However, this evening is an exception in that we are, for once, in total agreement. I find nothing with which to quarrel in what the noble Baroness said, but I should like to expand on it a little.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, many speakers in your Lordship's House—all, I believe, with university experience—warned the Government when the loan scheme was established that, even if it was correct in principle (as I believe it is to say that people who derive benefit from society at large might, in later life, be under a moral obligation to repay some of it) it was bound to be a tragic disaster. Indeed, the particular scheme mentioned by the noble Baroness and which the Government adopted was a disaster. It had no merits compared with the Australian scheme to which the noble Baroness referred.
Even I—and I believe my noble friends on that occasion—thought that, at any rate, it would actually work and that the loans would be forthcoming. We also thought that when students applied for loans their letters would be answered and their telephone calls dealt with. However, we now know from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals which has reported on the matter that nothing could be further from the truth. It is not only a bad scheme, it is also a scheme which has been administered with monstrous incompetence. In
1300
fact, looking at the record of the Student Loan Company makes me think that Lambeth Borough Council is a model of business efficiency.
Why did not the Government adopt what was urged upon them; namely, a recovery of some of the costs of higher education through the taxation system, either by means of income tax, national insurance or in some other way which could be clearly related to income and repayable when the income was actually available?
The Government never gave any conceptual argument. They stated that the Treasury said it was not possible: it was technically too difficult for the Treasury to work out a scheme for recovering money in that way. If the Australians can do it, one might think that we could also do it. But, apparently, that argument is not convincing. There is a curious aspect in the whole story. Noble Lords may be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to sell off the Treasury building in order to provide better for its refurbishment. I urge the Minister to inform his right honourable friend that it is not the building that needs refurbishment; indeed, it is the chaps inside it.
We are fighting a very difficult battle to try to introduce sense into the system. We cannot cover the entire range of hardship. I, myself, have seen the surveys that have been carried out by the ancient universities, especially the University of Edinburgh. There is no doubt that a considerable degree of hardship exists which will, inevitably, lead to the lowering of academic standards. You cannot be worried about whether you can afford a meal the next day and at the same time contemplate the finer points of Aristotelian logic, or whatever it may be. That is a really serious question of which I think many students, particularly the more serious students, are very well aware. They are aware that their great opportunity is being affected by this situation.
There are also categories of students whose existence the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, omitted altogether—the mature students. We are always told that education should be a continuous process and that we want more people to go back to higher education at a later stage if they have missed it at an earlier one. But the whole scheme at the moment is heavily biased against mature students for whom many benefits are not obtainable. There is, of course—I am encouraged here by the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who knows a great deal about this—also the question of postgraduate students. Why cannot the college of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, attract more British students to its magnificent programmes of postgraduate research? It is because the provision of support for postgraduates is almost totally lacking.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, says all this is a consequence of expansion, and expansion has been much applauded on all sides. As noble Lords will be aware, I am unconvinced. My own feeling is that there is no point expanding a system unless you have thought out the way to pay for it. It is quite clear that when this expansion was accelerated—by a very high proportion, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said—no serious effort was made to see how it would be paid for. It is being paid for either by putting additional burdens—

1301
administrative as well as teaching—upon university staffs who, if not yet reduced to the student level of poverty are moving in that direction, or at the expense of the students themselves. I see no benefit to the economy or to the national well-being by putting out into the world a number of graduates who, by reason of their circumstances if nothing else, are not going to be able to make the contribution which a generation ago we would have expected of someone with a graduate degree.
Therefore, this is a situation which really demands a great deal more thought than is being given to it. The National Commission on Education funked this. The Labour Party's commission on social justice has funked it also. It is time that, from all sides of the House and from all sides of the political spectrum, we began to ask ourselves what is the point of having a system which is badly run, which creates so much hardship and which is unacceptable to the universities themselves as well as to their students. What is the point of this? Is it not better to say that we now need to think very carefully before we go any further with expansion? The CBI wants to have another huge burst of expansion from 30 per cent. of the age group to 40 per cent. but the CBI's pronouncements on public affairs are nearly always beside the point.
Before we do anything of that kind we really must ask ourselves what to do. I have a tiny glimmer of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. My favourite solution would not perhaps be the solution that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has put forward. But in the absence of anything seriously proposed—and in the absence, for instance, of a great increase in the amount of money available to universities to deal with hardship cases, which would be the simplest short-term solution—I feel the House has no option but to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I would like to make a short speech based on my own experience as a student. Many noble Lords here will be surprised to learn that I obtained a degree in Newcastle. I left Newcastle University in about 1989. I remember that student loans were on the horizon and I remember a cry going up from all of us who were leaving, "Thank God it will happen to somebody else"! Unfortunately for the students around today, it has happened to them.
I wish to point out a few of the realities on the ground today in Newcastle. One of the points that I wish to underline is the fact that the Government have been successful in their attempt to raise the number of students in higher education. That very success has led to some of the major problems for students in Newcastle. I wish briefly to consider two areas: housing and jobs. I know that both areas have been covered by other noble Lords.
I wish first to consider housing. One of the problems with raising the number of students in Newcastle is that it has placed a massive burden on the available housing stock for students. The vast increase in student numbers has meant that there is now a great deal of competition for housing. The houses have not got any better; they
1302
are still the same dumps that I stayed in but they now cost double the amount that they cost in my day. I remember renting a house in Fenham in the west end of Newcastle for £14 a week. The price gives an indication of the kind of house it was. I visited that same area and asked students about houses there. The houses there today are still in the same state as when I lived there—in fact they are probably worse—but they are now being rented out at the average rate for Newcastle which is £35 a week.
As regards the point about houses being rented out for 12 months of the year, it obviously does not make any sense to a landlord who is renting out commercially to rent out for anything less than 12 months of the year. The customers of those landlords are students and why should the landlords leave their houses empty over the summer period? Problems can arise if houses are left empty over the summer period. The one good asset in the house I rented was a marble fireplace. However, I remember returning after the holiday to find that it had been stolen. That was rather annoying because we did not get our deposit back. Someone had broken into the house over the summer period and stolen the fireplace. That is an indication of what Fenham was like.
I now turn to jobs. The increase in the number of students has meant a decrease in the number of jobs available to students. The jobs available to students are very limited in nature. At the time we last debated this matter I visited Newcastle and I went into McDonald's and asked whether I could get a job there. The staff said I would be put on the waiting list. If one has to be put on the waiting list for a job at McDonald's, that shows there must be a massive scarcity of jobs because the work there is so badly paid.
The only jobs that are available in some areas are bar jobs. However, due to the unemployment in the area, there is competition for those jobs with people living in Newcastle. Sometimes employers in the area will not employ students for those jobs. As regards summer vacation jobs, if one is a student in Newcastle—I know this from what my friends have told me—and one wishes to obtain a job there, one has to lie and say that one is not a student. If one does not do that, one will not be employed because employers know one will only be employed for a short period of time.
Those are just some of the problems. Although one is bound to keep one's accommodation for the summer period—and I calculated that for 12 weeks in Newcastle one would pay £420 at the lower end of the housing market, which is a significant sum for a student to have to pay—one might have to move away from Newcastle to find a job. That will be a problem in any town with a student population.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, estimated the cost of the scheme as £443 million. Perhaps I am cynical, but taking into account the rise in student numbers and the fact that a third of those between the ages of 18 and 21 are now students, there must be an enormous saving to the taxpayer because if they had stayed at home and had not become students they would have received benefits. Considering that there is a large amount of unemployment in that age group there must be a saving to the taxpayer.

1303
There is no safety net for students at present. There should be a safety net for the summer period. It is difficult to spot student poverty because it is an age group which will not be the most visible. If one takes out a loan one will probably be able to pay it off, but that does not mean that student poverty does not exist. It is a growing problem.
I hope that the Minister will give one commitment when he sums up and will agree to review the access fund and the university hardship funds. That is the only safety net which exists at present. Many noble Lords are concerned that that is not an adequate safety net because so many fall through it. I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to take another look at the matter.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for promoting the debate. We have all received statistics on student finances which are deeply disturbing. I propose to quote very few, but that is not for lack of data.
It is claimed by the Department of Education that such evidence as is available is fragmentary, anecdotal and insufficient to justify the immediate and urgent review of policy which I believe to be essential. Is it really not enough that the vice-chancellors at their meeting with the new Secretary of State on 2nd December pressed her to review the level of student support as a matter of urgency and said that many students were now in real poverty and that the question was wider than the balance between grant and loan? Is it not enough that the students themselves have carried out reviews of 1,718 students at St. Andrews, 1,266 at Edinburgh, 3,062 at Aberdeen, 767 at Glasgow and 1,000 at Lancaster), all of which tell the same story of serious financial strain?
I could cite many detailed statistics provided both by those surveys and by the CVCP's student financial support survey of home full-time students in the autumn of 1994 which demonstrate clearly the substantial number of students suffering a degree of financial stress and real hardship over long periods. That is seriously damaging to their academic work and hence to their prospects in a society which urgently needs good graduates, not students who have been driven to become only part-time students while notionally taking a full-time course because they are obliged to take low-paid jobs with long hours in term time, even in their last year, to survive.
Employers are looking for bright graduates with transferable skills. They expect much more from a graduate than proof of academic quality. They are looking for young men and women who, in addition, have acted, made music, communicated, been part of teams, taken initiatives or led expeditions. How are students who are already only part-time students because they are stacking shelves at Sainsbury's when they should be spending Saturday nights deciding how to run the world (which is what we did in my day) to afford the time to learn those skills which make a rounded human being and which are part of a university education? This is the time when the young can explore
1304
new ideas, make friends for life, learn to respect other points of view—in short, enjoy a truly catholic education. That is the experience good employers are looking for, and many of today's students are not getting it, to the great loss of our country.
There are four issues which I urge the Government to address with immediate practical measures without delay. The first is to create forthwith an additional interim means-tested payment in lieu of housing benefit but directed to the rent and accommodation problem while a proper review of student poverty is carried out. I have never understood or agreed with the Government's extraordinary thesis that students going into higher education have deliberately removed themselves from the labour market and thus disqualified themselves from entitlement to social security benefits, but I am prepared to see some logic in requiring money for students to come from the education budget. But some such money is urgently needed.
In the past, Ministers have said that they wanted, first, to increase the total resources available to students and, secondly, to increase students' economic awareness and self reliance. As I said in an earlier debate, it is difficult to learn to manage money when you have none to manage. Can the Government suggest how to manage a budget based on the following figures? In 1995–96 the maintenance grant outside London will be £2,040 and the loan available will be £1,150 (or £840 for those in their last year). Therefore the total will be between £3,190 and £2,880. The median rent, countrywide, is £42 per week—per room, not per house—for a 52-week year (landlords do not work in academic terms) or £2,184 per annum. That leaves the student without private means (who are the students we are talking about) with between £1,006 and £806 for all other purposes for the whole year. That is between £20 and £15 a week to cover food, heat, books, travel and sometimes council tax.
The Minister will say, "There are those splendid access funds". The difficulty is that those funds serve both undergraduates and postgraduates and the latter receive no loans and need help. Now mature students are to lose their allowances, so they too will need help. Secondly, only between one-half and one-third of applications can at present be met, even partially. It is worth noting that the vast majority of those receiving access funds last year were living in rented accommodation, so that is undoubtedly where the need lies.
However, the whole infrastructure of student life is suffering. One shocking example is the lack of access to libraries, whether to terminals or to books. Edinburgh University library bought no books at all for six months because of lack of funds. If students cannot buy textbooks at £20 each or more and cannot borrow them how are they supposed to do their academic work?
Why should we press for an interim subsidy, whatever we may call it and from whatever pocket of the Exchequer it may come, pending an early review and a fresh approach to student funding? It is because we see a valuable national asset being frittered away. At present, students are living in a state of total uncertainty. They are existing on a variable and unpredictable mix

1305
of the student loan, the maintenance grant, possible money from the access funds, possible private or bank loans, occasional possible parental help and possible short-term, part-time jobs with low pay and long hours. Many cannot expect parental help. Most cannot get a decent job in the long vacation which might, as in the past, help them to clear bank debts as they go along. Some are precluded from that anyway because of course work. Only a small number will get help from the access funds, and universities are precluded by law from using their funds to subsidise students. How on earth can anyone plan his or her finances in the face of so many imponderables which are beyond control? I find it disgraceful that student unions have to carry out extensive and complicated debt arrangement counselling as one of their chief functions.
I argued earlier for an interim mechanism to introduce one more element of certainty into students' finances: that they should have the grant, the loan and an interim payment of some kind while the whole system of financing is reviewed and rethought. I agree with other noble Lords that that payment might be made through the existing countrywide mechanism of access funds and could be presented simply as a significant increase in those funds. For instance, in Oxford, 60 per cent. of this year's applications for access fund which are awaiting consideration are from undergraduates living out and therefore liable to pay 52 weeks' rent.
Another simple and thoroughly useful recognition of the need to improve the present appalling lines of communication between students seeking loans and the Student Loans Company would be the immediate provision of a Freephone line for students to use. One of the many problems which students have encountered is the virtual impossibility of getting through by telephone, as they seek to do after successive letters and applications have vanished into the black hole either of a computer or a pending tray. It is surely disgraceful that a student can exhaust a £5 telephone card, bought especially to ensure that he or she actually gets to talk to someone, and still gets no further than being put on hold and dealt with by the answerphone. I know that students have urged that there should be a Freephone link with the Student Loans Company only to be told that that is a Department for Education decision. I appeal to the Minister to please make that decision now.
That lack of communication, coupled with gross inefficiency on the part of the Student Loans Company in dealing with its proper business, has extended even to face-to-face contact. The student loans consultative group, itself made up of representatives of large student unions selected by the loan company, was unable to obtain an interview for three months, while the backlog of 35,000 unprocessed applications built up. It was finally seen in January of this year.
Perhaps I may urge the Minister to lose no time in asking the Secretary of State, whose coming—I am happy to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—has brought such a breath of fresh air and common sense to education, to set up without delay a review body. This should include representatives of the CVCP and the appropriate student bodies such as the NUS and some of the larger student unions—for
1306
instance, the Ancients and others such as Manchester, London and some of the new universities, and rethink the whole method of student financing.
In my view, there should be an independent audit, not a domestic one, of the Student Loans Company. Could not the National Audit Office do that? The Student Loans Company should be required to account for its proceedings and to operate a better management structure in future, with more staff allocated to the processing of applications as opposed to the pursuit of debt. I understand that that was done in December in order to clear the backlog. That principle should be maintained.
Students themselves could make some valuable suggestions. They have a great deal of sense. Just as the Government have had the common sense and honesty to revise their policies and management processes for child support, so must they make the Student Loans Company work or scrap it. It has not worked hitherto, although there are hopeful signs of a better approach to problems with the departure of its unlamented head. This is the moment to do some radical rethinking. The Government regard all surveys—and, of course, statistics can be interpreted variously—as tending to be skewed in some way. It should surely be possible to devise questions which will provide honest answers.
The other area in which there needs to be radical rethinking is the method of repayment. Other noble Lords have spoken about that. I say only that I strongly support the proposal, made and rejected long before the recent Labour commission, that repayment should be income related, with repayment linked directly to pay level and collected probably through the national insurance system. Under the present system, whereas in Hansard of 25th January 1994, at col. 950, the then Minister in this House quoted a repayment figure of a mere £11 a week, the figure for a student going down this year will be something like £70, and that figure will rise to £96 per month within five years. That is a daunting prospect.
I have said nothing about the proportion of students who are dropping out, because as yet there is no mechanism for establishing whether the reasons were solely financial. However, the combination of no money, no way of planning to secure it, and the effects on work and future prospects of continual anxiety and stress must be a powerful factor.
We are asked to believe that there is a feelgood factor in the country arising from a gradual and welcome improvement in the economy. I hope that we do begin to feel that. Too many students, however, are experiencing the "feelbad" factor. It is in the power of the Minister to persuade the Secretary of State to exert her undoubted energy and goodwill to change students' lives. All it needs short-term is free phones, a better use of staff in the Student Loans Company, a major increase in access funds, and the setting in train of an objective and radical review, in consultation with the CVCP and student bodies, both of student finances and of the operations of the Student Loans Company. I cannot but wonder whether that monstrous animal should survive.

1307
Long-term, I hope that we shall see a different formula for recovering loans, and a real hope that students will once again be full-time students, able to use the resources of their universities to the full and to emerge as valuable graduates.
6.8 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I must apologise for failing to put my name down in time to get it on the list, but I did want to speak about the effects of government policies over the last number of years on student finances, which I consider to be disastrous as I think quite a few people tonight have also said. I felt that it was important that a good number of us said how totally unsatisfactory are the present arrangements that the Government have put in place.
From September 1986 when students lost their entitlement to supplementary benefit and unemployment benefit during the Christmas and Easter vacations, things have gone from bad to worse—housing benefit withdrawn and vacation hardship grants gone, among others. Then the flawed Education (Student Loans) Bill was introduced; and what an appalling mess the Student Loans Company is now in since the new fast-track application system for loans was introduced in May last year. Chaos and widespread student hardship have resulted. Of 320,000 forms for loans sent out, for the current academic year, only 60,000 were ready for processing at the start of the new term. Thousands of students were left without loans. The company was forced to take on extra staff to try to clear up the mess it had created. Eleven thousand telephone calls a day were being received. At the end of December 1994—that is, at the end of the first term of a new academic year—35,000 students had not received loans. In the context of steep grant cuts, this meant significant student deprivation and suffering.
Many borrowers (over 20,000–7.7 per cent. of those in repayment status) were in default at the end of July. Legal action was in progress against 749 borrowers and judgments had been received or enforced against a further 1,483.
Students do not like getting into debt, and the right reverend Prelate made that clear in his remarks. It is a heavy burden and more and more almost inevitably are in bad debt—up to several thousand pounds at the end of their courses. One survey indicated that nearly half of all undergraduates are finding it difficult to pay their way through university and a quarter are turning to term time jobs. That is not good for their work. In particular, one hears about the number of hours per week which a great many are working. A survey last year showed that,
"nearly nine out of 10 academics strongly agree or agree that financial hardship is damaging students' academic achievements".
Some students have given up altogether. Access funds, which are available only if a loan has been applied for, have proved totally inadequate for need. That has been pointed out by a good many speakers.
I would like to speak of postgraduate students, who face particular problems. This is linked to the decrease in discretionary awards. The Gulbenkian survey shows that they had fallen to 1,700 in 1993–94 from 4,000 in
1308
1990–91. They and part-time students and mature students have had to face many more problems than the ordinary undergraduates who can claim a grant, albeit any grant is now a very reduced one. The average proportion of those in debt rose by nearly 20 per cent. among postgraduate students at St. Andrews. I was there last Saturday, as it happens.
Conditions for students have got worse, too. The increased numbers of students have not been provided with increased facilities. Libraries have not enough space for the larger numbers, nor enough books for their needs, as has already been pointed out. Because of inadequate funds more and more students are relying on books from libraries. The demand for study space in libraries has increased, too, for many reasons, but one is the result of cramped and cold living conditions. Student numbers have gone up by 70 per cent. in the last seven years; library provision by only a few per cent. Many universities have responded to these needs by having longer opening hours. Oxford and Cambridge colleges have long offered overnight study facilities. Bath University library opens until midnight in term-time but the new study centre which it is building will be open all night. More universities should follow these good examples. The rise in accommodation costs—faster than inflation, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said—is another cause of students getting into debt. Payment for rent takes up such a very large proportion of a student's income.
Could the Government not accept that all is not well in the financing of higher education? Could they institute a proper financial review—as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and others—and not only of higher education but also of further education, as it does not seem fair that an 18 year-old at university should be treated very much more favourably than an 18 year-old in a further education college?
What one fears will happen is that it will be only the well-off who will be able to afford a university education, that it will become for the elite, available to those with well-heeled parents. It is very disturbing that those without considerable support from parents or relations will become reluctant to take on the daunting financial responsibilities and the possibility of large debt at the end of their course that now seems inevitable for a great many young people. This I find deeply disturbing. The possibility of equality of opportunity and education for all up to degree standard will become more and more remote. And that is bad both for individuals and for the country.
6.13 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, not for the first time I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Addington for introducing this subject and for speaking about it with so much expertise. This has been an excellent debate. If someone were to read the Official Report without knowing anything of our names, he would not be able to guess from what has been said to which parties we all belong. The voice of experience seems to be unanimous.

1309
I must also declare an interest, both as a university teacher and as a parent. In both those capacities I have reached the same conclusion—that the basic package of support is short by approximately £1,000 a year. In this profession we seem to be fated to be Cassandras: our remarks do not get attention until it is too late for them to be of any use. I remember very vividly sitting on these Benches almost seven years ago waiting to make my maiden speech and listening to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead saying that if present policies were to continue this country would be without a world class university in the 1990s. I can still remember the shock and horror which came back from the other side of the House when he said that. The word "alarmism" flashed by a telepathic signal across the Chamber. That remark looks a lot more on the spot now than it did then. One of the biggest reasons why it does so is the collapse of the system of student financial support. I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, about the funding of expansion and I will say that, though we have more students in higher education, whether more students are getting more education is something as regards which I have very profound doubt.
We might pause a moment to think why the funding of higher education has been a problem all round the world in the past 20 years. It is the clash of two tendencies. One is that higher education is a quality market. In a quality market competition does not lower the price; it increases it. If one thinks, for example, of fighter aircraft, in 1940 to have the second best fighter aircraft in the world was worth nothing. So one does not think in a quality market of saving a few pounds; one thinks of making the product better. The tendency in all the world's great universities, with the growth of more expensive ways of tackling the big sciences, has been to drive the cost down. That is inevitable. At the same time it has been the tendency of the world in the late 20th century to want to move towards a greater degree of equality and to spread privilege more widely. Those are both good tendencies, but until we can accept that they are capable of conflicting we shall not be in a position to come anywhere near planning our higher education.
I wish to touch on one or two small points. We have heard a good deal about the recent misfortunes of the Student Loans Company. I should like to thank the Minister, Mr. Boswell, for being kind enough to have a meeting with me on that subject about three weeks ago. I found I was pushing on an open door. When one is pushing on an open door, one stops pushing, just as when one is in a hole one stops digging. I did not feel that anything I could do could make the Minister more determined to do something about it than he was already. I agree, though, with what has been said by the noble Baroness, the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby about repayment.
Two basic problems arise from this debate. One is that the total package of student support is not big enough. The other is that, even if it were big enough, the breach in the universal safety net will cause hardship. However, I think we need to split these matters up. I shall deal first with the total inadequacy of the package.
1310
The real measure of that is the number of students who are now regularly in employment. That point has been made from every quarter of the Chamber. The right reverend Prelate made it particularly effectively. A lot of universities, including my own, have always had a rule that students may not take full-time paid employment during full term. A lot of universities, including my own, now have institutions to help undergraduates to find such employment during term. One does not get into that kind of position lightly. One does not make the tremendous cultural revolution in one's own thinking involved in encouraging the students to get jobs during term unless one knows very well that what they are getting is not enough or anything like enough. That cultural change is an enormous one and a measure of all our experience of what is really wrong.
I do not think everyone is up to date with it. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—I gave him notice that I intended to quote this—said on Monday 16th January:
"most full-time students I know are not seeking employment".—[Official Report, 16/1/95; col. 401.]
I am sorry that his acquaintance is so limited. If he would like to come down to King's at lunch time one day, I will enlarge his acquaintance. The noble Lord also said (col. 401):
"I should have thought that those two conditions—being a full-time student and actively seeking work—cannot apply concurrently".
There I agree with what he says. What I am not so sure about is that he agrees with government policy—because for most people it is not now possible to be a full-time student without getting paid work. The effect of that on their academic work is as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, described it. I cannot put it more strongly than he did. I will let him speak for both of us.
A certain number of comments will always be forthcoming when we try to make these points. Some people will say that it was ever thus. The last time that that point was made in this Chamber I reviewed my memory bank while the speaker was on her feet. It was true that I could think of six cases which were as bad as anything that happens now. But those were my worst six cases in 30 years before the present system came into being. When I compared them with the worst six cases of my past two weeks, they were identical. That is a measure of the change that has come about.
People may ask why the Government got it wrong. It is a fair question. I think the answer is that the survey that was carried out by Research Services Limited when the new system was being brought in, estimating how much money students were getting from social security, got it wrong. I believe the reason was that those who completed their questionnaire filled it in wrongly. That, I suspect, was because, since people read the newspapers, they were afraid of a massive campaign against them for scrounging. If so, I hope that they learn their lesson and are more honest next time they fill in a survey.
I agree with my noble kinsman Lord Henley that one cannot blame the Government for believing independent research. But after four-and-a-half years the

1311
Government ought to begin to wonder whether research that contradicts the experience of everyone who knows anything about the subject was perhaps wrong.
It may be said that if the situation were this bad, students would not continue to go to university. I speak to every new pupil of my own in his or her first week and explain roughly what the financial position is. I meet utter incredulity. They have no idea that it is like that. Six or nine months later they turn up and say, "You were quite right". But they do not go to university believing that it will be the way that it is. So the Government cannot rely on the number of applications to prove that matters are all right.
Then there is the safety net. Even if the basic package were all right, there would always be unexpected cases: people who fall ill during the long vacation, who of course cannot get jobs; people who do not get any support from their parents, in some cases because their parents have thrown them out; people who transfer courses, which happens for perfectly good reasons, and who may end up doing a three-year course on two years of grant; people who suffer an accident or an injury, something that is not covered by an insurance policy—a misfortune that leads to extra costs; people whose parental contribution cheque bounces—and during the recession we have had a good many of those instances, which are not the fault either of the parent or of the student; and exactly the same category of people as are entitled to social security in every other walk of life, namely, those who try to find work and cannot. Finding work in Bournemouth during the Christmas vacation is, I have learnt, particularly difficult. If one cannot find work, one ought to have, simply because one is a human being, entitlement to support from the social security system. It is a citizen's right.
The Government may invoke costs. If so, they have not thought all round the problem. My noble friend Lord Redesdale made the point that in many cases students are in competition for jobs with ordinary members of the public. I know that some work in the students' union. But if—to take actual examples—I find my pupils behind the till at Waitrose or behind the counter at Liberty's, they have taken jobs which would otherwise have gone to ordinary members of the public. Because they have those jobs, somebody else is on income support. So the Department of Social Security is paying just as much as it did before; it has merely shifted its saving from one person to another. That is not a particularly useful process.
The Government will undoubtedly invoke the Access Funds. The Access Funds might possibly be useful if they were designed simply to deal with unexpected hard cases. What those funds cannot possibly deal with is a system which is short by £1,000 per student. There is simply not that kind of money in the system. I do not believe that the Minister will deny that. But if they were to deal even with the hard cases, I am not sure whether trebling them would be enough.
The Minister may say that social security is not the ideal means of educational support. If he says that, I shall not argue with him. It is true, just as it is true that social security is not the ideal form of support for people
1312
in full-time employment. But in both those cases, if the support that they receive from their normal occupation drops below benefit levels, then as citizens they should have an entitlement to social security support. It is for one thing the only way to create pressure to keep their income up to a level on which body and soul can be kept together.
People may say, "In that case we cannot have the expansion that we want". I say: there is no point in expanding higher education unless what you are expanding is in fact higher education. If people cannot get about £1,000 a year more than the size of the present package, I will advise them in public, as I have done before and, if need be, will do again, that it is much better not to go to university at all.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, Alexander Pope, at the end of The Dunciad, writes as follows:
"Lo! thy dread empire, Chaos! is restor'd;
Light dies before thy uncreating word".
That well describes the situation revealed to us by this debate, for which the House is deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Addington. And how many times in recent years has the noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded the House that the academic standards of many university degrees have fallen because students are now forced to waste their time earning money in term and throughout vacations simply to pay their bills?
On 17th March 1993 I myself pointed out that students of English Literature, my own subject, no longer have time to read the plays of Shakespeare. Assume a reading speed of about 30 pages an hour, and it takes 469.9 hours to read Shakespeare. Assume that a student works a 40-hour week, and it takes 11.7475 weeks (doing nothing else) to read Shakespeare. A long vacation, for which the student now receives no extra financial support, is about 12 weeks. He could not read Shakespeare. He does not read Shakespeare. He gets a job because he has to. And the fact that students now have to fight to get paid jobs in the summer vacation is proof positive, if we needed it, that academic standards have indeed fallen in most of our university subjects.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that the proportion of students getting first-class honours degrees and 2.1s has been steadily rising over the period about which he is talking? If he would accept that, why does he think that that has been the case?
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the proportion has gone up. The reason for that is much more complex than saying simply that standards have risen or that standards have remained the same. There are many ways of getting through examinations, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, will know better than most; and 2.1 s and Firsts are not a very simple register of the full educational achievement of a student on a university course. It may be an indication that the students have learnt how to pass certain examinations, which may now be set in quite different ways from the traditional ways. But there is no simple relationship between rising standards and the number of Firsts and 2.1s.

1313
The present system of financial support for students is chaotic, inequitable and inefficient. It is chaotic because it is, as we have heard from all sides, an ideological mishmash of maintenance grant, loan and the so-called "access" funding, which is really a pitifully small hardship fund.
The value of that maintenance grant declined steadily through the 1980s—by 24.1 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1990–91. In 1979, the standard maintenance grant was 24 per cent. of average earnings; in 1993–94 the grant plus loan amounted to 18 per cent. of average earnings. Access funds provided for universities to give that "targeted" assistance to the most needy are utterly inadequate at a mere £27 million this year.
What sticks in the Government's throat is that the maintenance grant is a grant—that is, it does not have to be paid back. That is anathema to them. So the loans scheme was established in 1990 and, after the banks refused to take it on, a new scheme was produced and a new company—the Student Loans Company—was set up to administer it. The result, to which I shall return in some detail, is chaos.
The Student Hardship Survey conducted at Aberdeen University in September 1994 shows a picture which is as typical as it is disgraceful: 39 per cent. of students had a job during the past academic year; the jobs averaged 12 hours a week; the average wage was £2.90. Yet 77 per cent. anticipate that they will need a job in the next academic year; 78 per cent. said that they were in debt at the end of the last academic year; the average debt, excluding student loan, was £233; and 54 per cent. said that they received money from parents or relatives, excluding the parental contribution, at an average of £371.
But it is not only chaos; it is inequitable chaos. As we heard, postgraduates, part-time students and mature students over 50 are simply not eligible for loans—loans which are shortly to amount to 50 per cent. of all student support. The present scheme, created since 1990, remains geared to full-time undergraduates, even though the composition of the student body has radically changed in recent years, as the Government fully knew that it would.
By 1991–92, 35 per cent. of higher education students in Great Britain were part-time. There are now approximately 30 per cent. more of those students than there were five years ago. Despite their number and despite their importance, they are not eligible for student loans or for other forms of support. It is as clear as day—and has been for many years—that the distinction between full-time and part-time students is vanishing like the morning mist; and that it is the part-time, the postgraduate, the mature and the further education students who are suffering most.
Mature students, as any university teacher will tell you, are often among the very best students. When I was a Principal in the University of Wales, we recruited them joyfully, and they usually out-performed their junior colleagues every year. The Liverpool John Moores University has the highest proportion of mature students in the country, most of them from the local area. At present, the benefits available to them are greater if they are unemployed and claiming income
1314
support and housing benefit than if they are mature students. And of course the phasing out of the older students' allowance will exacerbate their position. If they happen to be over 50, it is hardly worth bothering to apply.
Let us take one particular case. There is a mature, divorced student. She had qualified and worked as a nurse, but because of illness she was unable to continue working as a nurse and so had to retrain. She decided to go to university. Poor woman! She is over 50 and so cannot apply for a student loan. She had been unable to work before entry to her course, and so she was not eligible for the mature student's allowance. So her basic and only grant is £2,040. Not surprisingly, she has arrears and an overdraft to contend with. She is in her first year of study. On top of that, come the cuts in grants over the next two years. The only other assistance is from the Access Fund and that is extremely limited. What would Her Majesty's Government advise that woman to do—get on her bike?
The student support system is chaotic and inequitable. But it is also pathetically inefficient. That from a government which exhorts us all to adopt good business practice, seek value for money, set targets and achieve them, make efficiency gains every year and cut the costs to the consumers of education.
The story of the Student Loans Company since its birth in 1990 is a well known disaster. If it were not so ruinous to so many potential students, it might well make a hilarious farce of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, used to adorn at the Whitehall theatre. At all events, the Student Loans Company has been caught with its trousers down.
Perhaps I may present to your Lordships the information that I have gathered, from usually reliable sources, and ask the Minister to comment on what I say, item by item, when he comes to reply. To assist him to do so, I have given him some notice of what I intend to say.
As I understand it, only 47 per cent. of eligible students took out loans in the academic year 1993–94, and only £19.8 million was repaid. A total of £751.6 million remains outstanding on previous years. At 31st July 1994, 20,628 borrowers (7.7 per cent. of those in repayment status) were in default. I do not think that there is much argument about that.
The "fast-track" application system was introduced last May. Students who had received loans in 1993–94 were sent their application forms during last summer. I repeat what, to my surprise, my noble friend Lady David has already told the Minister. There were 320,000 forms sent out, but only 60,000 were ready for processing at the start of the new term. Is that correct? Loans were significantly delayed, and thousands of students spent weeks trying to secure them. The company was forced to take on extra staff and extend its hours to cope with the problem. Is it true that at one point it was receiving an estimated 11,000 telephone calls per day? Is it true that at the end of last month the company admitted that 35,000 students had still not received their loans?
I am informed that the company itself has been the target of allegations of corruption and incompetence, which suggest serious abuse of corporate expenses and

1315
contravention of Whitehall rules on the acceptance of hospitality from clients. Is that true? Is it true that the Department for Education has been forced to employ Coopers & Lybrand to investigate those allegations, and that its report will be presented to the Public Accounts Committee next month? Is it further the case that, notwithstanding that report, the concerns of the National Audit Office are such that it has announced separate plans to conduct a further investigation into the company's operation?
Finally, is it true that the Department for Education documents leaked last November show that the Government have considered privatising that loans scheme and that under one of the options considered students would be charged a commercial interest rate on their loans? If so, it would add a pleasing touch of grim graveyard humour to an otherwise sorry situation, since it would be another example, like British Rail, of the Government failing to control a situation and then crying out to the private sector to haul them out of the soup. If those facts are correct, I must ask Her Majesty's Government "What do you allege as your excuse?"
Student support is chaotic, inequitable and woefully inefficient under this Government. Student hardship has never been greater or more widespread. Students have only two options: walk out or take paid work. Evidence is now emerging that student poverty and indebtedness have led to increased drop-out rates. The CVCP report that full-time students leaving their courses for reasons other than failure between 1991–92 and 1992–93 increased by over 30 per cent.
The Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England said recently,
"While the number of entrants held up, the system as a whole was under-recruited last year which indicates a fall in numbers in the late years of courses. It looks as though people are taking career decisions to break their courses—my guess is that the reasons are financial, with people building up debts, looking round and saying 'I have to do something about this'".
Hear also the words of the Cadbury Report for the CBI—the CBI, not all of whose members are fully paid-up members of the Labour Party. The report said,
"The Government's approach should be fundamentally revised so that the UK aims for a minimum graduation target of 40% … of young people by the year 2000. Significant increases in higher education participation by mature people should also be expected. This would meet the vital need to upskill the existing workforce".
I agree with every word of that, except the nasty word "upskill", which makes me want to outwalk and upthrow.
We on these Benches have great sympathy with the protest against these orders implicit in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. But the orders are subject to the negative procedure and would only be withdrawn by the Government if there were a prayer against them. Whatever we may think about the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, it is certainly not what I would understand—I speak in deference to the right reverend Prelate—as any form of prayer. The Motion, therefore, would be simply an expression of the House's opinion—if it were to be passed—which the
1316
Government can ignore or accept as they see fit. As such, it could be seen as something of an exercise in futility.
Nevertheless, it makes important points and I would emphasise that we on these Benches are wholly opposed to the implications of the two orders. Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will be content with the expression of opinion in debate and not press his Motion to a Division. The reason for this is simple. Power, as Mao Tse Tung is reported to have said, grows out of the barrel of a gun. If the orders are to be withdrawn, there are procedures for so doing—the prayer, the gun out of which power grows. We would not support them for reasons which my noble friend Lady Hollis gave the House last week in the debate on the Cleveland order, and the whole matter of our attitude to secondary legislation. If there is no serious gun, while welcoming the expression of opinion, we see no point in firing off blank shots.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have had a constructive and often passionate debate. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that although, as he says, this Motion would not in any way annul the orders, we shall pay close attention to everything which was said today.
We believe that students are properly provided for in a fair and flexible system of support. I shall enlarge later on why we hold to that view. However, we keep an open mind on the issue. We are ready to listen to criticism and noble Lords who have spoken may think that that is a good thing in the context of today's debate. We fully accept that we should pay careful attention to the needs of specific groups of students within the broad framework of support. Quite clearly we are not thinking in the same terms as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or the noble Lord, Lord Morris, when they talk implicitly of an extra £1 billion for student support.
As noble Lords will know, we are conducting a wide-ranging review of the higher education system. Once we have crystallised our views on its aims and purposes, on what education it should be providing to whom, we shall turn to the questions of funding and student support. All that has been said today and any further evidence which noble Lords and others may subsequently offer, will be a welcome contribution to that review. My noble friend Lord Beloff will no doubt be comforted by that commitment.
In 1979 one in eight young people were going on to higher education. Now, almost one in three enters higher education, and those from social classes C1 and C2DE are in the majority. The numbers of mature students have also increased dramatically. The Government are proud of those achievements.
There was some opposition to student loans when we introduced them in 1990. The debate now is not about whether students should contribute, but about how they should do so. There seem to be plenty of models to choose from, each with its own protagonists. Some call for a graduate tax or for a national insurance surcharge. Some want a system for student support based entirely

1317
on loans, yet others call for students to contribute towards the cost of their own tuition as well as their maintenance.
I shall not venture on to those farther shores today. I can give the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, the comfort that we shall seriously be considering all the alternative models proposed. If they have specific points at which they want us to look, they should add them to the many submissions that we are already receiving on the review.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way. My noble friend and his department will be saved a great deal of trouble if they simply re-read Hansard from when the student loan system was introduced. All these questions were then ventilated; all the possibilities were argued. The fact that the Government took no notice of what the House said is the reason why we keep coming back.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, occasionally we disagree with my noble friend Lord Beloff. I hope not too frequently because, hearing him say things like that from behind me can be distinctly unnerving. My noble friend Lord Beloff, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and others suggested that the Government should introduce some form of income contingent repayment administered through the tax or national insurance system. As I said, we shall look again at those systems. However, when we have looked at them in the past we concluded that loan schemes involving collection through the tax or national insurance systems are not the panacea that they are often made out to be. The administrative complexity and costs involved seem to be seriously under-estimated for employers as well as for the Government.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I do not want to bowl a yorker from behind at the Minister. However, I ask that he regard with great scepticism the kind of objections that the Treasury raises. It raises objections to almost every efficient scheme.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness has a great deal of experience of that.
There is a great deal of scope to amend the repayment terms within the broad framework of the current scheme and we shall certainly be looking at any submissions. A number of noble Lords suggested that there should be submissions to that effect.
The Government considered the possibility of collection through the tax or national insurance systems when the current scheme was being set up. But we concluded that the current arrangements were better. Despite the problems in paying out loans this year, we continue to believe that the system is fundamentally well
1318
designed. However, the proper place for a wide consideration of such issues is our review of higher education.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the system is fundamentally well designed, why have the Government been unable to get anyone else to notice?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to my best knowledge a great number of people have noticed, including those who set policy in the Labour Party and the National Commission on Education.
To turn to the principal subject of this debate: the current system of student support. As I have said, the Government believe that students are properly provided for in a fair and flexible system. Our belief is based on clear and powerful evidence. Let me set out the facts as we see them: students' total resources in grant and loan were increased by 25 per cent. when loans were introduced in 1990. Since then, resources have increased each year in line with forecast inflation. Students, as a group, are better off than they used to be.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me? Is he seriously saying on the one hand—?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, order! The noble Lord was not in the Chamber for the whole of the debate. My noble friend should be allowed to get on with his speech.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I have sat through the whole debate. I was not intending to intervene, but the statements by the Minister call for it. Can he explain to the House since when have students been better off?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I really believe that my noble friend should be allowed to get on with his speech.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am quite happy to write to both noble Lords who have risen to give the statistics which underline the statement that I have just made. I can assure the noble Lord that that is a figure which we hold to.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that student support might be inadequate because the SIES (student income and expenditure survey) underestimated benefits. The introduction of the loan scheme more than compensated most students for loss of benefit. The Government's assessment was not based on the figures given by students in the survey, but took account of figures from the Department of Social Security.
We treat our students very well compared with most other countries. Student loans are offered on very good terms. Interest is effectively nil in real terms and repayment can be deferred until income reaches 85 per cent. of national average income.
The Government are very conscious of the need to keep repayments at a manageable level. We shall review the repayment terms as necessary as the volume of debt decreases, let alone looking at them again as part of a higher education review.

1319
Student numbers and participation rates have increased dramatically and the drop-out rate from higher education courses has remained fairly steady. Public funding for mature students has held up and mature student numbers have increased rapidly.
All these facts go to show that young people are not deterred from entering higher education by our current support arrangements. They also provide, to our mind, convincing evidence that our overall policy is fair and reasonable and that the broad framework that puts the policy into effect is working satisfactorily.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that there was some evidence of declining standards in universities in the United Kingdom. Quality assessments undertaken by the higher education funding councils suggest that the quality of teaching and learning in those subjects so far assessed continues to be satisfactory or better in 95 per cent. of cases and there is no evidence that the personal circumstances of students have affected that.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I cannot agree with the Whip. This is perfectly normal; I took a part in the debate. I am entitled to ask my noble friend a question. Is it not a fact that all he has said so far is contradicted by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in their communication to his right honourable friend? Is there much point in going on trying to tell us things when we have a much better source of information in that committee?
Since I may have upset the noble Lord, I am going to give him a present. I suggest to him that as England has won a test match it would be very interesting to be in Australia for the final test. I suggest to the noble Lord that he goes to Australia. I am perfectly willing to see public funds spent on that. In between watching the cricket he can find out why the Australian Treasury manages to collect money which the British Treasury is unable to.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I hope that later in my speech I shall turn to matters which may answer part of the question which the noble Lord has just asked. We believe that there is no evidence that quality in British universities is declining. Indeed, the quality of exams and degrees is something which the universities themselves maintain. We trust them to do it and we have no doubt that they are fulfilling that function.
Of course, I have only painted the broad picture. Individual students' needs, both personal and for their courses, vary considerably. Our system of support has to respond to areas of potential hardship and it does so in several ways. First, there are a number of additional allowances which are payable on top of the main grant. There are allowances available for extra attendance on courses, to meet the needs of disabled students for personal help and equipment, for students with dependants and, for certain students, travel costs.
1320
Secondly, social security benefits have continued to be available for certain vulnerable groups, disabled students and students who are single parents. Partners of students are also able to claim, subject to the normal rules. Last but by no means least, the Access Funds are there to help those students who are in particular financial difficulty but whose needs are not met by the broadly defined support arrangements. The funds are worth £26.7 million in 1994–95. This total will rise to £28 million from 1995–96; the third substantial rise in three years.
There will always be some students who get into financial difficulties that the system of student support cannot overcome. No practicable system will ever be perfect. But we are not aware from evidence in our possession of any properly researched evidence of more widespread hardship. We have heard today a number of individual examples. We have also heard information from surveys. What we need to move to now is the sort of quality of research which noble Lords who are active academics will recognise. If I were to try to convince an academic who believed that, say, 16th century monks were largely celibate, that he was wrong, by quoting one or two examples, he would not take me seriously. What we require is some properly researched evidence and universities are in the best possible position to supply that. They run the Access Funds and they see the hardship. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has given us several examples today of his own experience. If that were to be distilled into something which was made available to the Department for Education, you may be certain that we would take that seriously.
The Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, calls for students to be given, during the long vacation, the same rights to housing benefit and income support as the rest of the adult population. The Government have long believed that a general student dependence on benefits is inappropriate and undesirable.
The benefit system is there to serve social and not educational purposes. Students should look to the student support system while they are studying. We are confident that the additional resources provided through student loans and the Access Funds have more than compensated most students for the unavailability of benefits since 1990. A blanket restoration of eligibility to benefits would once again foster the sort of dependency that we sought to end; it would be inefficient and it would discourage students from looking for vacation work. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky pointed out the sort of amounts that he estimates might be involved. I have no government estimate with which to compare that.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that students would receive more from social security than they receive from student support. It is not legitimate to compare social security with student support. Students are now expected to bear some of the costs of their own support because higher education is an investment in their own future. Social security is designed for those who are involuntarily dependent on resources provided by the Government. Some groups, such as single parents

1321
and disabled students, have retained their eligibility for benefits throughout the year but that is for specific reasons related to their particular conditions.
We are convinced that our present approach with closely targeted provision is preferable in every way to a return to reliance on social security. In this context, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, suggested that summer jobs and other employment should be provided by universities. That is an interesting idea. It is, of course, primarily for the institutions themselves to consider what jobs they might want to provide either by way of course-related jobs for their students, as the noble Baroness suggested, or otherwise, but we would encourage them to think along those lines.
Even if almost everyone who has spoken in the debate had not raised the subject of the Student Loans Company, I would have wished to do so. I would not wish to reply to the debate without apologising for the way in which the Student Loans Company failed tens of thousands of students so badly last autumn. The picture which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, paints in terms of figures is, I believe, broadly accurate. I will write to him after the debate to confirm the exact figures. The Government were, and are, extremely concerned by that lapse from the extremely high standards that we have come to expect from the company. Both the company and the Government have taken action to remedy the problems as fast as possible. The backlog has now almost entirely been eliminated. The company is devising measures to avoid any recurrence and will take them out to wide consultation as soon as possible. I am very comforted by the confidence which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, places in my honourable friend Mr. Boswell.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, asked certain other specific questions. Since he was kind enough to give me a hit of time to look up the answers, I shall do my best to give them to him. The noble Lord asked about allegations of impropriety at the Student Loans Company and about the plans of the National Audit Office to conduct a further study into the company's operations. I can confirm that my right honourable friend was made aware last October of the allegations made against certain executives of the company by a former employee. She immediately ordered an investigation, as part of which Coopers & Lybrand were contracted to carry out a forensic audit. The investigation is nearing completion and its full conclusions will be reported to the Public Accounts Committee in the usual way. It would not be appropriate for me to comment any further at this stage.
The National Audit Office's work programme is, as noble Lords will know, a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, I understand that the National Audit Office plans to undertake a study of the value for money being achieved at the Student Loans Company. The plans for the study are not yet finalised, but I believe that it is unlikely to cover matters relating to the impropriety investigation.
The noble Lord also asked whether the Government have plans to privatise the loans scheme or to introduce commercial interest rates. The Government keep the operation of the loans scheme under review, but I can
1322
assure the House that we have no current plans to privatise the scheme—nor do we have any intention of requiring students to pay commercial interest rates. That would in any case require primary legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether the Student Loans Company was too hard on defaulters. It is the company's duty to protect the taxpayers' money and we believe that it is firm, but not excessively so. Borrowers are given every opportunity to apply for deferment or to begin repayment before the company instigates court action.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, also quoted a number of other figures. I shall write to him to confirm whether they are accurate.
I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said today. I hope that I have been able to reply to the main points that have been made. I shall review Hansard tomorrow and write in reply to any substantive points that I have missed. As I said, we firmly believe (on the basis of the evidence that we have) that students enjoy a reasonable level of support during their studies. By providing this support and funding a huge expansion of higher education, the Government have shown their wholehearted commitment to students and to higher education. If the noble Lord, Lord Addington, chooses to press this to a vote, I urge your Lordships to vote against the Motion.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I must first thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this enlightening debate, which has shown the almost total lack of confidence in the current scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Slcidelsky, said that he was not sure whether I had the right suggestion; but he did not like the current scheme very much in any case. That was as near as the Government got to a wholehearted endorsement in the debate.
I feel that it is the function of this House to ask another place to think again. With one or two minor exceptions, that is our only real function. In those circumstances, I feel that when we see something that we think is wrong, we should ask another place to think again. If we do not do that, there is very little point in us being here. In those circumstances, I commend the Motion to the House.
7.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 86.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Howell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beloff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Chester, Bp.

Kilbracken, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Lawrence, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

David, B.

Longford, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Falkland, V.

McNair, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Meston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Mishcon, L.

1323

Monkswell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rea, L.

Tordoff, L.

Redesdale, L.

Warnock, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

White, B.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Crosby, B.

Seear, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Astor, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Boardman, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Borthwick, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denham, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dilhorne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Burnham, L.

Dundonald, E.

Butterworth, L.

Faithfull, B.

Cadman, L.

Flather, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Goschen, L.

Chesham, L.

Greenway, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hacking, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Haig, E.

Colwyn, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Pender, L

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Howe, E.

Quinton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Rawlings, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Renton, L.

Kimball, L.

Renwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Leigh, L.

Rodney, L.

Lindsay, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Lyell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Stewartby, L.

Chancellor.]

Stockton, E.

Marlesford, L.

Strange, B.

Mersey, V.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mills, V.

Torrington, V.

Moyne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ullswater, V.

Norrie, L.

Vivian, L.

Northesk, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Orkney, E.

Wynford, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.

  TURKEY: NATIONAL MINORITIES DRAFT CONVENTION
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will discuss with the Government of Turkey the draft of the Council of Europe's Convention on the protection of National Minorities.

  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
  Turkey, with the UK and other Council of Europe Member States, played an active and constructive part in the drawing up of the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities. We hope the Turkish Government will sign and ratify the Convention.

  CASPIAN SEA: OIL EXPLOITATION AGREEMENT
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the status in the international law of the Caspian Sea, and of its bed, and what advice they have given to BP concerning the deal it is reputed to have reached (along with others) with the government of Azerbaijan to exploit oil from the bed of that water.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  The status of the Caspian Sea and its seabed in international law is a matter to be resolved by the littoral states of the Caspian Sea themselves. There is no generally agreed view of its status.

  We warmly welcomed the signature on 20 September 1994, and subsequent ratification, of a Production Sharing Agreement between the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan and an international consortium including BP. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Eggar) attended the signing ceremony in Baku. Officials were in regular contact with BP during the negotiation of the contract.

  SERBIAN PRESIDENT'S CONFEDERATION PROPOSAL
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the proposal made by President Milosevic of Serbia to Prime Minister Papandreou of Greece on 19 December last for a loose confederation of Greece, Serbia and Skopje (Macedonia) has been discussed in the European Union, and what is their opinion of it.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  There has been no discussion of this proposal in the European Union.

  GREECE AND TURKEY: TERRITORIAL SEA
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  WA 98
  Whether Turkey has stated it would consider going to war if Greece were to declare (as international law allows) a breadth of 12 nautical miles for its territorial sea in the Aegean, and if so, what steps are they taking to defuse this possible threat to NATO, either within NATO or within the OSCE.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  There was speculation in November 1994 that the Greek Government would take advantage of the entry into force of the Law of the Sea Convention to extend its territorial sea to 12 miles. This led some Turkish Ministers to declare that such an extension would be seen by them as acasus belli. Greece took no such steps and the situation has calmed.

  GREECE AND TURKEY: NATO WEAPONS TRANSFER PROGRAMME
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the policy within NATO of handing down weapons, etc. required to be disposed of under the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Agreement, and whether the legitimate defence of their interests against each other has been used to justify passing weapons to both Greece and Turkey, and what quantities, of which weapons, have been passed to these two governments.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  I refer the noble Lord to the Answers I gave him on 20 October 1993 at column WA50.

  The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty allows states to "cascade" surplus equipment to other states within their group, providing they remain within overall treaty limits. Under this programme, we understand that Greece has received about 850 tanks, 350 artillery pieces and 1,110 armoured combat vehicles from other Allies. Turkey has received about 850 tanks, 830 artillery pieces and 200 armoured combat vehicles. Use of these cascading provisions allows NATO to maximise its defence capabilities.

  MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS
  Lord Blease
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will publish the known number of patients in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland who are currently diagnosed as having Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME).

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)
  The number of people in the UK currently diagnosed as having Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, a condition being increasingly referred to as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, is not known.

  Lord Blease
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will publish details of the proposals they have for establishing in Northern Ireland a ME clinic to undertake up-to-date diagnostic services,

  WA 99
  advice and treatment relevant to illness caused by persistent virus disease.

  Baroness Denton of Wakefield
  There are no proposals at present to establish a ME Clinic in Northern Ireland.

  FORMER UK (ARMED FORCES) OFFICERS: EMPLOYMENT IN DEFENCE FIELD
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether Lord Henley's Answer of Thursday 15th December to the effect that the Ministry of Defence keeps no record of armed forces officers who have taken up appointments with companies in the defence industry (col. WA14) means that they do not monitor in any way whether these officers abide by the Official Secrets Act and by any restrictions "which the Department may have placed on their application for employment with the prospective employer" from the Official Secrets Act (as referred to by Lord Henley at col. WA140).

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley)
  Neither the Official Secrets Acts nor the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments require the department to monitor whether officials abide by their duties under the Acts, or by restrictions imposed on their applications for outside employment.

  UK AIRSPACE: "AURORA" AIRCRAFT
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether it is the case that the secret US reconnaissance aircraft known as Aurora has been flying in British airspace given that the previous answer to this Question (col. WA14) referred an "experimental" aircraft, which Aurora is not.

  Lord Henley
  The existence of any secret US aircraft known as "Aurora" would be for the United States Government to confirm. No authority has been given for any such aircraft to fly over the United Kingdom or to land in this country and we have no evidence to suggest that such an aircraft has.

  "IDENTIFICATION FRIEND OR FOE" SYSTEM
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the elderly "Identification Friend or Foe" system currently in use in British and NATO forces was developed in the 1950's; whether internationally agreed replacement systems have been cancelled before the product was delivered, and, if so, for what reasons other than financial reasons were they cancelled.

  Lord Henley
  I can confirm that the "identification Friend or Foe" system currently in use in British and NATO forces was developed in the 1950s. Plans for an internationally agreed replacement system were WA 100
  cancelled in 1991 prior to the system's development phase in light of concerns over its affordability and technical risk. We continue to explore the options for improvements in current IFF systems. A key requirement, for any such system is interoperability with our major allies and progress cannot, therefore, be made on a purely national basis.

  BARRISTERS' FEES IN LEGALLY-AIDED AND PUBLIC SERVICE CASES
  Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How much public money was spent on banisters' fees during the financial year 1993–94, taking into account legally-aided cases and cases involving the Crown or Her Majesty's Government as a party.

  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)
  Information is not readily available in the form requested. Information in respect of civil proceedings could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. For criminal proceedings, a total of £142.8 million was paid from the legal aid fund in respect of banisters' fees in England and Wales during 1993–94. During the same period the principal prosecuting agencies paid in total £82.4 million to barristers, broken down as follows; the Crown Prosecution Service £72.3 million, the Serious Fraud Office £4.2 million, HM Customs and Excise £5.0 million, and Inland Revenue £0.9 million.

  LEGAL AID: PAYMENTS TO BARRISTERS
  Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  To estimate the number of barristers earning more than £100,000 annually from criminal legal aid.

  The Lord Chancellor
  It is estimated that 50 banisters received more than £100,000 in fees (excluding VAT and travelling expenses) from criminal legal aid in 1993–94, being the latest year for which figures are readily available.

  Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Which five banisters received the largest total annual payments for criminal legal aid in the higher courts in the latest year for which figures are available; and how much was paid in each case.

  The Lord Chancellor
  The information requested is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  To estimate the number of barristers earning more than £100,000 annually from civil legal aid.

  The Lord Chancellor
  For civil legal aid, information is available only in respect of total payments made to barristers, and these will include VAT and travelling expenses in addition to counsel's fees. It is estimated that approximately 100 barristers
  WA 101
  received payment of more than £100,000 (inclusive of VAT and travelling expenses) from civil legal aid in 1993–94, being the latest year for which figures are available.

  LEGAL AID: PAYMENTS TO SOLICITORS
  Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Which five solicitor firms received the largest total annual payments from the Legal Aid Board in the latest year for which figures are available; and how much was paid in each case.

  The Lord Chancellor
  The information requested is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  LEGAL AID: R v KEVIN MAXWELL & OTHERS
  Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How much has been paid out on account so far from legal aid to barristers and solicitors in R v Maxwell Brothers; and how much has been paid to each barrister and each solicitor.

  The Lord Chancellor
  The total amount of legal aid paid on account to lawyers acting in R v Kevin Maxwell & Others to date is £4,028,008 including VAT. This amount includes final costs in the magistrates' courts (£829,377) as well as payments on account (as of 9 November 1994) in the Crown Court (£3,198,631). All payments include VAT and disbursements, such as expert witness and accountancy fees, and other expenses necessarily incurred. I do not consider it would be appropriate while the case is continuing to give a further breakdown of those figures but I would be prepared to do so once the final bills have been paid.

  COUNCIL ON TRIBUNALS: ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT
  Lord Lester of Herne
  Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will inform Parliament of formal advice given to departments by the Council on Tribunals, under Section 8 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, in relation to proposed tribunal rules, and of the reasons for any significant departure from such advice; and if not, why not.

  The Lord Chancellor
  The Government have no plans to inform Parliament of formal advice given during the course of consultation. However, it is open to Parliament to enquire as to whether there has been any significant departure from that advice and, moreover, the Council on Tribunals may itself raise such matters in its annual report.

  GUINNESS CASE: DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE INVESTIGATION
  Lord Spens
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the investigation by the Metropolitan Police Complaints Investigation Bureau into the conduct of certain police officers involved in the Guinness trials into, inter alia, the non-disclosure of evidence, has been concluded and, if so, what are its conclusions or, if not, when is the investigation estimated to be completed.

  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)
  I understand that the investigation has now been concluded and that a report will be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will decide whether any criminal charges should be brought. Once a decision has been made, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Police Complaints Authority will consider whether disciplinary action should be taken against any officer.

  LEGAL AID
  Lord Spens
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the budget for 1994–95 for (a) criminal legal aid and (b) civil aid expenditure is likely to be underspent or exceeded in the current year and by how much.

  The Lord Chancellor
  It is estimated that net expenditure on legal aid in England and Wales will be £1.311 billion in 1994–95 (£95 million below provision). Of that, the net cost of criminal legal aid will be £476 million (£15 million below provision) and the net cost of civil legal aid will be £604 million (£41 million below provision).

  Lord Spens
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the number of individuals in receipt of (a) criminal legal aid and (b) civil legal aid in each of the last 10 years.

  The Lord Chancellor
  The number of acts of assistance in respect to criminal legal aid and civil legal aid in each of the last 10 years was as follows:

  Criminal Higher2

  Criminal Magistrates3

  Civil1

  1984–85

  128,865

  334,134

  222,559

  1985–86

  141,149

  371,452

  232,813

  1986–87

  136,978

  356,736

  245,930

  1987–88

  145,386

  405,088

  245,698

  1988–89

  142,651

  412,424

  237,417

  1989–90

  149,629

  435,471

  259,465

  1990–91

  140,614

  440,534

  297,555

  1991–92

  137,175

  477,170

  353,513

  1992–93

  124,240

  439,548

  419,832

  1993–94

  116,477

  432,270

  376,893

  1 Number of certificates issued

  2 Number of defendants and appellants represented

  3 Number of bills paid

  WA 103
  Lord Spens
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the extent and value of recoveries made from individual recipients of (a) criminal and (b) civil legal aid in each of the last ten years.

  Criminal legal aid Receipts £'000

  Criminal legal aid Gross payments £'000 (recoveries as % of expenditure)

  Civil legal aid Receipts £'000

  Civil legal aid Gross payments £'000 (recoveries as % of expenditure)

  Contributions

  1,712

  —

  10,406

  —

  Costs

  88

  —

  31,685

  —

  Damages and other monies recovered

  —

  —

  28,139

  —

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  59

  —

  Total 1984/85

  1,800

  136,094 (1%)

  70,289

  151,344 (46%)

  Contributions

  1,883

  —

  11,206

  —

  Costs

  75

  —

  34,443

  —

  Damages and other monies recovered

  —

  —

  33,142

  —

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  65

  —

  Total 1985/86

  1,761

  156,643 (1%)

  78,856

  174,000 (45%)

  Contributions

  1,956

  —

  11,857

  —

  Costs

  102

  —

  39,311

  —

  Damages and other monies recovered

  —

  —

  42,335

  —

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  72

  —

  Total 1986/87

  2,061

  178,897 (1%)

  93,575

  193,726 (48%)

  Contributions

  2,647

  —

  14,581

  —

  Costs

  19

  —

  45,041

  —

  Damages and other monies recovered

  —

  —

  49,727

  —

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  75

  —

  Total 1987/88

  2,666

  214,107 (1%)

  109,424

  220,109 (50%)

  Contributions

  2,801

  —

  16,021

  —

  Costs

  22

  —

  55,537

  —

  Damages and other monies recovered

  —

  —

  58,734

  —

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  65

  —

  Total 1988/89

  2,823

  246,683 (1%)

  128,357

  260,721 (49%)

  Contributions

  3,398

  —

  17,885

  —

  Costs

  2

  —

  67,912

  —

  Damages and other monies recovered

  —

  —

  58,693

  —

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  71

  —

  Total 1989/90

  3,400

  286,624 (1%)

  142,561

  308,289 (46%)

  Contributions

  4,237

  —

  18,570

  —

  Costs

  18

  —

  76,803

  —

  Damages and other monies recovered

  —

  —

  64,880

  —

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  200

  —

  Total 1990/91

  4,255

  332,712 (1%)

  160,453

  379,995 (42%)

  Contributions

  3,022

  —

  19,297

  —

  Costs

  11

  —

  95,669

  —

  Damages and other monies recovered

  —

  —

  67,402

  —

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  628

  —

  Total 1991/92

  3,033

  399,499 (1%)

  182,998

  513,246 (36%)

  Contributions

  4,526

  —

  20,936

  —

  Costs

  4

  —

  131,117

  —

  Damages and other monies recovered

  —

  —

  70,057

  —

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  1,441

  —

  Total 1992/93

  4,532

  422,589 (1%)

  223,623

  686,927 (33%)

  Contributions

  3,809

  —

  23,424

  —

  Costs

  2

  —

  179,542

  —

  Damages and other monies recovered

  —

  —

  79,329

  —

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  1,803

  —

  Total 1993/94

  3,811

  431,737 (1%)

  264,096

  827,965 (34%)

  Note: "Criminal legal aid" represents legal aid in the magistrates' and higher courts. The above table does not include legal aid advice and assistance (ie the Green Form, Assistance by way of representation and Duty solicitor schemes).
  WA 104
  The Lord Chancellor
  A comparison between receipts from legally aided cases in England and Wales and gross payments, covering the last 10 years and broken down between criminal and civil legal aid, is provided in the table below.

  THAMES REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES: DENTISTS
  Lord Finsberg
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the total number of National Health Service dentists in each of the four Thames Regions

  Table 1: General Dental Service: number of dentists1,2 for the four Thames Regional Health Authorities3 as at 30 September

  Regional Health Authority

  1990 Number of dentists

  1991 Number of dentists

  1992 Number of dentists

  1993 Number of dentists

  1994 Number of dentists

  North West Thames RHA

  1,512

  1,436

  1,400

  1,457

  1,461

  North East Thames RHA

  1,226

  1,222

  1,202

  1,228

  1,229

  South East Thames RHA

  1,341

  1,334

  1,309

  1,370

  1,355

  South West Thames RHA

  1,240

  1,242

  1,237

  1,258

  1,258

  Source: Dental Practice Board

  1 Includes principals, assistants and vocational trainees. Hospital Dental Service, Community Dental Service and salaried dentists are excluded.

  2 Some dentists have contracts with more than one Family Health Service Authority. These dentists have been counted only once, in the region which includes the Family Health Service Authority in which they hold their main contract.

  3 From 1.4 1994 the boundaries of North West and North East Thames changed to include one fewer FHSA (Bedfordshire). In order to be consistent the original definition has been used throughout the table
  WA 106
  for the year 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)
  The information is in the table.