Sitting of 10 July 1995

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

    Local Government
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his future plans for local government in Wales. [31444]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): The work has already begun. The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 is yet another form of the real devolution that the Government practise in the shape of the 22 new unitary authorities in Wales. We are taking local government closer to the people of Wales than it has ever been before.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Has my hon. Friend noted that all Labour Members who represent Welsh seats have withdrawn their questions? Does he agree that they are either entirely satisfied with the Government's performance in Wales or they are trying to score cheap political points at the expense of their constituents?
    In relation to local government in Wales, is my hon. Friend aware of the disgraceful way in which local councillors are allocating themselves increased allowances? In Mid Glamorgan, allowances went up by 400 per cent. Is that not outrageous? Will my hon. Friend take steps to prevent the new chief officers, who are about to be appointed, from following the same path?
    Mr. Jones: Yes, I have noticed that there are no Welsh Opposition Members present. They are scoring yet more cheap points. It is typical of the Labour party in Wales—if it does not like the game, it will take the ball home. It is amazing that, when the Leader of the Opposition issues his orders to Welsh Labour Members, Welsh Liberal Democrat Members and Plaid Cymru Members also obey those orders.
    My hon. Friend warns of the dangers of the gravy train in Wales, but I fear that the situation is worse than she suggested. The gravy train was not halted following the intervention of the leader of the Opposition, who told Mid Glamorgan Labour councillors to cut their allowances. They lowered the increase in their allowances from the proposed 400 per cent. to 200 per cent. I can think of many people in Mid Glamorgan and the rest of Wales who would like to receive a 200 per cent. increase.
    When I spoke to the Association of District Councils' conference in Eastbourne recently, I made the point about the gravy train for officers and chief officers. I called on councils in Wales to stop the gravy train before it started for all new officers. I can assure my hon. Friend that the
    608
    staff commission is looking closely at the mater, and we understand that two councils have been persuaded to change their minds.
    Mr. Hendry: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour party wants not only local government but regional government? Can my hon. Friend explain why it wants another tier of government?
    Mr. John Marshall: More jobs for the boys.
    Mr. Hendry: It could perhaps be that. Can my hon. Friend explain why Labour Members want more tiers of government when they are not prepared to attend the Chamber? Have not they insulted their constituents by ignoring their interests today?
    Mr. Jones: I hesitate to do Labour Members' jobs for them. If they had turned up here today, they could have tried to explain their policies better. Out of all the complaints that we hear about what the Government are doing—not least in the Principality of Wales—the one thing we do not hear is that the problems could be solved by imposing another layer of government and bureaucracy. The Government are involved in the redevelopment of south Cardiff which, it is reliably estimated, will bring 20,000 new jobs to south Wales. The Opposition want to create the ultimate quango—more jobs for the boyos.

    Infrastructure Investment
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total value of infrastructure investment in Wales since 1979. [31447]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): Of the £13 billion capital spending by the Welsh Office and local authorities in Wales since 1979, more than £2 billion was spent on trunk roads and motorways, and £1.7 billion was spent on capital investment in the national health service.
    Mr. Coombs: May I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment, not only to the Cabinet, but to the Privy Council earlier today? I congratulate him on joining a long and distinguished list of Secretaries of State for Wales who have represented constituencies east of Offa's dyke and wish him every success in his time in the Principality.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that inward investment has been an outstanding success in Wales and has had much to do with the fact that prosperity in the Principality has risen and unemployment fallen by a significant amount in recent years? Is it now time for him to consider the grant aid available to encourage firms to relocate in Wales? I should like to cite the example of Bluebird Toys, which had to make 300 of my constituents unemployed when it moved to the valleys of Wales. As my right hon. Friend is new to the Department, I hope that he will feel able to study that policy and that he will try to concentrate on inward investment from other parts of Europe and the rest of the world rather than from other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hague: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. Really, he is echoing the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) who said in the Western Mail this morning:
    "I want to totally disassociate myself from all the Welsh politicians who opposed the appointment of Mr. Hague on the basis that he is English".

    609
    Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is not here to repeat that statement in the Chamber.
    I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I hope that he will also recognise that Wales has had particular problems. Inward investment has greatly assisted the recovery of the Welsh economy. Although it has 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, Wales has enjoyed a share of inward investment into the UK of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. for some years. That is one of the factors that has led to unemployment in Wales falling to the United Kingdom average for the first time since the 1920s, which is a considerable achievement on the part of the Government and of my predecessors, and it illustrates that the policies that we have been pursuing in Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, have been working. It is a great shame that Opposition Members have not joined us today to discuss these matters and to ask questions on behalf of their constituents.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish my right hon. Friend every success in his important new job. Will he bear in mind the effect on the future prosperity of Wales of the European Union which, as he will know, is called Undeb Ewropiaidd in the national language? In particular, will he bear in mind the threat of the part-time workers' directive, which has been imposed on this country against our wishes? More important, will he bear in mind the 40-hour-week directive, which is likely to apply to Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom following a European Court decision? When safeguarding the interests of Wales, will he bear very much in mind the serious impact on investment in Wales of those Euro-measures which are being forced on industry and commerce there against the Government's wishes?
    Mr. Hague: I shall certainly bear in mind the European dimension, as my hon. Friend encourages me to do. It is important for the growth of the economy in Wales that we continue with policies that encourage enterprise and facilitate the growth of businesses. We do not want them to be over-regulated and the Government's policies, for instance in not following the rest of the European Community into the social chapter, are important to the future of business in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend has raised a number of matters and I shall discuss them with my right hon. Friends in the Government.
    Mr. Sweeney: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. I moved from Yorkshire to contest a seat in Wales; I have grown to know Wales well and appreciate a considerable welcome there, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be put off by the failure to attend today of all the Opposition Members who represent Wales. There is certainly no racism on these Benches, least of all against people from Yorkshire.
    May I ask my right hon. Friend to visit the Vale of Glamorgan, as did his predecessors, at an early opportunity so that he can see for himself the benefits of Conservative policies in attracting infrastructure investment, particularly to my constituency?
    Mr. Hague: Yes. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his additional words of welcome. I shall certainly visit Vale of Glamorgan at the earliest opportunity to see what is happening there. I hope that I shall be able to take an early opportunity, there and elsewhere in Wales, to
    610
    emphasise the Government's success in ensuring that infrastructure spending on Wales is kept at an appropriate level. Since 1979, more than £2 billion has been spent on the construction and improvement of the M4 motorway and trunk roads in Wales.
    The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has not joined us today, but she contacted my office this morning to say which question she wanted to ask before she was ordered to withdraw it. She wanted to ask about road infrastructure and when we would announce the preferred route for the A465. Although she has not come here today to represent her constituents, I want to make it clear that comments and responses from a wide range of public organisations and the general public have been considered, and I shall announce the preferred route on Wednesday.

    National Health Service (Treatments)
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many (a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were treated in NHS hospitals in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what these figures were in 1979. [31449]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): The NHS in Wales saw 633,000 new outpatients and treated 739,000 inpatients and day cases in 1994–95, compared with 429,000 and 381,000 respectively in 1979. Those are increases of 48 per cent. and 94 per cent. respectively. These data were compiled and collated by officials of Her Majesty's Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
    Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show a great improvement in the national health service in Wales since the present Government took office? Will he confirm that the increase in the number of patients being treated has been faster since the national health service reforms were introduced?
    Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The increase reflects the reforms in the national health service, the greater sums of money being spent on the NHS and the effective way in which that money is being spent on more doctors and nurses. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the patients charter for Wales—the NHS performance targets—a copy of which can be found in the Library. My hon. Friend may be interested to note that that publication is available in Welsh for Welsh speakers and in English for English speakers. I am considering producing next year an illustrated version for the Opposition.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Because of the tremendous record of improvement in the health service in Wales, may I reassure my right hon. Friend that he will be courteously received by most people wherever he goes in Wales and that he will be warmly welcomed if he listens, as I am sure he will, to people's legitimate concerns? May I urge him to disregard totally the abrogation of duty by Labour Members, who claim that they represent the views of the people of Wales—who cherish no such resentment against my right hon. Friend? Meanwhile, will my hon. Friend assure me that the progress already made in the health service in Wales will continue for the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Richards: My right hon. Friend is wise, as always. During the past 16 years, the national health service has been as safe in his hands as it has been in the hands of every Conservative Government since the war.

    611
    My right hon. Friend's assessment of the nature of the Welsh people and the welcome that they will give is correct. Indeed, they welcomed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales only last Friday when he visited a hospital in Gwent where, sadly, there were people who had been injured in a coach crash in Raglan. He went there to show sympathy for those who had been injured in the crash and to show that the national health service is the highest priority of Her Majesty's Government in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was welcomed in Gwent that day and I have every confidence that he will be welcomed everywhere else he goes in Wales.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about inward investment into Wales. [31458]
    Mr. Hague: Inward investment into Wales has helped, alongside the growth of indigenous industry, to create a diverse and dynamic economy. The 280 overseas-owned manufacturing companies in Wales employ almost 68,000 people, a vivid testament to the value of inward investment to Wales.
    Mr. Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. He is following a line of distinguished Members of Parliament for English constituencies who have been Secretary of State for Wales, starting, of course, with my immediate predecessor, the right hon. and noble—and distinguished—Lord Thomas of Gwydir.
    My right hon. Friend will, I am sure, wish to pay tribute to the work of his two immediate predecessors, who are responsible for the very substantial inward investment into Wales. Does he agree that one reason for that massive inward investment is that we in the United Kingdom boast a low rate of corporate tax and that a tax-raising Welsh assembly would lose that benefit overnight? Has not inward investment into Wales been encouraged by the fact that we have not signed up to the social chapter and do not have a minimum wage? Is he aware that the leader of the new Labour party—
    Mr. Mackinlay: Get on with it.
    Mr. Marshall: If the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) had been here for question No. 5, I would not have had to take so long.
    Is my right hon. Friend aware that the leader of new Labour, speaking to the British people in the Financial Times this morning, admitted in the pink 'un that a high national minimum wage would cost jobs? Does that not show that a minimum wage would lose jobs in Wales and discourage inward investment? Is it not significant that the Labour party is frit this afternoon and does not have the guts to turn up and put its policies forward?
    Mr. Mackinlay: There are more than a million people in Essex; we want an Essex Question Time.
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) should not ask for an Essex Question Time when he is sitting in the Chamber but withdrew the question that he had tabled. That takes the prize for bizarre behaviour even in this place.
    612
    My hon. Friend is quite right. His comments are most perceptive. My predecessors did outstanding work for Wales and it is partly due to them that inward investment into Wales has been so successful, created so many jobs and helped to create a new climate of enterprise and successful business. He is also right that, also partly responsible for that success is the Government's pursuit of policies of low taxation, deregulation, not adopting the social chapter and not having a minimum wage, which would, it will be widely agreed, destroy jobs and reduce investment and job opportunities in Wales as in the rest of the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend knows, that has often been pointed out by members of the Labour party as well as by Conservative Members.
    There is no doubt that inward investment has helped transform Wales; it has become a country with a rich and diverse industrial base, an impressive exports record, enviable labour relations success and a track record of attracting the best in the world. That, however, is not the whole story for the future. Indigenous companies employ the majority of the manufacturing work force in Wales and we want to encourage them, too. Their success, as well as the continued success of inward investment, will be one of my priorities in the coming years.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I, also, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his most welcome appointment. Although the Labour party seems to think that he is too young, that perhaps says a great deal about what it thinks of people of 35 or so and under—it clearly has no respect for such people's abilities. Perhaps my right hon. Friend should think of himself as the most welcome new inward investment into Wales.
    In his short time in the job—
    Mr. Mackinlay: He has never had a real job.
    Mr. Hughes: That is good coming from an hon. Member who used to work for NALGO—not a lot going on.
    Will my right hon. Friend say whether, in his short time in the job so far, he has discovered why the Labour party is so opposed to the policies that have brought the promised £4.5 billion of inward investment, why it has repeatedly opposed the policies of his predecessors and why it has been wrong so often? Could the explanation of Labour Members' absence today be that they are so embarrassed about being wrong so many times and so embarrassed that the economy is doing so well because of the Government's policies that they have nothing to say and would rather stay away? Frankly, I would rather that they stayed away all the time.
    Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his additional words of welcome and for what he said about young people. Although they have not taken the opportunity to speak today, I wonder what signal Opposition Members think they are sending to young people across Britain, including Wales, when they criticise the appointment of a young person to any office. It is an extremely destructive signal, which we should wholly reject, and which usually comes from such people as the hon. Member for Thurrock, who is probably getting on a bit. It should not be up to him to suggest—
    Mr. Winnick: He has more hair than the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman may have more hair than me—
    Mr. Mackinlay: Rubbish.
    Mr. Hague: In a shock revelation, we have just learnt that he does not have that much. It is no more for him to suggest that I am too young to do my job than it is for me to suggest that he is too old to do his, although his inability to rise to his feet today suggests that he might be getting into that condition.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) asked about the puzzle of the Labour party's attitude towards success in Wales. I use the word "success" in its broadest sense, to mean not only investment into Wales but the recovery of the Welsh economy and the bringing down of unemployment to the United Kingdom level for the first time in 70 years. The puzzle is Labour's attitude—the preference to denigrate anything that succeeds and to criticise anything, whether it be in business or the actions of Government, that brings success to Wales. It would have been nice today to have been able to get from the Labour party an explanation of that attitude, which must be rooted in dogma. It is certainly based on very old-fashioned politics—it is something that we can still associate with excessive public expenditure and the desire to impose excessive taxation and an excessive number of layers of government on people, all of which seem to be the policy of the Welsh Labour party.

    Jobs
    Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs have been (a) created and (b) safeguarded since 1992. [31691]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: In Wales, between 1 January 1992 and 27 June 1995, offers of regional selective assistance have been accepted which are forecast by the companies concerned to create 23,850 new jobs and safeguard 14,561 existing jobs.
    I believe that today is my right hon. Friend's 65th birthday. I am sure that the House will want to wish him well and to take this opportunity to mark the fact that his service in the House since 1970 for the people of Conwy has been an example that cannot be emulated by Opposition Members.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What a shame it is that Labour Members from Wales are not here to hear the good news, not about my birthday, but about the offers in connection with jobs created and safeguarded.
    Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that we shall not take economic success in Wales for granted, but seek to improve on our record and continue to look outwards to the rest of Britain, Europe and elsewhere to attract more investment and more jobs for Wales? Will my hon. Friend assure me that we shall not emulate the Labour party, which is inward-looking and seeks to give top priority to the creation of a Welsh assembly? If what we have seen happening here today is any sign of what would happen when an assembly was established in Wales, God help us all.
    Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend puts it well. A Welsh assembly would be the ultimate quango—jobs for the boyos. Opposition Members do not turn up here, so what is so marvellous about setting up that ultimate quango simply to feather-bed the ones who cannot get elected to this place—the second or third tier of Labour candidates in Wales?
    614
    My right hon. Friend is too modest. I feel that his birthday and all that he has done in the House and on behalf of the people of Wales is good news. Yes, it is a shame that Opposition Members—Labour, Liberal and Plaid Cymru—boycott the Chamber in such a childish way. It is a shame that they do not hear the good news about all the continuing economic success in Wales—the good news that, as the UK is leading Europe out of the recession, Wales is leading the UK, which is in no small part due to the policies of the Government.
    However, I can certainly reassure my right hon. Friend that we are not content to sit back on our record, good though it is. Year after year, we usually manage to achieve a greater proportion of inward investment in Wales than would be justified merely on the basis of our share of the population of the United Kingdom. We continue to go deeper and deeper into other countries to sell Welsh goods and investment in Wales. My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the most recent new development was a Welsh Office trade mission that recently returned from Dallas—Wales has gone deep in the heart of Texas. I look forward to that being yet another successful mission in the ever-increasing programme there.
    I must thank my right hon. Friend for the fact that, since he left the Government last year, he has carried on doing his best for the Principality—as when he recently visited Taiwan on behalf of Welsh interests. We are most grateful to him for his efforts.
    Mr. Harris: Would my hon. Friend be surprised if, after this pathetic performance by the Opposition, they complained about a one-sided Question Time?
    Many Conservative Members have no objection to trade missions going to the heart of Dallas and Texas, but we do object when trade missions from the Welsh Development Agency come to the heart of Cornwall and try to poach jobs from existing firms. Will my hon. Friend say how many of the jobs created in Wales that he mentioned in his answer are actually jobs redeployed from other parts of the United Kingdom, especially Cornwall? Will he have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whom I heartily congratulate on his appointment, so that the Welsh Office considers with all seriousness the activities of the Welsh Development Agency and the way in which, in unfair competition, it takes away jobs from other parts of the United Kingdom, especially the south-west of England?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The last thing that we would want to happen is that any inward investment into Wales should come about as a result of unfair competition with other parts of the United Kingdom or wherever. We look as closely as possible at all applications, to try to ensure—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if the Minister would address the Chair.
    Mr. Jones: Madam Speaker, I assure you and my hon. Friend that we examine all applications as carefully as possible to try to ensure that all the projects provide additional economic activity and additional jobs. It is in no interest of Wales merely to poach jobs from across the border.
    We want taxpayers' money to be spent effectively and wisely in creating additional jobs. Be they in the west of

    615
    England, the midlands or wherever, I can give my hon. Friends the assurance that we will always continue to do that.
    On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I have to agree that the childish demonstration that we have seen from Labour Members today is pathetic. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the national newspaper of Wales, the Western Mail, conducted a survey recently which showed that English Members of Parliament were better questioners at Welsh Question Time than Welsh Labour Members of Parliament. Their lack of turnout today has only served to keep that ratio in favour of English Members. We can only speculate. Is their behaviour the result of a lack of care and compassion among Welsh Labour Members in representing their constituents or is it sheer laziness?

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Financial Support
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the Commission has made of whether its current level of support to the Church is sustainable.[31461]
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners have taken independent actuarial and other professional advice. A peak distribution in 1993 of more than 7 per cent. as a percentage of their assets, to meet increased expenditure commitments on clergy benefits, was reduced to 6 per cent. in 1994, but this is still an unsustainably high level. Action to bring distribution levels down further continues, but at a pace which is manageable for the Church of England as a whole.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the clarity of the 1994 annual report and accounts. Does he agree that it contained some alarming information, including, in particular, both the fact that the level of expenditure of £153.4 million is deemed to be unsustainable and the £8.4 million deficit—the highest deficit in the history of the Church Commissioners? Will my right hon. Friend also take it into account that the cost of pensions is now 50 per cent. higher than the cost of stipends, whereas they were about the same 10 years ago? Will he come up with a realistic plan in next year's annual report to detail what will be the effects if that level of expenditure continues and to take some action to curtail it?
    Mr. Alison: As I think that my hon. Friend will have heard in the first part of my answer, it is recognised that the Church Commissioners have been distributing more than it is proper or reasonable to do over a long period. That is due entirely to the extraordinary increase in both the standard and the take-up of pensions, which have to have priority. It is for that reason that offsetting action has been proposed. The Church of England as a whole accepts that there should be a contributory pension scheme for future pensions so as to make a cut-off point in the responsibility of the Church Commissioners for current pensioners.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating those people in the Church in my constituency who have worked hard to increase the support that the Church gives to some of the most
    616
    disadvantaged within the community? Can he assure me that if funds are cut, it will not be the most disadvantaged who suffer?
    Mr. Alison: Yes, I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Cuts in Church Commissioners' funds to dioceses are focused on the prosperous, well-to-do dioceses. The wind is tempered to the shorn lamb of dioceses such as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He will be glad to know that the shortfall in the Church Commission contribution to dioceses has already been made good by the willingness of church-goers to put their hands deeper into their pocket to make up the difference.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, like many other church-goers, I spend a disproportionately large amount of my income on matters that are not essential and that if we were challenged effectively by the Church to make a larger contribution from our incomes to the support of that most important of all institutions, the Church, we would do a great deal better? Does he further agree that that will require a radical reassessment of the way in which the Church of England is run, because parishes which respond to the request to give more money will undoubtedly want to have a larger say in how the Church is run?
    Mr. Alison: I take my hon. Friend's point. People probably do not realise how much support is still generated by the Church of England, and by Christian churches generally in Britain. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently pointed out that a quarter of the British population—many millions of people—went to church last Christmas day. The average donation to a typical church collection plate on Sundays is between £3.50 and £5, but I believe that the amount would increase sharply if people knew that a need existed. Now that such a need is becoming clear, I think that giving by folk in the pews will indeed rise substantially.

    Church Investments
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what new proposals he has to improve the return on Church investments. [31462]
    Mr. Alison: The total return on the commissioners' investments in 1994 was 4.8 per cent., which compares well with the minus 3.9 per cent. shown by a recognised independent benchmark that measures the performance of a large number of pension funds. The commissioners' consultant actuaries continue to advise on asset allocation strategy.
    Mr. Banks: Would not the commissioners have more money at their disposal if they had not lost £800 million in property speculation? What safeguards have been built in for the protection of the clergy, particularly in terms of their pensions? Is not that £800 million loss a clear sign that the Lord does not approve of property speculation? When will the Church Commissioners remember the saying:
    "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"?
    Have they not damned their eternal souls through their actions—rather like Conservative Members?
    Mr. Alison: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has dipped into the familiar territory of New Testament

    617
    parables and other utterances. He will recall alternative words from the scriptures about making a friend to oneself of the mammon of unrighteousness—they were said by the founder of the Christian religion—and about developing talents: the man with one or two talents who increased the number to 10 was commended. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will approve of the fact that the Church of England has developed its talents substantially.
    Mr. Banks: What about property?
    Mr. Alison: If the hon. Gentleman has glanced at the annual report of the Church Commissioners—I arranged for it to be sent to him—he will have noted that most investment and pension funds are dominated by stock exchange investments, and could not avoid the decline in values of equities and gilts. In 1994, the total return on Church Commissioners' property holdings was £205 million; if the same amount had instead been invested in equities during that year, the return would have been a loss of £61 million. The emphasis on what the hon. Gentleman calls property speculation in the commissioners' portfolio has saved them from the big chasm that opened up before investors in equities and the like.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: I declare an interest, in that many members of my family have served or are serving as Church of England clergymen.
    Will my right hon. Friend tell me a little more about how the pensions are protected, how they are calculated and whether that is affected by the return on investments? Will there be enough money to pay pensions to clergymen in the future, and what action will be taken to ensure that that is the case?
    Mr. Alison: I can assure my hon. Friend that there are ample funds to meet all actuarially computed pension obligations to those who have already retired and those still in service with retirement pensions in prospect. Because of uncertainty about the long-term future, however, steps will soon be taken to introduce a contributory fund for future pension beneficiaries, making the overall package for all Church of England pensioners completely secure.

    St. Ethelburga's Church
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations the commissioners have received concerning the future of St. Ethelburga's church in London; and if he will make a statement. [31463]
    Mr. Alison: The church was declared redundant on 22 June 1994 and is now in the ownership of the diocese of London while its future is considered. The Bishop of London has held a competition for schemes to deal with the remains of the building and its site, the result of which was announced in June. No ensuing recommendations have yet been made to the Church Commissioners.
    Mr. Barnes: We are discussing the smallest and oldest church in London, which was blown up by the IRA. Would it not be a tribute to the victims of the IRA in the City if that church were fully and faithfully restored? Is that not better than the proposal to place a glass front before its ruins?
    Mr. Alison: As I think the hon. Gentleman might have known, one of the suggestions made by the so-called
    618
    Templeman Commission favoured the sale of the St. Ethelburga's site for secular development. That goes to the other extreme of what might be done and has been turned down. What is proposed now is that there should be a memorial on the site for those who died in the City bombs, and that there should be a space provided for Christian worship and prayer, and vestry facilities for the office of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate; in the round, a memorial, worship facilities and administrative offices for a church. That probably goes a long way towards meeting what he would wish for this historic site.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Immigration and Asylum Appeals
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on delays in the processing of immigration and asylum appeals. [31465]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): My Department aims to keep waiting times in all cases to a minimum. Steps have been taken to combat the particular increase in waiting times in London resulting from the concentration there of asylum cases.
    Mr. Gerrard: I am sure that the Minister will accept that a huge backlog of cases has built up and that waiting times are unacceptable. Is he aware that the Refugee Legal Centre has had to withdraw from all regions except London and the south-east because it simply cannot cope with the numbers involved, and that the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service is under enormous pressure? What provision will be made to help organisations such as those, so that asylum seekers have the proper representation that they need at appeals? Will he take this opportunity to deny that his Government are thinking of taking away rights to oral appeal for some asylum seekers?
    Mr. Taylor: I think that I should oblige with the denial, but on the more general part of the question, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw the House's attention to the real concerns—of which I am very much aware—that exist, especially in London and the south-east. Various measures are being taken. In some cases, the appellate authority does not allocate a specific date, but offers an early hearing date if another case is adjourned or withdrawn. More flexible listing has been introduced. If the parties agree, appeals can be transferred to centres where waiting times are shorter. The pool of adjudicators is being increased and courtroom accommodation is being expanded, but I am as far as I could be from being complacent about those matters.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend look at accommodation for asylum seekers? A couple of years ago, a whole year's supply of new housing in Ealing was taken up by asylum seekers and others, so my constituents are concerned that those matters be expedited. Does he have any plans to use barracks for asylum seekers? May we have some clarification on his plans for that matter?
    Mr. Taylor: I have no plans, personally, for using barracks for asylum seekers. I am not sure whether the House would consider that that was appropriate, but I draw its attention to the fact that, under the 1993 asylum

    619
    appeals procedure rules, formal time limits apply to asylum appeals and no time limits apply to immigration appeals.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister believe that he receives adequate co-operation from the other Government Departments involved in appeals? The delays are unacceptable, and on many occasions it seems as though the Home Office or the Foreign Office is holding up the Minister's Department in going ahead with the appeal.
    Mr. Taylor: One strives to get the best possible co-operation. An increase in the number of asylum applications received by the Home Office has inevitably resulted in an increase in appeals. Following an interdepartmental initiative, extra resources are being made available to both Departments to speed up the disposal of work.

    Legal Aid
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what comparison he has made between legal aid arrangements in the United Kingdom and in other EU countries. [31466]
    Mr. Taylor: From the comparisons that we have made, I believe that our legal aid scheme is the most generous in the European Community. Generally, United Kingdom citizens have the same access to legal aid in a European Community country as a citizen of that country.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It is excellent news that citizens of this country have access to the most generous legal aid support. Does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to reassess exactly how legal aid is delivered? The legal aid bill is rising year after year, and we must ensure that those who genuinely need legal aid receive it, while those who do not, do not.
    Mr. Taylor: I am looking forward to reading Hansard tomorrow because my hon. Friend could not have put it better. There can be no question but that our legal aid system is generous and that enormous amounts of money are devoted to it. The issue is whether legal aid is going to the right people, and that is the thrust of my hon. Friend's question. The Green Paper provides an opportunity for the most radical review of legal aid in the past 50 years, and we should take that opportunity.
    Mr. Skinner: One of the problems with the £1.4 billion of taxpayers' money that is spent on legal aid is that a lot of it goes to relatively few people—many of whom, just like those on the Treasury Bench, come from the belly of the banking establishment. In other words, the Tory Government are handing large sums of money to people such as Roger Levitt and their other Tory friends in the City—I will throw in the Maxwells who have benefited as well, just in case the Minister mentions them. He should pay some attention to the document produced by the Labour party in the past few days, in which we suggest that the £1.4 billion should go to deserving people—many of whom do not qualify for legal aid—rather than to the fat cats.
    Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend could not have put it better.
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman could not have put it more typically. A consultation document entitled "Legal
    620
    Aid for the Apparently Wealthy" was released some time ago and I gave as much publicity to it as I could. I do not recall any response from Bolsover to that paper.
    As a result of wide consultation, the Lord Chancellor announced in April that he would tighten up legal aid means assessment for the apparently wealthy. His proposals include a special unit to investigate unusually complex cases and the confiscation of undeclared assets.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend realise that the issue of legal aid has united the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and me? There is widespread disquiet about the way that the legal aid fund is operated, and my hon. Friend may have seen the article in Saturday's Daily Mail about a child who has received legal aid on the basis of a quite flippant argument. Will my hon. Friend please look at the operation of the Legal Aid Board, which seems to waste public money? Will he recognise that, in civil cases, a legal aid certificate is the most important way of screwing a large sum of money out of the other party?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend has always been very clear and very consistent in his criticism of the legal aid system. I remind him and the House that the legal aid Green Paper, which is now available for consultation, represents the widest and most radical opportunity for reform of legal aid, and I look forward to receiving my hon. Friend's reply.

    Legal Aid Appeal Committees
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases have been placed before legal aid appeal committees in each of the past five years. [31467]
    Mr. John M. Taylor: In the categories for which figures are available for each of the last five years, the number of appeals to the Legal Aid Board in round numbers to the nearest thousand were 25,000, 26,000, 34,000, 47,000 and 53,000 respectively.
    Mr. Ainger: Is not the fact that the number of appeal tribunals has doubled over the past five years indicative of concerns that not necessarily poor people are being excluded from our system of justice because they do not qualify for legal aid? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly explained, rich individuals can afford by some unknown means to pay lawyers to ensure that they receive legal aid. Is it not time to address those issues?
    Mr. Taylor: It is time for us all to address those issues, which is why the Green Paper is before the House. The main reason for the sudden jump in the number of appeals to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the board's introduction of a quality management system designed to secure greater consistency of approach in the application of existing criteria on legal merits. That led to a higher number of refusals and therefore appeals.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has not the current legal aid system far too many characteristics typical of providing outdoor relief for the legal classes? If legal aid funding is to be increased, would it not be far better to invest money in simpler and faster justice for people?
    Mr. Taylor: Despite all the criticisms, it must surely remain a benign and civilised intention to assist poor

    621
    people and people of modest means with their legal difficulties. Complaints are made about the legal aid system but in general its operation remains generous and helpful.
    Mr. Boateng rose—
    Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman should declare his interest.
    Mr. Boateng: My interest as a legal practitioner is well known, but that does not blind me for one moment to a question of concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House. Is not justice delayed justice denied? Does that not apply to the activities of the Legal Aid Board as well as to the courts? Is it not time that the Parliamentary Secretary investigated why so many applications to the board and so many appeals from its decisions take so long as to cause manifest injustice to applicants? Is it not time that the Parliamentary Secretary examined that matter? Will he take on board the case of young Emma Van de Velde, a dyslexic whose appeal against the finding that she was not entitled to special help took the board so long to process that the time limit for the appeal was passed before the board finally sanctioned that help? Should not the consumer of legal services come before the bureaucrats who run the Legal Aid Board?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman asked me to agree that the old adage can be affirmed, that justice delayed is justice denied. I oblige him, for that is certainly true. The House and the wider interested community are witnessing uniquely the convergence of the Green Paper on legal aid and Lord Woolf' s paper on access to justice. The whole civil legal system is available for our criticism and for radical improvement. We should not lose that opportunity.

    Civil Courts
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has for the reform of civil justice and the civil courts. [31468]
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Last year, the Lord Chancellor appointed Lord Woolf to conduct a comprehensive review of the civil justice system. He has now presented his interim report. The Lord Chancellor has warmly welcomed that report and is considering how best to give effect to those developing ideas.
    Mr. Hughes: The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that the Woolf report is generally welcomed. Nothing less than a huge and radical reform of the civil justice system is required. How will the Parliamentary
    622
    Secretary gather opinions from the public on Lord Woolf' s proposals? What is the timetable? Can the interim proposals proceed apace where there is general agreement, so that justice can be more quickly delivered in our civil courts?
    Mr. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor's general view is that we must keep moving. There is no time to spend, spare or waste. In view of the wide-ranging review and consultations undertaken by Lord Woolf, the Lord Chancellor does not intend to undertake further public consultation. However, the power to make the necessary amendments rests with the County Court Rule Committee—which, as part of its consideration of the matter, will consult interested parties.
    Mr. Batiste: I welcome the proposals for the reform of the civil courts, and congratulate the Minister on the introduction of conditional fees, which will open up civil litigation to many more litigants who cannot afford it now. May I, as a solicitor, nevertheless urge on my hon. Friend the fact that there needs to be an independent Bar capable of providing objective advice both in relation to civil litigation and, perhaps even more importantly, in relation to criminal litigation?
    Mr. Taylor: It has never been remotely on my agenda—nor has the idea ever passed my lips in the House of Commons—to deny the need for an independent Bar, which has been a respected part of our English institutions for long years.

    Legal Aid Reforms
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the reforms of the legal aid provisions. [31469]
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The consultation period for the Green Paper "Legal Aid—Targeting Need" ends on 31 August. The Government will decide what further action to take in the light of the responses to that consultation.
    Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for the Minister's response. Will he also take into consideration the point that I have raised with him about a letter from a constituent who has been denied legal aid because of her husband's savings? The funds and incomes of spouses are supposed to be separate nowadays; so will the Minister assure me that wives will not be disallowed legal aid because of their husbands' incomes or savings?
    Mr. Taylor: I can promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall take his point into account and that I shall write him a letter, but I cannot promise that it will necessarily contain exactly what he wants.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Sir Wyn Roberts: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed the total absence of Welsh Labour Members from Question Time today—not to mention members of Plaid Cymru and members of other Opposition parties. I am sure that today will go down in history as a "boyocott"; but surely this abdication of duty by the Opposition has implications. Would you consider it worth while looking into precisely what they are?
Several hon. Members: On a point of order—
Madam Speaker: No, I will deal with one at a time. I do not think that there are many implications. I thought that perhaps there had been a spate of heavy summer colds—an epidemic passing through Wales—but my assessment may be naive.
Mr. John Biffen: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Did it occur to you that the quality of Welsh questions was enormously improved today? I wonder, in those circumstances, whether you might use your good offices to have today's proceedings made into a permanent routine.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Usually I do not take further points of order on a matter that I have dealt with, but hon. Members are clearly in high spirits today—
Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am not deaf. As the House seems to be in rather high spirits, I call the Welsh Member, Mr. Flynn.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You may have noticed that 32 Welsh Opposition Members who represent 90 per cent. of the people of Wales decided today to unstar their questions, because they saw no point in listening to lectures on Wales by a Minister who has been in office for four days. It appears that all he can tell Members who have experience of Welsh politics going back 30 years is that they should listen to the one-liners that he has crammed into his head over the past few days.
No discourtesy to the House or to you, Madam Speaker, was intended, but we must make the point that we in Wales are being treated as a colony, with a Secretary of Svite who does not represent a single Welsh vote.
Madam Speaker: I am glad to have been informed of the real reasons.
Mr. John Marshall: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not grossly discourteous of the hon. Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) not to be here to ask the Secretary of State for Wales their questions, and, then to turn up later to ask other questions? May we be told how much those unanswered questions cost the taxpayer? Surely their behaviour is discourteous and a waste of public money?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is a waste of taxpayers' money, perhaps he might like to table a question, after which we shall all know the answer.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: If Welsh Members cannot be bothered to ask their questions, is there not a case for offering time to Yorkshire Members or Members representing parts of other regions of England, who are denied specific questions by the present arrangements?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might like to put that suggestion to the Procedure Committee.
Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Yes, I can hear you. I call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On another topic, Madam Speaker. Have any representations been made to you to have a statement from the Government—obviously, it would be passed by the Deputy Prime Minister, who deals with everything now in governmental terms—about the French taking over the Greenpeace ship during the weekend? Surely this is a matter of public concern. Would it not have been right and proper for absent Ministers to present themselves at the Dispatch Box to explain why, at the recent Cannes summit, the Prime Minister gave a nod and a wink to Chirac to allow the French to take the dastardly action that they took this weekend? He acted like a fool.
Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, no statement is to be made on that subject today. If the hon. Gentleman is keen about it, he could always apply for an Adjournment debate. Lady Luck might look his way.
Mr. David Winnick: As I understand it, Madam Speaker, Ministers are accountable to the House. I wish to bring to your notice the fact that there is no list of responsibilities for the Deputy Prime Minister. We are told in the press that the Deputy Prime Minister, No. 2 in the Cabinet list, will have tremendous responsibilities and powers, perhaps even greater in some respects than those of the Prime Minister.
The Vote Office has no list of the Deputy Prime Minister's responsibilities. How can we question him? I have been to the Table Office. The officials, as ever, have been very helpful and courteous. They told me that they have not been notified. We shall be tabling questions for Ministers when we return after the long summer recess: how can we table questions to the Deputy Prime Minister? What are his responsibilities? I hope that you will be able to advise me, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I am very interested in the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. I refer him to the answer given by the Leader of the House last Thursday, in which he said that it was felt that the
"sensible course would be to maintain the current rota"—
that is, of questions—
"until the end of this bit of the term … and then consider revised arrangements reflecting the new position for the next Session. I include in that whatever might be appropriate arrangements for the First Secretary of State."—[Official Report, 6 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 536.]
As I have said, questions were answered on the point during business questions last Thursday.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have answered as far as I can. it is a matter for the Leader of the House. He made his position clear on behalf of the Government last Thursday.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I want to ask a question about maritime law, Madam Speaker, as it affects the House. Have you had any requests from the Foreign Secretary or any Foreign Office Minister to make a statement about the French unilateral declaration of a total exclusion zone around Mururoa atoll and their blatant attack on an unarmed civilian ship in those waters by their own commandos? The threat to peace in that region—
Madam Speaker: Order.. The answer is no, I have not.
Mr. Skinner: Here is the paper for the Adjournment debate.
Madam Speaker: Application happily received.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State for Wales referred to my withdrawing a question. That is not correct. I had the question unstarred, and it will be subject to a written reply. The question was tabled when the then Secretary of State for Wales was doubling up as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The question related explicitly to how he split his duties and was schizophrenic.
Is it not time that we considered the framework of Question Time? We spent 15 minutes today on the Church of England, which I put to you, Madam Speaker, is nothing to do with a modern-day Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—but spent only 15 minutes on our criminal justice and court system? It is all out of scale and proportion.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that he does not have the support of the House on that, but whether or not he does, his is an opinion that he has every right to express here.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No, there are no further points of order. We are not having debates about these matters. If the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), or any hon. Member, wishes to see changes, there is the Procedure Committee to look at these matters.

Opposition Day
[16TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Social and Economic Policy
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.39 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Government policies that have widened social division, led to damaging inequality and brought insecurity to millions of people; believes that the abolition of the Department of Employment signals the complete lack of Government concern about unemployment, insecurity at work and skill shortages; and believes that the Government must take action which promotes employment opportunities, particularly for the long-term unemployed, increases the skills and adaptability of the workforce and protects the low paid through a national minimum wage.
I have decided to be a determined optimist on this occasion, and am hoping that, over the next few hours, there will at least be a measure of agreement on the nature of our problems. I am a realist, and I recognise that, when we turn to solutions, it is likely that there will be disagreement and some debate; but on the nature and essence of the problems, I very much hope that we can at least recognise what is happening to our country.
Perhaps I should make a proposition to Conservative Members, which I do not think is too ambitious: low pay, social division and growing inequality are a scourge and an offence. Perhaps rather uncharacteristically, I could pray in aid the late Sir Winston Churchill. I offer a piece of Churchill memorabilia, and am happy to throw it into the debate free, gratis, for nothing, and with no claim on continuing loyalties.
Sir Winston Churchill, when President of the Board of Trade, on Second Reading of the Trade Boards Bill of 1909, said:
"It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions. It was formerly supposed that the working of the laws of supply and demand would naturally regulate or eliminate that evil … But where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer by the worst; … where those conditions prevail, you have not a condition of progress but a condition of progressive degeneration … the degeneration will continue, and there is no reason why it should not continue in a sort of squalid welter for a period which compared with our brief lives is indefinite."—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 388.]
Depressingly, that is, it seems to me, still relevant. Sir Winston talked about an indefinite degeneration. In many ways, in comparative terms, those are indeed the problems that we still face.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman quoting Sir Winston Churchill, who is, of course, the hero of many Conservative Members. It is, however, some 86 years ago since those words were spoken—in the lifetime of our grandparents and our great-grandparents—and I think that some things have changed a little since then. Will the hon. Gentleman

627
enlighten the House and tell us, in real terms and in cash terms, what the average industrial wage was in 1909 in comparison with now?
Mr. Dewar: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that average wages are not what the debate is about. I accept entirely that average wages have risen, and no doubt the Minister will make that point very effectively and eloquently when he replies. I am drawing the attention of the House to the fact that 328,000 people in Britain earn less than £1 an hour. Some 1.143 million earn less £2.50 and, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise and will be concerned about, the vast majority of these are women. Women are particularly badly hit by low pay, with more than 670,000 of them falling below the £2.50 an hour limit.
In my view, those figures certainly justify the relevance of the Churchill quote, and I make no apologies for reminding the House that it was a problem seen by someone in 1909, whom the hon. Gentleman is right to say he admires greatly, someone who predicted that the problem would be continuous because of the imperfections of the market mechanism for a very long time. Sadly, he has proved to be right on that matter.
Dr. Robert Spink: The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous Member and I know that he will want to set the scene properly and accurately. Will he therefore accept the fact that 75 per cent. of those who are classified as being on low pay live in a household where there are two or more wage earners? If he thinks that low pay is so bad and wants a minimum wage, will he tell the House where the Labour party would set that wage, because that is the only context against which this debate can have any credibility whatever?
Mr. Dewar: I am glad to say that my judgment of the success of the Labour party is not its credibility in the eyes of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). I like to think that, on occasions, we impress him, but I am trying to reach an audience wider than one Back-Bench Conservative Member, who is no doubt well briefed for this debate. I congratulate him, however, on his assiduity. He should not despise the point that many people have to earn a second income to raise to a decent level—
Lady Olga Maitland: He did not.
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Castle Point seemed to belittle my point, and to suggest that there was no real worry about low pay for women if they lived in households in which other people had a job. Such households are often still poor, and both wage earners may struggle. I do not take the view that it is all right to have unsatisfactory and offensive levels of pay simply because a second income is involved, because that second income is often an essential platform on which to build an escape from poverty, and a lifeline to opportunity in our community.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Dewar: I must make progress, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth).
Mr. Hartley Booth: The hon. Gentleman is generally fair to the House. Does he accept that a comparison with the first decade of this century is fallacious? Today, we have, alongside the £1 per hour wages to which the hon. Gentleman referred, a whole panoply of social security to back up each individual.
Mr. Dewar: I must confess that, if the hon. Gentleman is putting forward the general proposition that people who quote Sir Winston Churchill are saying nothing that is relevant, or has anything to do with modern politics, I look forward to hearing Conservative Members protesting against speeches on many occasions. When I came across the quotation, it seemed remarkably relevant to the problem we have. Of course the context has changed, and of course the figures have changed, but the essential social problem remains, and it is one to which we should turn our minds.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not instructive that, in this orchestrated set of interruptions, it is clear that, for the Conservative party, the fact that women are underpaid and often forced to take low-paid and unskilled jobs is not a matter of worry, but a matter of congratulation? They bitterly resent the fact that women are forced into such a position.
Mr. Dewar: There is, indeed, a general tendency by Conservative Members to underestimate the contribution that women now make. They have a major input and are a major part—soon to be the largest part—in the work force. I do not make a general accusation, because that would be unfair, but I point out that there are still a few people around who see a woman's job as a nice little interest and a little bit of pin money. We should not take that view these days.
Lady Olga Maitland: We are talking about the important subject of women and part-time work. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part-time work is a blessing for women, because, among other things, it fits in with their family commitments, and because it often becomes full-time work when they are ready to take it up?
Mr. Dewar: I am extremely anxious that women should have the opportunity of getting both part-time work and full-time work if that is what they want. I do not undervalue the importance of part-time work, which gives flexibility, as it melds with household duties and other interests. However, even though it may be a blessing, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) put it, it should not be a charter to allow exploitation. That is unfortunate.
The hon. Lady has drawn herself to my attention. She is one of the Conservative Members who, on occasion, has an unrealistic view of these matters. She may remember a debate on 8 July 1994 in which she intervened to make a point about the number of people who were on benefit and who had televisions, freezers and so on in their homes. She then asked:
"Does he"—
she was referring to me—
"agree that it is a problem not so much of people living on a set income, but of how they manage their budgets? A person in one flat may manage perfectly adequately while someone else may not. Surely we need to teach people the art of household management."—[Official Report, 8 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 607.]
There is a certain unreality about that view. [Interruption.] Conservative Members should not wave at me. The hon. Lady's view is totally unrealistic when it is compared with the experiences of my constituents and the constituents of many hon. Members who must cope with the problems we have been discussing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Dewar: I can see that my optimism about getting some initial agreement about the nature of the problem has perished.
Dr. Spink rose—
Mr. Dewar: I recognise that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) is a sincere Conservative. I am told—although I have not checked it personally—that the Conservatives lost every seat they held on the district council in his constituency in the elections. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should go away and think about his position and his party's policy before he comes eagerly back to the fray. I have let him in more than once, and I hope that he will be content with that.
There is obviously not going to be agreement, but my view is that, if we follow present trends, there is a real danger that social cohesion will be challenged, undermined and put at risk by what I described—I stand by the description—as evils.'
There are always healthy arguments about salary. I remember with pleasure the Secretary of State's evidence to the Select Committee on Social Security on 25 January. The right hon. Gentleman was perhaps led astray by questioning, although he led himself astray to some extent, about our salaries—always a matter of prurient interest to the House. He said:
"When I was a backbencher I thought that, on the whole, MPs should probably be paid less to encourage them to have outside interests, which I believe enriches Parliament".
I liked that, because I like plays on words, and we can agree that such a scheme would probably "enrich" Parliament in a very narrow sense. But I doubt whether it would enrich the life of Parliament.
I was entertained to see that the Secretary of State went on to say that Ministers should be paid more and back-bench Members less, and added:
"Now I am a Minister I hold both views even more strongly."
There is a man of courage, although whether he is in touch not just with Lord Nolan but, more importantly, with the world outside, I would beg to doubt.
I was interested to see the evidence given to the Nolan committee by the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) just after he had left ministerial office and picked up—no doubt to his and the company's benefit—a directorship. He said that to bar Ministers from directorships in companies with which they may have had some dealings during their ministerial office would
"expose them to the risk of comparative poverty on leaving their posts."
I thought that I would just read that out, as a touching human gesture.
I would argue that there is every importance in recognising both where we are heading and the growing inequalities in society. I recognise that we are not here today to have a reprise of old arguments which we have made at the Dispatch Box on more than one occasion. I know, for example, that the Secretary of State has severe doubts about the findings of the Rowntree report, and went to great lengths to discredit its authors and rubbish its conclusions. As so much of the report's material was taken from research conducted by the Department, he was in effect mounting a root-and-branch attack upon the Department's statistics and methodology. That is something for him and the Department to sort out.
An enormous amount of evidence is massing—not just the Rowntree report—from many sources that we have growing inequality at the same time as we, like every western country, are seeing many people increase their prosperity as average earnings move up. We know that 14
630
million people now have incomes below half the average earnings, compared with 5 million in 1979. More than 10 million people are now dependent upon income support, which is probably an increase of a multiple of two or three since 1979. Since 1979, wages for the lowest paid have hardly changed in real terms, while they have increased greatly for those at the top end of the scale. This divergence and moving apart ought to worry all of us. One of my concerns—
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been liberal about giving way. Has he seen the report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies entitled "Why Peter Lilley was Right", which concluded that the poor have not been getting poorer?
Mr. Dewar: Yes, I was interested in that conclusion, and of course I have looked at the report. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the IFS has produced a number of reports—he has obviously read widely through them. He will remember that the one to which he refers studied outturn and expenditure patterns, rather than income patterns. As he will have noted carefully, it did not take into account income saved or invested, which gave a rather incomplete picture.
Building on the substantial evidence on my side of the argument in other IFS work, I remind the hon. Gentelman of the author's conclusion that
"the gap between the richest and the poorest in terms of both income and expenditure widened over the period."
Even though that report, which the Minister optimistically said "blows a hole" in Labour's case, concluded that the figures were not as startling as those in the IFS report of between six and nine months earlier, it reinforced the same pattern and general picture.
If the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) is trying to say that there is not growing inequality in this country, he is on very weak ground indeed. I suspect that some of his braver colleagues would argue that it does not matter if the rich get richer and the gap grows greater.
Mr. Alan Duncan indicated assent.
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is always there on cue—a small, dynamic figure shouting his case in the second row from the back of the Back Benches, where he will probably remain for some considerable time.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: I cannot resist it.
Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman insists that poverty is increasing, is it not incumbent on him to tell the House which income group's spending has fallen since 1979?
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman should look at some of the Government's statistics. He will be familiar with those for households below average income, about which there is an interesting argument. The Government maintain that the statistics are unsound, because the bottom decile of households contains farmers, taxi drivers and accountants. All I can say is that I hope that their affairs will be investigated with the rigour that we are told is being properly applied to benefit fraud. If so, I think that there will be a considerable increase in prosecutions in the courts.

631
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that a large number of households are in the bottom two deciles, even when we have made every conceivable allowance for the small and rather errant group who are stranded at the bottom of the pile.
The Minister suggested that there was great movement in and out. We are given that impression as many pensioners have moved out because of the maturing of occupational pension schemes—
Mr. Jenkin: Good.
Mr. Dewar: Yes—good, indeed. A large number of families—including a large number who live in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends—have become trapped there, however, and have lost hope, are dependent on benefit and are offered nothing by the fiscal and economic policies of this Government. The level of alienation that is beginning to emerge ought to be a worry to every one of us.
The trouble with the Secretary of State, or with many of his hon. Friends, is that they tend to adopt the Government's statistics as absolute truth when it suits their case, but, as soon as we get a series of Government statistics that do not, they are rubbished with great energy, and we are told that they are "unsound and misleading."
The shape of the statistics leaves us in no doubt that the general proposition is that gaps have widened, with social consequences which every one of us can see—whether in the health, education, or social mobility statistics—and which are opening up real dangers for our society.
I have spent most of my political life denying that there is an underclass. I do not believe that we have reached that situation, but I seriously worry that, if present trends go unchecked, I will find it harder and harder to make that case. Once I have reached the point where I can no longer do so, we will be facing very real penalties in the form of economic efficiency, lost talents and a threat to social stability.
Some old texts are still horribly relevant. Some texts may not be familiar to those on the Conservative Benches who recognise the words of Sir Winston Churchill. I cannot resist giving the House a short quotation from R. H. Tawney, who wrote in the 1930s about what he described as the "tadpole theory". He said:
"It is possible that intelligent tadpoles reconcile themselves to the inconveniences of their position, by reflecting that, though most of them will live and die as tadpoles and nothing more, the more fortunate of the species will one day shed their tails, distend their mouths and stomachs, hop nimbly on to dry land, and croak addresses to their former friends on the virtues by means of which tadpoles of character and capacity can rise to be frogs."
The point that he was making was that it is dangerous if a society embraces the tadpole philosophy and we reach the position where the consolation that it offers to social evils consists in the statement that exceptional individuals can succeed in evading them.
We are very near the position where, if one is outstandingly able or unusually lucky, one can escape from the social evils that surround too many of our citizens. But if one is not exceptional in one of those two ways, one is lost, trapped, and in a real sense remaindered in society. That is the same argument as Sir Winston Churchill was making when he said that one would imagine that the market would put that right, and then went on to point out that the market does not put it right.
632
That is why leaving present trends to develop is such a damaging and wrong-headed thing for any Government to do.
Unlike many of his agitating Back Benchers, I give the Secretary of State credit for knowing that that is a real difficulty which we should fear. I read his Birmingham diocesan speech, which was much commented on, and his speech to the Northern Ireland Conservative Political Centre. The speeches to which I have referred are rightly concerned not just with social deprivation but with the low-wage pressure that bears down constantly on the unskilled and manual workers in our midst.
Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a quotation:
"The dispersion of earning power has had unattractive social consequences … It lies behind or is intertwined with many of our social problems. It may play a major part in the break-up of families, the growth of lone parenthood and a growing welfare dependency. It may even play a part in explaining delinquency and crime!"
I would not disagree with those sentiments, which have been expressed on many other occasions by Labour Members and some Conservative Members. So despite all that has happened in the past quarter of an hour, there is an element of agreement, at least between the Secretary of State and myself, about what we should be considering in order to solve the problem.
May I give another quotation, because I like having friends on my side? Lord Lawson of Blaby, who was speaking to the Social Market Foundation in London on Monday 20 June, delivering, according to the headline, a
"verdict on Government economic policy"—
a cheery event, I should have thought—said:
"a small reduction in real earnings, although unattractive to those involved, is in itself a price well worth paying to bring down unemployment."
That is a controversial view, but that was also his view as Chancellor. He went on:
"What I did not consider, however, ten years ago, was the possibility that this process might involve levels of pay for the least skilled that a fundamentally wealthy society would rightly consider too low to be acceptable."
That is one of the problems. Right-wing economists as well as right-wing politicians are now worried about the continuing pressure that is driving down wage scales for those people, and greatly exacerbating the problems to which I have referred. It is against that background that I want briefly to discuss this issue.
Dr. Spink: The hon. Gentleman implied earlier that I despise the low-paid. I hope that he will be characteristic and withdraw that implication, because he clearly does not think that that is so, and it is not. Which does the hon. Gentleman believe is best: low pay or no job?
Mr. Dewar: I was unfair to tadpoles and to the hon. Gentleman, because they are not like for like, and therefore the comparison should not be made. The choice he offers me would be an interesting subject for discussion if it were a choice.
If the hon. Gentleman could establish that there is an inescapable choice between having some level of minimum wage but no jobs and having lots and lots of jobs but no minimum wage, I would be in a difficult situation. However, as he well knows, he cannot establish that that is the choice. He should not try to simplify the argument to help himself and then present it as a truth to the rest of the House.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman were right, would it not be an appalling commentary on 16 years of Conservative government and alleged economic success that there was a choice between low pay and no job?
Mr. Dewar: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is one of the mysteries of British politics how Conservative Ministers, who have been in power for many years, can suddenly discover problems and announce that they are tackling them with great energy, even though those problems have been happily running along unchecked for the past 15 years. We had a small example of that this morning from the Secretary of State. That is not the subject of this debate, but we shall no doubt return to it on another occasion.
My simple message is that there is exploitation, which is an unpleasant phenomenon. I took the bother of checking on some jobcentre advertisements in my constituency. I know that Labour politicians are wont to do that, but it is a matter of illustrating a simple truth. I saw advertisments for a catering assistant at £1.23 an hour; for a hairdresser at £78 for a 43-hour week; and for counter or shop assistants at between £2.00 and £2.50 an hour. On a simple moral level, there seems to be strong cause for concern.
The Secretary of State will say—and I agree with him—that work must be worth more than benefit. Low wages strike at that principle. At the extremes of the figures that I have announced, low wages can be a disincentive for those who should be searching for work.
Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: No, I must push on, but I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), to his new job. I had thought that he was a Whip, but he is a lordly creature compared with a Whip. I congratulate him on his promotion.
There are a number of arguments about the minimum wage with which I shall deal. It is alleged that only a small percentage of households would benefit from it. There is some truth in that. Unfortunately, 40 per cent. of households have no earner. However, of households with earners who would benefit—the only ones that are relevant to the minimum wage argument—a substantial percentage would do so.
If we consider the bottom three income deciles of earning households, we find that, in every case, whatever calculation is made and whichever survey we take, over 50 per cent. would benefit from the introduction of a minimum wage set at a variety of different levels. Perhaps the most obvious evidence of that is from the British household panel survey, with which some hon. Members will be familiar.
The key argument that is put up is that the minimum wage will cost jobs. I say this gently to hon. Members, but there is no clear and convincing evidence of that. If an unreasonable minimum wage is set—and one can make that judgment only in the circumstances of the time at which it will be set—it will no doubt cost jobs. That is like saying that, if the Government make a mistake with taxation or national insurance contribution policy, or any other major economic decision, the results could be disastrous. It does not mean that the policy is wrong and should not be followed. There is no evidence that a sensible and flexibly applied minimum wage will cost jobs.
Lady Olga Maitland: I urge the hon. Gentleman to clarify the minimum wage. What does what he calls a not unreasonable level mean? If it is too high, it will undoubtedly mean that employers will not be able to employ other people; if it is too low, he will be perpetrating a great con on the world outside by suggesting that he is trying to do something for the low-waged when he is not.
Mr. Dewar: I agree with the hon. Lady 100 per cent. If we set the rate too low or too high, it is likely to be ineffective, or it may have some unfortunate by-products. That is no doubt true of the Chancellor's tax policy. The hon. Lady may have a personal opinion about what the Chancellor should do in November 1996, but I imagine that, if she asked him such a question, he would tell her not to be silly, and not to bother him with futile questions. What I infer from her question—this is something I welcome—is that, if we cast the rate at the right level, it will do the job effectively.
Conservative Members should consider the international experience and the international comparisons. As many hon. Members will know, there is at the moment an argument in America, led by the research of David Card and Alan Krugger of Princeton university, which suggests that there are in fact positive labour and employment consequences from the introduction of a minimum wage.
The researchers compared states where the level of the minimum wage varies. There is, of course, a move by the American Government as a result to put up the minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.15. It all depends on getting it through a Republican House where the Government are not in control, but that is the judgment of the Clinton Administration, and it is largely supported by American evidence and research.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Dewar: I shall give way to one or two hon. Gentlemen, but, as someone said, rather daringly, I was over-liberal in letting people intervene. I must live down that reputation for a few minutes.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Will my hon. Friend give way to me?
Mr. Dewar: No, I have to be entirely consistent in these matters.
I mentioned the American experience, but what about the British experience? The Government undertook a careful inquiry into the Agricultural Wages Board, and a reprieve from death row was issued. Indeed, I believe that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was involved in that, although it may have been just before her time. In any event, she will know all about it. The conclusion was that there were no adverse labour market consequences, and that the Agricultural Wages Board should survive. I think that it should, and for strong reasons.
I referred to the position of women in society. Probably three quarters of those affected by a minimum wage would be women. The following fact might attract some people to the notion of a minimum wage. For the purpose of modelling alone, let us assume a minimum wage of, say, around £3 or £3.50. I have not done the modelling, so I take the figures used by those who have. In fact,

635
I am using the figures of the IFS, in case some people think that they are those of some kind of kept research team of mine. I wish that I had such a beast.
The IFS discovered that a minimum wage of around £3.50 would mean that a large number of women would be brought into the national insurance contribution net, much to the benefit of the Chancellor. It would also have the effect of bringing them into benefit and pension contributions and into a level of social security that is not available to them at the moment. In the present complex and unstable situation in which many of our citizens have to live because of changing social habits and values, that is an important point to bear in mind. It is a substantial spin-off.
The Secretary of State's eyes light up with sincerity when he talks about Britain's job creation prospects—the Mais lecture was full of them about 18 months ago. However, our job creation levels are disappointing when set against those of the United States. It is very unfair to pick out one factor and assume that it is in some way responsible for that, but let us put it this way: it is not a damning indictment of a minimum wage that the better record has been achieved in the United States, a country which has had a minimum wage for a long time. If we look at the European scene, it is very much a case of everyone being out of step except our Peter. I suggest that he should think again.
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why unemployment, measured according to a common definition, is greater in France and Spain than it is in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Dewar: No doubt that would require complex analysis—[Interruption.]—but I can say to the Minister that in many countries, of which America is one, a national minimum wage has been combined with a very successful economic record.
It is interesting to note the first thing that Mr. Alain Juppe did when he became Prime Minister of France. His "dry" credentials are impeccable. He comes from a very much right-of-centre Government, from the presidency of Jacques Chirac. He is extremely worried about unemployment in France, and made that the main campaigning platform of his presidency. He hopes to improve the position, and one of the first things he did was to increase the minimum wage.
There was no suggestion of Mr. Juppé going around saying, "The British Government have got it right. My good right-wing colleagues across the channel in Downing street and in Richmond house are absolutely right. We must get rid of the wicked minimum wage, which is obviously responsible for our economic problems." No; the right-wing analysis—I emphasise, the right-wing analysis—in France is that the minimum wage should be increased. The Minister might want to consider that.
There is another important reason to introduce a minimum wage, and that is that there is in the Government's policies a strong emphasis on in-work subsidies. People who work will receive help. Almost 600,000 of those people are in receipt of family credit. As the House knows—conveniently, the figures were given in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 12 June at column 420— in 1988–89, family credit cost £394 million. In 1994–95, it will be very nearly £1.5 billion.
636
Apparently, that is one occasion when that type of escalation is not unwelcome in the Government, because they have announced their new earnings top-up measure, which will cost £75 million over three years. If that is a success—I assume that the Government believe or hope that it will be a success—I am told, in a reply on 20 July 1994 at column 255, that extending it to all childless couples will cost another £65 million and bring in 70,000 people, and that extending it to single people, who are also being piloted, as I understand it, will bring in another 1.5 million people and cost £1.5 billion in additional cash.
Therefore, we are quite big now—even in the Conservative party—on in-wage benefits. I do not criticise that; it is not a matter for discussion in the debate, anyway. However, there is a clear common-sense argument that, in those circumstances, we should put a floor under wages to ensure that the long-suffering taxpayer does not pick up the bill as the bad employer repeatedly cuts wages and forces them down. There is a significant danger of that.
That is one of the powerful arguments recognised, interestingly enough, by the Financial Times, which is generally hostile, which has said that, if we are going to go down that road, obviously we shall have to reconsider the minimum wage. The argument was also recognised by The Independent in its leader on 31 August 1994, headed:
"Fear not the minimum wage",
in which it says:
"Neither party should be frightened off by the Government's simplistic economic arguments. Combined with a tax and social security system that better promotes work incentives for people on low earnings, a flexible framework of minimum-wage legislation would help to make companies take a more appropriate share in maintaining the low paid, rather than thrusting the burden on an over-stretched state benefits system."
That is a powerful argument, which the House should consider.
Many other things must be done. I believe that everyone in the House recognises that we should not regard the welfare state as an argument about a payment of last resort, grudgingly granted by a reluctant system. We all pay lip-service, to varying degrees, to incentives and training opportunities that try to inject hope and movement into the benefit system.
Of course, as the Minister will say, there are signs of activity and signs of conscience on the Government's part. I submit that they are half-hearted, and bear the stamp of political calculation based on that principle of essential minimum. For example, the back-to-work bonus is jam tomorrow, or perhaps jam never, for those who are not fortunate enough to find full-time employment. The national insurance contribution holiday is worth only about £6 a week, and I suspect that it will have little impact.
Perhaps the attitude of the Government can be summed up by the rather casual abolition of the Department of Employment, without any real discussion or debate. I rather suspect that it was a popular and populist move because it evicted the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) from an economic portfolio. It leaves him sidelined and living in the giant shadow of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). I suspect that that will at least be popular with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will feel a little safer as a result.

637
What it will do for the sales of videos at the Conservative party conference next year, I do not know. was interested to note that the right hon. Member for Southgate outsold everyone else by 2:1. I am glad to notice that, gallantly if still a long way back, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) came in second place. That probably does not tell us anything about the excellence of the videos, but it tells us a great deal about the Conservative party conference.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Normally when I rise to speak, the hon. Gentleman likens me to some character from Dickens. Last time, it was Uriah Heep. I am Micawber-like today, waiting for something to turn up in terms of policy.
We have had from the hon. Gentleman 45 minutes of entertaining badinage, which was very stylistic but had no content. He mentioned one of his constituents going to the jobcentre and seeing a low-paid job. What would he say to that same constituent if he came to the hon. Gentleman's surgery and said, "You advocate a minimum wage. In today's society, this is what I am being offered. In your society, what would the minimum wage be?" The hon. Gentleman must answer his constituent.
Mr. Dewar: I am glad that I have been entertaining. The hon. Gentleman is in entertainment himself, so his accolade is one that I value. I would explain to my constituent the need for a national minimum wage and how it would operate. I would ask him to endorse the principle. If he came from my constituency, I expect that he would do so enthusiastically. I would then, as I intend to do now briefly to the House, suggest that there were a number of things that we should do and should not do.
Let us start with just one thing that we should not do. We should not follow the Government's example of continuing to cut the training budget. In England next year, the budget will fall by 8 per cent. in cash terms and 11 per cent. in real terms. I would tell my constituent that, if he wished to judge the sincerity of the Government's talk about unemployment and equipping people to compete in the employment market, he should look at what they are doing to the training budget.
I would then recommend to my constituent the package of measures that the Labour party suggested at the time of the last Budget. We would have taken those measures, but the Government did not take them. Our package followed the Government in suggesting a national insurance contribution holiday for employers who took off the unemployment register people who had been on it for more than one year. When I first saw the proposal for a tax allowance of £75 a week, it looked, to say the least, ambitious, but it would be a real incentive to take into employment people who had been on the unemployment register for more than two years.
When the policy was costed, it was found that, after some initial costs, the tax allowance would be self-financing in the second year.
Mr. Lilley indicated dissent.
Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but that is what reputable economic forecasters and modellers have suggested. When the Secretary of State introduces anything, he produces figures which he expects
638
us all to accept to show that the policy is self-financing. For example, we were told that the disregard for child care costs against family credit would cost £240 million, but that £220 million of that would be recouped, and the scheme would be almost self-financing.
The secret of such measures—I am arguing that case—is that, if we can move people into work, they pay national insurance contributions, and perhaps pay tax. They are certainly not paid benefit. The Government can afford to be generous and not be half-hearted. They could try to make an impact on the unemployment problem.
I would explain such measures to my constituent. I would also point to quality child care for three and four-year-olds whose parents wished to take up that option. I would point to the disregard for working parents, which the Labour party has outlined, and the measures that we have proposed to produce some movement in the construction industry, create employment and at the same time tackle social problems.
My only problem might be that, if my constituent had a short-term attention span and wanted to get away to other things, he might find the meeting rather long. However, I think that he would be favourably impressed. He certainly would not be impressed by what has happened in this country in the past 10 years or so.
Let me conclude by saying that social problems have to be tackled. They cry out to be tackled, and we ignore them at our cost.
I am often accused of peddling the politics of envy, but I am not interested in the politics of envy—although I will give the Secretary of State an opening by saying that some of what has happened in the privatised utilities is blatantly offensive, raising ethical and moral problems that are perhaps even more pressing than any economic issue to which they attach.
In many instances, the Government's actions have handed people, on a plate, an opportunity for personal enrichment beyond what most would consider to be the bounds of reason. Few of those people could even be said to be at the cutting edge of entrepreneurial risk, and to have justified their gains on grounds of hazard. I would find it difficult to put such an argument in relation to the hierarchy of National Grid, to take just one example.
That is part of a wider picture. Perusal of the Financial Times shows how commonplace it is for people to take—in the form of share options, pension contributions and substantial salaries—sums that will inevitably provoke anger and bitterness among those who, for reasons that I understand, are being asked to show restraint and to accept pay limits that are very modest even in relation to the likely rate of inflation over the next year or two.
Let me give a passing example. The fact that Lord Young of Graffham, that splendid child of Thatcherism, takes the amount that he takes from Cable and Wireless while at the same time complaining about the greed of teachers has an important effect on national morale and the social cohesion that I mentioned earlier.
If we want people to pull together, we must pay attention to the symbols of our time that have been allowed to rise unchecked. If we are to deal with alienation, that will constitute a good investment in economic efficiency. We must tackle the loss of talent, the negative costs of bitterness, and the increasing instability to which the Secretary of State himself referred in the speech from which I quoted earlier.

639
The other day I read a book bearing the HMSO imprint but produced by the Scottish Consumer Council. It is called "Poor and Paying for it", and it examines the increasing inequality of opportunity, and other problems, of the low-paid in Scotland. It quotes a young mother from Wester Hailes, who said—with a simplicity that struck me as unanswerable—
"If you've no money you cannae buy things and do things."
Many of my constituents—not just those on benefit, but those on low wages; some of the most serious poverty is experienced by large families on poverty pay—are faced with that deadening truth, that you cannae buy things and do things. I believe that we shall all pay a price if we do not soon have a Government who are prepared to recognise the damage that is being done, and to do something about it.
4.27 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the increase of 38 per cent. in average incomes and the rise in spending of all income groups since 1979; welcomes the fact that the United Kingdom has fewer people claiming unemployment benefits and more jobs than any other major European country; welcomes the creation of a new Department for Education and Employment to improve further Britain's skill base and competitive position; applauds the £700 million package of measures to improve incentives to work for those on benefits and increase the rewards of work for lower-paid families; welcomes further initiatives, such as the Jobseeker's Allowance, the Back to Work Bonus, and the pilot of an Earnings Top-up for childless people on low earnings; believes that supplementing low pay to help people into work is preferable to destroying jobs through a statutory national minimum wage and the social chapter; and recognises that improving opportunity and the reward for effort is less socially divisive than encouraging dependency and the politics of envy.".
I am genuinely grateful to the Opposition for calling the debate, which gives us an opportunity to expose the multiple fallacies that they have been peddling about inequality, employment and the minimum wage.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked us to try to agree on the nature of the problem. He immediately went on to quote Winston Churchill, and to suggest that we faced a problem similar to that faced by Churchill in 1911. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he became a bit more up to date when he referred to my Ulster lecture on the dispersal of earning power.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the low earning power of the least skilled is a problem throughout the western world. That problem is a consequence of the displacement by modern technology of many jobs that depended on brawn rather than brain, and of the fact that trade has brought into the international marketplace a great number of very low-paid but able workers to compete with ours. It is nonsense to suggest, however, that the cause of the dispersal of earning power has something to do with an increased meanness among employers—or, indeed, that those who are paid reasonably have the good fortune to be employed by generous employers, while the low-paid have the misfortune to be employed by mean employers. The fact is that, in a competitive market, employers are compelled to pay an amount that roughly reflects the value that people can contribute to the process of producing goods and services and they cannot pay more than that value or they go bankrupt. A national minimum wage simply
640
means that anyone whose earning power is limited by an inability to contribute as much as the minimum wage will not have a job.
The basic problem, which I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree exists, could be tackled only by improving people's earning power through better education, training and skills, which are often acquired at work—so we should not drive them out of work through a national minimum wage or the social chapter—through in-work benefits to help supplement their earnings, and through deregulation that will reduce the other costs that reduce employers' ability to earn.
That should be our starting point, but it obviously is not because the Opposition come up with policies that are incompatible with that analysis. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall take the issues in the order in which they appear in the Opposition motion. They begin by referring to "widened social division" and "damaging inequality". Since even before the Rowntree report appeared, the Opposition have been using figures relating to the incomes of the bottom 10th of households to suggest that low income is a static condition from which people cannot escape, and that the poor are getting poorer. Unfortunately for the Opposition, the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report does blow a hole in that thesis. That report showed that low income is not a static condition from which people never escape. On the contrary, up to half of those who were in the bottom 10th of incomes in 1991 had risen out of that band a year later. Overall, the incomes of those in the bottom 10th had risen by a quarter over that year.
Moreover, as measured by their expenditure, the standard of living of households in the bottom 10th of incomes, far from falling since 1979, has risen by 30 per cent. in real terms. That evidence is supplemented by that from the new earnings survey, which gives figures for the movement out of the bottom 10th of earnings over a longer period. They show an even more dramatic picture. One in 10 of those in the bottom 10th of earnings five years ago have succeeded in reaching the top 10th of earnings today. In short, far from the poor getting poorer, many of them have been getting richer and most of them have been getting less well-off.
Mr. Kaufman: Yes, that is true.
Mr. Lilley: Most of them have been getting less poorly off.
The Opposition, however, are not solely or even primarily concerned about the bottom 10 per cent. They are far more concerned to stir up resentment against the good fortune of the top 10 per cent. It is against them that the politics of envy have been deployed. It is true that the top 10 per cent. have seen a more rapid increase in their incomes than the national average—I willingly concede that—but who are these bloated plutocrats whose well-being has allegedly been obtained at the expense of the least well-off? Let us get one thing clear: they are not all Cedric Browns. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) might try and suggest that they are, and the handful of highly publicised cases of privatised industry directors may be distasteful, but the total impact on the top 10th is negligible because more than 5 million people are in the top 10th of households.
The Rowntree report produced what it called a "UK Income Parade". It drew out 50 households from the survey that it was using for its research. They represented

641
different income distribution points from bottom to top. It said that, if people's heights had reflected their income, we would see
"a parade of dwarfs and a few giants".
It is worth seeing who the giants are, according to the Rowntree report. At the threshold of the top 10th of incomes we find a household comprising a single man who lives in a council house and who has a take-home pay of £311 per week. In the view of the Opposition, he is getting on towards being stinking rich. In the middle range of the top 10th of incomes we find a 57-year-old freelance journalist earning £30,300 per year gross, whose wife works part time as a manager of a day centre on a weekly wage of £115. Alas, like all the cases in the report, he is anonymous. It would be poetic justice if he wrote articles for The Guardian denouncing the widening social divide and damaging inequality without realising that he had been selected by the Rowntree report to typify the stinking rich. The biggest giant in the parade is a 60-year-old man earning £47,300 gross, whose 58-year-old wife is on invalidity benefit.
It is not possible to tell from the Rowntree report what the wage earners in other representative households in the top 10th do. However, judging from their salaries, they could include a police officer married to a senior nurse, a head teacher of a large comprehensive married to a primary school teacher, or a Member of Parliament married to his secretary. Labour believes that they are the sort of people whose salaries are too high and whose taxes are too low. According to Labour, they are the cause of damaging inequality and social division. When Labour Members talk about soaking the rich, they should make it clear that they mean taxing the middle classes. It is not just the Cedric Browns who are in the firing line: journalists, policemen, teachers and nurses will be the real victims of Labour's politics of envy.
Labour Members are divided in their views about redistribution. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—who, alas, is not present in the Chamber—recently wrote:
"There is no general ground swell amongst middle-class groups for redistribution of wealth to the poor … Politicians who maintain otherwise are a public menace distracting from the real task."
Six days earlier, the hon. Member for Garscadden had written in The House Magazine:
"An element of redistribution is a vital investment in social stability which matters for us all".
I shall leave it to the two hon. Gentlemen to fight among themselves about what the Opposition policy should be and who is or is not a public menace—but if the cap fits, wear it.
Mr. Dewar: Dear me—a phrase maker. The right hon. Gentleman is constructing an imaginary Labour economic policy. No doubt he derives some satisfaction from that and it furthers his cause, because he can then knock it down. However, I do not know of anyone who has said that we shall "soak the rich", and certainly not the sort of people to whom he referred.
In my speech, I was very careful to say that the abuses and offences that have emerged—and to which the Prime Minister has admitted—in the private utilities and certain other sectors of the economy pose an ethical and a moral problem rather than an economic problem as such. We
642
believe that it is very bad for the morale of this country to allow that practice to go on unchecked. We also believe that the emphasis should be on opportunity and giving people a chance—which the market does not at present afford—to better themselves and to improve their quality of life.
Mr. Lilley: I believe that I am correct in saying that the hon. Gentleman referred to the Rowntree report and the figures it cites—he certainly did so in a previous debate—which he appeared to endorse. They are based on an analysis that the top 10th of income earners are getting more and the bottom 10th are getting less. The hon. Gentleman referred today to the widening division, but if he is simply talking about the division between half a dozen privatised industry directors and the 5 million people at the bottom of the income scale, he is clearly misleading people, to say the least.
Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to people being able to better themselves and improve their quality of life, and in his speech he talked about frogs and tadpoles—I have been meditating on that fable ever since. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, thanks to the Government's efforts, in the past 10 to 15 years many people have been able to better themselves through participation in higher and further education?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the time when he and I entered Parliament, we set the target of increasing the number of people in higher and further education from one eighth to one third by the end of the century. We have already achieved that proportion of school leavers entering further and higher education.
The next issue raised in Labour's motion is the merger of the Department of Employment with the Department for Education, which the motion alleges signals
"the complete lack of Government concern about unemployment".
That is the precise opposite of the truth. I shall leave my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to rebut that allegation in detail. Suffice it to say that the best key to a good job is the skills and educational attainment to contribute to the production of goods and services. Employment training and education are therefore intimately linked. It is right that Whitehall's structure reflects that, and it is absurd that the Opposition should want to dismantle it.
Mr. Dewar: I quoted figures, which I understand are accurate, about the reduction of the training budget this year as against next year. I believe that that will continue a trend that has existed for some time. How does the Secretary of State explain that reduction, in terms of the commitment that he is parading?
Mr. Lilley: We believe in increasing the total quantum of training and the total quality of training and education in the economy. The vast bulk of it applies in work. The key for many people is getting jobs in which they can build skills and expertise. We are more keen on that than on simply setting up ever more schemes, as the Opposition would like us to do.
The third issue raised by the motion is
"action which promotes employment opportunities",
which is precisely the action that the Government have been taking, with growing success. It is also just what Opposition policies would undermine.

643
Our success is best measured by comparing our performance with our partners in the European Union, who already implement the policies that Labour advocates. Unemployment in the United Kingdom is below the EU average and falling faster than elsewhere. Britain has a higher percentage of people of working age in work than any other major country in the European Union. Moreover, the number of people in work rose by more than 1.5 million in the UK between 1979 and 1990—the last two peaks in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development cycle—while it fell in the rest of the European Community.
Opposition claims that falling unemployment in Britain is not leading to more people in work are not true. Over the past 12 months, the number of people in work has risen by nearly 300,000. Claims that those extra jobs are all part-time, female, low-grade jobs are equally false. Only 5 per cent. of those extra jobs have been taken by women working part time. Two thirds of all the jobs created over the past year have been full-time jobs, and 70 per cent. have been taken up by men. The most rapid expansion has been in professional and managerial jobs.
Our success in generating more employment opportunities is based on a threefold strategy—first, improving education and training by ensuring that the right subjects are taught through the national curriculum, which Labour opposed; raising standards through testing, which Labour opposed; through parental choice, which Labour opposed; and through publishing school performance, which Labour opposed.
The second leg of our strategy is to improve competitiveness by avoiding the burdens of the social chapter, reducing payroll taxes where possible and deregulating enterprise. Labour would destroy competitiveness by opting into the social chapter. The third element of our strategy is to increase work incentives through in-work benefits.
Family credit already helps to make work worth while for 600,000 parents. Last week, I published the Green Paper on our plans to test a new earnings top-up benefit for people without dependent children who have limited earning power. There is a case for making work more attractive for such people—to encourage people to get on to the employment ladder, since most skills and experience are acquired in work.
If that pilot study is successful, it should benefit the least well-off. It should also benefit the taxpayer, because it costs more to keep people out of work than to top up earnings in work. The figures that the hon. Member for Garscadden quoted were from some while back and related to the possible extension of family credit to all people without families. On the basis that we are proposing, the cost—even assuming no offsetting reduction in unemployment—will be one third that which the hon. Gentleman claimed.
Mr. Dewar: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but this is an important point. I accept his correction in respect of the cost. Our case is that there ought to be a floor under wages, to stop employers setting lower and lower wages for people entering the employment market, leaving a greater and greater strain to be taken by the taxpayer. Does not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that danger? Will checks and balances be built into the system, to prevent such a thing
644
happening? It would help the right hon. Gentleman's case—I put it no higher than that—if he could satisfy the House that there is no such danger.
Mr. Lilley: We are undertaking a pilot study, which is a major departure from social security policy and a sensible one, to ascertain whether such a benefit would assist not only the people who receive it but the whole economy. The test will be whether it helps people back to work, improves their take-home pay in work and encourages job creation. If the answer to those questions is no, with wage reductions offsetting the benefits to employees and no growth in jobs, we shall examine those factors. If the hon. Member for Garscadden is not 100 per cent. sure—and I submit that no one could be 100 per cent. sure—of his case for a national minimum wage, why does not Labour propose testing it on a pilot basis?
Ms Harriet Harman: The case for minimum wages was proven by the wages councils.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady can try to make that case later and see whether the House finds it credible.
Ms Harman: The Secretary of State asked whether there could be a pilot scheme for a floor under wages by law. We had such a scheme from 1909, under the wages councils, until the Government abolished them. We do not need a pilot scheme, because we know that a floor under wages is necessary.
Mr. Lilley: Given that since our reforms, including those affecting wages councils, the UK has been more successful in increasing the number of jobs than most other countries, the suggestion is that the test has gone not in the hon. Lady's favour but in ours, and it should strengthen the economy as more people will be working and fewer kept idle.
Our approach is the opposite to that of the Opposition, who have consistently criticised in-work benefits. A national minimum wage would cut off the bottom rungs of the employment ladder and reduce opportunities for people to get into work and to increase their earning power through the expertise and skills that they may then acquire.
The final element of the Opposition motion is the claim that a national minimum wage would protect low-paid people. Any hope that a national minimum wage would help the lowest-income households is fallacious. Only 3 per cent. of families in the bottom 10th by income contain a full-time worker on low pay. The bulk of low-income households are on benefit, self-employed, retired or have large families. By contrast, many of those earning low pay are providing a second income in households with quite high total incomes. As a result, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that, even before allowing for job losses, a national minimum wage would actually help the best-off 30 per cent. of households more than the least well-off 30 per cent. I cannot really believe that that is Labour's objective, although I may be mistaken.
There are three questions on the national minimum wage that the Opposition must answer if they are to be honest with the electorate. First, at what level would they pitch it? We have been given no answer today. Secondly, to what extent would the Opposition expect or allow differentials to be restored for wages above that level? Thirdly, how many jobs do the Opposition believe would

645
be destroyed as a result of their policy? What distinguishes new Labour from old Labour is its refusal to answer or even to deal with such questions.
This is not a new issue. Barbara Castle, as Secretary of State for Employment, set up an inquiry into a national minimum wage. Her conclusion was unequivocal:
"The introduction of a national minimum will add to labour costs. This could in turn increase the level of unemployment … The alternatives would either be a substantial increase in costs or, more likely, some reduction in employment both for men and still more seriously for women, with the worst impact falling on the least prosperous areas".
So the Government of that day ruled it out.
The last Labour Government likewise rejected the idea. The former Chancellor, Lord Healey, is on record as warning his party in his best silly-billy manner:
"Don't kid yourselves—the minimum wage is something on which the unions will build differentials."
Then, in the 1980s, the hon. Member for Birkenhead—
Mr. MacShane: Is that now the difference between old Tories and new Labour? We pray in aid Sir Winston Churchill; they pray in aid Barbara Castle.
Mr. Lilley: I suppose it is. The interesting thing is that new Labour seems to have disowned every previous Labour Government—and quite a few current Labour spokesmen.
In the 1980s, the hon. Member for Birkenhead, Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, published an excellent book called "The Minimum Wage—Its Potential and Dangers". In it he wrote:
"The employment consequences of implementing a National Minimum Wage are serious, but if the trade union movement decided on a policy of re-establishing differentials, the effects would be little short of disastrous."
More recently, in his characteristically robust way, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has said of a minimum wage:
"I knew the consequences … were that there'd be a shakeout—any silly fool knew that."
In short, not just this Government but all previous Labour Governments—and, until now, the Opposition—have always accepted that a national minimum wage would destroy jobs. But just recently the Opposition have done a volte face. On the basis of a survey involving telephoning 400 fast-food outlets in New Jersey, they now claim that a minimum wage can increase jobs. That really does sound like a drowning man clutching at a straw. The OECD has examined all the evidence from the United States, and it is clear that the weight of the evidence from there and elsewhere suggests that minimum wages destroy jobs.
The hon. Member for Garscadden said that the American experience of the past few years, despite the existence of a minimum wage, was successful in creating jobs and proved that a minimum wage was no obstacle to that; but of course over that period the real value of the minimum wage has fallen by a third. So its impact in terms of job destruction has been declining. Small wonder, then, that America has been doing increasingly well.
Mr. Dewar: I really think that the right hon. Gentleman is overstating his case in a way that does him no good. Despite what he has said, there are many countries—we have discussed one or two of them: America, France, and
646
there are many others—with minimum wages and with no intention of retreating from them. And some countries in eastern Europe—not necessarily a good parallel, I admit—are thinking of moving to a minimum wage system, on the basis of evidence from western Europe and north America.
I agree that there is a conflict of evidence, but there is a large body of evidence to the effect that there are no adverse labour market or employment consequences. Indeed, in a parliamentary reply on 4 November 1992, the Department of Employment was good enough to list a large number of those countries.
Mr. Lilley: When I asked the hon. Gentleman why France and Spain, which differ from us in having a minimum wage and the social chapter, suffer from higher unemployment, he was unable to give me a single reason—he said that the question would need complex analysis. But it is a prime question that any advocate of a minimum wage ought to have asked himself, and answered, before choosing to inflict it on his own country.
The hon. Member for Garscadden claims that there is no suggestion in France that the minimum wage is a problem. That is to ignore the fact that the previous Prime Minister, a member of the same party, proposed a reduction of the minimum wage for young people and withdrew that proposal only in the run-up to the election because it was proving politically unpopular. He withdrew it in the face of political agitation—
Mr. Dewar rose—
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has already intervened three or four times. If he failed to make his points in his own speech, that speaks for itself.
The Labour party now bases its case on studies that tacitly assume that in some areas some firms are effectively the only employers of unskilled labour and can therefore depress wages below the market clearing level. A minimum wage can be harmless only in those limited circumstances, and to the extent that it is geared to offsetting such power. Labour's research certainly cannot be used to justify a statutory national minimum wage.
A more logical approach, for anyone who believes Labour's research, would be to encourage more competition from more new businesses and to bid up wages to the market clearing level in the areas where they are artificially depressed. But Labour does not even seem to recognise the implications of the research on which it leans so heavily.
One thing is clear: the level at which the minimum wage is set would be crucial. Once it is known, academics can work out the implications. More importantly, employers and employees can work out whether they would move from low pay to no pay. That is presumably why the shadow Employment Secretary has decided to refuse to tell us what the level would be. We are told that it will not be set until after the next election.
That rather cynical ploy has backfired, however. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), secretary of the Campaign Group, said:
"it would be to our advantage to be a party that says what it means and means what it says, and that means something specific about the starting level of the minimum wage."
The ploy has also caused alarm among the brothers—and other relatives—in the trade union movement. They fear another retreat, so they want a firm commitment to a

647
specific minimum wage. Indeed, Mr. Jack Dromey, a recent contender for the leadership of the Transport and General Workers Union, has urged the unions
"to campaign to persuade Labour to adopt a minimum wage figure of between £4 and £5 an hour before the election."
No one is better placed to persuade Labour than Mr. Dromey. He is, after all, the husband of Labour's shadow Employment Secretary. Perhaps I should call him Mr. Harman in politically correct circles. One can imagine the pillow talk in the Harman household. After a hard day's campaigning in the Labour movement, he returns to the household and says to his spouse, "Couldn't we be united for £4 or £5 an hour?", at which Mrs. Dromey turns away with a sigh: "These numbers give me a headache—you'll have to wait until after the election."
The fact is that the Labour party is refusing to answer the questions that any honest party should answer if it is to come clean with the electorate—
Ms Harman: The right hon. Gentleman is giving me a headache now.
Mr. Lilley: That is not so much of a problem in my case. I fear that none of the blandishments from people in the Labour party, least of all from Mr. Harman, will work. The Opposition are in retreat, on this issue as on so many others, at least until the next election. They have retreated on nationalisation, and changed clause IV. They have retreated on tax, and abandoned John Smith's plans. They have retreated on nuclear weapons and on trade union reform, and they are retreating here because we are winning the arguments.
It is a tactical retreat, however. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has adopted the tactics of the man who walked backwards into a cinema in the hope that the attendant in the box office would think that he was leaving. But I believe that the electorate will see what the Opposition are up to and will realise that this is only a temporary retreat.
The Labour party offers new rhetoric for old policies. Scratch the soundbites and we find the politics of envy posing as egalitarianism, a job-destroying minimum wage masquerading as help for the low-paid, and a policy that will deepen dependency pretending to be an offer of help to those coming off the dole. By contrast, we offer a hand up as well as a handout, opportunity instead of envy and the chance for people to gain their first experience of the workplace. The debate offers a welcome chance for the electorate to compare the cynical politics of the Opposition with the practical policies that we, the Government, spell out day after day.
4.59 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: In his closing words, the Secretary of State spoke about the electorate's views on the debate. If my constituents had been able to listen to the right hon. Gentleman's speech—it contained the cheapness that we expect of the person who made a xenophobic speech at a recent Conservative party conference, and did not fall below his usual level but kept up to that which we expect—they would have been left bewildered and dismayed but with the knowledge that the Secretary of State is the man who is responsible for their having to survive day after day in grinding and hopeless poverty.
648
I represent tens of thousands of people who live in great poverty. I represent many thousands who are unemployed. That the Secretary of State should make a debating speech based on stale statistics when my constituents are looking to Parliament for some hope and some salvation tells us why the Government are running out of time and why they will be rejected by the electorate as soon as it has an opportunity to do so.
My constituents live in terrible poverty. Of the 634 constituencies in Great Britain, Gorton is No. 35 when it comes to unemployment. Male unemployment is 21.8 per cent., which is more than double the national average. Overall unemployment is 15.5 per cent., which is almost double the national average. In Gorton, 38 per cent. of the unemployed have been unemployed for more than a year and 35 per cent. of the unemployed are under 25 years of age. Youth unemployment in parts of my constituency reaches 47 per cent. The Government respond to that situation with the cheap and facile remarks that were made by the Secretary of State.
People are desperate for a job; when they get a one, they have to live as the victims of their employers. I wrote to a Secretary of State for Employment about one of my constituents who is a security guard. He works 64 hours one week and 72 the next. He is paid no overtime and is not permitted to join a trade union to get the protection that it could offer. His employer reduced his hourly pay from £3.02 to £2.35. I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Employment and asked what recourse my constituent had in that appalling predicament. He was working all the hours God sent, yet saw his pay reduced.
The then Secretary of State wrote to tell me that the man could resign his job. That would have been extremely useful, bearing in mind that he lives in a constituency in which about a quarter of the males are unemployed. He would not have had much hope of other employment. Furthermore, if he had taken that course, he would not have been eligible for the benefit that comes when a job is lost involuntarily. That was the studied advice of the Government to one of my constituents who was being exploited by his employer, as so many of my constituents are.
Many of my constituents live in poverty that it is fair and accurate to describe as abject. A third of the population of Manchester has to have recourse to income support; my constituency is poorer than the Manchester average. In Manchester, 43.7 per cent. of households rely on housing benefit, which is one of the indices of poverty. On that index, Manchester is the poorest city in the country. My constituents are poorer than the people of Manchester as a whole. The proportion of them who live on housing benefit is even higher than the 43.7 per cent. in Manchester.
In Manchester, 24.8 per cent. of children have to have free school meals. As I have said, my constituents are poorer as a whole. Thirty per cent. of households in Manchester have lone parents with children. Indeed, 29 per cent. of the children in the city live in that circumstance. How are those women—overwhelming they are women—to survive? How are they to get jobs in an area of extremely high unemployment? How are they to bring up their children in a way that will keep them off drugs, off the streets and out of crime? How are they to achieve all that when they are living in a literally hopeless situation?
I read in the newspapers this morning that the Secretary of State is to conduct a drive against bogus applications for social security benefits. My constituents are as firmly

649
against bogus applications for social security benefits as anyone else. It would be a good idea if the Secretary of State also conducted a drive to ensure that honest people who are truly eligible for benefits knew how to get them and were assisted to get them.
Some of my elderly constituents are being deprived of benefits. Although we try to tell them that benefits are available, the Government do not make a determined effort to let them know what they can get. A couple in the Fallowfield area of my constituency—they are both aged 85—do not receive income support. The wife receives the higher rate of attendance allowance. Their joint pensions amount to £119.06. It was found that, because they were not aware of the benefits for which they could apply, they were worse off by £51.65 a week. It would be a good idea for the Secretary of State to do something positive and determined to ensure that such people receive the benefits to which they are entitled. In all conscience, the benefits are not very large, even when they are increased.
An 87-year-old woman in the Gorton area of my constituency has never claimed income support because she has "been frightened to". I quote her words. What sort of Government are we living under when an 87-year-old woman is frightened to apply for a benefit for which she qualifies? She has been living on £59.49 a week. It transpired that, if she had been properly advised by the Benefits Agency, she could have been receiving another £75.76 a week.
A couple in Levenshulme in my constituency have been living on £118 a week. When investigations took place, it was found that that couple could get their benefits increased by £57.60 a week.
Why do not the Government go out of their way to try to assist people in that position? Why do not they try to introduce a culture of benefit in which a woman in her 80s is not afraid to apply for the benefit to which she is entitled?
I understand that the Secretary of State is—I agree with him on this—opposed to the introduction of an identity card, but in Cabinet he is arguing for the introduction of an identity card for people on benefit. I beg him not to proceed. If he does, he will codify for ever the fact that we have two nations—those who are on benefit, and those who are not. We would have inferiors and superiors, based not on merit or virtue but circumstances and misfortune. It would be a very black day if we were to separate our constituents, whatever our party, into two groups.
Because of the poverty in my constituency and because of unemployment—and not because of a dependency culture but because of a need for benefit, which does not prevent people from living in poverty—we have health problems of which those who live in and who represent the more affluent parts of the country are simply unaware.
Mr. Barry Porter: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be entirely appropriate for people to be given as much information as possible so that they can claim the appropriate benefit, but would not the suggested card go a long way towards meeting that desire? If people have the card, it would be up to the appropriate authority to ensure that people received the benefits to which they were entitled. I thought that that was the argument.
Mr. Kaufman: Let us take the 87-year-old woman who was frightened to apply. I do not know what good a card would do for her, or is the hon. Gentleman saying that everyone on a retirement pension should have a smart card? If everybody on a retirement pension was, therefore, regarded as an inferior member of the community, millions of pensioners would rise up in anger against the suggestion.
I shall, for a moment, consider health in the city of Manchester. As everybody knows, poor health often derives from poverty. The poverty and ill-health indices of the wards in our city correlate. In our city, the incidence of an array of illnesses and diseases is far higher than it is in the country as a whole. If England and Wales is an index of 100, the incidence of ischaemic heart disease in Manchester is 161 for males and 173 for females. For lung cancer, it is 214 for males and 204 for females. For cerebrovascular disease, it is 186 for males and 144 for females.
The mortality ratios in the city for all causes, remembering that the national average is 100, is 163 for men and 148 for women. If babies and infants in Manchester had the same experience as the average for England and Wales, the total number of still births and deaths in the first year of life would be 75 instead of 104—nearly 30 more. If one takes the weight of children at birth, which is a strong index of poverty, one finds that 6.7 per cent. of children born in England and Wales weigh less than 2,500 g. In the city of Manchester, the figure is 9 per cent. In the Gorton, South ward in my constituency, it is 9.8 per cent. In the Levenshulme ward it is 10.71 per cent. In the Rusholme ward it is 10.29 per cent.
Those are all indices of poverty. They are indices of women who are fighting to get a decent diet, fighting to survive, and giving birth to babies who are smaller than the average and thus subject to a greater risk of ill health—if they survive at all.
Poverty has an effect on childhood mortality rates in the city of Manchester. The rate of perinatal mortality in England and Wales is 7.5 per cent. In Manchester, it is 9.9 per cent. The rate of still births in England and Wales is 4.2 per cent. In Manchester, it is 6.4 per cent. The rate of infant mortality in England and Wales is 6.5 per cent. In Manchester, it is 8.4 per cent. It is important that I repeat that, by and large, the figures for my constituency are worse than those for the city that I represent.
Mr. Alan Howarth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks feelingly on behalf of his constituents, for giving way. Is he aware that international research material, assembled and reported on by Richard Wilkinson of Sussex university, demonstrates that societies in which there are greater inequalities of income experience worse indices of ill health and early mortality than societies in which the income differentials are less wide, and that the kind of poverty that he is describing is detrimental to the interests and, indeed, the health of us all?
Mr. Kaufman: I am deeply concerned, as anybody who represents and lives among the people about whom I am talking must be, as there is not just the problem, the sadness, the desolation of individual poverty and suffering, but the loss to the country because of what is happening.

651
I shall give an example of what my constituents have to put up with, to demonstrate to the House that what happens in Gorton and elsewhere in Manchester is not an accident but a consequence. It is a consequence of the unemployment, of the low income. It is a consequence of inadequate medical provision. We have in my constituency the Gorton medical centre. It operates from something that scouts would be ashamed to use as a hut. It has been condemned as unfit by the Health and Safety Executive. The doctors in the medical centre have put forward a plan for its rehabilitation, which would cost £150,000. So far, that money has not been made available. I have had discussions and correspondence with the right hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), who has just ceased to be Secretary of State for Health, and nothing whatever has been done to put it right.
There are 9,000 people on the patient lists of the Gorton medical centre. I have visited it on a number of occasions. The waiting room is so small that there is not room for everybody to sit or even to get in. Pensioners, pregnant women and women with babies have to stand, or even to stand outside in the street. We need £150,000 and the money is not coming, yet in March the High Court found that the very family health services authority that is refusing to provide the money had unlawfully spent £250,000 on employing what it calls eight facilitators. The authority has broken the law and it has wasted £250,000—way beyond the amount needed to put the medical centre into decent condition.
I have not only written but spoken to the previous Secretary of State for Health about this, yet almost four months after the High Court found that the money had been unlawfully spent, nothing has been done either to put the matter right or to penalise the people who broke the law just as much as muggers and other criminals break the law. Some £100,000 more than we need for my medical centre has been wasted, and nothing has been done about it. It is all very well for the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), to smirk. I hope that if he had such a situation in his constituency, he would raise the matter on the Floor of the House. As a junior Minister, he sits smirking at a matter that is extremely important to 9,000 of my constituents and their families.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): The right hon. Gentleman's comment that ultra vires acts were akin to mugging was surely slightly fanciful, or will he now extend such condemnation to, for example, the Clay Cross councillors?
Mr. Kaufman: I did condemn the Clay Cross councillors when I was a Minister in a Labour Government. When we introduced a Bill indemnifying certain councillors who had refused to apply the Housing Finance Act 1972, I excluded Clay Cross councillors because I did not believe that they were worthy of indemnification. The sniggering and cheap little Minister is wrong in his sniggering, cheap little intervention in my speech, in which I am talking about decent people who want decent health care.
There are other aspects of poverty in my constituency. We now have no local authority public housing programme, and private sector housing has halved, so we have people living in appallingly poor accommodation. We have people who, as a result, find that their marriages
652
are being broken up. We have people who, as a result, are having to move out of the area and to apply for accommodation under the homelessness provisions which, under this Government, are turning some people into millionaires. We do not have much growth industry in my constituency, but the one growth industry that we do have is homelessness. We have people who are taking money from public funds and using it to grow rich out of the misery of people who cannot find a decent home.
This debate is about differences in life styles and about differences in life chances. My constituents are deeply deprived of the chances in life that would enable them not only to live contented, fulfilled lives, but to make a contribution to the country. Let us be clear about this. My people in Gorton are as richly talented as anybody else in the country. They have an ability to contribute to this country just as much as the constituents of Ministers and, when they are given the opportunity, they make that contribution. I have people who have set up a company that has developed an invention in which they are interesting major companies. They are doing their best. I have a teenage Asian constituent who has won a film-making prize and who will, I hope, make his way in the film industry.
My constituents have a great history of contribution to the national economy. If one goes to the railway museum at York, one sees superb, gleaming locomotives which have on them plates saying "Made in Gorton". Locomotives cannot be made in Gorton now because there are no suitable factories—in fact, we have few factories of any kind. It would be tragic not only for my constituents, but for the country, if the people who sent me to Parliament were not able to make in future the contribution to the country's prosperity and liveliness that they have been able to make in the past.
I devote myself to these issues to a large degree because my heart breaks when I meet people at advice bureaux and when I meet people in the street and see what lives of desperation and desolation so many of them live. I regard it as my function, in so far as I have a function of any relevance, to come to the House to speak for the people whom I represent. I shall continue to do so until we have a Government who put them first.
5.24 pm
Sir Michael Neubert: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has painted a bleak picture of the constituency and the city that he represents. As the House knows, I am a London Member; I have lived and worked in or around London all my life. I cannot judge whether the right hon. Gentleman's picture of Manchester is accurate because I do not know that city as well as I know my own. I can say that it must be a dispiriting experience for the right hon. Gentleman as he prepares to retire from the House and to enjoy a leisurely—
Mr. Kaufman: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's kind words. However, I have been chosen as candidate for the next election. The boundaries of my constituency are completely unchanged and I had a majority of 16,279 at the previous election. I have, therefore, a reasonable hope of being returned at the next election.
Sir Michael Neubert: Talk of retirement may have been a result of hope rather than actuality. I congratulate

653
the right hon. Gentleman on his good fortune; he will be here for a few years more. None the less, it must be dispiriting, after his many years of service to the House and to his constituents, that things should be so bad in his constituency. He must ask himself how the situation has come about. It cannot be accepted that it has come about as a result of 16 years of Conservative Government and that no part has been played by local government in creating the culture that the right hon. Gentleman has so vividly described.
I also find it extremely difficult to judge by individual cases, such as the lady whom the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, who was frightened of applying for income support. He gave no explanation of why the lady should be frightened. I have never come across such a person. We have a substantial welfare state to provide for people in need, as this lady obviously was. What I have found among the older generation is a residue of the spirit of self-reliance and independence which sometimes persuades elderly people that they should not claim from the state even though they are entitled to do so. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has educated the lady about her entitlements and rights and that he has dissuaded her from believing that she should not claim money to which she is entitled. I believe that it is a misnomer to say that she is frightened and that it is a slur on our social security system.
I also speak as someone who finds it hard to believe in the right hon. Gentleman's remedy. The only remedy he offered was to embrace and to continue to support the Labour party which, if anything, promises to aggravate the situation he has described rather than to reverse it. As I shall explain, there are two important aspects of employment policy with which the Labour party would threaten the existing level of employment in Manchester. We agree on one thing—that the relative degree of poverty is closely associated with unemployment—so anything that increases unemployment in Manchester would be a disaster. I believe that that is the direction in which the Labour party is heading.
I comment on one or two aspects of employment policy as chairman—perhaps I should say former chairman—of the Conservative Back-Bench employment committee. When I saw the outrage with which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) greeted the announcement of the Government's decision to change the structure of the Department of Employment and to merge it with the Department for Education—on Thursday, he called it a "blazing scandal"—I was wryly amused.
Mr. Greville Janner: I shall say so tonight as well.
Sir Michael Neubert: I am sure that, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, he will make a similar case tonight.
The motion refers to the Government as having
"brought insecurity to millions of people."
That motion should be resisted. It must be conceded that the career prospects of one or two people—such as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)—have received a setback, and that would not be the first career setback in the Harman household in recent weeks.
654
The merging of the Department of Employment with the Department for Education is a rational and logical development, as employment and education are natural allies. Some years ago, the historian Corelli Barnett made the point that this country had not placed as great an emphasis on vocational education as other countries in Europe, and that is certainly true. In bringing the functions of employment services and education together, we can provide the greatly needed bridge between vocational and academic qualifications.
Unfortunately, in the 1970s, some teachers—although not all—were the worst possible advisers for their pupils. They said, "Look at the world. There are millions of people out of work. What is the point in working for exams?" However, the opposite is the case. When there is a high level of unemployment, skills are very much in demand, and the higher the level of skill, the better the chance one has of employment. Those few teachers who advised their pupils in that way did them a grave disservice and betrayed them. Qualifications will be increasingly important in getting a job. The merger has underlined and reinforced that point.
I hope that the merger will result in greater public understanding of the connection between qualifications and getting a job, as that would be of great benefit to Britain. Changing technology requires continuous education, and I very much welcome the change of the structure of government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is the ideal person to bridge the two worlds. With her experience in both Departments, she will make a great success of her new post in the Government. I wish her the very best of luck.
The Opposition motion states that the Government's policies have "widened social division". There are divisions in this country, an important one being the division between those in work and those out of work. Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who opened the debate, I am astonished that the Labour party has chosen this wide theme for an Opposition Supply day. The debate enables us to point to the Government's success in reducing unemployment by 660,000 since 1992, while at the same time giving us a chance to point to the Opposition's policies, which would have the opposite effect. The Opposition's policies of adopting the social chapter and a national minimum wage would increase unemployment.
The Opposition amazingly have given the Government an opportunity to speak on the theme where they score well, as well as allowing us to concentrate on the area where the Opposition are weakest and most vulnerable—the threat to employment embodied in the social chapter and the national minimum wage. Like anyone in life, I believe in taking the opportunities that are offered, and I should like to speak on some aspects of the matter.
The Government—almost uniquely in Europe—have achieved success in reducing unemployment. I have mentioned the figures since 1992, and unemployment has fallen in nearly every month for almost three years now. That is a greatly encouraging trend. There are fewer people claiming unemployment benefit in this country than in any other major European country. Similarly, 69 per cent. of adults in this country have jobs, and that is more than in any other major European country.
There is a wide range of schemes to assist the long-term unemployed, and we can all agree that they are probably the most serious problem. When Social Affairs

655
Commissioner Papandreou came to the House two or three years ago, one of the things that she said which impressed itself upon me was that, out of the then 17 million unemployed in Europe—an enormous number, which has now increased to 20 million—35 per cent. were thought never to have had a job. That is a serious social scourge that faces this country, but not this country alone.
The suggestion has not been made so far in the debate that the rising rate of unemployment in Europe is due to the recession that has affected Europe and the rest of the world. The Opposition have suggested that, in some way, the Conservative Government were uniquely responsible for the high levels of unemployment in Europe. We know that the reverse is true, and that this country is making greater headway in employment than other comparable countries. Our unemployment is now two percentage points below the average for Europe.
Anyone without a job can have greater confidence about his prospects under this Government than he could possibly have if a Labour Government were to be elected at the next general election. All of this success would be at risk following the election of a Labour Government. Progress has been made possible by our flexible labour market, which would no longer be in place if we were to opt back into the social chapter. The opt-out negotiated at Maastricht made the United Kingdom, in the words of Jacques Delors—someone whose advice the Labour party has been quick to take on previous occasions—a "paradise for inward investment". So it has proved.
During Welsh questions this afternoon, we heard a list of investments in Wales which have come about as a result of the prospects in this country. The recovery that we are making from this particular recession is an economic recovery, based not on an artificial boom in house prices but on investment and manufacturing exports. That provides a sound basis for continuing and solid prosperity.
There are now changing patterns of employment. We are able to reflect those work practices because we are not saddled with the obligations of the social chapter, which are proving to be such a burden in other countries with whom we compete for world markets. As we are not saddled with the social chapter, we can adapt our employment needs to the work available and to the markets in which we have a share.
Deregulation is one of the major themes of the Government, and easing the burdens on business is vital, but both the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would opt back into the social chapter if they had the chance, as they both favour—with differing degrees of enthusiasm—a national minimum wage.
Before I develop the subject of the minimum wage, I shall deal with that of the long-term unemployed. Somebody in the debate should put on record those schemes that are available to them. That long list includes the training for work scheme, the jobfinders grant, the 1–2–1 scheme—which has been extended nationally from April 1995—and workwise, or worklink in Scotland, which offers 38,000 places. There is the long-established system of jobclubs and jobplan workshops, and the job interview guarantee programme, which was piloted in inner city areas, has been expanded to every area in the country.
The restart programme helps people who have been unemployed for more than two years to build motivation and self-confidence. Community action helps the
656
longer-term unemployed—those out of work for 12 months or more—back into work through part-time work experience. The workstart pilot scheme provides subsidies to employers who recruit a person who has been unemployed for two years. Finally, employment on trial is available for people who wish to try out new lines of work. It means that a person who has been out of work for at least six months who takes a job but chooses to leave it between the first six and 12 weeks will not, when making a benefit claim, be disqualified for unemployment benefit, and will not have his income support affected.
That is a wide-ranging programme of special measures to help the long-term unemployed, and the Government should be congratulated on targeting that need and on their ability to see it through.
Mr. Ken Purchase: One listens with interest to the list that the hon. Gentleman is reading, and it is worth having it on the record. Is it not also worth having on the record the fact that in many constituencies—including my own—the ratio of jobseekers to vacancies during the period in office of this Government has been of the order of 20 or 30 to one? In my constituency, there are still 15 males wanting work for every vacancy that is available to them. Is not a precondition of those schemes that there must be a job at the end of the training period? Is it not important that such frustrations are not felt and that people do not find that, having gone through the course, there are no vacancies for them to go to?
Sir Michael Neubert: Yes, those people who had trained and qualified to take on such a job would be acutely frustrated if there were no jobs to go to. Figures show that a high percentage achieve work as a result of the schemes, which are very practical. As the Secretary of State said, we are concerned not so much with numbers as with the outcome—people gaining employment—and we must remember that employment is rising and is at a high level.
There will be some pockets of unemployment. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) is beginning to sound like the right hon. Member for Gorton when describing another major British city. One must examine the reason for such pockets and how they can best be helped. The Government certainly do not lack the will or the resources to deal with problems that are European in character and worldwide in origin in many cases. At the end of the 20th century, finding work for everyone who wants it is a major problem, but the hon. Gentleman could do one thing to assist the employment position in his constituency—he could abandon his party's commitment to a national minimum wage. If things are bad now, without question such a wage would make them worse.
To me, it is common sense that, if a person is to be priced into work, there will be a level at which employing them is affordable. Above that level, the employer could not afford to provide the service or make the goods to create employment for that person. The national minimum wage would, therefore, set a limit on the number of people who could be employed.
Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Michael Neubert: I had started to mine a profitable seam, but I will give way.
Mr. MacShane: I am grateful, and perhaps I will open up a new seam for the hon. Gentleman. In that case, why

657
does every European country that has a national minimum wage—we are not talking about the United States—show a fall in unemployment equal to, or greater than, the fall in this country?
Sir Michael Neubert: I am not sure that that is the case. My argument is based first on common sense, but I will give the House some figures that might interest the hon. Gentleman, with his European perspective.
One thing that concerns me about the national minimum wage is the effect that it would have on the young. This is not a matter of argument between the parties. It would bear disproportionately on those starting out on their working lives. At present, youth unemployment is 16.5 per cent. in the United Kingdom, but it is 23 per cent. in France and 38 per cent. in Spain, which both have a national minimum wage.
I am not sure whether Opposition Members are arguing against the impact of such a wage on employment. If they are, I must quote their leader, who said in The Independent on 27 June 1991:
"Econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact."
That is a roundabout way of saying that jobs would be lost as a result of the introduction of a national minimum wage.
Dr. John Reid: That depends on the level at which it is set.
Sir Michael Neubert: The bone of contention between the parties is that the Labour party refuses to state at what level it would be. It amazes me that Labour is so reticent on that point; it was not in its manifesto in 1992. Then, the Labour party was prepared to put a figure to the minimum wage, which was to be set at £3.40 an hour. "Opportunity Britain", which was Labour's final policy review document before the last general election, said that the wage would start at 50 per cent. of median male earnings, increasing to two thirds the median male hourly rate.
What has changed since? That was only three years ago. The Labour party lost the election and has correctly concluded that, by stating a level for the minimum wage and allowing others to calculate the job losses as a consequence, it lost the election and it will not do the same again. If Labour Members think that they will get away with going into another general election and facing the British people with an unknown quantity of job losses, they are mistaken.
Let me spell out what it would mean if we adopted the wage at the levels suggested in 1992. A minimum wage set at half median male earnings, with only a half restoration of differentials, would cost 800,000 jobs, which more than offsets the progress that we have made in reducing unemployment since 1992—the 660,000 reduction that we have achieved in that time. With full restoration of differentials, 1.6 million people would lose their jobs. Incidentally, my sources are Employment Department economists. A minimum wage set at two thirds of the median male hourly rate, with half restoration of differentials, could cost 1.3 million jobs and, with full restoration, that figure could rise to more than 2 million. Those are huge numbers. People's lives and livelihoods are in question but the Labour party refuses to come clean about the level of job losses, which is unacceptable.
658
In case Labour Members argue that there would not be an attempt to impose differentials, I can cite both Eric Hammond on 17 June 1991 and Bill Jordan on 10 April of that year saying that their unions would oppose any squeeze of differentials. We know that that would be the case. If hon. Members think that 1991 is too far back and that things have changed since then, one has only to refer to Denis Healey again, who made it plain that a minimum wage would become a floor on which a new tower of differentials would be built.
Labour party politicians are not prepared to say what they would like the national minimum wage to be, but others are not so reticent. We have already heard the view of the husband of the hon. Member for Peckham that it should be between £4 and £5 per hour. I believe that I am right in saying that Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union today advocated that the Labour party set it at £4.15 per hour. We are told that a minimum wage set at £4 an hour—not £4.15 or up to £5 as Mr. Dromey would wish—would cost 900,000 jobs with only half restoration of differentials and 1.7 million jobs with full restoration.
Those matters are very serious, both for those in, and those out of, work. It will go against their interests if the Labour party is prepared to adopt such a policy and risk so many hundreds of thousands of people being out of work. The Opposition double the offence by not being prepared to say openly what they intend to do.
Unfortunately, a previous engagement will prevent me from being here for the summing up. I apologise in advance, but I promise that I will make that absence good by reading Hansard tomorrow. When I do, I hope that I come across a statement by a Labour Member of what the national minimum wage will be. Until we have that figure and know precisely the Opposition's policy, that policy will be regarded as humbug and hypocrisy, because they will be claiming to reverse the trends of recent years, yet pursuing headlong a policy that will aggravate the problem rather than improve it.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my hon. Friend have a bet with me that, when he looks at Hansard tomorrow, he will find that no Labour Member has given a figure? I bet that no one will do it.
Sir Michael Neubert: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not engage in that gamble. Like him, I suspect that I shall be disappointed, but the British people should know what the national minimum wage would be if it were introduced by a Labour Government because British jobs will be at risk from such Labour policy.
5.48 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: The heart of this debate is the need for the Government to concentrate their energy on promoting employability, trying to tackle long-term unemployment and trying to stem the tide of poverty.
The evidence of poverty in Britain is stark. We can bandy arguments about all night long if we want to, quoting one report or statistic against another, but by the most widely accepted definition of poverty—those with less than half the per capita income—the numbers who fall within the poverty threshold have almost tripled since 1979. That is a fact.

659
We can argue about figures that confirm or do not confirm widening social division. We can argue about whether the poorest tenth of households have suffered a 17 per cent. reduction in real disposable income, excluding housing costs, since 1979; and we can argue about whether the richest tenth's real disposable income has risen by 62 per cent.; but the real point is that a large number of families are trapped in that lowest decile, and are increasingly dependent on benefits.
Most hon. Members would agree that the overall conclusion of the Government's statistics is that the poverty gap is widening. It is important to recognise that poverty and unemployment are inextricably linked. The proportion of unemployed individuals with less than half the average income has increased in the past 16 years from about half those who are unemployed in 1979 to nearly three quarters in 1991—the latest figures that I have.
The implications—for example, the cost of family credit, which has more than doubled in the past four years from some £425 million to £1 billion—are a cause for great concern to politicians. The fact that the social security budget is now nearly £90 billion—one third of all Government expenditure—must be a cause for concern when we think about how to tackle unemployment and reduce poverty.
The Secretary of State, who is unfortunately no longer here, was right to point out recently that those who depend on benefit—some 40 per cent. of British households—do not live comfortably, courtesy of the state. Policies aimed at withdrawing entitlement without first putting in place measures that will free those who are trapped in poverty by developing skills and directing investment where it will promote employability can only deepen poverty and social divisions.
The Secretary of State was right to be concerned about the spiralling cost of benefits. Increasing benefits alone cannot reduce poverty, but will increase benefit dependency, a scourge in our society, where people now find that living on benefit is an easier way to make their lives work than getting into employment and earning a wage on which they can live. Furthermore, for those on poverty wages, increasing benefits offers unscrupulous employers an opportunity to drive wages down even further.
I think that I am right to say that the Government recently claimed that the abolition of wages councils led to pay increases. I challenge that claim, because the Government's evidence was based on a small and selective sample.
A more detailed analysis shows that the wage rises that the Government quoted relate to the retail sector only, and that in the year following abolition, pay rates fell in real terms by over 7 per cent. in the clothing manufacturing industry, nearly 6 per cent. in restaurants, and over 5 per cent. in hotels. We should look more deeply into the matter. Evidence in the new earnings survey, which is based on a far larger sample, shows that wages fell in nearly all ex-wages council sectors.
There is clear evidence from advertisements in jobcentres that the abolition of the wages councils has caused a downward pressure on pay rates. A third of all vacancies in wages council sectors not covered in the surveys quoted in the statistics were on offer at rates below the previous relevant wages council rates. We must challenge the concept that abolishing the wages councils
660
has led to a growth in jobs. Lower wages have not translated into a growth in jobs. The yearly net increase in full-time equivalent jobs has fallen from some 18,000 in the year before the abolition of the wages councils to only 8,000 in the following year.
The Government have ignored the warnings given at the time by both workers and employers' representatives alike that the abolition of wages councils would lead to instability in the labour market. There is clear evidence that the result has been to force down already low wages, driving more people into the poverty trap and allowing unscrupulous employers to gain advantage over employers who treat their workers reasonably.
We seem to be having an on-going national debate, both within and outside the House, on the benefits or otherwise of a statutory minimum wage. This is a good opportunity to try to clarify policy objectives and see how one can rein in the worst excesses of the labour market.
I hope that both sides of the House will enter into the spirit of a debate that attempts to find some truth rather than merely trot out dogma. There are as many expert opinions as studies on the benefits or otherwise of legislating for a floor under low wages. Ministers will be familiar with every dotted "i" and crossed "t" of at least 26 studies undertaken since 1981, which provide politicians with every opportunity to cherry-pick the conclusions that happen to suit their particular dogma.
A good example was the Treasury economic models, which were commissioned by the Government and which led them to claim that a national minimum wage would cause job losses of 2 million—provided that the national minimum wage chosen was two thirds of the median wage. As was said earlier in this debate, one can choose a national minimum wage rate and measure the amount of unemployment that it would cause. It is a question of how it is treated and of treating it sensibly.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman appears to be in danger of falling into the old Liberal trap of straddling the fence. Why can he not give unequivocal support to the words of the leader of his party, who, in a speech last July, said:
"A national minimum wage would increase rigidities in an economy that we should be making more flexible; generate wage-push inflation; and force many onto the dole"?
Mr. Chidgey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I trust that he does not see me as an old Liberal, although I may be a little more middle-aged than some of my colleagues. I shall deal with his point a little later in my speech. I expected it to be asked, and I look forward to giving him an answer that will, I hope, satisfy him.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) for interrupting his speech, but it has just come to my attention that, during Welsh questions this afternoon, the Secretary of State for Wales, referring to me when I was not present in the Chamber, made a remark that is completely untrue. I have checked it with Hansard, and he said:
"She contacted my office this morning to say which question she wanted to ask before she was ordered to withdraw it."
What protection does an hon. Member have against such a false statement? This matter will concern my constituents and my Welsh colleagues who were

661
boycotting Welsh questions this afternoon. I think that the Secretary of State should come to the Chamber and retract that misleading and untrue statement.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not really a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Lady will be aware that Ministers and hon. Members are responsible for their own speeches and remarks. Had the Secretary of State been informed of the point of order that the hon. Lady intended to raise, he would probably have been in a position to confirm, deny or withdraw his remarks. It is a matter for him to decide.
Mr. Chidgey: May I gather my thoughts after that point of order, and return to the issue of a national minimum wage?
I seem to recall that, in rejecting a call for a national minimum wage, the last—or should I say late?—Employment Secretary recently called for Britain to
"enhance its competitive edge by creating products which owe more to human knowledge than to human muscle, as the basis of our prosperity in an increasingly competitive world."
I could not agree more, but, at the lower end of the scale, how are we to explain to junior hairdressers, assistant hospital porters, waitresses and all those on poverty wages how they can bring added value to their tasks as part of the export drive? In the interests of social justice, it is time for a pragmatic approach that targets those on poverty wages, who are supported, all too often, by state benefits.
We need a policy of flexible minimum hourly rates which will lift the poorest out of poverty without causing inflation and unemployment. However, we also need to recognise the wider issue of improving, or at least maintaining, living standards, which depends primarily on increasing the skill levels of the work force and providing the added value vital to improve our competitiveness.
A low pay commission such as the Liberal Democrats have proposed could be created to recommend a regionally varied minimum hourly rate across the whole economy, in consultation with representatives of employers, employees and the local authorities. The level of a minimum hourly rate is, of course, the key factor, and one that has, as we have seen* left Labour purists floundering. Our low pay commission would use as a yardstick the average level of the former wages council rates, uprated as appropriate. That should be the starting point from which, we know from experience, the pressure on employment and inflation can be suppressed.
I shall deal with the events of the past week or so at the Department of Employment. The Opposition are greatly concerned that the decision to scrap the Department provides little or no comfort to the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed. At the current rate of decline, the number of long-term unemployed will, sadly, still not have fallen below a million by the year 2000. Rather than dealing with those failures of policies that are supposed to tackle long-term unemployment, the Department of Employment has been subsumed in a variety of other Departments. It is a cause for concern to hon. Members as well as to those who are suffering from long-term unemployment.
Nearly half the long-term unemployed on the training for work scheme remain unemployed some six months after leaving it. Nearly 60 per cent. of all adults leave with
662
no qualification, and two thirds leave with no job. That is a measure of the problem. I know that Ministers have discussed the matter with me across the Floor before.
The Government have set a target of reducing that figure of two thirds to 50 per cent. by 1998. That compounds the failure to invest in high-quality training, to address under-skilling in industry, and, most importantly, to improve the employability of the unemployed.
I am afraid that the Government are setting meagre targets for getting the low-skilled unemployed back into work. They seem to be more interested in short-term cost-cutting than reducing long-term unemployment. While they plan to cut the training budget by some £280 million over the next three years, and slash training for workplaces by 55,000—some 20 per cent. of all places—unemployment among the unqualified shows no signs of falling.
While the Government plan to cut the training budget by £280 million, unemployment costs more than £20 billion a year. It is not surprising that, in the midst of all that, our training and enterprise councils are becoming increasingly hamstrung in their efforts to achieve their objectives. Let me remind the House what those objectives are.
The central mission of the TECs is to act as employer-led bodies for economic regeneration, and that cannot be fulfilled without adequate funding to support local initiatives. To demand that TECs fund initiatives by making surpluses from the training for work programmes is fundamentally flawed. It forces down already inadequate and poor-quality training, and is forcing out business representatives, who are becoming increasingly disillusioned by stagnant policies that stifle their imagination. Instead of slashing training budgets, the moneys should be redirected into improving training quality and targeting long-term unemployment.
I have said before that the workstart pilots promoted and introduced by the Government have shown potential for providing employers with incentives to take on the long-term unemployed. Instead of linking the schemes to investment and training to provide skills for the unqualified, we have another round of pilot schemes, with the main aim, it would appear, of seeing how much the subsidy for those schemes can be reduced.
There is clear evidence that a benefit transfer scheme that provides both employers and the long-term unemployed with the incentive to invest in skills training would have a major impact on the long-term unemployed. We have long argued the case for benefit transfer schemes to transfer the benefits of the unemployed to employers on a sliding scale for a prescribed period while they are trained to be full-time productive employees who fully justify their wages.
The workstart pilots have underlined the potential for success for a national benefit transfer programme. Sadly, we have been offered only yet another round of pilots, providing some 6,000 places. All the while, unemployment costs the country more than £20 billion a year.
There is an overwhelming case for social justice, which can be achieved by putting a floor under those on poverty wages. We must improve the quality of training if we are going to increase employability, especially for the long-term unemployed. We must start to reduce the skills

663
gap between the United Kingdom and our counterparts. We must be prepared to invest in initiatives to create economic regeneration by investing in our public infrastructure, our schools, our hospitals and our public transport systems.
We will support the motion tonight, not because we endorse or share Labour's ideological basis for a minimum wage, which seems to be the redistribution of income, but because we condemn the Government's complete lack of concern about unemployment.
6.7 pm
Mr. Alan Howarth: I was glad to listen to that thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). It is a pleasure to follow him.
It poses no difficulty for me to agree to the proposition that social division leads to economic underperformance. One has only to recall the last winter of the last Labour Government in 1978–79, which is known in the folklore—and always will be—as the winter of discontent. It saw the final flowering of the policies of the now Lord Healey as Chancellor of the Exchequer—economic policies that were avowedly pursued in a class interest. As he mounted his assault on success, he even brought taxes on savings to a top rate of 93 per cent. Those efforts to govern in a class interest were hardly welcomed by the trade unions at the time. They were at war with the Government and with each other. Our society was in a war of all against all.
Life is very different and very much better in Britain in 1995. Not that we are without our social divisions—I shall come to those—but the divisions in our society are no longer remotely like they once were. There were divisions between the trade unions and the rest. The hierarchs of the CBI and TUC, to coin a phrase, are now at ease with each other and Conservative Members are looking forward to attending the TUC summer party tomorrow evening. It is a happier atmosphere.
The private and public sectors are not divided in the same way. Many public services are now delivered by privatised utilities, by work forces that may be directly employed in the public sector, by private enterprise firms or by people working in the voluntary sector under contract. We have seen a blurring of the old divisions.
However, perhaps the most conspicuous difference is that inflation is now under 3 per cent. and has been for the past 20 months—the best inflation performance for 30 years. It is in great contrast, if I remember correctly, with the average rate of inflation of 15 per cent. under the previous Labour Government. Inflation is the most deeply divisive economic phenomenon.
Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman remind us what level the inflation rate reached under Mrs. Thatcher?
Mr. Howarth: We saw inflation rise again. The hon. Gentleman is quite right if the implication of his intervention is that it is at all times necessary for the Government to work to keep inflation low because inflation is such a divisive force. The inflation that we experienced in the 1970s set labour against capital, worker against worker, saver against earner and young against old. It was divisive and deeply damaging economically.
Sir Michael Neubert: This talk of years gone by brings back a memory. Although inflation went up under a
664
Conservative Government, it at no time went above the average in the Labour years, when, if I remember rightly, it rose to 26.9 per cent. at its worst.
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has held out a vision to the country of a classless society and a politics of tolerance. We may not yet have entered that promised land but I believe that we have moved a long way. Our society is far less hierarchical and we suffer far less from intolerance and cruel taboos. So long as my party wishes to continue to pursue that destination, I shall travel happily with it.
The Labour party, far from wishing to squeeze the rich until the pips squeak, is apparently concerned to stroke those who are contented so that the pips positively squeak with pleasure. What it has to say to those who are less contented is less clear. That is an important point because there are many who, for good reasons, are less contented.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has spoken thoughtfully about the dispersion of earnings, and Mr. Will Hutton recently provided a broad description of our society as a 30:30:40 society.
The bottom 30 per cent. of people are marginalised, limping along in and out of work and heavily dependent on benefits. Among them are far too heavily concentrated members of the ethnic minorities, women—especially single mothers—and disabled people who still suffer excessively from discrimination. I welcome my right hon. Friends' introducing legislation in an attempt to reduce that utterly unjustified discrimination.
Another 30 per cent. of people are the insecure. They may be affluent but they are at the same time apprehensive about their future. The other 40 per cent.—the upper reaches—are secure and confident operators in what is increasingly a global labour market. It is they who inherit the earth. Incidentally, I am not entirely sure that it would be appropriate for them to do so without paying some inheritance tax, but that is perhaps a debate for another occasion.
Too many of our fellow citizens live on estates that are effectively ghettos. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke about the experience of some of his constituents, and all of us take very seriously what he had to say about the people who are trapped in joblessness and the housing benefit poverty trap, people who are living in ugly surroundings without amenities and people who are living a life of hopelessness, as the right hon. Gentleman described them.
Seventy-five per cent. of people in local authority or housing association accommodation are among the poorest 20 per cent. of our society. We have had planning policies whereby we have designed and built estates instead of distributing the less advantaged, the less confident and the less capable more extensively. We thus have offensive juxtapositions of wealth and poverty, which may have something to do with the events on the Marsh Farm estate in Luton last week. Certainly there is a brittleness and volatility on those estates, and it behoves us to think carefully to find effective practical policies to improve conditions there.
People living in poverty on such estates experience a far higher incidence of crime, including mugging. Let us be very clear that mugging is a phenomenon associated with poverty and joblessness. If it has also to do with race it is because far too high a proportion of members of our

665
ethnic minorities are poor and without work. I am sure that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is well aware of that.
Such estates are especially prone to difficulties with drugs. We need at some point, and perhaps before long, to nerve ourselves to think seriously and constructively about whether it is right to criminalise the use of certain drugs at least and thereby institutionalise alienation from the mainstream of our society.
Too many of our young people are not only without jobs but are disaffected from the political process altogether. One of the most alarming statistics from the most recent general election—it is not a proven statistic but is suggested on a reasonable authority—was that only some 40 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds voted. If that was so, it expressed a disaffection from the mainstream of our national life which bodes ill for us in many respects, not least in terms of our parliamentary democracy.
The family is fractured and, while family patterns have changed throughout our social history, we should be especially concerned about the number of children living in poverty and the increasing numbers of children taken into care and excluded from school.
We are not as yet one nation. Whether hon. Members are one nation Conservatives or one nation socialists—we need not detain ourselves too long today with the definition of those respective political species, or whatever may be the distinction between them—as we observe the social pathology that I have sketched, we can all agree that what is needed is a politics of healing; a politics to allay the insecurities and aggression in our society; a politics to reduce and bring to an end social exclusion; and a politics that gives priority to those who are least fortunate, the chronically unemployed, the homeless and the beggars on our streets who are a shame and a reproach to us.
Mr. David Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which most of the national press treated the political issues raised by the recent leadership contest in the Conservative party shows how distant most of the scribblers are from the concerns that he is raising? Is not that a problem in itself?
Mr. Howarth: I agree. The debate was trivialised, and it is regrettable that it should have been so.
The British public are not out and out egalitarians but they have a strongly felt sense of fairness. They believe that it is the task of Government to hold our society together. They reject the politics of class conflict and the politics of casualisation. I believe that they are deeply uneasy about poverty. Average incomes have indeed risen substantially, and that is a great credit to my right hon. Friends during our long period in Government, but the people at the lower end of the income scale—we can argue whether the figure is 10 per cent. 20 per cent or even 30 per cent.—have not shared in the overall increase in prosperity.
We should consider carefully the condition of 16 and 17-year-olds not eligible for benefit and think carefully about whether it is right to pay a lower rate of income support and jobseeker's allowance to people under 25. I do not believe that my right hon. Friends have been justified in reducing benefit in the transition from
666
invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit, and I am concerned about the reductions in benefit for the unemployed which will be introduced with the jobseeker's allowance.
We also need to consider carefully the condition of people aged over 55. There appears to be a watershed at that age. Beyond the age of 55, all too many of our fellow countrymen find themselves excluded, without opportunities in a range of fields.
My right hon. Friends should take very seriously the outrage that is felt at the avaricious insensitivity of company directors who enjoy the benefit of share options, whose remuneration committees award one another immense pay increases, even as large numbers of their staff are being sacked or placed on zero-hours contracts. The great majority of our fellow countrymen find that deeply offensive.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indeed condemned it, but I hope that all my right hon. Friends will condemn that style of management and that management ethic. I strongly hope that the Greenbury committee will produce a tough report on all of that, because it should realise that the reputation of private enterprise is at stake.
The British people may grumble about their council tax, but they raise a quiet cheer for the North Yorkshire dinner ladies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) suggested, perhaps in a sedentary intervention earlier, that widening inequality did not matter. With great respect to him—I hope that he has an opportunity to contribute to the debate later, when he will no doubt make his case—I believe that it does matter.
Excessive inequality affronts everyone's sense of justice, and it is damaging precisely because it does demoralise. People who feel themselves to be the victims of unfairness are less willing, and feel less able, to make their contribution to society. The evil of that is that it transmits itself from generation to generation. It directly affects our economic efficiency and performance.
Mr. Duncan: Will my hon. Friend be any less able and any less willing to serve as a Member of Parliament because the First Secretary of State is so wealthy?
Mr. Howarth: As a Member of Parliament, I am paid £33,000 a year. I am an extremely fortunate person and a very well remunerated member of our society. There is no comparison between my position and the position of those who live in poverty, and we should worry about that.
My hon. Friend is under an illusion if he supposes that widening economic inequality is a price that must be paid for economic progress. We can find plenty of academic evidence that will support me in what I have said. If one considers the performance of the eight south-east Asian economies that grew most rapidly from the 1960s, one finds that rapid growth was accompanied by a narrowing of income differentials.
During the summer, my right hon. and hon. Friends will give much thought to the question whether there should be tax cuts this autumn. If the thought is—I believe that it is only part of what may be in their minds—that cutting taxes, whether on income or capital, would improve incentives, we would deceive ourselves.

667
It would not be rational, would it, for people to work harder because they found that they were able to take home more income for the same amount of work? I suspect that, where incentives are concerned, the reverse applies—that modest tax increases may provide an incentive, as people would work a little harder and a little longer to make up the shortfall in their income. At all events, I do not believe that we can associate tax cuts with improved economic performance, or that there would be any objective case in terms of the condition of the economy more generally.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Can my hon. Friend find a single example—anywhere, ever—of people working harder as a result of an increase in tax rates?
Mr. Howarth: If one tries to assess the way in which people might respond rationally, they are at least as likely to work harder to make up their income if they experience a small tax increase as they are if they experience a modest tax reduction. I would stick to that contention, but I will say—and I do not think that my hon. Friend would reasonably disagree with this at least—that, if we reduce our tax revenues, we shall thereby have less resources available to act to ease the poverty trap and so enable more of our people to do what they wish to do, which is to lift themselves out of poverty, become less dependent on benefits and contribute more to the economy. We shall have less resources for education and we shall have less resources for the health of the nation. All of those are necessary investments in the interests of improving our economic efficiency.
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: Is my hon. Friend aware of something called the Laffer curve—the S curve—whereby it has been demonstrated repeatedly that, by cutting taxes, the total tax revenue collected by the state Government or national Government has increased, thereby making available more resources for those people who are in need?
Mr. Howarth: I do not know how closely my hon. Friend has studied the history of the Reagan Administration, but he may find that that turned out to be a cruel disappointment. The Laffer curve did not quite curve in the direction that the Administration believed that it would.
Relative poverty has absolute effects. Our task is at least to check the movement towards widening inequality, and preferably to reverse it. We need to underpin incomes. Above all, we need policies—macro-economic as well as micro-economic policies—that are well designed to generate jobs because, if there is a way to solve the crisis of the welfare state, it is above all to get more people into properly paid, sustainable work. I do not underestimate the difficulty of achieving that, but that must be our cardinal object, and it is very much the strategy that my right hon. Friends seek to implement.
My right hon. Friends pin a good deal of faith on in-work benefits. Family credit is now being paid to about 600,000 low-paid workers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just announced that he is introducing an earnings top-up benefit. He is wise to begin by introducing that on a pilot basis. If he proves to be right that that new in-work benefit for people without children will enable them to, as he puts it, climb the first rungs of the ladder of employment, we shall all be delighted. I appreciate the arguments for what he sets out
668
to do in terms of flexibility and responsiveness of the labour market and in terms of containing the growth of social security expenditure.
However, if we are to have regionally differentiated benefit—the Secretary of State suggested that in his pilot scheme there should be experiments with that—we must consider what the effects may be on the cohesion of our society. It may be that, especially if such benefits were to be administered by local authorities, it would be a means by which we would enable local communities to feel more responsible for their own members, and we could thereby enhance local cohesion. Whether regionally differentiated benefits would enhance the cohesion of our society as a whole is a different question. We must also consider whether unequal benefits are compatible with equal citizenship.
My broader anxieties about in-work benefits are that they tend to operate as a subsidy to bad employers to cut wages and that, if they encourage low pay, they tend to degrade, not only the lives of those who are low-paid, but their skills, such that our economic performance deteriorates compared with what it might be.
I am agnostic about in-work benefits. It is sensible to have a pilot scheme for a new benefit. We should review all the evidence as we accumulate it, not only for the new top-up earnings benefit but for family credit. However, when we review that, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be willing also to review such evidence as may be available on the operation of a minimum wage.
Although hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about a minimum wage with strong feelings and honest conviction, there is a shortage of evidence. It is far too important an issue to be appropriate for sloganising, and I hope that, in the forthcoming months and years, we shall be willing to consider carefully both in-work benefits and a minimum wage. I sometimes tease my right hon. Friends by suggesting that the minimum wage is, in a sense, a privatisation of welfare, so they ought not absolutely to set their face against it.
I suspect that in time we will find ourselves with a system of in-work benefits capped by the Treasury, because it will not tolerate the enormous growth in spending on such benefits that will otherwise occur, but complemented by a minimum wage negotiated differentially, region by region and sector by sector. If that has overtones of the 1970s, if it sounds remarkably similar to the corporate state and incomes policy, it may be that originality in policy-making is rarer than modernisers in the Labour party or radicals in the Conservative party may suppose.
I commend the range of initiatives that my right hon. Friends in the Government have developed, including the national insurance holiday for employers who take on long-term unemployed people, the extension of housing benefit, the faster processing of family credit and the back-to-work bonus. Those are all commendable initiatives which I believe will carry advantage with them. Against that background, I remain puzzled and deeply worried about the decision that the Government have taken to reduce the period of eligibility for contributory benefit of unemployed people from 12 months to six. Not only the impoverishing consequences but the disincentive effects of that are plain to see. I find that a strangely perverse policy. However, we have had those debates and the Jobseekers Bill has completed its parliamentary passage.

669
The passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill remains to be completed so let me enter another plea to my right hon. Friends to accept after all that there should be a national disability council with real powers to provide advice right across the country and powers, on those rare occasions when it may be necessary to use them, to enforce the rights of disabled people under the legislation. That would be an extremely worthwhile way, not only to mitigate the social division caused by discrimination, but to improve economic efficiency. We want disabled people to make the fullest contribution that they can to our economy.
I should like to conclude by saying a word or two about education because it is so fundamental to personal opportunity, to the upgrading of our economic competitiveness, to the improvement of the civility of our society and to enabling us to break free of the costs of social failure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has just introduced an initiative in education for under-fives. She is right to give priority to early learning and to welcome the prospect of innovative public-private partnerships.
We have a choice in the provision of public services and social goods. We can either insist on present patterns of funding, in which case it is inevitable that services will continue to be underfunded, or we can seek to enlist new resources of private finance. We have gone a long way towards doing that in higher education and it is time that we overcame the taboo surrounding the admission of private finance much more extensively into our education system. So I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative. I have my anxieties about her choice of vouchers as the means to implement the policy. I hope that she will be able to explain in due course how vouchers will not prove an unnecessarily expensive and regressive means of acting on the matter. I hope that she will not close her mind on the possibility of means-testing the voucher or taxing its value in an attempt to offset those effects.
If we are to enlist more private finance within our education system, we must equally move towards restoring the concept of an overarching education service. It is regrettable that the term "opting out" ever became current in our education parlance. The last thing that we needed was to dig new chasms between different parts of our education system. We need bridges and integration. If I was able to do one useful thing when I had the privilege to be an education Minister, it was that I not only continued the expansion of student numbers in higher education but made it possible for the polytechnics to have university status. We need to find better ways to integrate and make more cohesive our education system.
So if, in developing a policy for grant-maintained schools, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) seeks to ensure that grant-maintained schools are within the fold of the overall education service, that they keep their independence within a publicly-funded education system, that they retain the right to decide for themselves how best to use their funds—a fair share of overall funds—and that nothing is done to deprive them of the vitality that comes from that extra degree of self-government, I wish him well.
It would be extremely interesting to know what the Labour party proposes to do about private schools—what are known most inappropriately as the public schools. It
670
is a great historical misfortune that in the first half of the last century the state failed to provide a public education system. In consequence of that, the newly prosperous middle classes organised themselves. They opted out of whatever the state system might have been. That has been a traumatically divisive experience for us. It continues to undermine the quality of educational experience for 93 per cent. of our nation's children.
In the 1960s, the Labour Government led by Mr. Wilson took a look at the matter. They set up a commission on public schools, but they then shied away from any action. I wonder whether, where Harold Wilson decided not to act, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will have the nerve to do anything.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does my hon. Friend understand that what he has just said about the quality of education in the state sector is a profound insult to the many thousands of teachers who work in that sector and to the many thousands of people who have been through that sector and succeeded in their lives very well?
Mr. Howarth: I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that. I am the last person who would wish to insult teachers in the state sector. I said that the existence of the independent sector tended to undermine the quality of the education in the maintained sector. I believe that it does so because it effectively means that the parents of 7 per cent. of our children—parents who are particularly successful themselves and ambitious for their children—do not press for higher standards within that system. I willingly pay tribute to the remarkable quality of the work done by the overwhelming majority of teachers, but their task is harder than it would otherwise have been. Of course, if the Labour party were to act on the issue, it would be imperative that it should do nothing to undermine the excellence of the schools in the independent sector. The point is to try to make the public schools genuine public assets.
So I believe that our schools should as far as possible be part of a common system. That is important in the politics of healing to which I referred. It would help us to improve our economy. It would help us to improve the quality of our lives.
6.37 pm
Mr. Greville Janner: I hope that it will not ruin the future of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) if I say what an excellent, important and interesting speech he made and that I agreed with the vast majority of it. The last time I said that of a Conservative Member's speech he was making his maiden speech. By tradition, one congratulates a person who makes a maiden speech. It is not a tradition, as the House may know, to congratulate hon. Members on the other side of the House on their speeches.
Because he stationed himself so well for television on the back row where the absence of a doughnut would not be visible, the hon. Gentleman missed seeing the faces of his colleagues while he was speaking. Ministers screwed up their faces in disgust.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I should think so.
Mr. Janner: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) concurs. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who departed when he knew that

671
I was getting to my feet, and the whole array of Tory backwoodsmen scrunched up their faces and said, "How can this renegade possibly be sitting on our side of the House?" I, for one, will welcome the hon. Gentleman when he crosses the Floor of the House: the sooner he does so the better.
The hon. Gentleman also put an end to a series of Conservative speeches that reminded me of what the late Ernest Bevin said when I asked him what he thought of a debate that he had just heard. He said, "It was awful: clitch after clitch after clitch." I have never heard such a series of "clitches" as we endured earlier from other Conservative Members. When the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon began to speak, however, the House suddenly woke up. Here was a man who talked of outrage at executive pay, especially in industries and jobs where others were paid less and where services were declining. That is just what the Select Committee on Employment has said.
At this point, let me pay tribute to a Conservative Member whom I call my hon. Friend, because that is what he is, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell), whose concern about unemployment—expressed from the right of his party—equals that expressed from the left by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. If the two of them were running the Conservative party, it might conceivably have a chance of winning the next general election, but they are both members of desperate minorities.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon talked of the problem of young people without jobs, alienated from the political process. He is entirely right. If he visited any of our constituencies and mixed with young people, that is exactly what he would find: people who have given up.
May I have the attention of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for a moment? He is not hearing the praise that I am lavishing on him, and I want him to hear it, because I suspect that it will be rare in his political life—certainly in his current seat. He is also right about people opting out of the political process and not voting.
My area contains what we call "blue belts"—areas containing nice housing, where people used to vote Tory but do not any longer, often because of the negative equity on their homes. In those areas there will be a general election turnout of between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. In areas where people are really in trouble—the great estates in my constituency to which the hon. Gentleman referred, where unemployment is running at over 40 per cent.—if the turnout in a general election is between 50 per cent. and 55 per cent. we are doing well. That part of society is alienated.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of young people, and of people over 55. Tomorrow is my 67th birthday: that is 12 years above the limit set by the hon. Gentleman. Under the present Government, anyone of that age is written off. No one over 50 can get a job. Incidentally, I am losing my job; that is why the Government are getting rid of the Department of Employment. I have heard of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but it is unusual to use a nut to crack a sledgehammer. We can joke about what we do, but for ordinary people—young or old—there are no jobs.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon spoke of the minimum wage. Yes, there are problems connected with it, but it is essentially right. It must be examined carefully. The current problem afflicts not only the less well-off or bad employers: good employers are being undercut by cowboys and those who operate slave labour.
672
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of those who do not share in the country's prosperity. Again, he is right, but he did not mention the aged and the ill. For those who are both aged and ill, and who have no money, life is very bad. Those of us who look after our constituents know how awful it is.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the offensive juxtaposition of poverty and wealth. Yet again he is right, but again Conservative Members scrunched up their faces, and the lady in orange—the hon. Member for Billericay—pushed up her spectacles in dismay at such an awful suggestion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) talked of hardship and homelessness—and his views were echoed by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. The hon. Gentleman was right. What is the biggest category of complaint that hon. Members on both sides of the House hear in their surgeries? [HON. MEMBERS: "TOO long speeches."] Complaints about long speeches come only from Opposition Members, who had to endure the sort of speeches that Conservative Members make until we heard from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. No, most complaints are made about homes.
The gap is very great and, as the hon. Gentleman said earlier—we have been wallowing in history today—it used to be greater. Earlier today, I had the pleasure of welcoming to the House a man called Alan Hull. It will shock the tabloids to know that I spent a year living with a warder from Broadmoor. That may explain to a great extent why I am prepared to do what I am doing. We were evacuated to the country; there was an outside loo—no inside sanitation and no electricity. We carried the accumulator along to the hardware shop to get the radio to work. Things are better for most people today, but the gap is still very great.
Suddenly, as part of the great change of vision, the new Prime Minister—who just happens to be the old Prime Minister—tries to introduce a new look. In that process, the Government have abolished the Department of Employment. I remember Lord Denning saying, "We judges always ask ourselves questions, because it is the only way in which we can obtain intelligent answers." So I asked myself the question: why have the Government done that?
I told myself, "Well, it gives power to the Education Secretary." I understand that: she is extremely charming, and needed new power. She did not stand for anything, and she will now take over a good deal of work from the Department of Employment, but I do not suppose that that is why the Government acted as they did. They certainly did not act to please the Department of Trade and Industry: the gentleman who headed that has now moved to a new field, with no Question Time and no Select Committee of his own, although he is to be called deputy Prime Minister. Presumably he has got what he wanted.
Nor did the Government take such action so that the Secretary of State for Social Security could be saved from further appearances before the Select Committee on Employment—although, no doubt, that was a side benefit—or so that the Secretary of State for the Environment could increase his popularity, which is well known in the country, by a acquiring the Health and Safety Executive.
Why, then, did the Government act as they did? If the House and the nation do not know the answer, I shall tell them. It was because the Department of Employment—

673
sometimes called the department of unemployment—was the only Government Department whose sole job was to look after people at work and people without work; the sole Department of State whose only job was to deal with employment. The Department had its own Employment questions and its own Employment Secretary, and—yes—its own Employment Select Committee.
Removing the Department of Employment means that Ministers go. The Secretary of State for Employment went off to the Ministry of Defence, which was a good place for him to go; but he was not replaced. It also means losing Employment questions, and the accompanying focus on employment. It means losing the Select Committee on Employment—and oh, yes, the Government wanted to get rid of that. It means losing the focus on employment at a time when unemployment is still—even by the Government's own figures—almost 2.5 million. Nearly 2.5 million people are on the unemployment register because they qualify for unemployment benefit.
But that is not the number of people who want jobs and cannot get them. We know from our constituencies how many people are desperate for work and are not on unemployment benefit, but they are not included in the figures. We know that the Government have moved no fewer than nine categories from the employment figures. People receiving sickness or invalidity benefit are out; so are students in full-time education, partners of those registered unemployed, single parents and those disqualified from benefit on grounds of unavailability or the fact that they are not actively seeking work.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the possible advantages of bringing together the Department of Employment and the Department for Education, which I applaud, is that we can now reverse the policies that we have had to put up with, whereby unemployed people who sought to improve their skills through study were liable to be disqualified from benefit? That was surely a perverse incentive.
Mr. Janner: Perversity sometimes produces some good and if the bringing together of those two Departments produces that result, at least one benefit will have arisen out of what is otherwise a disgraceful change. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right.
Expenditure on training has gone down. When we ask why, the Government say, "The number of unemployed has gone down, so of course we have lowered the budget." The reality, however, is that we have the worst trained work force in Europe.
People seeking part-time work no longer appear on the register and people who are in part-time work, even for an hour a week, are not registered as unemployed. Those aged 16 and 17 are off the register. Those aged over 55 who receive an occupational pension and ex-miners retiring under the redundant mineworkers pensions scheme are not on the register, so it is obvious why the numbers have declined.
Let me give the House one interesting example. In 1979, when the Government took office, 1.33 million people were on the unemployment register. That is still almost half the current figure, but that figure was worked out under the system that applied then.
Mr. Purchase: Fiddled is the word that my hon. and learned Friend is looking for.
Mr. Janner: The figures were worked out much more correctly than they are now because they did not have all the exclusions that we have now. If we apply all the exclusions and compare like with like, we find that the figure for 1979 would have been 1.07 million. That is not good. It still represents unemployment of 4 per cent., which is too high, but the correct comparison is that 1.07 million were on the unemployment register when this Government took office and that nearly 2.5 million are on it now, about which they boast, shake their heads from side to side, smile and are proud.
As the hon. Member for Norfolk, North knows, unemployment is an absolutely wicked waste of humanity, and of people's power and ability to serve. It is also a great waste of public money. It is awful having to pay people to be unemployed when one would be better off paying them to be employed and they would be much happier.
So we have an illusion. The Government have created an illusion that, with the Department of Employment gone, unemployment has also vanished and diminished.
I am looking forward to life one day as a professional conjuror, because magic is an art that I love deeply, recognise and respect. I do not, however, much like it in politics.
The art of misdirection means, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you ask people to look in one direction and then do something in the other—you make things "disappear". As my grandchildren will show you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you take an ordinary ball and vanish it. It is gone, but of course it is always there. You can make unemployment vanish by removing the Department of Employment, the Select Committee on Employment and Employment questions, but unemployment is still there, just as the ball is still there.
The Government cannot make unemployment vanish by removing the Department of Employment, by removing the Select Committee on Employment and its chairman and by making us all unemployed, while, at the same time, making many people unemployed in the Department of Employment, whom they sacked without warning, without care and without interest to what would happen to them. They just simply told them, "You are out" and that is what happened.
So the whole system is an illusion. It is the same illusion that I started with: the illusion of getting a new Government with the same Prime Minister. Any magician would be proud of that, but we know what has happened.
I have a friend called Paul Daniels, who is wonderful. I remember watching him a little while ago vanishing a huge motor cycle on stage: it was gone—brilliant!—but it was there. Everyone knew that the same motor cycle was there and that, in the next show, it would be on stage again.
That is what this lot are doing. They are a bunch of political conjurors. They are trying to create illusions. They may convince themselves, but the public will recognise them for what they are. The illusion is that, by destroying the Department of unemployment, they will remove people's concern about the number of people who are unemployed, and that by fiddling the unemployment figures not many people will be unemployed, when everyone in my constituency who happens to be lucky

675
enough to be employed either has unemployed people in his or her family or knows people who are unemployed. The illusion is that, by removing the Select Committee on Employment and its direct questioning of the Government, people will forget about the issues that it has considered over so many years.
I pay tribute to the way in which all my colleagues on the Committee, of both parties, have worked together. We could not always reach agreement, although we usually did. I do not pay tribute to the Government, though, who, every time we produced a report, including the report on women, vanished it. Up it went into a pigeonhole. Occasionally we received a reply, but they did not even care to read the thing properly.
For the people in trouble in my constituency, and for the people who do not have jobs and cannot get them, this is a rough world. Just a few weeks ago, I advertised for a research assistant. I had more than 100 applications and had to turn down some marvellous young people who have been unemployed ever since they left university. Wonderful people cannot get jobs. It is not true that people are workshy and do not want to work; they want to work but they cannot get it. There are not enough jobs, which is a disgrace to our country.
Those people want to contribute to society and they cannot do so. They are the people to whom the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred—the alienated, the homeless, the aged and the young. We have a disgraceful and awful society. That is why this motion is a fair and good one and why this Government will lose the next election, whomever they may keep as their Prime Minister.
6.56 pm
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: It is a great honour, if a slightly daunting one, to follow that brilliant performance by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). May I take this opportunity of wishing him a happy birthday tomorrow, and swift and many years' retirement as a conjuror? I should also like to say how sorry many of us Conservative Members—and I know Labour Members—are that the Select Committee that he has chaired for so long and with such élan will cease to exist, but I shall come on to the good reasons why that has to be so.
Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, I closely considered the motion before the House and it is interesting in what it tells us about the Opposition. It is a fairly characteristic piece of work. Having established a number of false premises, it goes on, through various permutations, to conclude with a recommendation that would undermine the very cause that the Opposition appear eager to promote.
The first false premise is this. The motion states:
"Government policies …have widened social division, led to damaging inequality and brought insecurity to millions".
That is easy to say and, if it is repeated often enough, I dare say that it becomes easy for some people to believe. The fact that it is untrue is a minor detail and an irrelevance to be shuffled away and buried, probably under a mountain of soundbites, as the truth is less congenial to the Labour party, which has a vested interest in bad news.
Many statistics have been bandied around in the debate. We all know that statistics are not the sum of human happiness, but we also know that, across the board, real
676
incomes have increased substantially since 1979, that real take-home pay is up, that both were stagnant under Labour, that pensions are substantially higher and that certainly those pensions are going to the least well-off who are entitled to receive them.
In addition, if quality of life can be measured in material possessions—and I am not sure that it can—there has been a dramatic improvement in the quality of life of the poorest people in this country under this Government. Telephone, car and video ownership and the ownership of washing machines and home computers have increased substantially—particularly among those in the bottom decile of society—under the Government. It is obviously important to look not only at statistics but at the real-life experiences of individuals. The reports of the Institute for Fiscal Studies are very important in that regard, as they have examined the bald statistics as well as 3,500 individual cases. Therefore, the institute's findings must command respect.
We are often led to believe that those at the bottom end of the income scale represent a fixed group of downtrodden individuals who are condemned to live semi-permanently in relative poverty. That is simply not so. The IFS report makes it clear that there is considerable movement into and out of the bottom decile. It suggests that about half of those who were in the bottom decile in 1991 had moved up and out of it by 1992. That is not a reason for complacency. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) that it is no fun to be in the bottom decile—although it is a darn sight better than the situation in 1911, as referred to by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). It is important to remember that there will always be a bottom decile; that is a mathematical fact and there is no escaping it. What is important is the absolute—and, to a lesser extent, the relative—standard of living of the people in that group.
The IFS report goes on to suggest that the net income of those in the bottom decile in 1991 was 25 per cent. higher in the following year. As net incomes have not risen quickly in recent times, that figure suggests very strongly that the gap between the poor and those on average incomes is closing. The IFS findings are also supported by an analysis of expenditure. A report published at the same time shows that the spending of the lowest 10 per cent. of income earners rose by 14 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1992.
Another curious fact is that many people who report either zero or negative incomes have higher than average spending patterns. There are all sorts of strange statistical quirks involved and, particularly in the latter context, I welcome enthusiastically the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about fraud and the benefit system.
The truth is never as simple as the Opposition would have us believe. That is precisely why they have arrived at a bogus premise for the debate. The Opposition motion goes on to claim that Government policies have brought uncertainty to millions of people. That is not so; it is not the Government who have invented policies that have created uncertainty for many people. I do not deny for a moment that there is a pervading air of uncertainty, which I readily accept permeates not only this country, but most developed countries, and certainly the whole of Europe.

677
However, I think that it has a great deal to do with a profound change in the pattern of work and work experience.
Some 30 years ago, it was possible for people leaving school or university to expect to stay with the same employers for the rest of their working lives. That is simply not the case any more. Job mobility has increased dramatically. It has brought with it variety and choice but, inevitably, it has also brought a great deal of uncertainty. That is not the result of Government policy; it is the result of policies developed by employers to meet the challenges posed by massive technological changes and increasing competitiveness at home and in global markets.
The Opposition motion implies that the Government could have somehow resisted the changes and the powerful commercial pressures. I do not believe that there is any reasonable way in which that could have been achieved. Albania attempted to resist external economic pressures, and I do not think that anyone would suggest that that country has experienced an explosion of economic growth and prosperity, which has benefited the least well-off in Albanian society. There are powerful economic forces at work and we must understand them if we are to deal with them.
I accept that uncertainty is present in society. That uncertainty feeds through into the housing market and makes it difficult to take long-term decisions, such as whether to take out a mortgage. It raises all sorts of important issues, not just for this country, but for other European countries. However, I believe that the answers to those questions lie outside the scope of the debate.
The Opposition motion then turns its fire on the Government's decision to merge the Department of Employment and the Department for Education. The motion claims that
"the abolition of the Department of Employment signals the complete lack of Government concern about unemployment".
That is a load of codswallop. The merging of the two Departments formalises and focuses the relationship between education and employment that has always existed. The explicit binding together of the Departments recognises the fact that, although it will always be important to educate people for the sake of knowledge in its own right, we also have an overriding duty to educate young people for work. Closer links between employers and training centres, schools and colleges can only be mutually beneficial.
Much has been said in the debate about cuts in the training budget. It is very important to look at the Government's training policy in the round and not in isolation. A great deal more in-work training is now going on and the responsibility of employers in that regard is recognised more widely. I believe that the merger of the two Departments will help to drive forward the process of integrating training and education in the workplace. We are presented with a real opportunity to build on industry's existing involvement with the education system, to hone vocational skills in order to satisfy employers and employees alike, and to develop a competitive work force that is better able to generate the wealth that the nation will need in the future.
When faced with the opportunity to say, "Yes, it is not a bad idea," all that we hear from the hon. Member for Garscadden are sneers and trivialisation. That says a great
678
deal about the Opposition's approach. They have missed the most important point about unemployment. Listening to Opposition Members speak in the debate, one would assume that unemployment had risen dramatically in this country and was somehow out of control. The truth is that unemployment has fallen by 660,000 since the end of 1992.
Fewer people in Britain are claiming unemployment benefit than in any other major European Union country. It has more people in work than any other EU country, and in the past 12 months, that number has increased by 300,000—faster than any other major country in the European Union. The reasons are the long-term benefits of major supply-side reforms introduced in the 1980s and continued under this Government in the 1990s; the end of the unions' stranglehold; the end of restrictive practices; greatly improved competitiveness by British companies; and a soundly based, growing yet low-inflation economy that provides the right background for economic development and job creation.
Britain's improved employment situation is also the direct result of specific Government policies to tackle unemployment, get people back to work and encourage them off the dole, and promote training in the workplace. Those carefully targeted and generous schemes include jobfinder grants, job plan workshops and restart courses. All have played their part in ensuring that Britain enjoys a relatively modest level of unemployment. Those are not just airy words, but hard policies. They represent, in the words of the Opposition motion,
"action which promotes employment opportunities, particularly for the long-term unemployed, increases the skills and adaptability of the workforce".
A great deal is being done, but Labour chooses to ignore it.
The Opposition, having established a grossly misleading picture of poverty and unemployment in Britain in the 1990s, delivered their hoary old panacea—the minimum wage. We do not know where it would be set. We tried to find out this afternoon, but had no success. No doubt Mr. Dromey tried to find out, but had no success either. I can understand the Opposition failing to answer questions from members of the Government Front Bench or my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, but I fail to understand why the Opposition are incapable of answering straight questions from their friends in the trade unions. What do they have to hide?
It is a great pity that Opposition Members funked answering questions about a national minimum wage. I give the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) another opportunity, because it is not too late to redeem her honour and come clean about that important plank of Labour policy. If the hon. Lady wishes to tell the House where she would set a minimum wage, we would all be delighted to know. All I get is the hon. Lady's seraphic smile. If my hon. Friends try again later, they also will be met with a smile—if not quite so seraphic—from the hon. Member for Garscadden. We do not know what the minimum wage would be worth, if we were ever to find ourselves confronted by one.
We know for sure, however, that a minimum wage would be bad for jobs. We know that not just from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or because Barbara Castle, the Leader of the Opposition, the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the

679
Confederation of British Industry and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have said so. We do not need them to tell us that a minimum wage would be bad for jobs. A small family shopkeeper in my constituency who employs three people told me that if a minimum wage were introduced—and the shopkeeper of course did not know at what level, because Labour is not prepared to tell us—it would probably make that business unviable.
Underpinning the Opposition's motion is Labour's topsy-turvy approach to economics—a belief that the best way to help the worst-off is to spend money before it is earned, increase statutory burdens on industry and not reduce them, increase regulation and not cut it, hand power back to Labour's paymasters in the trade unions and increase the price of labour. Such a policy, according to the most basic economic manual, is guaranteed to reduce demand and to create more dependency, higher unemployment, less wealth creation and a country united only in its own decline.
7.14 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: I intended to start by apologising for missing the Secretary of State's speech but as he will miss my contribution, that makes us even. I am glad that the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment is in his place because we have at least one thing in common, having both been praised or criticised for our peculiar taste in ties. However, I do not have the same taste in shirts as the Minister.
Mr. Stephen Byers: Thank goodness for that.
Mr. Miller: As my hon. Friend says.
I am particularly pleased that the Minister is present to hear my contribution because I want to bring to his Department's attention documents published by other Departments in the recent past that I hope that the Minister's colleagues have read avidly and understand. One document to which I shall refer gives the new Department specific responsibilities. At the beginning of the Secretary of State's speech, I noticed that the First Secretary was briefly in his place. I suppose that he was checking to make sure that the Secretary of State was following the right line, whatever that might be, and where he stands in respect of the productivity bonus that will presumably be paid at the end of this Session.
The Government's amendment to my party's motion states that the House
"welcomes the creation of a new Department for Education and Employment to improve further Britain's skill base and competitive position".
A key policy document launched by the First Secretary in his former post only one month ago makes no reference to that incredibly important Government initiative. The two Departments were merged because the Prime Minister has run out of loyalists and people whom he can trust in key Departments. Contributions made today ranged from that of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who severely criticised the Government, to those made by extremely barmy Conservative Members to whom even the Government would feel nervous about giving any ministerial office. The two Departments were merged because the Prime Minister had run out of players whom he could trust.
680
The competitiveness White Paper "Forging Ahead"—I am not sure of the relevance of that title—contains Government statistics, and it is important to quote them because then we shall know exactly how to put together the jigsaw. It is interesting that claims made in today's debate do not square with earlier statements.
Page 102 describes changes in the structure of employment in this way:
"As a proportion of total employment, employment in manufacturing has fallen and employment in services has grown, as it has in other countries …Employment in manufacturing peaked in 1966. In 1971, 36 per cent. of employees worked in manufacturing. Now 20 per cent. do so. As much as 30 per cent. of this decline may have been due to contracting out".
That may be so, but there is no evidence to support it. Certainly, the remaining 70 per cent. of the decline has taken place in the areas where our wealth-creating industries were located.
The document goes on to say:
"Banking, finance and business services employed 1.3 million people in 1971. Now these services employ 2.8 million. Over the same period, the number of employees in health-related services has risen by two-thirds, more than 600,000".
I wonder whether the Government would like to rephrase that in the context of full-time equivalents? That would produce some real statistics, but the comparison has been conveniently left out.
The chapter on employment also contains a lengthy reference to deregulation and health and safety matters. In this area at least, employment issues should be dealt with on a bipartisan basis. We should all share the clear goal of improving the nation's health and safety, but the Government have developed a theory; they think that if they get rid of some important health and safety regulations, all will be well. It is easy for Ministers to produce the occasional peculiar example, but in general the argument used in the document cannot be sustained.
The Government say:
"Ninety-seven per cent. of the recommendations of Lord Sainsbury's task force have been accepted … implementation of six key EU directives on health and safety—the 'six pack'—is to be evaluated".
That sounds like something to do with large quantities of lager, but the Government may understand the phrase better. They go on to say:
"A discussion document on health and safety for small firms and the self-employed will be published".
If the logic of Lord Sainsbury's task force is pursued into the small firms sector, the Government are saying, in effect, that they intend deliberately to deregulate so as to improve the competitiveness of small firms. It follows that that will be done at the price of the safety of the workers in those firms.
Page 104 sets out the reasons why the Government have been so successful at reducing the number of strikes. The hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) referred, I think, to the bad old days. The briefing from Conservative Central Office omitted a key piece of information, however. Only with that information can we make sense of the figures. Why do not the Government publish the parallel figures—the number of days lost through unemployment? I refer to the manufacturing potential of a huge number of people. Anyone with any sense can see the relationship between the number of days lost to strikes and the amount of unemployment in the

681
economy. Conservative Members have admitted that in other debates, so I do not see why the Government's official papers conveniently ignore it.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to make a connection between manufacturing output and the number of people employed in manufacturing. That would seem strange in this world of productivity. Surely he must acknowledge that most of the successful economies in the world have undergone a reduction in the number of people employed in manufacturing while increasing their manufacturing output and exports—as we are doing.
Mr. Miller: That is not my point. I shall come to that in a moment in the context of my own constituency, which is a manufacturing base with severe employment problems resulting from Government policies.
The document that I have been quoting is an interesting read. One important paragraph has been referred to in a number of debates, here and during the Committee stage of the Pensions Bill, which finished its stages last week. It is the paragraph referring to the funding of an elderly population:
"In the West, governments play a key role in the provision of pensions. Ageing populations create pressure for higher expenditure on pensions, leading to higher taxes falling on fewer workers. And yet, in a world of global markets and capital flows, governments cannot increase taxes significantly without damaging national competitiveness. In these circumstances, individuals will not be able to look to the state to fund improvements in their living standards in old age."
That is an important statement. In other debates, Conservative Members have made several attempts to explain away the meaning of that paragraph—but they fail to look at the whole picture.
The same page includes an interesting graph, based on World bank projections that show the ratio of people aged 65 and over to the working population. The graph shows that Britain will have an increasingly old population, but the analysis in the document fails to draw the right conclusions from the rest of the graph. It shows that many of our key competitors, especially those in the Pacific rim, face, in the next century, a massive problem with funding their aging populations. That is because the sections of their populations aged 65 and over are set hugely to increase as a proportion of their general populations—much more so than in this country. It is thus disappointing to find no analysis of the effects of this change on our competitiveness. It is a shame that the Government have missed an opportunity to describe what may result.
Page 34 lists the top 20 manufacturing industries, ranked by sales/UK demand in 1992. One pair of figures stands out from all the rest, showing a remarkable success, compared with the other industries listed, of our pharmaceutical and aerospace industries. There are some lessons from history to be learnt at this point. These are two industries with a well-established relationship with the state over the years, covering the expensive research and development of their products. That is why it made sense for them to invest in the longer term. The aircraft industry received launch aid; the pharmaceutical industry established a market because of its connections with the national health service. Consequently, the two industries thrived far more than the others referred to in the chart.
682
To show how obvious that point is, the footnote at the bottom of the chart tells us that at the bottom of the list are motor cycles, with 1992 sales equivalent to only one seventh of United Kingdom demand. The Minister will know, with his background of responsibility for education, exactly where the primary research was undertaken for modern motor cycle engines. It was carried out in a British university.
It was a great sadness—with hindsight I think that we would all agree—that none of the major British companies picked up the benefits that came with research and the evolution of the light alloy engine. The new industry could have been ours had the combination of the private and public sectors worked together more effectively to realise the potential that exists in the United Kingdom.
As for comparisons with other countries, how can we make progress while dogma drives policy? We fail straightforwardly to take into account Britain's interests when policy decisions are taken that bear on the structure of our economy. The results of incompetence over the past few years will have an effect on poverty and divergence, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). How do the Government think that we shall see improvement when their policy is to promote poverty pay and conditions?
Many families will never escape from the trap that the Government have created. Low-wage pressure is creating social consequences that have been recognised by the Secretary of State. In my constituency—I respond to the question asked by the Minister in an intervention—there is the major manufacturing town of Ellesmere Port, where productivity improvements have been dramatic. Vauxhall, which was near to closure, is now enjoying daily productivity gains. The company's product range is incredibly successful. The transformation is welcome, of course, but, irrespective of the company's share of the market, the reality is that it is unlikely that the work force will increase significantly in the near future. Other manufacturers have significant shares of the market. They are competing for the same market and for world markets. The fact that Vauxhall has succeeded in turning round the company at Ellesmere Port and making it a world quality plant is a credit to the company, Vauxhall, the parent company, General Motors, the work force and the trade unions within the company.
Mr. Hendry: And Government policy.
Mr. Miller: It was partnership that made it happen.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) said from a sedentary position, "And Government policy." Would he like to tell me how Government policy helped Vauxhall when the world-beating V6 engine plant came into place? I can tell him—this is the truth—that the Government did nothing to assist that project. If it had not been for the work force and the parent company, the project would not have been developed in the United Kingdom. Cynical remarks from a sedentary position are not worth a light.
Mr. Hendry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Miller: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I shall listen to his speech.
Mr. Hendry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I hope that it is a point of order and not a point of argument.
Mr. Hendry: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) to ask me a question and then refuse me permission to answer it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely in order.
Mr. Hendry: It is bad manners.
Mr. Forth: It is a debate.
Mr. Miller: The Minister says that this is supposed to be a debate. I gave way to the hon. Gentleman and answered his question. I shall continue to respond to his intervention. The Minister did me the courtesy of making an intervention and not a sedentary interjection.
In the same area, the Shell petroleum refinery has shed thousands of employees during a period of increased productivity. The problem with the examples of Vauxhall and Shell, and other near-by manufacturing companies, is that the housing surrounding them was developed because of the evolution of the manufacturing sector in the town. The highest unemployment is now to be found in that housing. As a result, it represents the areas of greatest social strain.
The position is not unusual in manufacturing towns throughout the country. There is a belt of wealth creators in the manufacturing sector and increasing productivity, which is usually accompanied, but not always, by falling employment demands. The housing in manufacturing areas contains the greatest levels of unemployment. That creates potential for social tensions, which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon talked about thoughtfully. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) also talked about it. The Government must bear in mind the important social tensions that arise.
I was depressed when I opened an Employment Agency office in Neston in my constituency. The Department of Employment invited me to open the office but I think that it assumed that the leafy suburbs of the pretty town of Neston would be Conservative strongholds. It forgot to examine the parliamentary boundaries when it issued the invitation.
Neston is extremely attractive and has historically had lower levels of unemployment than elsewhere in my constituency. Unfortunately, unemployment had been rising in the town. I was deeply touched by a conversation with a graduate in the jobcentre. He was reading the cards and trying to find a job that suited his skills. He told me, however, that he was no longer looking only for a job that suited his training and education. He was looking for any job that would enable him to sustain his family's existence. As he had given three years of his life to benefit from a university education, and the state had contributed significant sums to help him obtain his degree, that was deeply sad.
I listened with interest to comments about changing technologies and set them against a speech made by a former Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) at a recent conference on government and computing. He described with great eloquence what the Department of Social Security is doing in terms of
684
investment in information technology to handle a growing problem. It was a very articulate presentation from somebody who clearly has a detailed interest in information technology. What he did not say, however, was what the Government are doing about data collection; why it is needed; why we have a set of rules and regulations that mean that the Government collect data several times over rather than utilising the skills of all the civil servants involved to help people who are in the various traps that have been created by poverty.
There was an exchange earlier on between my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and my neighbour the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) about the cards to be used in the Department of Social Security. None of that will be of any relevance unless the Government address the real issue of why data are being collected. It should be to help the applicant, not to hinder. The whole process of data collection in that area is, in my view, totally upside down. If the Government introduced a mechanism whereby data were collected through positive interviews instead of through the rather cumbersome forms that are used at the moment, we would not need to get into the kind of debate that is going on.
The Department is studying whether it is feasible to introduce optical character recognition into form processing. That is an important piece of technology and is valuable in terms of speeding up and making things more efficient. Instead of looking at that technology, why do not the Government look as well at the basic reason why those questions are being asked?
It is my contention—one can see this throughout the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service—that information is being collected in an attempt to trap people into admitting that they are defrauding the system in one way or another. It would be a far more efficient and better use of civil servants' time if the assessment at the various agencies was done by positive interview instead of through the cumbersome forms that currently exist. Reference has been made in the House time and again to the 34-page disability living allowance form. I think that there are 32 pages for the new incapacity benefit.
All that nonsensical data collection is designed to entrap people. If all that were reversed and the resources that that would release were put into collecting data face to face, first, one would remove fraud from the system much more effectively than by the current auditing methods, and secondly, it would ensure that the elderly lady to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton referred would have got her benefits through positive interview at the outset instead of being frozen out by the crazy way in which the system currently operates.
On training, the Government have, on a number of occasions, referred to what they intend to do, and it compares poorly with what happens in other countries. It is not simply what the Government are doing directly, where they always seek to claim credit. What they fail to look at is the way in which they "incentivise" the private sector to make a more positive contribution. One visit that I have made as a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee will stand out in the my mind, that to the Stuttgart area the year before last, when we went to a machine tool company.
We asked the company what was happening in terms of investment in research and development and in training, during what was obviously a difficult period for that part of Germany. As hon. Members on both sides

685
of the House will acknowledge, the enormous costs of integration of the eastern Lander, with the general western recession that was going on, had put some of its high quality, high-cost products, such as Mercedes and so on, in difficulty for the first time in a long while. It was interesting that when asked what it was doing in terms of R and D and of training expenditure, the machine tool company responded by saying, "Increasing them, of course." It could not understand why on earth we felt it necessary to ask that question.
It is feasible for that company to do that within the structure of that particular regional economy because the combination of the role of the state and the private sector, working together in a much closer partnership than exists here, creating an environment in which it is possible for companies to convince their bankers that they have a serious future in the middle of a recession and that they can invest during that recession on the key facets of R and D and training.
I wish to comment on the remarks that were made about the minimum wage. The hon. Member for Surrey, East claimed that the Labour party policy would put his small shopkeeper out of existence. How can he really say that when he does not know what the level will be? It does not make a great deal of sense, because, equally, if he went to his small shopkeeper and scared him in the way in which he is trying with that story, and said, "Corporation tax is going to affect you next year and it will be three times the level it is now," the small shopkeeper would say, "But that is going to put me out of a job."
Mr. Peter Ainsworth rose—
Mr. Miller: It is easy for Conservative Members to use something that will scare. The hon. Gentleman must admit, and I invite him to do so when I give way to him, that it would be unreasonable for us to say to the Chancellor, "Please tell us what the absolute rates of income tax will be for all bands in the 1996 Budget." It is equally easy for people to say that it is different, but it is not. It is an economic fact that the judgment can be made, based only on the information that is available at the time.
Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It was not me who was claiming that that gentleman's business viability would be threatened, but the shopkeeper himself. I was not able to confirm that to him, because I did not know. The point that I was trying to make was that he, with millions of others who would be affected by a national minimum wage, has a right to know the level at which Labour would introduce a minimum wage. It is reprehensible of the Labour party to threaten a minimum wage without having the guts to say where it would clock in.
Mr. Miller: I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman. I would not want him to get into difficulties with his small shopkeeper. I invite him to go back to the small shopkeeper and say to him honestly, "I cannot, as the hon. Member for Surrey, East, give you any guarantees about the level of any form of Government taxation or minimum or maximum wages." It is impossible for such guarantees to be given. Those figures can be developed only at the time, in consultation with the social partners involved. Therefore, it is quite impossible to talk about a figure at this time.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in a recent interview on NBC television, President Clinton of the United States said that he would look to Congress for an increase in the minimum wage? Does my hon. Friend also agree that, when we had the minimum wage before, small shopkeepers did not go out of business, regardless of the level?
Mr. Miller: I did not hear the interview with President Clinton. However, on my most recent visit to the United States, I was impressed by the way in which the local minimum wage, at state level, was seen as a benefit to, and a stabilising factor in, the economy. It was considered that it had resulted in the state being less responsible for the eradication of poverty than was the case in this country. It is ludicrous that, in this country, the state has to sustain those who are paid poverty wages by their employers.
Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a fundamental law of supply and demand that if prices go up, consumption goes down? That applies to labour just as it does to tomatoes, beef or mortgages. If one increases wages artificially to a level that, by definition, is above a level of which some people disapprove, some will lose their jobs. The jobs will not melt away, they will be lost.
Mr. Miller: I presume, then, that the hon. Lady would have voted against the Equal Pay Act 1970. The truth is that that legislation, which on her theory would have had the same effect, did not reduce the amount of work available to women. I have heard the hon. Lady say, time and again, that the Government's success has been to increase the number of women in employment. The Government simply cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Is not the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) really arguing for something that her party has repudiated for the past 16 years—a prices and incomes policy?
Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend finds it difficult to follow the logic of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). As usual, she is somewhat confused. I shall not repeat the words used to her by Viscount Cranborne earlier this month. She is clearly confused, which must be a point on which Ministers and I would agree.
I refer the House to the last two lines in the Government's amendment, which asks the House to recognise that
"improving opportunity and the reward for effort is less socially divisive than encouraging dependency and the politics of envy."
The opportunity will come only when the country has the opportunity to vote for a new Government. The reward will come when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is in No. 10 Downing street. Conservative Members will be those experiencing the dependency culture because of their politics of envy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yours."] It is their politics of envy that we shall soon see. They will envy us being in government while they are not. A good number of Conservative Members who have contributed to this debate will be the unemployment statistics of the future and we shall then see where the envy really is.
7.53 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: We have heard a lot of curious economics from Labour Members in this debate; perhaps none more puzzling than the

687
speech, which lasted for 40 minutes, of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). He stated some curious concepts, which will astonish any Conservative Member who has a greater foundation of understanding of what really rules in the true world of economic decisions.
I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman was inclined to throw something of a tantrum when my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) called on him to explain the significant success of Vauxhall—a major supplier and a major employer in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman was too churlish to pay tribute to the Government and their policy of allowing enterprise to thrive, which must be given much of the credit for the success of that company.
The motor car industry has been a stunning triumph in the past 15 years. It has gone from an industry of subsidised, bankrupt concerns to one of massive employers and tremendous export successes the world over. That triumph has generated jobs, security and profitability in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The time has come when the hon. Gentleman should admit where so much of the credit properly lies.
The hon. Member also made a curious comment in which he equated days lost through strikes—a thing of the past—with days lost now through unemployment. No one can deny that a day spent on the dole is a waste—primarily for the individual, but also for the productive capacity that the individual would be able to display if he were employed.
What I did not hear at all from the hon. Gentleman was a proper solution to the predicament in which these people find themselves. Is he saying that the money spent on the dole should be transferred to a jobs subsidy? Is he saying that there should be subsidies for investment to get everybody back to work? What is he really saying about the market for labour? Does he have a solution to the plight of the unemployed over and above what the Government are doing, which is successfully reducing the number who are unemployed?
Mr. Miller rose—
Mr. Duncan: I happily give way, although the hon. Gentleman would not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak.
Mr. Miller: What I was saying—
Mr. Jacques Arnold: You had 45 minutes.
Mr. Miller: I am replying to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
I referred to the German economy, and I said that there was a far more successful partnership there between the private sector and the public sector, which created an environment in which the banks could be far more confident in the way in which they worked. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at such examples before ridiculing my comments.
Mr. Duncan: When my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak and I were in Germany 18 months ago, the major employer, Mercedes, was laying off 15,000 of the 40,000 employees. Daimler now faces a loss, for the first time in living memory. There are many problems with the
688
German economy. It is a great sadness that the likes of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will not give credit where credit is due, which would help the sense of security which is not as robust as it should be among the likes of his constituents, and, indeed, mine.
The hon. Member also said that there would be a problem with old age, and that that would have economic consequences in the United Kingdom. Indeed it will. He did not, however, then say that Britain has £500 billion-worth of pension funds under management, which is more than the figure for the rest of the European Union countries put together. We have made greater provision for old age than any other country in a comparable western setting.
Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan: I will not give way just now; I shall give way in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman persists.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) drew on the wisdom of R. H. Tawney in saying that tadpoles needed to turn into frogs. I was tempted to intervene, by and large to agree with him. He said that he wanted agreement in the House to rid the country of low pay, poverty and inequality. Well, I am in very generous mood, and I am content to agree with two out of his list of three. As he well understands, I consider that his obsession with inequality is an utter diversion, which detracts from the energies that are needed to rid the country of low pay and poverty.
The hon. Member for Garscadden wants tadpoles to turn into frogs. Whenever I see a frog, I am inclined to kiss it in the hope that it will before my eyes turn into the noble Baroness Thatcher. I have so far been unsuccessful. But she at least understands the difference between socialism and conservativism. I never saw more ferocity in Baroness Thatcher's eyes than when she explained to me that the difference between the two sides of this House was that she—and that means the Conservative party—liked to lift people up to their full potential, while the socialists wished to level them down.
No debate on aspects of social security is complete without a proper exchange between the hon. Member for Garscadden and me, but I regret that he was not prepared to give way to me at any stage today. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] He did not give way to me. The hon. Gentleman usually makes supremely confident speeches, but for the first time—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did give way."] No, the hon. Gentleman referred to me, but he did not give way.
The hon. Gentleman's attempt today to defend his party's policy of the minimum wage was the first time that I have ever seen him look uneasy at the Dispatch Box. I have never seen the hon. Gentleman equivocate so unhappily as he did in attempting to describe the proper consequences of this misguided policy.
I listened with particular interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), because I have heard him speak on the topic before. As we saw tonight, he speaks on the predicament and plight of his constituents with evident passion, and rightly so. But where we part is not in failing to recognise the plight of his constituents and in wanting to do something about it, but in the solutions that we would deploy to try to address the problem.

689
The Manchester of today is a far cry from that of a century ago, when the aptly named Manchester liberalism released all the strengths and energies which built the marvellous buildings, established the municipal pride and introduced new-found wealth into a proud city. Those energies now seem sadly to have been lost. I do not think that the constituents of the right hon. Member for Gorton are victims of 15 or 16 years of Conservative government. Rather they are victims of municipal socialism, which has gradually risen in the past 50 years.
I have yet to receive from the hon. Member for Garscadden a detailed critique of my book, which I am sure he has read with great relish from cover to cover. The book's main thesis—as the hon. Gentleman will know—is that many of the problems we face today were not caused by the past 20 years, and that one needs to go back a century to trace the gradual and pernicious advance of collectivism into all the nooks and crannies of an individual's life, so that all the intermediary institutions which gave us the power and strength to make people richer, freer and more self-reliant have been displaced.
One element of that is the gradual advance of taxation and the scale of it. While I shall not dwell deeply on the book, which was published a matter of weeks ago, I shall quote from a bit of it. My fellow author Dominic Hobson and I wrote:
"In a modern economy without large concentrations of personal wealth which can be taxed for redistribution to the poor, the heavy burden of direct and progressive taxation is arguably far more unfair than any number of regressive indirect taxes. This was well-put by a young Labour MP in the House of Commons nearly fifty years ago.
'As we get … more and more to the stage where men will start life equal as far as possible and will rise by merit in the sphere in which they can offer the maximum contribution to the country's welfare, I do not think we ought necessarily to persist in a system of taxation which will tax higher remuneration at a higher rate. Indeed, in a fully developed Socialist economy, I would expect to see indirect taxation replacing direct taxation as the main source of revenue, because in a Socialist society, where men start equal and rise by merit, there is no point at all in giving them a substantial wage to reward the contribution they are making to the national economy, and then taking it away by taxation.'—[Official Report, 1 November 1946; Vol. 428, c. 1004.]
His name was James Callaghan, and it was his privilege as Prime Minister to preside over the highest rates of income tax in the history of his country. When he joined the Inland Revenue as a Civil Service clerk in 1929, the poor did not pay income tax at all. Their main interest in the annual Budget, as Callaghan later recalled in his memoirs, was whether or not it increased the excise duties on beer, cigarettes and tea. It is a measure of what has happened since that they are now having to pay for those pleasures out of taxed income."
We will spend £94 billion on social security in the next fiscal year, but that great roundabout of money—a money-go-round—does not appear to have worked, as we still have people in poverty. Yet there seems to be insufficient readiness on the part of Opposition Members to look to this enormous budget and to try to work out how it could best be directed. There is too much call for more of the same, when what we have got is not solving the problem.
Like the hon. Member for Garscadden, I want to solve the problem of poverty. But why is it that we will spend £94 billion and we will still have the problem? The first thing to say when looking at poverty is that some of the slogans have bedevilled and, I fear, trivialised the debate.
690
Opposition Members have pumped for all its worth the slogan "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer", but it is an illogical slogan. It is cleverly designed to imply that it is because the rich are getting richer that the poor are getting poorer. It is designed to say that Opposition Members have a claim on the money of the so-called rich in order to solve the problems of the so-called poor.
Indeed, so perverse has the morality which is attached to the slogan become that those who believe in socialism have raised to the status of a moral act the belief that it is somehow right, decent, proper and morally superior to expropriate other people's money for the alleviation of poverty, and that that is somehow better when it is done collectively than when individuals do it themselves. I find that profoundly perverse, and the nub of the debate is whether that slogan has any merit or value.
Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Duncan: I am prepared to take the risk.
Mr. MacShane: When the hon. Gentleman worked in Singapore, between 10 per cent. and 18 per cent. of all his income went into the Singapore central provident fund, which was set up by the Singapore Government to raise money from all salary earners to provide for the general lifting up of the conditions of the people of Singapore. Does he welcome the fact that a far smaller proportion of his income is taken by the British Government in the area of providence and insurance?
Mr. Duncan: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's comparisons are right. Certainly, if we could get tax levels down to 10 or 15 per cent., it would be a miraculous step forward, but that will not happen here, and it is not quite what is happening in Singapore. There is a contrast between the countries in the balance between the priority given to investment and the priority given to consumption, in the way in which money is spent by the state.
There is very little social security in Singapore, but the warmer temperature and cheaper food mean that those necessities are easier for people on lower incomes to acquire. The proportion given directly to cash handouts in welfare in Singapore is small compared with the amount that goes into investment that is taken from the pool of what is raised in taxation. So the hon. Gentleman's comparison is defective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) drew on an argument that is critical to the defective slogan that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. The statistical analysis from which the premise is drawn is deficient. The implication is that a fixed series of people are poor and are getting poorer as the rich get richer.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies makes it absolutely clear that although, in comparative terms—as a ratio of the poor to the rich—a category of the poor is getting poorer, it is not true to say that the same people are affected all the time. If one traced a sample, one would find that those people had been able to work themselves up the ladder, but by taking a sample that is different every time, the conclusion is drawn that the poor are getting poorer.

691
As the IFS says:
"All these statistics actually tell us is that the poor in 1991–92 were typically poorer than the poor in 1979. Not that people at the bottom in 1979 had got worse off."
In point of fact, the slogan that the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer contains so much deception, deceit and inaccuracy that, if the Opposition want to be true to their consciences as they are for ever calling on us to be, it is time they revised the words they so often use.
The hon. Member for Garscadden chided and taunted me, saying that he believed it was my view that inequality does not matter. By and large, that is my view. The obsession with inequality has become a red herring, which diverts energy from a proper attack on poverty and low pay. If one irons out inequality and makes that one's target, one is merely homing in on those who are identified as being rich. In terms of solving the problems of the poor, the arithmetic would not add up. If it does not add up, there is no purpose in the objective beyond trying to make a philosophical point and employing it with envy and venom, which is sad to see and entirely counter-productive.
Lord Callaghan said in this House nearly 50 years ago that he would much rather see a proportionate tax or a tax on expenditure than a vicious progressive tax on income, and I agree. One of the first rules of economics is to understand the difference between stocks and flows. The socialist will look at the stock—the cake—and say, "It's unfair. I've got to divide it." But it is the old lesson of the golden goose. Economic prosperity comes from a continuum—a dynamic. If it is undermined by slicing it in half, for a one-off redistribution, the energy will be sapped, and the dynamic will be the lesser for it. The obsession with inequality is counter-productive and puts a brake on the wealth-creating energy, which, in the long run, is what one needs to solve the problems of poverty and low pay.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) mentioned Singapore. This country has a balance of Government spending that is biased too much in favour of consumption and too little in favour of investment. Even the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), in an economic analysis document that I received in the post this morning, said that the problem with the British economy is that there is not enough investment. He is right. At the same time, however, he and many of his hon. Friends will be calling for immediate increases in the amount of money given to those they deem to be in need. One cannot have it both ways.
The other pernicious effect of the despotism of democracy, in which we all compete for votes by promising to spend other people's money, is that people's expectations have been raised to unrealistic heights. The sad and horrible truth about our democracy at the moment is that so many politicians' promises will never be met from the resources made available by people paying their taxes later.
It is time that we took stock of what can be afforded and shifted the balance between consumption and investment, to plan properly for the future and for the burden on those in work. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, the ratio between those in work and the elderly is going to change adversely, and we must provide for that now. If we promise that too
692
much can be delivered straight away, we will never meet the expectations of those who are working their way through the system now.
Mrs. Gorman: Does not my hon. Friend agree that Hong Kong would be a better analogy to support his argument than Singapore? In the former, an open and free labour market and productivity, coupled with low taxes and amazingly high savings levels, has produced phenomenal growth—so much so that the majority of people there enjoy a higher standard of living than many people in Europe.
Mr. Duncan: I totally agree, and that is where I would like to see us heading. We have reached a point where we are minority shareholders in our own incomes. The best part of 50 per cent., or more, is taken by the state. Once one reaches that point, it is difficult to reverse the process. Doing so is the challenge that we, as politicians, face in the years ahead. If we can reverse the process, we will do more for the poor and the low-paid than anything a socialist Government could ever do by simply raising the taxes of those who are earning—a one-off, declining tax—supposedly to give to those in need, which will draw us all down.
I must dwell for a moment on the minimum wage, which is a great concept for a party in opposition, because it appears to promise those who feel deprived a better income, but it all depends on the level. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East mentioned a shopkeeper. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston would not say what the minimum wage would be for the shopkeeper in Surrey, East.
If the wage is below what is already being paid, it is a policy that is not worth the name, because it does not deliver any benefits. It is merely an undelivered promise that in no way raises a wage. If it is higher than what a shopkeeper is prepared to pay an assistant, it is bound to have a detrimental effect.
It is astonishing that that dichotomy has not been properly analysed, and that the Opposition will not commit themselves to a number. No number, no policy. It is meaningless. If it is below the equilibrium market price for labour, it is a complete irrelevance. If it is above, it is a tax on jobs, which will drive people out of work.
It is a lie to convey to the low-paid the impression that they would somehow be better off and that the policy would not cost anyone their job; it would. It is going to cost jobs. If it does not, it will make people work illegally.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend touches on the nub of the argument about the minimum wage. The policy is technically, but also philosophically, flawed, in that it involves the intrusion of politics into the arrangements that business people, whether large businesses or small shopkeepers, make with their staff.
Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is high time that those responsible for writing in the newspapers and broadcasting on television properly dissected the true effects of that cretinous policy with a forensic accuracy. It is cretinous because, if the wage is low, it is nothing, and if it is high, people will be out of work or driven to work illegally.
Yet the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said that it would be a wonderful system, because, if we raise wages, people will pay national insurance

693
contributions and will be off benefit. That is a cost to someone. It will be a cost to the employer or the employee, and it will drive people out of work.
The hon. Member for Garscadden said that people in his constituency say that they cannot buy things or do things. Too many people are in that predicament. The wish to solve it is an objective that is shared—I hope he will take this in good faith—by both sides of the House. But to say that greater intervention, a minimum wage, higher taxation and an anti-business culture, which we have seen in so many aspects of what the Opposition say, will make things better is patently absurd.
We have a lot of catching up to do. In the years since the war, we have spent too much before we had it and invested too little. If we do not reverse that balance, as we have started to do dramatically in the past 15 years, we shall be back to the bad old days, and socialism will drag us and the poor down even further.
8.20 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who made a speech for the Opposition. He talked about all the terrible things that have happened for most of the past 50 years. I must ask which party has been in power in the past 50 years—or the past five, 10 or 15 years. His speech reflected the split in the Conservative party. We heard the first glimmering outlines of the new philosophy of what will be a split Tory party in opposition. I wish the hon. Gentleman well, as I admire his intellect. I do not have to agree with what he produces, writes or says, but I admire intellectual dexterity, and he has much of it.
We talked earlier of tadpoles. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton talked of kissing Baroness Thatcher in the hope that she would turn into a frog—or perhaps it was the other way round. Clearly the hon. Gentleman is prepared to embrace the past, in the hope that it will define the Tory party's future. He is the author of a remarkable book, which I am sure has been read by all Conservative Members, called "Satan's Children". I recommend it to everybody.
Mr. Duncan: "Saturn's Children".
Mr. MacShane: Oh, "Saturn's Children". Forgive me. I knew that it was project Pluto or a message from planet Portillo, but getting the name exactly right escaped me. We look forward to reading it. As the author of many a remaindered book, I hope that the hon. Gentleman's publishers did not print too many copies.
The fundamental difference in this debate, which we saw in the sniggering from the Government Front Bench during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), is that the Opposition attack poverty while the Government attack the poor. That is certainly the impression in the country.
Far cleverer than Karl Marx, the contemporary Conservative party has created not one but two reserve armies in the labour market. The first is the reserve army of the unemployed. We do not know how many people are unemployed, because the Department of Employment, that famous massage parlour for unemployment statistics, has been abolished. So the debate that used to entertain
694
both sides of the House is over. We no longer know whether it is 2.5 million, 3 million or 4 million, because the Department of Employment and its vital statistical work in that area exist no more. However, we still have a massive reserve army of unemployment to drive down wages.
I admire the Conservative party, which has not ruled this country on and off for 300 years for no good reason. It has created a second reserve army: the poverty-in-work army. That consists of those in employment of a sort—part-time, low-paid or zero-hours-contract employment. Like Blücher arriving on the field at Waterloo, the Conservative party's armies of unemployment and poverty helped to render the lives of so many people insecure with low pay and unable to plan with any confidence in the future.
I simply ask hon. Members who will troop through the Lobby in an hour and a half's time to think of our children, nieces or nephews who have left university in the past couple of years. How many of them have a job or a job that matches the educational attainment into which they have put so much effort? We all know that the answer is: very few. We are talking about the future of our country, those who have invested in education and, like many hon. Members, gone to university and attained degrees. Yet they now find that their lives are ebbing along on minuscule wages and hand-to-mouth jobs, because we have so tilted our society's labour market away from work.
I pay tribute to the eloquence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, who showed a mastery of statistics that I cannot repeat. He offered us a long statistical narration that held the House. In my constituency of Rotherham, one in six men are out of work. They are men without destiny or hope, condemned not just to regular signing on but to the new water torture of the jobseeker's allowance and the salami tactics of taking away from them any hope of sustained help from their fellow citizens, via the state, to conduct their lives decently.
Unemployment is now a bit lower. What a funny turn of phrase to say that unemployment is lower. We define our society in the ebbs and flows of unemployment rather than permanent, enduring job creation. Unemployment is a little lower than a couple of years ago, thanks to a significant devaluation, which has provided the boomlet that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet make so much of in their speeches. But compared with 1990, there is now 20 per cent. more unemployment among male workers in Rotherham.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) talked about a society divided against itself, and a war of all against all. He is good at reeling off Hobbesian phrases. Let us compare the present with 1979, when life was, perhaps not a paradise, but far better for male workers in Rotherham than it is now. It was also better in 1970, 1960, 1951 and the first half of 1945—all years when this country was governed by a Conservative Government. I shall come back to that point later in my speech.
What is fascinating about the society in which we live is not the non-application of old or new Labour party or socialist ideas, but the betrayal of the idea that we live in one nation and even a betrayal of the Conservative philosophy which, until the past 15 years, accepted a sense of responsibility for social community.

695
Every week at my surgery, since I was elected a year ago, I have confronted someone whose life prospects would be helped—[Interruption.] My cough is caused by the filthy smog in which we have to live under the Tory Administration but that is another debate. At each of my surgeries—[Interruption.] I ask hon. Members either to stand up or shut up. If they are sitting down, they should let me get on with my speech.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether smog in London was better in the halcyon days of 1950, 1945 and before?
Mr. MacShane: As a small boy, I dimly recall struggling my way to school through dreadful foggy smogs. How grateful I was for the excellent Clean Air Act 1956. This is rather a big diversion, but how I wish that the Government could return to those values of seeking to lift up the general status, health and social standards of the entire nation.
To return to the debate—even if the House is relatively empty—I recall that a vigorous couple, the man aged about 30, recently came to my surgery with their two children. He had signed a contract for £8,500 a year to deliver computer parts for a company in Sheffield. He was getting up a 7 o'clock in the morning to deliver his orders, working right through the day to 6 or 6.30 pm, coming home and spending an hour or two planning his delivery route for the next day. His hourly rate of pay was under £3.50.
They were young, vigorous, confident people, and he and his wife had calculated that they and their two children would be better off on the various forms of benefit that are available. He asked whether he could move to an hourly rate, but there is no mechanism for that. I asked him whether he was a member of a union. He said that he was not, and that, if he joined a union, he would be dismissed. I asked what would happen if the other drivers joined him and put it to their employer that they should get a better hourly rate. His answer was that they would all be sacked on the spot.
I see that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who has taken employment back under her wing, is smiling, but that is the life story of millions of people—a life story of low pay, no help and more hope with social security.
I have a letter from a Mr. William Clarke in my constituency, who came to see me. I urged him to go to the jobcentre to find a job. He is 53, and a qualified heavy goods vehicle driver. There are plenty of heavy goods vehicles on our roads; there is plenty of trade—we are told that the economy is booming. But no one will give him a job. He went to the jobcentre, but he reports that all the HGV jobs are temporary with flexible full-time hours, temporary with full-time hours, or temporary but only in categories for which he is not qualified.
He went to be retrained and added extra qualifications to his HGV qualifications to get a job. What did he find? The job qualifications had suddenly changed. In much of our industry, employers are taking on workers only if they qualify for family benefit. Single young males who are relatively unskilled will not be given a job. Males who are not single, but are skilled and have a wife and children will get jobs. That may be good. I am all for encouraging employment for male family heads of household, but they are taken only because of the taxpayers' subsidy via the benefit system. That cannot be right.
696
The Rotherham picture fits into the national one. There are 1.5 million of our citizens, thousands in each of our constituencies, who earn less than £2.50 an hour—the price of a Pimm's on the Terrace. We have to pay £2.5 billion as a taxpayer subsidy to firms each year. I shall be interested to see whether the Secretary of State will deal in her winding-up speech with the idea of a national minimum wage and what that costs in Europe, a subject of which much was made earlier in the debate.
The unemployment statistics for Europe show that, in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain and Sweden, just to cite EU members—I am quoting the latest issue of The Economist—the unemployment figures are falling as fast as, if not faster than, in the United Kingdom. Four times as many jobs are being created in Germany as in Britain, and that is with the social chapter and wage negotiation that amounts, in effect, to a national minimum wage.
Other speakers have referred to Asia—the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton certainly did. However, the base for the success of all the Asian economies is a much more compressed ratio of wages of employers and employees—8:1 in Japan compared to over 30:1 in Britain. There are no Richard Greenburys earning 100 times the starting wages of the equivalent of a Marks and Spencer shop assistant in Japan. In Hong Kong and Singapore, too, there is a much narrower differential in the ratio between the bosses and what the people who actually generate the wealth earn than in the United Kingdom.
That is also true of the rest of Europe. The ratio of earnings of the chief executive officers and chairman of the top firms in France, Germany and the Netherlands to those of their employees is much smaller than in Britain. The fundamental problem is that there has been a significant devaluation of employed work in Britain. We are moving to a rentier society, with rich incomes for those with funds invested and miserable giro payments that destroy morale for those who depend on state benefits.
In essence, the values of 1968—of anything goes, what I want I can have, what happens next door does not concern me—have been embodied in the contemporary Conservative Government. That is why Labour is appealing against greed at the top and against a society in which people's expectations are set by lottery winners, the values of Hugh Grant or the salary of Cedric Brown. Instead, we are trying to return to a society in which people's values are based on community and neighbourhood.
The argument of the Conservative party is, as I understand it, based on the Laffer curve nonsense about taxation. The rich do not work hard enough because they are not rich enough and, according to the Secretary of State for Social Security, the poor do not work hard enough because they are not poor enough. That is a fundamental divide.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman seems to have based his entire diatribe on the idea that the Government should spend more. Perhaps he would consider the example of the United States, where Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is 35 per cent., yet their unemployment rate is only 5.4 per cent., down from 6.7 per cent. a year ago. If he thinks that an incoming Labour

697
Government will somehow magically improve employment prospects in this country, how are we to compete with the United States?
Mr. MacShane: I shall pray in aid the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the honourable Newt Gingrich, who voted for an increase in the national minimum wage in 1990 and 1991. The Americans seek to put a floor under exploitation precisely so that the state does not have to subsidise low-pay employers, which is the philosophy of the British Government.
I would buy into some of the Conservatives' arguments if they applied the American experience, and if, for example, there were 52 regional Parliaments and control was decentralised from Whitehall. However, the fundamental difference is that in this country we have neither the American experience nor that of our more successful European or Asian competitors.
That was recognised more than 100 years ago by that well-known socialist Benjamin Disraeli, who proclaimed:
"the first consideration of a Minister should be the health of the people".
He was not talking about health solely in terms of hospitals, but in the broad social sense.
In his excellent book entitled "The Great Democracies", Winston Churchill described what the Conservative party did in the 1870s:
"A Trade Union Act gave the unions almost complete freedom of action, an Artisan's Dwelling Act was the first measure to tackle the housing problem, a Sale of Food and Drugs Act and a Public Health Act at last established sanitary law on a sound footing. Disraeli succeeded in persuading much of the Conservative party not only that the real needs of the electorate included healthier conditions of life, better homes, and freedom to organise in the world of industry, but also that the Conservative Party was perfectly well fitted to provide them."
How far the Conservative party has travelled since then. Its meanness and indifference and its sniggering about poverty that we have heard from Conservatives today proves how unfit, how divided and how irrelevant contemporary Conservatism is, whether of the Vulcan or the "dithering", "don't know" and "undecided" factions.
If we want to build one nation again, we shall need a change of Government. Only a Labour Government can deliver to the citizens of Britain the one nation they need and merit, and in which they should live.
8.41 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am most grateful to the Opposition for choosing a debate on social and economic policy. My only regret is that their motion does not live up to the occasion.
Labour's motion condemns what it calls "damaging inequality", but it does not deal with the fact that the policies that Labour has traditionally espoused would bring about a damaging equality. What concerns me is that Labour's policies would create a damaging equality between the working men and women of Britain and the workshy. We have heard nothing about the measures that Labour would introduce to encourage working people. Labour policy invariably deals with how one can increase the income of the workshy, which results in employment traps which in turn are a major problem for the social and economic fabric of this country.
698
The motion then condemns so-called "insecurity". It should certainly be tackled, but it stems largely from the rapidly changing world economic situation. We have always said that no one owes us a living, but the tiger economies and Latin America are coming up rapidly and beginning to compete with us. It is indeed the case that no one owes us a living, but how would Labour policies deal with the serious insecurity facing us? We have seen the steps taken by the Government, but the Labour party offers in exchange only the minimum wage and the social chapter. Many of my colleagues have dealt with those two particular Labour policies. There is no doubt that if they were carried out as Labour proposes, insecurity in this country would increase considerably.
The Labour motion goes on to say that
"the Government must take action which promotes employment opportunities, particularly for the long-term unemployed, increases the skills and adaptability of the workforce".
It is clear that Labour did not listen to the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who catalogued the steps taken by the Government. Indeed, those steps are outlined in considerable detail in the admirable Government amendment.
I shall now concentrate my remarks on the current trends in social and economic policy and their impact on the family. I wonder how many people have faced up to the facts. Today, one in five families with dependent children is headed by a lone parent compared with only one in 12 in 1971. How many people are aware that the proportion of families headed by single mothers who have never been married has grown from 1 per cent. to 7 per cent. in the same period? Today, nearly one in three births occur outside marriage compared with one in 16 only 30 years ago. Marriage rates have reached their lowest point since records began more than 150 years ago. There has been a sixfold increase in the annual divorce rate since 1961. If current trends continue, four out of 10 new marriages will end in divorce.
Two out of three mothers with dependent children have jobs or are actively seeking work compared with fewer than half only 20 years ago. Economic activity among mothers of children under five has increased from just over a quarter to almost half. Those facts have been exacerbated by a mixture of changing employment patterns and the impact of the tax and benefits structure.
I would contend that the social and economic policy followed for many years has resulted in the undermining of the breadwinner. The strength of the role of the father-provider of the family has been severely eroded. In the past 30 years, this country has lost 3 million relatively well-paid full-time jobs for semi-skilled and unskilled male factory workers, and modern technology has also limited the low-skill male jobs in transport, warehousing, retailing and offices.
As a result, the unemployment rate for young low-skilled males is high, despite the development of new schemes and training by the Government. That has led in turn to those very young men not providing what is known as a "marriage prospect" to eligible young women and a low rate of creation of stable marriages in which to bring up children. Their loss of self-esteem derived from full wage packets also leads to delinquency and crime.
Conversely, modern technology has created millions of new jobs requiring greater skills, and they are more suited to the aptitudes and preferences of women. Jobs are also

699
more flexible and not necessarily full time. That has created a swing in the balance of employment, encouraging female employment to such an extent that nearly half the work force is female. Indeed, more than 50 per cent. is expected to be female in the year 2000, and many women are maintaining their jobs through parenthood.
The net result has been the undermining of the father as breadwinner, and it militates towards single-parent families, illegitimate births and divorce, all of which have an impact on the children of the nation. The trend for mothers of young children to work is growing. It is interesting to note that the proportion of working married women with children under five has risen from 27 per cent. in 1977 to 47 per cent. four years ago, according to the latest census. That has not happened through choice.
The social attitudes survey shows that 76 per cent. of mothers thought that they should stay at home full time with their children. The figure rose to 80 per cent. in lower-income groups. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) is shouting from a sedentary position, but the fact is that, unlike her, most women would prefer to stay at home and look after their children.
Ms Harman: How long are women to spend at home looking after their children? Are they supposed to stay at home until the children are 30, or perhaps 40? It is no good making a blanket statement to the effect that women must get out of the labour market for ever once they have children. Clearly, they must leave it temporarily, but how long does the hon. Gentleman have in mind?
Mr. Arnold: How long is precisely as long as those children need their mother properly to develop them. My worry is that the fact that if mothers do not stay at home, especially if they wish to, it damages the development of their children. As I said, the social attitudes survey shows that 76 per cent. of those mothers believe that they should stay at home, and the statistics increase to 80 per cent. in lower-income groups. The mothers know the impact on their children in terms of socialisation, nurturing and support.
The House should ask itself, why have those mothers done so? The answer is that real and perceived financial need have driven them to do so. Prices, especially housing costs, have increased to absorb two salaries; as the job market has changed, wages have adjusted to equality through lower unisex rates; and taxation policy has progressively removed the previous bias that favoured the family.
In recent years, taxation policy has changed savagely, withdrawing favoured status from married couples and causing a heavy impact on the family. That has come about in response to calls for fiscal simplicity and sexual equality. In recent years, we have split the taxation of the family. When a mother gives up paid work to care for her children, she forfeits not only her income, but her tax allowance, which is worth at least £880 to the family and is not transferable to the husband.
There has been a further impact on the married couple's allowance—which has been frozen, and therefore eroded in value, for the past four years—through the downbanding from standard rate to the 20 per cent. band last year and to the notional 15 per cent. band this year.
700
The benefit to families has been reduced from £430 a year ago to £258 this year—a loss to every family of £172. Further, if the married couple's allowance had kept up with inflation and had continued to be applied at the standard rate, it would be worth £200 more this year.
Mr. MacShane: I am genuinely interested in the line that the hon. Gentleman has pursued. Does he agree that, if we want to consolidate family life and, especially, give young children a good start, it would be helpful if we could enact parental leave provisions that would allow both parents to spend time with them, particularly with young babies, in the first six months, 12 months, 18 months or two years?
Mr. Arnold: Proposals such as that would be just as damaging as the minimum wage in wrecking the chances of families with young children of getting jobs. We should be bolstering the father in being the breadwinner, and structuring the tax system so that mothers can stay at home, as so many of them wish.
It is interesting to note that, for the average family with the mother caring full time for the children, the impact of the loss of her income and tax allowance benefit combined with the devaluing of the married couple's allowance and mortgage interest relief for families is a severe squeeze on family net income.
Tax and national insurance contributions for single persons on average income have declined from 31.5 per cent. in the last year of the Labour Government to 28.6 per cent. today, despite the increase in taxation in recent years. They have declined less for a married person, from 27.8 per cent. to 26.8 per cent., but the significant statistic is that the burden of taxation on married couples with two children under 11, assuming a non-earning wife and taking into account child benefit, has increased from 20.9 per cent. to 21.9 per cent.
A Conservative Government must pay attention to that. Our taxation policies have had an adverse impact on families, whereas the impact on single persons and married couples without families has improved. It is time that the Government took that very much on board.
The Treasury has benefited considerably from recent measures such as the reduction in the married couple's allowance. The married couple's allowance, as we recall, was introduced in 1991 with independent taxation, and it now applies to 10.5 million families. The Chancellor, by reducing that tax allowance from the 25 per cent. band to the 15 per cent. band this year, has made some considerable savings, and salt has been rubbed into the wounds of families by the impact of the so-called allowance restriction on personal tax coding, which draws attention to and emphasises the 15 per cent. band.
I wonder how many people realise that the gain for the Treasury and consequent loss for families has already increased to £2,090 million simply as a result of the downbanding, and that the impact since 1991–92 of not increasing the married couple's allowance for inflation has been a benefit for the Treasury at the expense of families, of a further £3 billion. The impact on families of the downbanding of mortgage interest relief at source has been that the Treasury has gained more than £1 billion at the expense of the family.
I hope, therefore, that, in preparing his Budget this autumn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will produce a Budget for the family. I believe that he should restore the

701
married couple's allowance to the standard rate band, which would cost the Treasury £2.4 billion. There should be no similar restoration of the additional person's allowance for single parents of children other than for those who are widowed, as that would be a disincentive for illegitimacy and for divorce.
A capacity should be introduced for non-working mothers with dependent children to transfer their basic allowance to their working husband. If that were to be done, there would be a major impact, worth £861 to the family, at a cost to the Treasury of £2.8 billion.
I believe that, in considering social and economic policies, we should consider the impact on the family. If the Government face up to those matters in the Budget in the autumn, not only will there be a significant effect on the employment market through releasing jobs currently carried out by mothers and making them available to less skilled males, which will have an economic benefit as a spin-off, but we shall reverse the tide that has worked against the family, to the detriment of the development and growth of our young people.
8.57 pm
Mr. Ken Purchase: Few of my constituents would recognise themselves in the picture that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) painted. In contrast to the smaller micro-economic analyses that have just been made, let me mention one or two global statistics.
Unemployment costs the nation between £20 billion and £30 billion per annum. The former Department of Employment's own figures clearly show the average cost of an unemployed person in terms of benefits and revenue and spending power forgone. That is the nature of what we face today.
It is all very well Conservative Members saying that unemployment has been falling for X months. Bearing in mind the way in which unemployment is measured, they cannot be accused of telling us anything that is not true, but, as other hon. Members have said, there have been so many changes in the way in which the employment statistics are collected in recent years that no proper comparison can now be made between when the Conservatives took office and the present day.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said that the true comparison was between roughly 1,050,000 people in 1979 at the end of the Labour Government and 2.5 million now. We can accept with glad hearts and great pleasure the fact that some of our constituents have found work in recent months, but whatever Conservative Members tell us about unemployment falling, it does not alter the fact that the record of the Conservative Government on employment is abominable in every sense of the word.
As a result of the growth in unemployment, the social security system is less and less able to cope with the demands placed on it. Although the cost of social security in real terms has doubled, benefits paid are now worth less to the individual than in 1979. So we have had a doubling of the cost yet less support for people who are unemployed or otherwise unable to get into the labour market.
702
Other recent statistics show that one third of males aged 16 to 65, and therefore potentially economically active, are not in employment for one reason or another. It is no wonder that the social security budget is creaking at the seams. It is no use Conservative Members telling us that they intend to clamp down on scrounging. Opposition Members support that: we do not believe that people should be able to obtain by fraud, cheating or other methods benefits or anything else to which they are not properly and fully entitled.
Let me summarise a kind of framework. I talk of wealth, I talk of work and I talk of welfare—three Ws. Each one is a necessary step to the other, for without work—I mean real work that adds value—there can be no worth. Unless wealth is created, at a personal level or collectively, there can be no welfare. So we all know where we are starting from. We can now see in perspective what it means to have 2.5 million-plus people unemployed in this country. It means that the wealth-creating forces are diminished and that the wealth that would be created cannot be distributed in any way, never mind be kept in the wealth creator's pocket. It is lost and we cannot regain it. Conservative Members and, indeed, Opposition Members are concerned that money has been lost through strikes, illnesses and accidents at work, but now we have a deep self-inflicted wound.
For people who are in work, the quality of work has changed beyond recognition. At one end of the spectrum, it is certainly true that there has been massive enrichment of the few, but for the masses the quality of work has diminished. No longer can people with skills which they learnt perhaps in difficult circumstances necessarily transfer those skills to another job. The very technology that engineers, scientists and technicians have created has been used to dispossess those who have the skills of their rightful inheritance. It is paradoxical, but none the less that is the way in which technology has moved in the past 15 or 20 years.
The trade union rights that underpinned people's safety at work have been washed away over the years by legislation. Let me tell Conservative Members, and the world if it wants to listen, that where the economic system is dominated by the simple economics of supply and demand, when the demand for labour increases none of the changes that the Government have made will make a scrap of difference. The employees, the workers, the labour force will reclaim that which they think is theirs. The Government will have made no difference to the way in which the structural part of labour relations is played out in Britain. All that the Government will have done is to apply the cruel market forces of supply and demand, which simply mean that today employers can hold down wages simply by using the single economic tool of unemployment by frightening people that they might be out of work tomorrow. Tomorrow, when those people have jobs, the Government can be sure that their position will start to be redressed. The Government may understand it, but they will live to regret it if they do not.
Much remains to be done to restore a proper balance between unions and their members and employers and their organisations. Only when the scales are balanced and fairness prevails may we expect real progress.
Ministers claim that the number of employed people is rising, and to some extent that is borne out by the facts; but many of those jobs are part time and poorly paid. As for the minimum wage—
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend is about to refer to the minimum wage. Does not low pay equal poor health, poor housing, poor social conditions and poor educational opportunities?
Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, with which I shall deal in a moment.
The Conservative party has no right to press Labour to say what the minimum wage should or will be, when it will not say what its minimum wage is. When we ask, "What is the least for which anyone should work?", you have not a word to say. Is it 50p an hour? Is it £1 an hour?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman must stop blaming the Chair.
Mr. Purchase: I seem not to learn these simple lessons, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise profusely—but, as you know, I am somewhat excitable about matters such as this.
It is incumbent on Conservative Members to tell us the amount for which they believe that people should work. If that amount is nothing, they should say so; if it is 50p an hour, they should tell us that it is 50p an hour. I suspect, however, that they know nothing of these matters, and that they therefore will not rise to the bait.
Wealth should be a function of work, adding real value to the goods and services that are provided. In that context, Britain once had a strong economy: we made things, exported things, ensured that the quality of the goods was first class and traded with the world. We held our own. It was not until the Conservatives implemented their policies of the late 1950s that we saw balance of payments problems that the country had not hitherto experienced in peacetime; even then, the Conservatives had begun to forget that, as an island economy—notwithstanding our wider role in Europe and, indeed, the world—we must import certain goods, apply our skills, initiative, innovation and invention and then export those goods at a price greater than that which we originally paid.
That put our balance of payments into perspective, and we got it right: we were paying our way. In 1964, however, a Labour Government inherited a balance of payments deficit of some £400 million. That does not sound a lot, but I think that it would amount to a considerable sum in modern-day money—an amount approximating to the balance of payments problems that we experienced throughout the late 1980s, which were resolved only through the sale of the family silver.
Making money has now become the way in which so-called wealth is created; but it is not real wealth. It is imaginary wealth, because it has no strength or material value. What do I mean by that? Let me give my answer in three ways. At a local level, while small firms struggle to win orders and to fulfil them on the basis of delivery dates, quality and price, thieves and burglars are ripping off the rest of society. In every street in every town, many people are involved in petty thieving of one sort of another, taking away the value that is created by people who go to work. Nationally, white-collar crime is rising inexorably. Scams are reported day and night in our local and national newspapers. At board room level, directors over-reward themselves in an immoral way. People are sitting on each other's remuneration committees, determining who will get what. [Interruption.]
Mr. Purchase: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Pike: People are ripping off pension funds.
Mr. Purchase: Indeed—speak a little louder.
We now know that many pension fund managers are paid on a results basis and are turning over shares, adding to our short-term financial problems just to line their own pockets. Pensioners are often the losers in such matters. Massive pension fund scams have taken place—not least the Maxwell disgrace, with all that that has meant—as a result of which people have tried to make changes, but without much success.
Currency speculators do not care what their activities will do to a nation state. It is simply a matter of pressing buttons—again using the technology created by scientists, engineers and technicians in this country and elsewhere. Their tools are being used against them. Speculators are turning their countries inside out at the press of a button. It is paradoxical. At the same time, they speculate internationally in shares, without a care for whether the company that they speculating for or against will go down the tube, and whether men and women will become unemployed. That is a "make money" society; it is not the "earn" society that Labour Members want to create. It is not about the spivs in the City of London.
On high and low pay, if what Conservative Members were saying about minimum and low pay were true, it is certain that Calcutta and the sweat shops would be a paradise, and that the City of London would be a desert, but we know that the opposite is true because these people speculate and exploit everywhere they go. Respect no longer exists for working men and women who create real wealth in this country. Some people think that large-scale international spivvery should be rewarded. That is not right.
Under the Tory Government, for the first time this century, we have seen the steady—at times almost imperceptible—reversal of the way in which income is distributed in favour of people who have the least. For the first time in a century, that worthy civilised trend has been reversed under this Government.
What does it mean? With so many people out of work, with the social security system under so much pressure, the ideals of Beveridge—for the welfare state to act as a safety net, but always recognising that we would have a society that depended on full employment, however that was defined—are creaking under the strain. The rich are getting very rich and the poor are getting very poor—such is the society that has been created in Britain today.
The value of benefits has diminished but their total cost has doubled since 1979. What has been the result of the benefits culture? In many cases, people, especially the young, have lost any understanding of the connections between work, wealth and welfare. They believe that, broadly speaking, wealth and welfare drop on the mat in the form of a giro cheque. You have robbed them of their dignity, of their right to work—
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Tories have.
Mr. Purchase: The Conservatives have robbed them. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you are too kind a man to do that.
The Conservatives have robbed those people of their dignity and of their understanding of the connections, which are so important for a civilised life in which we can both give and take when that is necessary. Young

705
people have borne, and will continue to bear, the brunt of the Government's policies. Inequality is growing every day and it is reaching obscene levels. An elderly woman with disabilities came to my surgery on Saturday. She wants and needs to move from her present council flat to a ground-floor flat. The council are willing to relocate her, but it cannot afford to pay the costs of her furniture removal. She went to social security as she is on income support and was advised that she would have to apply for a loan in order to pay her removal costs.
That woman worked for most of her life and her husband paid into pension schemes all his working life. Now, at 70, she is reduced to having to apply for a loan to move house on account of her disabilities. Is that the society that the Conservatives laud in their amendment? They should disown it without further delay because that inequality is unacceptable in a civilised world.
From time to time I like to compare levels of inequality in this country. One could compare the woman to whom I referred with the Queen, the richest woman in the world, who is so rich that she does not know how much money she has.
In the world created by the Conservatives drug dealers earn more money than centre-lathe operators, theft is more valued than earning a living and gambling has been elevated to a grand scale by the national lottery. People now think that their only hope of escape is a win on the lottery—whether it is £1,000 or the figure offered last weekend. Gambling has been institutionalised and the state has become a bookmaker.
My town has an awful reputation for prostitution. Wolverhampton apparently has more prostitutes per capita than any other town in England. Young girls as young as 11 are known to ply their trade in my town. The House condemns sex tourism, but we have it on our doorstep courtesy of a Conservative Government. I could describe the Government—if it is not unparliamentary, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as a state pimp because of the policies that they have introduced and the way in which they have allowed society to rot from the roots up. I do not believe that that is too strong a description of the Conservative Government.
9.17 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I have been allocated the princely total of three minutes in which to devastate the House with the erudition of my remarks.
I entirely support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who opened the debate. I believe that he is determined to use taxpayers' money to provide incentives to get people into work rather than use it to pay people for not working. I commend him for that approach.
I am worried, however, when I see the scale and the range of incentives. Every incentive, such as the jobseeker's allowance, back-to-work bonus and all sorts of other benefits to top up earnings, comes out of the taxpayers' pockets and taxpayers on low wages will be less motivated to work to build up their family fortunes. Therefore, I suggest that perhaps it would be better to examine family incomes as a whole and not rise to the Labour party's bait.
Labour Members keep grinding on about the necessity of introducing minimum wage laws. I do not wish to rehearse the sensible arguments advanced by
706
Conservative Members about why minimum wage laws are a bad idea. It has been mentioned several times that President Clinton is in favour of minimum wage laws. I am not surprised about that because President Clinton is a socialist by our standards. Of course President Clinton commends the concept, but in the United States of America—which has had minimum wage laws for many years—unemployment among unskilled and minority groups in particular has persistently increased relative to employment. Minimum wage laws have removed from employers the cost of their discrimination. If an employer must pay a certain wage regardless, he will tend—for whatever prejudiced reason he may have—to choose the most attractive candidate. Minimum wages always discriminate against the people that Opposition Members wish to help.
I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to explore other areas of job creation, particularly those associated with home and family work. Recently, the French have created many new jobs for young and unskilled people in homes whose family members go out to work. In France, if one needs someone to help with domestic duties—such as looking after an elderly relative or small children—one can offset the cost against the family's gross income.
Wages within the family should also be considered. There should be less pressure for every job to achieve a minimum wage starting point. In many households, one wage supplements another. If a woman is prepared to take a part-time job at a relatively low wage—perhaps because it is unskilled—to supplement her family income, that is as valid a reason for working as that of the family's top wage earner. Considering family income as a whole will bring some sanity to our attitudes to wages.
9.21 pm
Ms Harriet Harman: This debate has shown that despite all the drama surrounding the Tory leadership election, nothing has changed. The stark divide between this side of the House and the Government remains. The Tories have brought unemployment, division and insecurity—and they have produced no policies today that will change that. Labour believes that the task of government is to modernise our economy and to build our community. Britain needs new policies for economic success and social renewal.
We need nothing less than a skills revolution, to put our businesses and economy at the front line of economic competitiveness, and to help people to get work and get on in their jobs. However, when the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was Secretary of State for Employment, she cut training. We need an attack on the national scandal of poverty pay. While privatised utility bosses award themselves huge pay increases, millions of men and women at work struggle in the twilight world of low pay. When the right hon. Lady was Secretary of State for Employment, she abolished the low pay protection of wages councils. Again today, the Tories have rejected a national minimum wage.
We need a comprehensive strategy to tackle unemployment, take people off benefit and put them to work—in particular, to end the menace of people being trapped on the dole for years. Again in today's debate, the Tories boasted that unemployment is a problem solved, and they plan instead to cut benefits to the unemployed.

707
We need to make people at work feel more secure. House prices fall because no one can plan ahead. High street shops struggle because people do not want to spend. The Tories tell us that a fearful and insecure work force is a good thing. People throughout the country know what is needed—but we have Tory failure and no change in policies that have failed.
The Prime Minister has been re-elected leader of his party—just, and Cabinet posts have changed hands. What has changed in the real world in Britain today? What has changed for the unemployed? Nothing. Still the Government deny that unemployment is a problem; still they refuse to take action to take people off the dole and put them into work; still they cut the benefit bill, not by putting people into work but by cutting the amount of benefit that people have to live on. There are cuts in unemployment benefit—from 12 months to six months; and cuts in help with mortgage payments for the unemployed. But the problem of unemployment remains—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) put it, people of working age are not at work.
What has changed for the young black unemployed man in London? Still, 60 per cent. of young black men under the age of 24 are without a job. What has changed for the people of Manchester? My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) told us movingly about the problems of unemployment that remain in his constituency. The Government would simply sweep them aside and pretend that they do not exist.
Unemployment is scarring our communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, one in six men in Rotherham is out of work. Unemployment is scarring communities in every region of Scotland and Wales—and still the Conservative Government reject commonsense proposals for immediate action to put people back to work. I refer to the release of council house receipts to enable councils to start building again, an environmental task force to provide work and improve environmental standards, and a tax relief of £75 as an incentive to employers to take on people who have been unemployed for more than two years. The Government reject all these proposals, claiming that unemployment is not a problem.
Unemployment is a problem, however, not just for the unemployed but for those in work, because it is one of the major reasons why people in work feel insecure. What has changed for them? Nothing. Will people feel more secure in their jobs when they read in the newspapers that "Tarzan's in charge"? I do not think so. Will house prices rise now that the Department of Employment has been abolished? I do not think so. There is an epidemic of insecurity at work which has swept from the private sector through to the public sector, from manual workers through to management. There are too many people who fear that each pay packet may be their last.
People have no long-term confidence in their employment. But to buy a house or even a car they have to make a long-term commitment: 25 years for a mortgage, five years for a loan on a new car or three for a loan on a second-hand car. Yet today one fifth of employees are out of their jobs within a year. More and more jobs are on temporary contracts. Negative equity traps people in their homes and makes them nervous about spending. They are afraid to move or to take risks—afraid to plan for the future. No wonder house prices have fallen
708
in real terms by 30 per cent. in the past six years. Just because the Prime Minister is temporarily more secure in his job does not mean that other people are more secure in theirs out in the real world.
People know that the only way they will feel secure is if the economy is growing strongly—not boom and bust. They know that they need a fair framework of rights at work, including the right to join a union. And they need the right education and skills.
The new First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment have been touring television and radio studios saying that the abolition of the Department of Employment shows that training and skills are now to be the Government's top priority. I challenge the right hon. Lady: is she making training a priority, or will she simply implement the training cuts that are set to run for the next three years? Already cuts in training are under way for this year, next year, and the year after. The training budget is to be cut by 12 per cent. in real terms over the next three years. Will she stop those cuts or will she implement them? Training for Work, the main adult training programme for the unemployed, is to be cut this year, next year and the year after. Will the right hon. Lady stop that or implement it?
We have no doubt that the cuts will be implemented. When the right hon. Lady was Secretary of State for Employment she chopped back the Department's training budget by £100 million over three years. The promises that the right hon. Lady will make tonight are already broken. The people know that the Tories are the Government of broken promises. They are the Government that we cannot trust. They promise to make training a priority but they cut it back to the bone.
When the right hon. Lady was Secretary of State for Employment she did nothing to provide training to those in work who need it most, the low paid with no skills. Let there be no mistake about it, this is a public policy issue. Today's worker without skills is tomorrow's long-term unemployed. The Tories reject our proposals that would ensure that all employers would invest in the training and development of their employees.
What has changed with low pay? The answer is that it has become worse. People know that our society is riven with unfairness, division and inequality. There is excessively high pay at the top and excessively low pay at the bottom. It makes for a divided society and an inefficient economy.
Mr. Pike: Is it not a fact that the low paid who are on family credit can be hit to the extent that for every pound that they receive at a certain stage they may benefit by only 3p? Is it not time that the Government did something to help those people?
Ms Harman: That is right. Those who are trapped in low pay and depend on benefits find that they are no better off if they earn more because of the pound-for-pound withdrawal of benefit. The low paid who are trapped in poverty and dependency cannot escape. That is why we must have a national minimum wage. The gap between top executives and their employees is twice as wide in the United Kingdom as it is in Japan. Cedric Brown has become famous for his huge pay increase while millions of our fellow citizens work all hours yet still struggle to make ends meet.

709
These are the figures. Over 1 million—
Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Harman: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will say whether he is prepared to justify 300,000 people earning less than £1.50 an hour. Does he think that that is acceptable? Will he justify pay of £1.50 an hour?
Mr. Duncan: I do not like the fact that many people are earning only that amount, but to tax the rich and introduce a minimum wage would not solve the problem. The hon. Lady was in her place when I talked about a minimum wage. Does she accept that if a minimum wage were set at below the level that an employer was prepared to pay it would be an irrelevance? Does she agree also that if it were set above that level it would undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on employment? Will she answer those questions and tell us at what level in today's circumstances she and her party would set a minimum wage?
Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not like people earning less than £1.50 or £2.50 an hour. The Government, however, have resolutely set their face against doing anything to increase such rates of pay. Far from that, they have removed protection that would have prevented people earning lower and lower rates of pay. I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's argument about the level of a minimum wage later.
Who on the Government Benches will justify pay of £1.50 an hour? Is it the Tory economic miracle after 17 years to threaten people with pay of £1.50 an hour or no job? We are not faced with an accident.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Answer the question.
Ms Harman: I shall respond to it later.
It is not that the Government do not know what to do about low pay. It is not merely that the Government do not care about low pay. Low pay is not the consequence of Government incompetence or even Government neglect. It is a central part of their strategy of low pay, deregulation, insecurity, competition by means of even lower pay, cutting costs and a fearful work force. Under the Government low pay is not only a national scandal but an instrument of Government economic policy.
The Government are not trying to prevent low pay. They are in favour of it. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment, when she was Employment Secretary, abolished the wages council. She stripped away low-pay protection from 2.5 million workers. The Government are now asking the unemployed, before they can get their benefit, before they can get the jobseeker's allowance:
"What is the lowest wage you are willing to work for?"
They are using the unemployed to drive down wages still further.
But the British people reject the cruelty and the unfairness of low pay and they reject the Tory strategy of competing on low pay. Our determination to act on low pay is founded on our belief that the Government have a responsibility to reduce divisions, and that economic success for this country can be achieved only by being a high-skill, high-tech, high-investment economy.
710
We believe that low pay is a problem for the low-paid. It is also a problem for the taxpayer and for our society as a whole. It is a problem for the low-paid who struggle to make ends meet, who are trapped in benefit dependency and who work longer and longer hours. Low pay is a problem, too, for the public purse, because when employers do not pay proper wages, the taxpayer has to pick up the bill for housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support and family credit. In the past four years, the cost of those benefits for people in work has doubled and it now stands at £2.4 billion—£100 a year for every taxpayer to subsidise low pay. Are the Government going to justify that? Top-up benefits should be precisely that, not a subsidy for employers. That point was made forcibly by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth).
We believe that low pay is a problem that demands Government action, and we will take action.
The Tories will not take on the arguments—
Mr. Duncan rose—
Ms Harman: The Tories will not take head on the arguments about the minimum wage, so they say that if we have a minimum wage people would be concerned about losing their jobs. It is true that people are concerned about losing their jobs.
Mr. Duncan: What rate?
Ms Harman: I will get to that point in my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will give me a break.
It is true that people are concerned about losing their job—15 years of Tory rule have certainly made sure of that—but a minimum wage, where it is sensibly introduced, does not cost jobs and we shall introduce it sensibly. [Interruption.] Around the world there are many different examples of different methods of minimum wage fixing, but they all have—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are not listening. They have asked all afternoon what our approach is to the minimum wage. I am about to tell them if they will just keep quiet. [Interruption.]
All around the world, many different methods are used by different countries to fix a minimum wage [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I will have no more barracking from sedentary positions. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has asked his question. He might now listen. [Interruption.] Order.
Ms Harman: All around the world, there are difficult examples of how different countries, with Governments of the left and of the right, fix a minimum wage, and they all have one thing in common: they involve both sides of industry—employers and unions [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] I am tempted to name him. I have warned the hon. Gentleman. Another murmur from the hon. Gentleman and he will be named.
Ms Harman: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Those countries all have one thing in common: they involve both sides of industry—employers and unions—in coming together to agree the level for the minimum wage, and that is the approach that we shall take in Government. I have consulted many employers in manufacturing and services about the methods for

711
implementing low-pay protection. We shall carry on doing just that in Government. We will establish a low-pay commission to recommend the level of the minimum wage, just as the wages councils did.
Employers and unions in consultation—that is what business is asking us to do to fix the minimum wage. We will not listen to the Tories; we will listen to employers and unions. There will be consultation involving both sides of industry, which is what they do in other countries. That is what happened in this country with the wages councils, that is what Winston Churchill did and that is what we will do in government.
The Conservative concerns about job losses are crocodile tears; they are bogus. When we introduced the Equal Pay Act 1970, women's pay was increased by law, and employers and Conservatives said that it would cost women's jobs and drive them back to the home. It did not happen. When the Secretary of State abolished the wages councils, she said that ending low pay protection would involve an increase in jobs. It did not happen. Pay went down and jobs in the wages councils sectors were lost. Now we have the worst of all words: low pay and no new jobs.
There is no evidence from this country or from anywhere in the world that low pay protection, when sensibly introduced, costs jobs. In all other developed countries, a floor under wages is a matter of consensus between parties on the right and parties on the left. Everywhere else, it is normal and is regarded as a necessary minimum standard. The Government have failed to recognise the important role for Government in a changing labour market. They do not understand that Government should make people feel partners in change, not victims of it. They do not understand that the role of the Government is to help people combine work and family responsibilities. They do not understand that it is the role of Government to ensure that there is a skilled and confident work force.
The Tory policies have failed and the British people know it; that is why they do not trust the Tories. The Deputy Prime Minister is going round the television studios talking about a new start. If he went round the country and talked to people, he would realise that the British people do not trust this Government. The only new start they want is a new Government for this country.
9.41 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The debate has been long. It must have been a disappointing one for the Opposition because it is, after all, their Supply day. For there to have been only two or three Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber for long stretches is obviously a scandal and a disgrace. It is better to pass a veil altogether over the attendance of the Liberal Democrats, who were not in their place for many hours.
The debate was opened in an elegant, even donnish, way by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). However, no amount of elegance or donnish charm could disguise the fact that he was circling round the vacuum that is Labour policy. He said nothing whatsoever.
I should not fail to mention the quite extraordinary contribution by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). Not only did he treat the
712
House to a dazzling display of "Where's the ball?", but he signally failed to convince the House of his altruistic concern about the merger of the Department for Education and the Department of Employment. I remind him that "vanish" is an intransitive verb. We should, perhaps, forgive the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is not only his birthday tomorrow, but it was his 40th wedding anniversary last week, as he announced to an astonished House last Thursday. In my later remarks, I shall aim to dispel his wilder fantasies and anxieties.
My hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth), for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) made extremely valuable contributions to the debate, reminding the House not only of the need to be realistic about the problems that we face, but of the welcome fact that unemployment has fallen for 21 consecutive months and that we have a higher proportion of people of working age in work than the European average. They reminded us that a minimum wage would destroy enterprise and would cost jobs. Since the Labour party is unable to define the level of a minimum wage, what they say on the matter is so much hot air. My hon. Friends also reminded us of the opportunities and—very importantly—the current context.
Mr. Duncan: Did my right hon. Friend hear what I heard and what I believe the Official Report will confirm? Did not the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) promise—I think that is the right word—to give us the level at which she would set a minimum wage? Did she not break that promise within five minutes by refusing to do so? Will my right hon. Friend now invite the hon. Lady to give that number, without which the Opposition's policy is worth nothing?
Mrs. Shephard: Whether or not the hon. Lady made such a promise, she certainly did not give a number. Without a number, all talk of a minimum wage is so much hot air. It is clearly the intention of the Labour party to introduce a minimum wage, but as it knows that such a minimum wage would destroy enterprise and cut jobs, it does not dare to set a figure.
We heard much in the debate about poverty and job security. That is as it should be. Those are important issues and it is right that they should be debated. We heard a good deal less from Opposition Members about the context and about the nature of the world as it is now. We have a global economy that is fast moving and competitive, and we heard little from the Opposition about how the country is to thrive and prosper in those circumstances.
Predictably, we heard nothing whatsoever from Opposition Members about how jobs and security can be created. All we had from Opposition Members was a refusal to look at the world as it now is and a deep reluctance to face the reality of change or to master that change. As we approach a new century and a new millennium, we must look forward and prepare positively for the challenges that those will bring. There is no place for those who look only backwards, or for people whose hearts are in the Ministry of Labour that was founded in the 1890s and not in the Department for Education and Employment that has been founded in the 1990s.
The world is changing fast, and change engenders uncertainty and concern. That is not unique to this country. Right across the developed world, people feel

713
insecure about jobs and threatened by new technology and by the opening up of markets, as tariff barriers disappear. I understand those fears, but technology change is here and will not go away, and nor will changing patterns of world trade. When GATT was formed, tariffs averaged 40 per cent. They are now down to 3 per cent. Britain is a part of the world marketplace and there are formidable competitors in that marketplace.
Mr. MacShane: May I invite the Secretary of State to throw away the script from which she is carefully reading and tell us what she thinks without the aid of a scripted speech?
Mrs. Shephard: Dear me—what an insightful contribution from the hon. Gentleman. I wish that the hon. Gentleman could have seen the faces of his colleagues as he ground on and on earlier in a speech full of carefully composed quotations. The hon. Gentleman might like to listen carefully as I proceed.
What is new and will increasingly face us in the next century is competition from low-wage economies whose peoples are as well-educated and as highly motivated as our own. Those economies are developing rapidly in south-east Asia, south America, eastern Europe and Africa. That is a challenge that young people who are now in our schools and universities will face when they leave formal education and start to earn a living. It is our challenge too, because it is our task to equip our young people when they leave formal education not just with the knowledge and skills that they need to survive, but with the attitude of mind to grasp the opportunities that they will be offered to enable them to thrive and prosper.
There is one way and one way only to guarantee job security and the benefits, whether material or otherwise, that come with it. That is to create enterprises in Britain which can take on the best competition in the world and beat it. To achieve that, people who work in those firms must have the skills and knowledge to do so. In tomorrow's world, with which we are concerned, industrial and commercial success will be based on knowledge, design and innovation.
We are steadily shaking off the legacy of the 1970s. We now have one of the best industrial relations records in the world. Productivity growth is as good, or better, than anywhere in Europe and inflation is once again under control and down to levels last seen more than 30 years ago.
Of course I accept that insecurity over jobs is a real factor. That is why the Department provides more than 1.5 million employment and training opportunities to help unemployed people get the new jobs that they want. The Employment Service plays a vital role, working with training and enterprise councils, to provide jobs and training. More than 200,000 new vacancies are being notified to job centres every month and unemployed people are getting those jobs. Britain now has fewer people claiming unemployment benefit than any other major country in Europe. More of our adult population have jobs than in any other major European country.
We have also made progress in education. The knowledge and skills of those joining the work force for the first time are improving. Less than a quarter of our young people got five good GCSEs 15 years ago, now it is over 40 per cent. The number of young people gaining
714
two GCE A-levels has doubled to 28 per cent. since 1979. Britain now graduates more of its young people than just about any country in Europe. That is a record of achievement and of consistent improvement, and a solid base on which to build Britain's skills. There remains a lot to do, but the framework is in place and the improvements are there and are measurable.
Much has been said tonight about division and I accept that there has been a divide in this country—a divide between the academic and the vocational. It is a false divide. That is why the new Department for Education and Employment has been so widely welcomed—
Mr. Kevin Barron: By whom?
Mrs. Shephard: I will tell the hon. Gentleman. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, for example, strongly welcomed and supported the merger, which has been its policy for many years. It has been welcomed by the Secondary Heads Association, which said,
"We welcome the merger and have argued for it in the past. There is a need for coherent linking of provision for post-16s."
The Professional Association of Teachers said:
"This is very good news. PAT has been suggesting it for some time. Education and training need to be considered as a whole."
The National Union of Teachers welcomed it, saying:
"Bringing education and training together should serve to promote vocational education and the development of lifelong learning."
The National Commission on Education welcomed it, as did the Institute of Directors, which said that it is
"a sensible rationalisation, drawing together policies for education and training."
The Confederation of British Industry has welcomed it. Howard Davies said:
"The CBI welcomes the changes announced today by the Government. We have long argued that responsibilities for these two vital areas should be brought closer together. The proposed structure will help to provide a clearer focus and more coherent policy formation."
It welcomes it because it can see the opportunities that it will bring. It sees that in our schools—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. While one can have no objection to hon. Members having conversations, they must be quiet. It is very noisy indeed on both sides of the House and I ask for a little less noise.
Mrs. Shephard: Those bodies can see that there will be positive benefits and new opportunities in our schools. Schools need industry and employers increasingly play an important role, giving teaching materials, supporting events and providing motivation on careers, particularly to young people who may need just that motivation and who find school days irksome. Employers can see that, as young people from the age of 14 onwards start to make those choices, helped by the invigorated careers service, they will be better informed if careers advisers, teachers and employers work more closely together. They can see that more and more young people are staying on at school after 16. Over 90 per cent. now stay on compared with less than one in three in 1979. They know that young people face a bewildering range of options—academic or vocational—which we can tackle with no turf wars through the new Department. They can see that we can better co-ordinate key policies to drive up skill levels and promote business success.

715
We can encourage closer links between education and the business world. We can promote greater coherence between academic and vocational qualifications. We can encourage even closer relationships between further education and TECs.
Mr. Mackinlay: What young people want to hear from the right hon. Lady tonight is how they can get jobs that are appropriate to their skills and aptitudes when they leave college or university. Does she not acknowledge that thousands of young people leaving college and university face skivvy jobs or jobs that are totally inappropriate to the expensive training and education that the state has provided, which will provide them with no job satisfaction? What will she do to provide real jobs for skilled people who have a great deal to contribute?
Mrs. Shephard: As this is an Opposition Supply day, I had hoped for a few ideas from the Opposition, but they have not been forthcoming. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) obviously has not noticed that unemployment has been falling for the past 21 months and that graduate unemployment has also been falling. I remind him of that and point out that it means a number of things. It means that the Government's labour market reforms are working; that the best help for unemployed and employed people is the sound and stable economic policies that we are pursuing; and that the Employment Service has done a magnificent job in placing unemployed people back into work. All those facts should be obvious to the hon. Gentleman, as should the nonsense of his party's policy of a minimum wage, which would destroy enterprise and jobs.
I was describing the benefits that will flow from the merger of the Department for Education and the Department of Employment. It is only the Labour party, linked as always with its old friends in the TUC, that cannot see those benefits. It is locked in the past and condemned by its knee-jerk reaction to oppose any change. Only Labour Members fail to see that this country's future lies with a skilled and well-educated work force.
The hon. Member for Peckham may be in touch with the TUC but she is out of touch with opinion in industry and the teaching profession.
Ms Harman: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Shephard: No, I have only two minutes left.
Who will speak for the Labour party on those matters in future? We wait to see. On tonight's showing, it is unlikely to be the hon. Member for Peckham, who arrived with her indignation prepared in advance. Unfortunately, she arrived without the answers. Yet again, she has proved herself incapable of answering the simplest of questions about Labour's intentions. She cannot answer the basic question: what would be the level of a minimum wage? May I give the hon. Lady a friendly warning? She may be wise to avoid making a commitment on that matter because if the experiences of her unfortunate colleague, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), are anything to go by, it normally suffices for an Opposition spokesman to make a policy statement for it to be countermanded by Labour high command, sometimes within months, sometimes within weeks, and once within two hours. How sad it is that the House has been subjected to the sort of imprecision and vacillation to which, alas, I
716
became all too accustomed in respect of education. The interests of children in schools, students in our colleges and universities—
Mr. Gordon McMaster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 299.

Division No. 200]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Dewar, Donald

Adams, Mrs Irene

Dixon, Don

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Dobson, Frank

Allen, Graham

Donohoe, Brian H

Alton, David

Dowd, Jim

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Armstrong, Hilary

Eagle, Ms Angela

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Eastham, Ken

Ashton, Joe

Etherington, Bill

Austin-Walker, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Barnes, Harry

Fatchett, Derek

Barron, Kevin

Faulds, Andrew

Bayley, Hugh

Fisher, Mark

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Flynn, Paul

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Bennett, Andrew F

Fraser, John

Benton, Joe

Fyfe, Maria

Bermingham, Gerald

Galloway, George

Berry, Roger

Gapes, Mike

Betts, Clive

Garrett, John

Blunkett, David

George, Bruce

Boateng, Paul

Gerrard, Neil

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Godsiff, Roger

Byers, Stephen

Golding, Mrs Llin

Caborn, Richard

Gordon, Mildred

Callaghan, Jim

Graham, Thomas

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell-Savours, D N

Hall, Mike

Cann, Jamie

Hanson, David

Chidgey, David

Harman, Ms Harriet

Chisholm, Malcolm

Harvey, Nick

Church, Judith

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Clapham, Michael

Henderson, Doug

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Heppell, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hinchliffe, David

Clelland, David

Hodge, Margaret

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hoey, Kate

Cohen, Harry

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Connarty, Michael

Home Robertson, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hood, Jimmy

Corbett, Robin

Hoon, Geoffrey

Corbyn, Jeremy

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Corston, Jean

Hoyle, Doug

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cox, Tom

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Hutton, John

Dalyell, Tam

Illsley, Eric

Darling, Alistair

Ingram, Adam

Davidson, Ian

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jamieson, David

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

Janner, Greville

717

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Parry, Robert

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Pendry, Tom

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Pike, Peter L

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Keen, Alan

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

Purchase, Ken

Khabra, Piara S

Quin, Ms Joyce

Kilfoyle, Peter

Radice, Giles

Kirkwood, Archy

Randall, Stuart

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Raynsford, Nick

Lewis, Terry

Reid, Dr John

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Rendel, David

Litherland, Robert

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Livingstone, Ken

Rogers, Allan

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Rooker, Jeff

Lynne, Ms Liz

Rooney, Terry

McAllion, John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McAvoy, Thomas

Rowlands, Ted

Macdonald, Calum

Sheerman, Barry

McFall, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McKelvey, William

Simpson, Alan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis

McLeish, Henry

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McMaster, Gordon

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

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McWilliam, John

Snape, Peter

Madden, Max

Soley, Clive

Maddock, Diana

Spearing, Nigel

Mahon, Alice

Spellar, John

Marek, Dr John

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Steinberg, Gerry

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Stevenson, George

Martlew, Eric

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Maxton, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Meacher, Michael

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Meale, Alan

Timms, Stephen

Michael, Alun

Touhig, Don

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Turner, Dennis

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Vaz, Keith

Milburn, Alan

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Miller, Andrew

Wallace, James

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Walley, Joan

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Wareing, Robert N

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Wicks, Malcolm

Mowlam, Marjorie

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Mudie, George

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Mullin, Chris

Wilson, Brian

Murphy, Paul

Winnick, David

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Worthington, Tony

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Wray, Jimmy

O'Hara, Edward

Olner, Bill

Tellers for the Ayes:

O'Neill, Martin

Mrs. Barbara Roche and Mr. John Cummings.

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Batiste, Spencer

Alexander, Richard

Bellingham, Henry

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Bendall, Vivian

Amess, David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Arbuthnot, James

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Booth, Hartley

Ashby, David

Boswell, Tim

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Bowis, John

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Baldry, Tony

Brandreth, Gyles

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Brazier, Julian

Bates, Michael

Bright, Sir Graham

718

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Budgen, Nicholas

Hague, William

Burns, Simon

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Burt, Alistair

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butler, Peter

Hampson, Dr Keith

Butterfill, John

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hannam, Sir John

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Carrington, Matthew

Harris, David

Carttiss, Michael

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Cash, William

Hawkins, Nick

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hawksley, Warren

Chapman, Sydney

Hayes, Jerry

Clappison, James

Heald, Oliver

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hendry, Charles

Congdon, David

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Conway, Derek

Hicks, Robert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Horam, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Couchman, James

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cran, James

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

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

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Day, Stephen

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Devlin, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Dicks, Terry

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Jack, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Dover, Den

Jenkin, Bernard

Duncan, Alan

Jessel, Toby

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dunn, Bob

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Dykes, Hugh

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Key, Robert

Elletson, Harold

King, Rt Hon Tom

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Knapman, Roger

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Knox, Sir David

Evennett, David

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Faber, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fabricant, Michael

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Fishburn, Dudley

Legg, Barry

Forman, Nigel

Leigh, Edward

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Lemox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Forth, Eric

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lidington, David

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lightbown, David

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

French, Douglas

Lord, Michael

Fry, Sir Peter

Luff, Peter

Gale, Roger

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Gallie, Phil

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gardiner, Sir George

MacKay, Andrew

Garnier, Edward

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Gill, Christopher

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gillan, Cheryl

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Madel, Sir David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Maitland, Lady Olga

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Malone, Gerald

Gorst, Sir John

Mans, Keith

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Marland, Paul

719

Marlow, Tony

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Rurnbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Sackville, Tom

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Merchant Piers

Shaw, David (Dover)

Mills, Iain

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Monro, Sir Hector

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Shersby, Sir Michael

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Sims, Roger

Nelson, Anthony

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Soames, Nicholas

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Speed, Sir Keith

Nicholls, Patrick

Spencer, Sir Derek

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Norris, Steve

Spink, Dr Robert

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Spring, Richard

Oppenheim, Phillip

Sproat, Iain

Ottaway, Richard

Squire, Robin (Homchurch)

Page, Richard

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Paice, James

Steen, Anthony

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Stephen, Michael

Patten, Rt Hon John

Stem, Michael

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Stewart, Allan

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Streeter, Gary

Pickles, Eric

Sumberg, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Sweeney, Walter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Sykes, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Powell, William (Corby)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Rathbone, Tim

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Temple-Morris, Peter

Richards, Rod

Thomason, Roy

Riddick, Graham

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Robathan, Andrew

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Thurnham, Peter

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

720

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Wells, Bowen

Tracey, Richard

Whitney, Ray

Tredinnick, David

Whittingdale, John

Trend, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Trotter, Neville

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wilkinson, John

Vauqhan Sir Gerard

Willetts, David

Wilshire, David

Viggers, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Walden, George

Wolfson, Mark

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Yeo, Tim

Waller, Gary

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Tellers for the Noes:

Waterson, Nigel

Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Watts, John

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the increase of 38 per cent. in average incomes and the rise in spending of all income groups since 1979; welcomes the fact that the United Kingdom has fewer people claiming unemployment benefits and more jobs than any other major European country; welcomes the creation of a new Department for Education and Employment to improve further Britain's skill base and competitive position; applauds the £700 million package of measures to improve incentives to work for those on benefits and increase the rewards of work for lower-paid families; welcomes further initiatives, such as the Jobseeker's Allowance, the Back to Work Bonus, and the pilot of an Earnings Top-up for childless people on low earnings; believes that supplementing low pay to help people into work is preferable to destroying jobs through a statutory national minimum wage and the social chapter; and recognises that improving opportunity and the reward for effort is less socially divisive than encouraging dependency and the politics of envy.

Competition (Local Government)
10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
The order completes the Government's programme for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to white collar professional services by adding financial, information technology and personnel services to the statutory CCT regime. It also amends the current definition of building cleaning to including the cleaning of police buildings.
CCT has, of course, brought many benefits to local taxpayers in the past 15 years, but perhaps more significant in the longer term have been the improvements in service quality and efficiency brought about by better management and a clearer strategic focus. Not least have been savings which we estimate at well over £400 million.
The Government first set out their intention to extend CCT to white collar professional services in November 1991. Since then, we have been engaged in a thorough debate with local authority representatives on the framework for white collar CCT. Parliament approved orders defining the first of these—legal and construction and property services—in November last year.
On 18 May, we announced to the House details of the regime which would apply to the remaining services described in the order. The definitions are part of a package which also includes the competition percentages for this work, revised rules for tendering and the implementation timetables, all of which will be set out in further statutory instruments once the order receives Parliament's approval.
In many cases, decisions on these matters have entailed careful judgments which balance the need to bring competition to bear on white collar services with the operational flexibility that individual authorities rightly seek. I intend to monitor closely the implementation of white collar CCT, and will undertake to reconsider any aspect of the regime if there is hard evidence of problems in applying the new rules.
We have met many of the concerns of local authorities in putting together a challenging but, I believe, fair regime. CCT will not impose a rigid model for service delivery, but instead will encourage innovation, improved quality and greater value for money. The onus is now on local authorities to respond positively to the challenge of competition.
I commend the order to the House.
10.18 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: As the Minister pointed out, the order defines the activities to be included in the Government's latest extension of compulsory competitive tendering to financial services, information technology services and personnel services. The Labour party has some misgivings about CCT. We would like to raise one or two issues this evening and persuade the Minister to respond to them.
The Government are still intent on breaking up local government services even though there is now growing evidence that CCT costs more than it saves. CCT is causing
722
the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in local government, and it discriminates largely against women. The quality of services provided by local government is falling dramatically as services move into the private sector.
As local government is swamped by bureaucracy as a result of compulsory competitive tendering and the preparation for, in particular, white collar CCT, and the private companies cut the terms and conditions of employees in order to maximise profit, there is increasing concern about the abuses and collusion that appear to be taking place among private contractors.
Experience of blue collar CCT has shown that we can expect more of the same problems next year as white collar CCT is implemented. The Government's insistence on CCT is based on the premise that quality will be improved and costs reduced. The Minister mentioned cost reductions of £400 million; perhaps he will tell us where he obtained that figure, which tends to be contradicted by information available to the Opposition. To us, the opposite appears to be the case: costs appear to be increasing, and quality appears to be declining.
The Government's own research found that costs had decreased by an average of some 6.5 per cent., over a range of a 15 per cent. cut through to a 2 to 3 per cent. increase. That has been achieved mainly through the imposition by private companies of pay reductions, reductions in holiday entitlement and, of course, considerable job losses. In-house contracts have been won at a similar cost in jobs and conditions of employment.
It is unlikely that any such cost savings will be replicated in white collar CCTs. The percentage of work to be put out to competitive tender is smaller; the type of work is more quality-orientated; and there is a fear that the bureaucracy involved will far outweigh any savings to be achieved. In fact, the sheer volume of work involved in preparation for compulsory competitive tendering has added some 10 per cent. to the costs—and, in bureaucracy terms, to the value of the contract.
White collar CCT places a greater emphasis on quality than blue collar CCT. Many local government departments have built up technical expertise that will be fragmented with the introduction of white collar CCT; many in-house departments will lose the expertise that they have built up over a number of years. In my view, white collar CCT is unnecessary. At present, there is considerable downward pressure on local government as a result of recent financial settlements: over the past few years, many local authorities have been squeezed, and many of the areas that we are debating have suffered cuts as a result of capping and other Government restraints.
Is compulsory competitive tendering saving money, and does it discriminate against women? The Minister will know of a report compiled by the Centre for Public Services, on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which published some startling findings. It involved a case study of four services and 39 specific instances, and concluded that, in those four services alone, there have been 74,000 job losses. It also stated that the cost of unemployment, combined with the loss of income resulting from job losses, cuts in hours, loss of holiday retainers and lower wages, was some £41.2 million in the four services.
Gender differences were highly significant, changes in women's employment accounting for £32 million, or 70 per cent., of the cost of increased unemployment and loss of income to central Government. The study calculated

723
cost savings to be only about £16.4 million—a sum outweighed by costs of £41.2 million. Nationally, over the four services, we have a figure of £126 million. Put another way, for every £1 million of CCT savings, the cost to the Government and to the public purse—and so to unemployment benefit, family credit and other benefits—is £2 million.
Women's employment fell by 22 per cent., and male employment by 12 per cent. Obviously, a higher proportion of women are affected by CCT. Average hours declined by 25 per cent. The decline in hours and pay means that the weekly earnings of a greater number of women are below the national insurance lower earnings limit, and that those women are often excluded from employment protection.
There is a trend towards multiple jobs. Women have a number of contracts with the same local authority or private contractor, which bring them above the national insurance threshold only when they are combined. Many local authorities and companies are happy for women to remain below that threshold, so that they do not have to contribute to the national insurance fund.
More than 200,000 white collar and professional staff, men and women, will be affected by the extension of CCT from 1996. Four out of five women's jobs affected by white collar CCT are in low-paid grades. Does the Minister accept those findings, and if so, what action does he propose to take as a result of those conclusions? It is obvious that the impact on women's employment is highly significant.
Those problems are likely to be replicated in white collar CCT in personnel, information technology and financial services, as quite a high number of female full-time jobs exist in those sectors. What will the Minister therefore do about that report? Does he accept it, and if not, will he, at the very least, commission his own research? At the very best, he should shelve the whole white collar CCT programme until those issues have been far more thoroughly researched. If he does not accept the report, I should like to hear his reasons why.
On job losses overall, 12 per cent. of local government jobs have been lost. Some 167,000 manual jobs were lost between 1989 and 1993.
We come to the issues of efficiency and competition. Local government is required to achieve a 6 per cent. return on capital used in local government. That condition does not apply to private companies—no requirement exists for that 6 per cent. return. Private sector companies can make a loss, and it does not affect the fact that they hold that contract. Surely that is unfair competition and militates against efficiency.
For example, in grounds maintenance, in 1994–95 the contractor AAH Environmental made a loss of £3 million, which was sustained through the parent company AAH plc. The highways direct service organisation of Bradford metropolitan borough council, however, is to be closed from April 1996 because of a loss of £1.18 million in 1993–94, despite the fact that, in previous years, it had achieved surpluses in other activities. That loss, however, cannot be offset in the same way as such losses can be in the private sector.
Having said that, some 85 per cent. of direct service organisations are achieving their target. Those DSOs plough back the profits and surpluses they make from CCT to a far greater extent than Conservative authorities or authorities controlled by other than Labour councillors.
724
Competition has decreased. There is overwhelming evidence of cartels and collusion. In building cleaning, four companies have 29 per cent. of the contracts. In grounds maintenance, five companies have 53 per cent. of the contracts. In school meals, three companies have 78 per cent. of the contracts; and so it goes on. In those sectors, therefore, CCT appears not to have increased competition at all.
In May this year, 11 private contractors were found guilty of price rigging. The companies involved in tendering in areas such as financial services will be far bigger and better able to offset any losses on particular contracts. The application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 has persuaded some private contractors that it is not worth tendering within local government, because they cannot derive profits from cutting jobs, hours of work and conditions of employment. For example, Securicor recently sold its cleaning company and AAH—the company that I just mentioned—is to sell off its environmental services division.
The quality of the services provided by the private sector has declined dramatically. I recently attended a conference at which the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), said that over-emphasis on quality of service in local government would be viewed as anti-competitive behaviour. So local authorities will now be prevented from concentrating on providing quality services, because that will be regarded as anti-competitive. The idea of quality service provision has gone out of the window in favour of providing the cheapest service.
There are numerous examples of contracts being terminated because of quality issues. I shall name only my favourite one. The West Wiltshire local authority sacked its grounds maintenance contractor which had failed to achieve the targets stated on the contract, because it said that the "grass was growing too quickly". In April 1995, The Daily Telegraph said:
"The Government's drive to privatise council services is in crisis… Scores of contractors have gone bust or been sacked, costs are rising and local government auditors have given warning about the increasing risks of corruption … Some of the contractors have also expressed doubts … particularly when (CCT) compels councils to privatise, often against their will, and attracts over-aggressive bidding with a resultant low priority on quality".
That quote comes from a newspaper that is not exactly pro-Labour.
Finally, I refer to the section of the regulations concerning police buildings. It has been highlighted that the requirement for police authorities to put out their building cleaning to private contract could jeopardise the security of those buildings. A number of police buildings serve a dual purpose, and many others have a security requirement. Trade unions and other bodies involved with police authorities and building cleaning point out that that security could be put at risk by contracting out work to the private sector.
It is clear that CCT is costly, more and more inefficient and provides a poorer quality of service. The emphasis is on excluding local government in favour of private sector profit on the basis of dogma. There is a cost in jobs, levels of pay, conditions of work and, above all, in terms of quality of service to the council tax payer, who is required to accept the cheapest available service. I ask the Minister to reconsider the order, and particularly the issue of discrimination against women.
10.33 pm
Mr. David Rendel: As I have expressed my views and those of my Liberal Democrat colleagues about compulsory competitive tendering to the House on various occasions, my remarks tonight shall be brief.
I have always argued that there are clear benefits in introducing competitive tendering for some public services. Competition can help to eliminate waste and it can put the spotlight on the level of service required at what cost. Moreover, external contractors can sometimes possess a useful expertise which is not available within a given local authority. The opportunity for a local authority to choose between its own expertise and that of other outside contractors can only enhance that authority's ability to provide quality services with good value for money.
However, we must be clear that, in order to gain full advantage from competitive tendering, we must allow local authorities to use it as a part of their individual management and organisational policies. The compulsory element of the current tendering process undermines the right of local authority managers to manage, and the right of councillors to set council policy. That prohibition of local decision making is itself anti-competitive.
Under present CCT regulations, local authorities are not permitted to take fully into account the costs of transition to externally provided services. Neither may they account for continuing tendering costs or make any allowance for the loss of internal direct labour capacity. Tying a council to external corporate pricing that way does not aid real competition.
Above all, CCT often does not even make economic sense. The Equal Opportunities Commission survey of the real costs of CCT cast a good deal of doubt on the ground of cost alone. When CCT was first introduced, Newbury district council—my own authority—made a policy decision to fight for and to win, wherever possible, every contract that it was forced to put out to tender.
In almost every case, the council was successful, but the result in almost every case was increased cost to the authority, because the tender price had to be added to the cost of an extra layer of bureaucracy—the contracts board that was put in to oversee the running of the contract. Under the system, one had two sets of management—one to oversee the running of the contract and one to oversee the contract itself.
When arguments are made about public service and public accountability, it becomes clear that CCT is by no means a policy born of common sense but one driven by dogma. If councillors have been elected to govern in their own particular style, with specific commitments to service provision, they should be able to fulfil those obligations. The whole principle underlying local government is that local people are the best judges of their local needs, and that they express that judgment in local elections. Compulsory competitive tendering goes directly against that basic principle of local democracy.
I am pleased that the order before the House has been toned down a little by the Minister, but there remain matters of great concern. We know, thanks to the Equal Opportunities Commission, that CCT is particularly detrimental to women who wish to work part-time. I fully support the remarks of the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), about women. Moreover, the complicated regulations involved in CCT
726
for finance, information technology and personnel are a bureaucratic nightmare, well described as a job creation scheme for accountants.
The cleaning of police buildings, different parts of which may be sensitive at different times, is not a service that should ever have been subjected to CCT. I hope that the Government are looking forward to the first serious leak of confidential information that results.
In the light of the Secretary of State's changes to his original proposals, perhaps he is just beginning to get the message that the Conservative vision of local government as simply an allocator of contracts to the private sector, with precious little scope for accountability, is not shared by almost anybody involved in local government. It is not shared by local authority associations, Opposition parties or the public. Even some Conservative councillors, I am happy to say, have had just about all they can take from CCT.
The Government have twisted and turned over local government review, and I understand that they may be about to ditch the strict capping regime. As the Government seem to be in the mood for tuning, they ought to know that a U-turn on CCT would be widely appreciated throughout the country.
10.38 pm
Sir Paul Beresford: I will first touch on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who displayed a mind-boggling misunderstanding of how competitive tendering can be used and the control that can be exercised.
If the hon. Gentleman's local authority finds extra costs incurred in managing and controlling CCT systems—whether in-house or external—it had better look at it again. From my considerable experience, significant savings can be made. One must examine the way that the contract is set up and the specifications. Additional costs are a sign of incompetence on the part of the local authority. If the hon. Gentleman had done more homework—
Mr. Rendel rose—
Sir Paul Beresford: I have not finished yet.
Mr. Paul Boateng: Churlish.
Sir Paul Beresford: Desperately so.
The hon. Gentleman should recognise that, in terms of the police, we are talking about a contract for 20 per cent. of the space available. That overcomes the difficulty that he was talking about.
Much play has been made of the commission's conclusion that CCT discriminates against women—
Mr. Rendel: The Minister described my local authority as having been obviously incompetent in its dealings over CCT. Does he realise that, at the time I was talking about, that local authority was Conservative-controlled?
Sir Paul Beresford: What I said stands. For a small fee, I am sure that we can arrange for someone to come down and help the authority. But under any other control, things would probably have been considerably worse.
The idea, stemming from the Equal Opportunities Commission, that CCT as a policy discriminates against women is the poorest piece of research I have seen for quite a long time. It looks at a very narrow range of services; it takes a very partial view of the evidence.

727
I do not accept the finding that CCT costs local authorities and the Exchequer more. Based on my personal experience of a London authority, in which we brought in an outside contractor to take over the IT services of a huge London borough, the resulting savings amounted to more than £1 million, with all on-costs added in. Moreover, a better service resulted. It is therefore untrue to say that CCT costs more.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said that CCT costs more—a point that I have already dealt with. He also talked about a lack of future competition. My experience, after 12 or 15 years of competitive tendering in one London borough, has been exactly the opposite. The competition is harder and tighter, and that has spread throughout all authorities that adopt a realistic attitude—
Mr. Boateng: Which borough was that?
Sir Paul Beresford: I am talking about Wandsworth borough council, the council that managed to provide some of the best services in London—with a zero poll tax on two occasions. Part of that was due to the use of competitive tendering.
These debates have gone on for some time—
Mr. Nick Hawkins rose—
Sir Paul Beresford: Nothing new has appeared. The proof of the pudding has been in the results. Many local authorities have adopted the route that we suggest this evening, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

Legal Aid
10.42 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move,
That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
This is a purely technical amendment, which is intended neither to extend nor to reduce the scope of assistance or representation, but merely to put transfer for trial, as we are now going to call it, on the same footing from a legal aid point of view as committals have been in the past.
10.42 pm
Mr. Paul Boateng: As this is a purely technical motion, we welcome it.
Question put and agreed to.

HEALTH
Ordered,
That Mr. Iain Duncan Smith be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. John Marshall be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TREASURY

  Firearms and Ammunition
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were(a) found to be illegally importing firearms and ammunition and (b) prosecuted for illegal importation of firearms and ammunition in each year since 1992. [33247]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs and Excise does not hold central statistics on the number of people found to be illegally importing firearms and ammunition. The table shows, for 1992, 1993 and 1994, the number of detected irregularities in firearms importations; seized firearms; and resulting prosecutions. It is customs' policy to take offence action, either by prosecution or compound penalty, when there is sufficient evidence to show that those concerned were knowingly concerned in a fraudulent evasion of United Kingdom firearms and ammunition prohibitions and restrictions. In all other cases, action is restricted to seizure of the goods. As an alternative to criminal prosecution, the compound penalty procedure is used primarily in respect of non-commercial importations of CS gas canisters or undeclared firearms held for personal security reasons by visiting yachtsmen. These factors account for the low rate of prosecutions resulting from a large number of detections and seizures.

  Year

  Detections

  Firearms seized

  Prosecutions

  1992

  n/a

  1,427

  6

  1993

  276

  8,674

  4

  1994

  441

  6,821

  12

  Single Currency
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the European Commission(a) has spent and (b) is proposing to spend on propagating its proposals for a single currency and on the green paper on the subject. [28077]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Line A-3501 of the European Community budget sets out expenditure on technical preparatory work for economic and monetary union. An element of the expenditure under line B3–306 is attributable to the provision of information on economic and monetary union, while an element of the expenditure under line B5–600 covers relevant statistical information. These figures do not include Commission staff and publication costs, which are not broken down by function in the budget. Copies of the European Community budget for years to 1995, and of the preliminary draft budget for 1996, are available in the House of Commons Library.
  376

  Banknotes
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has proposed or considered arrangements under which banknotes would continue to be issued to Scottish and Northern Ireland banks under a single European currency. [30462]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  By the terms of the Maastricht treaty, provided the European Central bank was prepared to authorise them to do so, Scottish and Northern Ireland banks could continue to issue their own banknotes, though they would remain without legal tender status, as is currently the situation. Article 16 of the statute of the European system of central banks, a protocol to the Maastricht treaty, expressly provides that the European Central bank shall respect as far as possible existing practices regarding the issue and design of banknotes.

  Employee Share Ownership
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statistics are held on employee share ownership plans established by companies over the last five years; how many companies and employees are covered by such plans; what is the level of control and ownership established by those plans; if he can give examples of plans establishing employee control of the running of their company; and if he will make a statement. [32426]

  Mr. Jack
  The law provides favourable tax treatment for employee share ownership trusts or plans—commonly known as ESOPs—which meet certain qualifying conditions set out in the legislation. In addition, "case law ESOPs"—as they are often called—which do not meet all the statutory requirements, may nevertheless qualify for one of the tax reliefs available to qualifying ESOPs, following principles established in case law. There is no requirement for qualifying ESOPs to be approved in advance by the Inland Revenue, so it is not possible to say how many have been established. Information about other arrangements which may be described as ESOPs is not held centrally. The other detailed information requested is not available.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the breakdown of the public sector borrowing requirement in the last fiscal year between central and local government. [32819]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Central Government borrowing, on its own account, was £38.3 billion in 1994–95. Local authorities made a net payment of £1.1 billion and public corporations made a net repayment of £1.9 billion.

  House Builders Federation
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the House Builders Federation; and when he next expects to meet it. [32816]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Chancellor last met the president of the House Builders Federation on 22 September 1993. At present, the House Builders Federation has not requested a meeting this year.
  377

  Uncollected Tax
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the figures for uncollected tax in 1994 for(a) PAYE, (b) capital gains tax, (c) corporation tax, (d) schedule D and (e) VAT. [32828]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The amount of value added tax written off or remitted in the year ended December 1994 was approximately £550 million. The information requested on PAYE, capital gains tax, corporation tax and schedule D tax is not yet available.

  National Debt
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he estimates the national debt will reach £310 billion. [32826]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Net public sector debt is forecast to reach £310 billion by the end of March 1996, about the cyclical peak of the GDP debt ratio.

  Cheque Clearing
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set a date for the implementation of the cheque clearing system as set out in the 1990 White Paper "Banking Services: Law and Practice", Cm 1026. [33143]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government have already said that they intend to introduce legislation as soon as an appropriate opportunity arises to allow the cheque clearing system described in the 1990 White Paper to be introduced. It is not possible to be more precise at the moment.

  Charities (VAT)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of irrecoverable VAT paid by charities in the last year for which figures are available; and what proposals he has to compensate charities for lost revenue. [33022]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No official figures of charities' irrecoverable VAT are kept. I am currently studying proposals for a compensation scheme recently submitted to me by the charities tax reform group.

  Gilts and Bonds
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the taxation of gilts and bonds. [33978]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government have decided to proceed with the reform of the taxation of gilts and bonds outlined in the consultative document published by the Inland Revenue on 25 May 1995. However, these changes will not apply to the overwhelming majority of private investors.

  These proposals will produce a simpler and more sensible tax regime, and will pave the way for market innovations which would help to ensure that the United Kingdom maintains and enhances its competitive position
  378
  in world financial markets. The introduction of a strips market will be a further important step in the development of the gilt market, widening investor choice and helping to reduce funding costs.

  At the same time, the Government intend to protect the interests of private investors. There will be a threshold, set at nominal holdings of £200,000, below which private investors will continue to pay tax on interest on the present basis. In addition, the Government have decided that the existing regime should continue to apply to two issues of low coupon gilts—3.5 per cent. 1999/04 and 5.5 per cent. 2008/12. These gilts are widely held by private investors. The Government have also decided that all non-equity shares—including zero-coupon preference shares—should be outside the new regime, although the position may be reviewed if serious distortions result. These decisions mean that probably fewer than 4,000 private investor—0.5 per cent. of the total—will be within the new regime. Many of those affected will on balance gain, rather than lose, from the reform.

  There will be special rules to ensure that gilt and bond unit trusts are not disadvantaged, and that there is tax exemption for corporate bond Personal Equity Plans.

  The element in the return on indexed gilts due to indexation of the principal repayment will remain tax free.

  Many of those responding to the Inland Revenue's consultative document have expressed the wish for more time to discuss technical details with the Inland Revenue. At the same time, the Government are conscious of the difficulties which the markets and those having to make commercial decisions are facing because of uncertainty as to whether the reform will go ahead.

  The Government have, therefore, decided to delay the start of the new regime until 1 April 1996 for companies, and until 6 April 1996 for the few private investors with holdings of over £200,000. In the meantime, the Inland Revenue will continue technical discussions with interested parties.

  The Government have decided in principle to introduce an official gilt strips facility. It has also decided that gilts strippable through any such market should be exempt from withholding tax and the quarterly accounting arrangements to be introduced in connection with gilt repo. The introduction of a strips market will not take place before the second half of 1996. In the meantime, the Bank of England will be consulting further on the details.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received to exclude zero dividend preference shares from the scope of the proposed changes to the taxation of gilts and bonds; and if he will make a statement; [33846]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which private investors holding zero dividend preference shares will be affected by the proposed changes to the taxation of gilts and bonds; [33847]

  (3) what steps he intends to take to avoid the potential for double taxation of gilts and bonds held by collective investment vehicles under the changes proposed to the treatment of these investments. [33845]
  379
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is today giving to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks).

  Oil Companies (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what information he has on the cost to the Exchequer of tax relief for decommissioning costs claimed by oil companies operating in the North sea in each financial year since 1985–86; [31226]

  (2) what is the size of the adjustment in the forecasts of tax revenue published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96" to take account of relief claimed for decommissioning costs by oil companies operating in the North sea in 1995–96 and 1996–97 and any future years for which figures are available. [31227]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: The cost of decommissioning North sea oil installations is one of the costs of extracting oil in the North sea. As it is the profits of North sea oil companies that are taxed, it is right that tax relief should be given for relevant decommissioning costs.

  There were no decommissioning costs in North sea oil and gas fields before 1991. From 1991–92 to 1996–97, deductions in tax revenues—royalties, petroleum revenue tax and corporation tax—average about £5 million per annum due to relief claimed for decommissioning costs. They are then expected to rise substantially.

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would be raised by limiting all tax relief to the basic rate of tax. [32531]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 July 1995]: Based on a projection of the 1993–94 "Survey of Personal Incomes" and other survey data in line with assumptions in the summer economic forecast, the estimated full year yield at 1995–96 income levels would be about £890 million.

  Bank of England, Leeds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the long-term viability of the Bank of England branch in Leeds. [32545]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: This is a matter for the Bank of England. The Bank has recently completed a review of its branches and agencies. The Bank concluded that the economic liaison and representation work of its nine regional agents, including Leeds, had become increasingly important and should continue. It has, however, decided to cease branch banking operations and will discuss the branches' work on note distribution with the major clearing banks.

  Alcohol Taxation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relative tax rules on spirits and other alcoholic drinks in relation to units of alcohol; and what assessment he makes of revenue maximisation in determining the level of duty imposed on spirits. [32954]
  380
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: Excise duties on all alcoholic drinks are levied at specific, rather than ad valorem, rates on the end product. Duty on spirits is levied according to the litres of pure alcohol content, whereas that on beer is charged per hectolitre per cent. alcohol by volume. Cider is also taxed per hectolitre but subject to a maximum strength of less than 8.5 per cent. alcohol by volume. Duty per hectolitre on wine varies according to the nature and strength of the product: five duty bands cover a range of strengths from 1.2 per cent. up to 22 per cent. alcohol by volume and differentiate between still, sparkling and fortified wines.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes into consideration a wide range of social, economic and health factors as well as revenue considerations when setting the level of taxation on spirits.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drugs Misuse
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria which he applies to reschedule drug substances under the terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; how temazepam relates to these criteria; and if he will make a statement. [31393]

  Mr. Maclean
  No rescheduling may occur under the 1971 Act except after consultation with, or on the recommendation of, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; and the council is required to have regard to misused drugs which are having, or appear to them capable of having, harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem. The council has recommended that temazepam should be controlled under schedule 3 of the relevant regulations rather than schedule 4, the effects of which would be as the then Minister of State described in his reply of 19 April to the hon. Member,Official Report, column 196. The Government's careful consideration of this recommendation is continuing.

  Following consultation with the Department of Health the Home Office is taking steps to impose safe custody requirements on manufacturers and wholesalers, and the Department of Health is engaged in consultations with interested parties with a view to banning NHS prescribing by general practitioners of the soft gelatin gel-filled capsules. These measures were announced by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 10 May, Official Report, column 756.

  Racially Motivated Incidents
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racially motivated attacks are estimated to have taken place within the Greater London area in each of the last 12 months. [31699]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and is contained in the table. The data supplied relate to the number of racially motivated incidents as per the Association of Chief Police Officers definition and excludes the City of London.
  381

  Racial incident figures: Metropolitan Police District 1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  Month

  Number of racial incidents

  April 1994

  478

  May

  443

  June

  509

  July

  557

  August

  558

  September

  517

  October

  454

  November

  461

  December

  384

  January 1995

  379

  February

  379

  March

  361

  Total 1994–95

  5,480

  Association of Chief Police Officers definition: Any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigative officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motive, or any incidents which include allegations of racial motivation made by any person.

  Penile Plethysmograph Tests
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the accuracy of penile plethysmograph tests as predictions of behaviour; what are the guidelines for the use of such tests; and what assessment he has made of the consequences of taking such tests in terms of prisoners' assumptions about one another. [32247]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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. George Howarth, dated 10 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what assessment has been made of the accuracy of penile plethysmograph (PPG) tests as predictions of behaviour; what are the guidelines for use of such tests; and what assessments has been made of the consequences of taking such tests in terms of prisoners' assumptions about one another.
  The use of PPG by the Prison Service follows the guidelines published by the British Psychological Society and is only one element in the comprehensive assessment which forms part of the Prison Service's Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP). Its use is based on relevant research findings and advice from international experts. This research indicates that sadistic and paedophilic sexual preferences, shown up by the PPG, are common among convicted sex offenders and rare among unconvicted men. In addition, convicted sex offenders, who show these preferences to a more marked degree appear more likely to re-offend.
  However, PPG assessment is not primarily used by the Prison Service to predict future behaviour. It is used with men who have already been identified as being at risk of committing sexual offences to assess one factor, sexual preferences, which may contribute to their offending.
  Since the PPG is used as part of a comprehensive package of assessment and treatment, it is difficult to isolate this particular element from the effect of the SOTP as a whole. Research has shown, however, that by the end of the SOTP, when PPG assessment is included, participants typically:

  accept responsibility for their offences rather than blaming other people.

  are more aware of the damage and distress caused to victims.

  are more aware of the factors which put them at risk of committing further offences.

  382

  have worked out ways of controlling these factors.

  behave in a less aggressive and impulsive way in relation to prison staff and other prisoners.

  are less emotional and angry.

  A careful and rigorous evaluation of its effects on prisoners is built into the SOTP. The programme is periodically revised in the light of evaluation results.

  Young Offender Institutions
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the approximate start-up cost of the two proposed young offender institutions in England and Wales. [32433]

  (2) what are the approximate costings of running experimental young offender institutions in England and Wales. [32435]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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. George Howarth, dated 10 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the approximate start-up cost of the two proposed young offender institutions and the approximate costings of running experimental young offender institutions in England and Wales.
  The Prison Service is currently working on proposals for two new types of regime for young offenders. Information about the projected costs of these ventures cannot be given until the proposals have been approved and an announcement made.
  There are no young offender institutions being run on an experimental basis in England and Wales at present.

  Advertising
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent on outside advertising agencies for each year since 1979; and if he will list the specific advertising campaigns undertaken by his Department, their purpose and their cost. [32482]

  Mr. Howard
  Expenditure on advertising by my Department for each year since 1979 is as follows:

  1979–80: £2,904,671

  1980–81: £1,649,605

  1981–82: £1,834,476

  1982–83: £1,957,304

  1983–84: £2,760,681

  1984–85: £3,262,700

  1985–86: £3,306,391

  1986–87: £5,000,000

  1987–88: £4,700,000

  1988–89: £5,400,000

  1989–90: £5,500,000

  1990–91: £5,728,000

  1991–92: £7,275,940

  1992–93: £7,344,635

  1993–94: £9,090,222

  1994–95: £10,912,000

  These figures include the 1.75 per cent. commission charged by the Central Office of Information for services associated with centralised purchasing.
  383
  The specific campaigns undertaken between 1990–91 and 1994–95 were as follows:

  £

  1990–91

  Crime Prevention

  To encourage more widespread crime prevention.

  2,890,309

  Electoral Registration

  To encourage un-registered but otherwise eligible citizens to register to vote.

  468,419

  Fire Service Recruitment

  To recruit retained fire fighters.

  22,387

  Special Constabulary

  To stimulate increased applications to join the Special Constabulary.

  1,176,645

  Fire Safety

  To encourage wider ownership, installation and maintenance of smoke alarms in domestic premises.

  1,165,831

  Miscellaneous Campaigns

  A range of small campaigns such as Police Graduate Recruitment and advice about Magistrates' Courts.

  4,409

  1991–92

  Crime Prevention

  3,637,514

  Dangerous Dogs Legislation

  To inform owners of dogs included in legislation of action they must take to comply with that legislation.

  262,719

  Electoral Registration

  627,336

  Absent Voting

  To advise eligible voters of absent voting rights

  512,062

  Fire Service Recruitment

  25,773

  Special Constabulary

  954,705

  Fire Safety

  1,244,000

  Miscellaneous Campaigns

  11,831

  1992–93

  Crime Prevention

  3,826,280

  Electoral Registration

  620,000

  Special Constabulary

  1,357,133

  Fire Safety

  1,534,522

  Miscellaneous Campaigns

  6,700

  1993–94

  Crime Prevention

  4,984,722

  Elections

  620,000

  Special Constabulary

  1,459,000

  Fire Prevention

  2,020,000

  Miscellaneous Campaigns

  6,500

  1994–95

  Partners Against Crime

  To encourage crime prevention and greater public co-operation with the police through Neighbourhood Watch, Street Watch and Neighbourhood Special Constables schemes.

  6,675,313

  Electoral Registration

  650,000

  Fire Safety recruitment

  30,094

  Fire Safety

  757,428

  Special Constabulary

  2,799,165

  Compaigns planned for 1995–96 are as follows:

  Partners Against Crime

  Electoral Registration

  Fire Safety

  Special Constabulary

  384
  This work is still being developed and it is not yet possible to give a precise budget for each campaign. The forest total spend for advertising in the current financial year is £7,300,000.

  A breakdown by campaign subjects in the years before 1990–91 could be provided only at disproportionate cost to public funds. However, the subjects listed for the past five years are broadly the same as those covered in previous years.

  Cannabis
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow experiments into the use of cannabis for medical purposes. [32493]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 makes specific provision for research relating to otherwise illegal drugs, such as cannabis, to be undertaken under license. Some licences for research into cannabis are already in existence; any future application for licences will be carefully considered as and when they are received.

  Police Cautions
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage of persons cautioned for indictable, excluding motoring, offences as a percentage of persons found guilty or cautioned for each police force area in 1994. [32633]

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available figures, which are for 1993, are published in table 5.4 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1993". The 1994 figures will be available in autumn 1995.

  Victims Helpline
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost of the victims helpline since its establishment; and what number of telephone calls have been received. [32634]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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. Jack Straw, dated 10 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent question about the victim helpline.From its commencement on 5 December 1994 to 4 July this year, the Helpline had received 192 calls. The total cost over the same period is estimated to be in the region of £23,000 including the start up costs of £8,400.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of keeping prisoners in police cells in 1994. [32636]
  385
  Miss Widdecombe
  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. Jack Straw, dated 10 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the total cost of keeping prisoners in police cells in 1994.The total cost for 1994 was £14,780,000.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East will receive a reply to his letter to the Minister of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), of 8 June. [32638]

  Mr. Maclean
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 5 July.

  Offences1 and punishments2 for possession of a controlled drug, Prison Service establishment, England and Wales, March-May 1995 (provisional figures)

  Number of proved offences

  Confined to cell/room

  Removal from activities

  Forfeiture of privileges

  Stoppage or reduction of earnings

  Caution

  Removal from wing or living unit

  Extra work

  Additional days awarded

  Exclusion from associated work

  All punishments

  All Establishments

  906

  86

  3

  325

  317

  14

  9

  26

  845

  23

  1,648

  Aylesbury

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Bedford

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Birmingham

  25

  1

  —

  21

  7

  —

  —

  —

  25

  —

  54

  Brinsford

  17

  —

  —

  16

  8

  1

  —

  1

  12

  —

  38

  Bristol

  37

  1

  —

  1

  5

  —

  —

  —

  32

  —

  39

  Brixton

  22

  3

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  20

  2

  29

  Canterbury

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Castington

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Coldingley

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Dartmoor

  31

  4

  —

  2

  6

  1

  —

  —

  29

  4

  46

  Dorchester

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Dover

  4

  1

  —

  3

  1

  —

  1

  1

  4

  —

  11

  Elmley

  24

  2

  —

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  22

  —

  31

  Erlestoke

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  10

  —

  11

  Exeter

  14

  1

  —

  —

  4

  1

  —

  —

  12

  —

  18

  Feltham

  91

  7

  —

  62

  60

  3

  —

  2

  87

  —

  221

  Ford

  21

  —

  —

  —

  6

  2

  —

  —

  21

  —

  29

  Gartree

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Glen Parva

  3

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  6

  Gloucester

  9

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  12

  Guys Marsh

  27

  2

  —

  3

  3

  1

  —

  —

  26

  —

  35

  Hatfield

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  5

  Hewell Grange

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Highpoint

  5

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  7

  Hindley

  17

  1

  —

  14

  12

  —

  —

  —

  16

  —

  43

  Holme House

  11

  —

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  11

  1

  18

  Hull

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  4

  Kirkham

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Lancaster

  Farms

  25

  1

  —

  10

  7

  —

  1

  —

  25

  —

  44

  Leicester

  25

  2

  —

  2

  9

  1

  —

  —

  22

  —

  36

  Leyhill

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  Lincoln

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Lindholme

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Liverpool

  49

  —

  —

  14

  19

  1

  —

  —

  48

  1

  83

  Manchester

  40

  28

  —

  25

  8

  —

  —

  —

  37

  —

  98

  Moorland

  34

  5

  —

  16

  12

  —

  —

  —

  34

  —

  67

  Morton Hall

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  New Hall

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  4

  Northallerton

  33

  5

  —

  19

  28

  —

  —

  —

  33

  —

  85

  Onley

  24

  —

  3

  13

  20

  —

  4

  —

  23

  —

  63

  Parkhurst

  7

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  5

  1

  9

  Pentonville

  59

  2

  —

  15

  6

  —

  —

  —

  57

  —

  80

  Portland

  11

  5

  —

  5

  —

  —

  1

  —

  10

  —

  21

  386

  Drugs (Prisons)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the fines and penalties imposed on prison inmates for being in possession of drugs at each prison in England and Wales during the months of March, April and May. [32673]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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 10 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the fines and penalties imposed on prison inmates for being in possession of drugs during the months of March, April and May.Provisional figures for the number of offences and the number of punishments awarded for possession of a controlled drug are shown in the attached table, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House, for each Prison Service establishment where it was proved that an offence was committed.387

  Offences1 and punishments2 for possession of a controlled drug, Prison Service establishment, England and Wales, March-May 1995 (provisional figures)

  Number of proved offences

  Confined to cell/room

  Removal from activities

  Forfeiture of privileges

  Stoppage or reduction of earnings

  Caution

  Removal from wing or living unit

  Extra work

  Additional days awarded

  Exclusion from associated work

  All punishments

  Preston

  3

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  8

  Reading

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Risley

  24

  5

  —

  6

  6

  —

  —

  —

  23

  —

  40

  Send

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Shrewsbury

  10

  1

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  1

  18

  Stafford

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  6

  Stoke Heath

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  —

  15

  Styal

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Swaleside

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Swinfen Hall

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Thorn Cross

  40

  1

  —

  1

  28

  —

  2

  22

  41

  —

  95

  Usk/Prescoed

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Wakefield

  24

  —

  —

  17

  24

  —

  —

  —

  12

  7

  60

  Wandsworth

  36

  6

  —

  26

  13

  —

  —

  —

  35

  5

  85

  Wayland

  7

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  8

  Wetherby

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  6

  Winchester

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Wolds

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Wormwood

  Scrubs

  21

  —

  —

  3

  7

  1

  —

  —

  13

  —

  24

  Wymott

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  5

  1 Including incite or assist the possession of controlled drugs.

  2 The number of offences punished and the number of punishments awarded may not agree, it being the practice in some cases to award concurrently several forms of punishment for one offence.

  Wheelclamping
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce proposals on wheelclamping on private land. [32822]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on 20 April,Official Report, column 268.

  Prisoner Escape
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoner escapes from(a) establishments and (b) escorts there were in 1994–95 in (i) London and (ii) England and Wales. [32537]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 10 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoner escapes form (a) establishments and (b) escorts in 1994/95 in (i) London and (ii) England and Wales.
  The information for the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March this year is shown in the attached tables.

  London

  Escapes from prison

  Escapes from escort

  sub total

  Escapes from court escort services (previously a police responsibility)

  Total

  5

  4

  9

  2

  11

  388

  England and Wales1

  Escapes from prison

  Escapes from escort

  sub total

  Escapes from court escort service (previously a police responsibility)

  Total

  151

  51

  202

  15

  217

  Figures exclude prisoners recaptured within 15 minutes provided that no further offence has been committed.

  1 Figures for England and Wales include those for London.

  Prisoners (Visits by Lawyers)
  Mr. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take to remedy the shortage of prison officers supervising visits to prisoners by lawyers. [32541]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 10 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about visits to prisoners by lawyers.
  There is no general shortage of prison officers to supervise visits to prisoners by lawyers. Accommodation may sometimes become over-stretched and result in difficulty in agreeing to visits at short notice. Many prisons find that the best service can be offered by operating a booking system.

  Criminal Injury Compensation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what date he intends to backdate the option of structured settlements for victims who are awarded large sums of criminal injury compensation under the existing scheme administered by the Criminal Injury Compensation Board; and whether the qualifying date will be(a) the date of injury, (b) the date of

  389
  application for compensation or (c) the date of award. [33103]

  Mr. Maclean
  As indicated in a Commons Committee, 27 June,Official Report, column 236, before applicants under the 1990 scheme, or an earlier scheme, can benefit from structured settlements it will be necessary, first, to amend the 1990 scheme to allow payment to be made by the purchase of annuities and, secondly, to make statutory provision to ensure that income from such annuities is exempt from income tax. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill which is currently being considered in another place provides an appropriate vehicle for this.

  It will not be possible to offer structured settlements to victims whose claims have already been settled. But once the 1990 scheme has been amended and the statutory provision has been enacted, victims whose claims have not then been finally settled will, in all appropriate cases, be offered the option of payment by structured settlement.

  EDS
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts his Department has with the computer company EDS. [33169]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department has one contract, originally set up with the Inland Revenue, with EDS. It relates to the supply of microfiche for the Home Office pay service, the annual value of which varies according to the number of copies produced. The contract value for the period July 1994 to March 1995 was £20,000, excluding VAT.

  Inquests
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers a coroner has to ensure he sees all papers and documents relating to a death before him, and that all such papers and documents are placed before the relevant inquest. [31479]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A coroner has no power to order the production of papers and documents which might be likely to afford assistance in his inquiry, but he can, where he considers it necessary to do so, compel such production by means of a Crown Office subpoena. The decision as to which papers and documents should be put in evidence at an inquest is a matter for the coroner.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his future plans for probation officer recruitment and training. [32848]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend will make an announcement when he has completed his consideration of the responses to the consultative proposals which he published earlier this year.

  Prisoners (Drug Tests)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if tests on prisoners to check for illegal drug use will include checks simultaneously for cannabis, heroin and cocaine; [32749]
  390
  (2) what evidence he has of prisoners changing from cannabis use to heroin use to avoid detection in present drugs surveillance tests; [32750]

  (3) what is his calculation of the length of time residues of (a) alcohol, (b) cannabis, (c) heroin and (d) cocaine can be detected in the human body. [32751]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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. Paul Flynn, dated 10 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the drug testing programme in prisons.
  All mandatory drug tests include simultaneous checks for cannabis, heroin and cocaine.
  There is no evidence from the initial phase of implementation of mandatory drug testing that prisoners are changing from cannabis to heroin use to avoid detection. We are aware that heavy users of cannabis may retain the drug in their bodies for longer than light users of cannabis or users of harder drugs such as heroin. This has been taken into account in the development of the drug testing policy and we are taking a number of precautions to ensure that prisoners are not encouraged to move from cannabis to harder drugs in the mistaken belief that they are more likely to escape detection.
  The period over which residues of different drugs remain detectable within the body depends not only on the drug type, but also on the metabolism and physical make-up of the individual and the frequency of and amount of drug taken. The detection period will also depend on the detection threshold set for the particular test.
  The attached table provides estimates on drug retention. The figures are based on the period of time that a drug remains detectable when a urine sample is used as the basis for the drug test.

  Drug type

  Typical maximun detection period

  Alcohol1

  12 to 24 hours

  Cocaine

  2 to 4 days

  Cannabis2

  Single use (once a week)

  1 to 4 days

  Moderate use (2 to 4 times a week)

  2 to 7 days

  Heavy use (daily use)

  7 to 14 days

  Chronic use (extreme daily use)

  up to 30 days

  Opiates (including heroin)

  2 to 4 days

  1 Tests for alcohol are not part of the Prison Service mandatory drug testing programme which covers controlled drugs only.

  2 The retention of cannabis in the body is highly dependent on the amount of the drug taken and the frequency of use; far more so than for other drug-types. For this reason a number of different "typical" scenarios have been provided in the table.

  Mr. Barry Gray
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take following the release of Barry Gray by Securicor guards after being given a prison sentence at Southwark Crown court. [32534]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 July 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.
  391
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 10 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the release from custody of Mr. Barry Gray.
  A full enquiry by a senor governor is currently being conducted into all the circumstances surrounding Mr. Gray's release at Southwark Crown court on 19 June. Once it has been completed we will consider what further action, if any, needs to be taken.

  Prison Escorts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are currently employed on prison escort work by Securicor in London. [32539]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 July 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 Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 10 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of staff employed by Securicor Custodial Services Limited.
  857 staff were employed by Securicor on prisoner escort work in London at the end of June 1995.

PRIME MINISTER

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in the last 10 years he has declined to pass on to Her Majesty recommendation from the Lord Chancellor's Department in respect of senior appointments. [32861]

  The Prime Minister
  It is on the basis of the Lord Chancellor's advice that I make recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen for appointments to the senior judiciary, but the advice from the Lord Chancellor in respect of these appointments is a confidential matter, as is the I make of it.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister in which periods since 1965 there has been a trade union leader as a member of the court of the Bank of England; what plans he has to appoint a successor to Sir Gavin Laird; and if he will make a statement. [33273]

  The Prime Minister
  The following trade union leaders have been directors of the Bank of England since 1965; Sir William Carron, 1963 to 1969; Sir Sidney Greene, 1970 to 1978; Mr. Geoffrey Drain, 1978 to 1986; Sir Gavin Laird, 1986 to 1994. Members of the court are not appointed to represent particular institutions or organisations. The aim is always to appoint the best people to advise the Governor and other executive directors of the bank.

  Former Prisoners of War
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the Japanese Government since his visit to Japan in 1993 about examining whether 392
  non-governmental measures would assist in the provision of compensation for British prisoners of war; and if he will make a statement. [33292]

  The Prime Minister
  I have been in contact with successive Japanese Prime Ministers about these matters, including my present counterpart, Mr. Murayama. Although our proposal for a non-governmental foundation did not prove to be feasible, we are pursuing our discussions with the Japanese Government about other possible approaches. Those efforts will continue.

  Air Strikes (Bosnia)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration led to the decision not to carry out air strikes to protect the UN designated safe areas including the capital of Bosnia; what agreement has been reached with the Serbians regarding air strikes and the release of UN forces; and if he will make a statement. [33114]

  The Prime Minister
  As I told the House on 28 June,Official Report, column 905, we certainly made no deals with the Bosnian Serbs over the release of the hostages. The UN and other Governments have stated clearly that they made no deals either. Air power remains an important option available to the commanders on the ground for protecting UN forces and enforcing relevant UN resolutions.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what part was played in the Conservative party leadership contest by advisers to Ministers; what were the official positions of such advisers; and if he will make a statement. [32838]

  Special Advisers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister what part(a) Gregor Mackay, (b) Sophie McEwen, (c) Rachel Whetstone and (d) Tim Collins have played as civil servants in the current Conservative party leadership campaign; and what restrictions apply to civil servants in these circumstances. [32839]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: The officials named are special advisers. Special advisers may take part in political activities of the sort described provided they do so during leave or in their own time in addition to fulfilling their normal duties.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, columns 445–46, if he will list all publications, published by Government Departments at public expense, which contain a collection of a Minister's speeches, in the format recently produced by the Department of Transport—"Transport, the Way Ahead". [32110]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 July 1995]: "Transport: The Way Ahead" was published by the Secretary of State as a consultation document. It includes a series of six speeches by my right hon. Friend which address central issues of transport policy on which views are invited.
  393
  I am aware of two other recent departmental publications which include collections of ministerial speeches: "Progress through Partnership", published by the Department of Health in February 1995, includes four speeches by the Secretary of State for Health. "Purchasing for Health: A Framework for Action", published by the Department of Health in June 1993, includes three speeches by the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) as Minister of State together with one by the chief executive of the national health services.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Morocco
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Morocco's expressed intention to extend registration for the proposed referendum in Western Sahara to an additional 100,000 people. [33266]

  Mr. Hanley
  The additional applications in question were submitted by the Moroccans last October, before the deadline for multiple application. The Security Council has endorsed a proposal by a recent mission to the Western Sahara by some of its members that the Moroccans should conduct a preliminary vetting of the 100,000. Our ambassador in Rabat has raised the matter with the Moroccan Prime Minister.

  Access to Information
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures have been taken in accordance with the declaration on the right of access to information within the treaty on European Union by(a) the Commission and (b) the British Government. [33140]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have played a leading role in developing access to information in the Community. Following the Birmingham declaration an openness in October 1992, the Council and the Commission jointly agreed a code of conduct on public access to documents, which is now in operation. A number of Council debates have been televised. Council debates are preceded by comprehensive press briefing and followed by press releases giving details of votes on legislative acts. These press releases are made available to Parliament.

  Since the Maastricht declaration on the right of access to information the Government have extended their own procedures to take account of the creation of the European Union, and notably the new intergovernmental pillars. Key documents are deposited in Parliament. For legislative proposals, explanatory memoranda are made available to the public through libraries and information centres.

  Arms Exports
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions there have been in the EU Council of Ministers on the criteria governing arms exports agreed in June 1991 and supplemented in June 1992. [32407]
  394
  Mr. David Davis
  None. However, all member states of the European Union adhere to the existing criteria when considering potential arms exports.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions there have been on arms exports within the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. [32408]

  Mr. Davis
  The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe held a seminar in Vienna on 20 and 21 June to exchange information amongst OSCE participating states about national procedures and policies governing arms exports.

  On the first day the seminar discussed export law, control lists, licences and enforcement practices and procedures. On the second day the seminar discussed increased transparency, improved international co-operation and combating illegal convention arms transfers.

  Mr Jamal Akkas Chowdhury
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom post in Doha Qatar intends to despatch the explanatory statement explaining why Mr. Jamal Akkas Chowdhury, ref. DOH/826/94/R, was refused entry clearance to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [33293]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked the embassy at Doha for details and will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

  Nuclear Weapons Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the potential environmental effects of French nuclear weapons tests at Mururoa upon the British dependent territory of Pitcairn; and whether the French Government have provided Her Majesty's Government with any assessment of the environmental consequences of its nuclear testing programme at Mururoa and Fangataufa in French Polynesia since 1966 upon British dependent territories in the Pacific. [33480]

  Mr. David Davis
  President Chirac has given an assurance that the planned tests will not cause any harm to the environment. He also issued an invitation to experts to visit the area to verify this for themselves. The French Government have made it clear that all the tests will take place underground. We are not in a position to conduct an independent assessment; the French Government have not provided the United Kingdom with environmental impact assessments of their previous tests in the south Pacific.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requirements exist for European Union member state countries to inform (i) the Council, (ii) the Commission and (iii) Euratom over plans to conduct nuclear tests in the territories of the European Union or overseas dependent territories of the Union; and what such notifications have been made in the last year. [32887]
  395
  Mr. Davis
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: There is no requirement under the treaty on European Union or the Community treaties—including the Euratom treaty—for a member state to give notification of plans to carry out nuclear weapons tests. A member state could if it wished give such notification in the context of the common foreign and security policy. None has been given in recent years.

  Wilton Park
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Wilton Park executive agency performed against the targets which were agreed for 1994–95; and if targets have yet been agreed for the current year. [33656]

  Mr. Hanley
  According to provisional figures which are subject to full audit, Wilton Park exceeded all four of the agreed targets set for 1994–95 financial year, for the number of conference participants, income, cost recovery and cost per head to the FCO overall.

  The Wilton Park departmental board met in April. We have agreed to the recommendation of the board that the following key targets be adopted for this financial year:
  To increase overall income from £1,157K in 1994–95 to £ 1,203,000K;
  To increase cost recovery from 78.2 per cent. in 1994–95 to 80.3 per cent.
  To increase the target for the overall number of Wilton Park conference participants from 1,260 in 1994–95 to 1,350;
  To reduce the average cost to the FCO of each participant from £237 in 1994–95 to £219;
  It has also been agreed that from 1995–96 Wilton Park will aim to recover 73 per cent. of the cost of Wilton Park conference—1994–95: 64 per cent.

  Government Papers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of previously withheld papers for which he is responsible. [33903]

  Mr. Rifkind
  Since the review was announced in 1992, some 5,500 previously withheld papers have been released into the public domain. These represent some 80 per cent. of the total reviewed, and have included material on Rudolf Hess, the Russia Committee, the Special Operations Executive, SOE, Suez, the Cuban missile crisis and the Malayan emergency. A first tranche of papers relating to the information research department of the Foreign Office is about to be released.

  EU Council
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union. [33657]
  396
  Mr. David Davis
  The following is the information:

  MONTHLY FORECAST OF BUSINESS FOR JULY 1995

  The following meetings are planned:

  July 10: ECOFIN

  July 17/18: Foreign Affairs Council
  Agriculture Council

  July 24: Budget Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  July 10: ECOFIN

  Cannes follow-up, probably:

  TENS

  Employment

  EMU Green Paper

  Broad economic guidelines (possible adoption following Cannes discussion)

  Recommendations to member states with excessive deficits

  Harmonised consumer price indices (agreement of Regulation as an "A" or "false B" point)

  Excise duty review (Presentation of expected Commission report by Commissioner Monti)

  Possible items include:

  Macrofinancial assistance to Georgia and Armenia

  Cross border payments directive (political agreement)

  VAT (agreement in principle on reduced rate for cut flowers, with pressure from some member states to broaden scope to other agricultural non-food products)

  July 17/18: Agriculture Council

  Bananas (possible)

  Wine (possible)

  Nectarine and peach grubbing scheme

  July 17/18: Foreign Affairs Council

  Agenda not yet available

  July 24: Budget Council

  First reading of draft 1996 Community Budget

  Commission financial management (possible)

  Queen's Messenger Service
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to end the Queen's messenger service. [30894]

  Mr. Goodlad
  None.

  East European Students
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what bursaries to English universities his Department is sponsoring from new eastern European democracies, at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [31156]

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1994–95 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provided over 500 scholarships and awards to enable students from eastern and central Europe to come to study at universities and other academic institutions in the United Kingdom, at a cost of approximately £2.6 million.
  397

TRANSPORT

  Cycle Parking
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the buildings occupied by his Department which have provisions for the parking of cycles. [31829]

  Mr. Norris
  Copies of the list of DOT buildings with cycle provision will be placed in the House Library in due course.

  BR Research
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if BR Research will own as a private company intellectual property rights in innovations in railway technology developed by BR Research while in the public sector; if it will also carry liabilities resulting from litigation over any failures of such technological developments; and what compensation will he paid to other sections of British Rail which formerly had access to the use of such developments without payment of a licence fee. [32685]

  Mr. Watts
  The detailed terms of the disposal of BR Research, due to be agreed by the end of this financial year, will be a matter for the British Railways Board.

  Catford Road Scheme
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the properties that have been acquired so far in connection with the A205-A21 Catford town centre road scheme, with the owners of those responsible for their management pending the start of the work, and any land or properties that still need to be purchased. [32675]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency.

  I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Jim Dowd, dated 10 July 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Transport in London, Mr Steven Norris, has asked me to write to you about the question you asked in the House seeking information on the properties required for the improvement of the South Circular Road in Catford Town Centre.

  I enclose, as you requested, lists showing:

  (a) the properties already purchased in connection with the scheme and in the ownership of the Secretary of State with occupiers where appropriate and,

  (b) those yet to be acquired, with owners and occupiers.

  A205 Catford Town Centre Improvement Properties yet to be acquired in connection with the scheme

  Property or part thereof

  Owner or reputed owner

  Occupant

  Part of vault and car stand at the 'Copperfield' PH. Catford Road

  Courage (Eastern) Ltd., Anchor Brewhouse, Horselydown SE1 2LL

  —

  398

  A205 Catford Town Centre Improvement Properties yet to be acquired in connection with the scheme

  Property or part thereof

  Owner or reputed owner

  Occupant

  Part of public car park accessways and half width of Canadian Avenue at the Public car park, Canadian Avenue

  The London Borough of Lewisham, Town Hall, Catford SE6 4RU

  London & Provincial Posters Ltd, 78–86 Brigstock Road, Thornton Heath, Surrey.

  London Electricity Board, Templar House, 81–87 High Holborn, London WC1V 6NU

  Part of front garden accessways to 6 Bromley Road

  Mrs. Betty Irene Gillett, 17 Kingswood Avenue, Shortlands, Bromley, Kent BR2 0NT

  Albert Jones, Frank Seymour, Joseph Angel, Richard Turnall

  14 Plassy Road

  The London Borough of Lewisham

  —

  10 Brownhill Road

  National Bus Properties Ltd.

  Aubyn Graham, 55 Henlowe Road, SE22 and Lee Laing and Neville McGee both of 494 New Cross Road, SE14

  Forecourt of 8 Brownhill Road

  Mrs. Mary Scott-Smith and Miss Joan Scott-Smith both of 27 Culverley Road, Catford SE6 2LD

  Howard Nicholas Brennan

  Forecourt of 6 Brownhill Road

  Urbandale Investments Ltd., 42 Camden Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent

  Tonros Heating Ltd., 42 Camden Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent

  Forecourt & Vault of 147–149 (odd) Rushey Green

  Mrs. Phylis Audrey Griffiths, Brandon Lodge, Church Road, Lyminge, Folkestone, Kent

  Midland Bank Plc, 27–32 Poultry, London EC1P 2BX

  Forecourt of 151 Rushey Green

  Simon George Symeou and Mrs. Eleni Symeou both of 9 Newquay Road, Catford SE6

  —

  Forecourt of 153 Rushey Green

  Donovan Rupert, Horace Levette and James Clarke

  David T. Atkin, 292 Sangley Road, Catford SE6 4JT

  Forecourt of 155 Rushey Green

  National Westminster Bank Plc, 41 Lothbury, London EC2P 2BP

  —

  Forecourt of 157–159 (odd) Rushey Green

  National Westminster Bank Plc, 41 Lothbury, London EC2P 2BP

  —

  Forecourt, vaults and accessway at 'The Black Horse' PH (167–169) (odd) Rushey Green)

  Allied Breweries Ltd., 107 Station Street, Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire

  Ijaz Ahmed, Choudhri AOT, Leisure Ltd., 19–21 Sylvan Grove, London SEI5 1PG

  399

  A205 Catford Town Centre Improvement Properties yet to be acquired in connection with the scheme

  Property or part thereof

  Owner or reputed owner

  Occupant

  Part of accessway to 175 Rushey Green

  National Travel (London) Ltd., 175 Rushey Green, Catford SE6

  —

  Electricity sub-station adjoining, 19 Sangley Road

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  London Electricity Board

  105 sq mtrs part of forecourt, posts, vault and accessway to 6–12 (even) Sangley Road

  Finaware Ltd., 9 Henniker Mews, London SW3

  —

  Forecourt and vaults of ABC Cinema Bromley Road

  Associated British Picture Corp Ltd., 30–31 Golden Square, London W1

  —

  Forecourt and vaults of 3 Bromley Road

  Robert J. Lang Ltd., 6 Wellington Street, London SE18 6PE

  Jack Rochford Copeland, Richard James Pearson and John Ernest Sage

  Forecourt and vault of 5 Bromley Road

  Nombane Ltd., 116 High Street, Godalming, Surrey

  Gino Vincendo Plado, 28 Hazelwood Road, Chudham, Kent, Barry Christopher Martin, 16 Wegall Road, Lee SE12 and David Thomas Warnock, 27 Dunstable Court, St. John's Park, London SE3

  Forecourt and vault of 7 Bromley Road

  Nombane Ltd., 116 High Street, Godalming, Surrey

  John Faragher, 66 Coleridge Road, Ashburton Estate, Croydon, Surrey

  Forecourt and vault of 9 Bromley Road

  Nombane Ltd., 116 High Street, Godalming, Surrey

  Steven John Coleman, 132 Dowanhill Road, Catford, SE6

  Forecourt, vaults of and part of accessway to 11–13 (odd) Bromley Road

  Sydney Yearing, 44 Sandford Road, Bromley, Kent BR2 9AW

  Transave Ltd., 11–13 Bromley Road, Catford SE6 2TS

  Advertisement hoardings and forecourt on part sites of 2l–21a-23, Bromley Road.

  Brewster Estates Ltd., 40 Chastilian Road, Dartford, Kent

  View Point, Advertisements Ltd., 47 Chaple Street, London NW1

  A205 Catford Town Centre Improvements Properties acquired in connection with the scheme

  Property or part thereof

  Lessees

  Owned by Secretary of Stale for Transport

  10, 12 (rear only) and 14 Brownhill Road

  LB Lewisham Cong, of Jehovah's Witnesses Vacant

  12 Brownhill Road

  1st Floor Hall

  16–22 Brownhill Road

  Ground Floor, 16 Brownhill Road

  18–22 Brownhill Road

  Lewisham Old Peoples Welfare Association

  24 Brownhill Road

  Hyde Housing Association

  26 Brownhill Road

  CHISEL

  30A Brownhill Road

  Vacant

  30 Brownhill Road

  Vacant

  400

  A205 Catford Town Centre Improvements Properties acquired in connection with the scheme

  Property or part thereof

  Lessees

  Part of front garden, 366 Brownhill Road

  Vacant

  Part of front gardens, 347/355 Brownhill Road

  Vacant

  St. Mildred's sports ground Canadian Avenue

  Vacant

  Telephone Exchange, Canadian Avenue

  Vacant

  Land between Canadian Avenue, Bromley

  Vacant

  1 Engleheart Road

  Vacant

  3 Engleheart Road

  Vacant

  Land between London Road/Dartmouth Road

  Vacant

  2 Plassy Road

  Hyde Housing Association

  4 Plassy Road

  Hyde Housing Association

  6 Plassy Road

  Hyde Housing Association

  8 Plassy Road

  Vacant

  10 Plassy Road

  Vacant

  12 Plassy Road

  Lewisham Family Self Help Association

  16 Plassy Road

  London and Quadrant Housing Association

  18 Plassy Road

  Vacant

  20 Plassy Road

  London and Quadrant Housing Association

  22 Plassy Road

  Private

  24 Plassy Road

  Private

  26 Plassy Road

  CHISEL

  28 Plassy Road

  Vacant

  30 Plassy Road

  Hyde Housing Association

  32 Plassy Road

  Vacant

  34 Plassy Road

  London and Quadrant Housing Association

  36 Plassy Road

  Vacant

  201 Rushey Green

  Combined (Comfort) Force Trust

  203 Rushey Green

  Vacant

  205 Rushey Green

  Vacant

  1–3 Sangley Road

  Vacant

  1B Sangley Road

  Mr. Clements

  1A Sangley Road

  Vacant

  Land at rear of 1–19 Sangley Road

  Vacant

  5 Sangley Road

  Vacant

  7 Sangley Road

  Vacant

  9 Sangley Road

  Mr. Clements

  11 Sangley Road

  Vacant

  13 Sangley Road

  Vacant

  15 Sangley Road

  Vacant

  17 Sangley Road

  Vacant

  19 Sangley Road

  Vacant

  112–114 St. Mildred's Road

  Vacant

  Thames Strategy
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what progress has been made to increase the movement of goods by water rather than road as advocated by the Government office for London's document on Thames strategy; [32679]

  (2) what steps have been taken to encourage the use of the Thames for commercial river-borne traffic on the lines of the Government office for London's document on Thames strategy. [32678]

  Mr. Norris
  The report of the River Thames working group, which I chaired and which published its report last December, identified the potential for maximising the use of the Thames for commercial transport. I have
  401
  subsequently held a number of meetings with operators and potential operators on the Thames to discuss the scope for expanding freight and passenger services. This process will continue.

  The River Thames working group report has stimulated wider interest in transport on the river. The Thames strategy report and the Thames gateway planning framework, both published this year by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, recognise the benefits of maximising the Thames for commercial traffic and the need to safeguard essential river-related infrastructure.

  Financial assistance, in the form of freight facilities grant, is also available to operators to encourage the movement of goods by water or rail rather than by road.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many properties have been purchased in connection with the development of the channel tunnel rail link; and what has been the total cost of these purchases. [32857]

  Mr. Watts
  Two hundred and forty properties at a total cost of £42.6 million, including home loss and disturbance payments where appropriate, have been acquired by Union Railways Ltd. for the present channel tunnel rail link project.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the successful bidders for the construction of the channel tunnel rail link put in tenders which included the channel tunnel rail link with and without(a) a station at Stratford and (b) a long box at Stratford. [33243]

  Mr. Watts
  It was a requirement of the CTRL competition that bidders should submit a reference specification bid and a number of required alternative bids. The reference bid included only the short box at Stratford needed to accommodate a cross-over and to permit construction of a connection to the possible servicing and maintenance facilities at Temple Mills. The required alternative bids covered both an international only and a combined international and domestic station at Stratford, both of which require construction of a long box.

  New Vehicles
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of current vehicles in the United Kingdom are new cars built since 1993. [32870]

  Mr. Norris
  The most recent available information is for licensed stock at the end of 1994. It is estimated that, to the nearest half per cent., 13.5 per cent. of current vehicles are new cars built since the beginning of 1993, 10.5 per cent. are petrol driven new cars built since the beginning of 1993.

  Municipal Bus Companies
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current policy towards the divesting of former municipal bus companies by local authorities;402
  what factors have led to changes in policy; and if he will make a statement. [32943]

  Mr. Norris
  There has been no change in our policy towards these companies: we are keen to see them move into the private sector.

  Vehicle Harmonisation Directive
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on developments in negotiations on the draft vehicle harmonisation directive. [32811]

  Mr. Norris
  An expert working group chaired by the European Commission is currently considering the extension of the whole vehicle type approval framework directive 70/156/EEC, as amended by directive 92/53/EEC, to categories of vehicle other than cars. No target has been set for the adoption of amending proposals.

  Road Pricing
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department plans to publish the full report on the feasibility of road pricing in London; and what the cost of that study is to date. [32734]

  Mr. Norris
  A full report on London research will be published as soon as practicable. To date the study has cost approximately £2.7 million.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what tests have been carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory on the efficacy of catalytic converters at(a) 30,000 miles, (b) 40,000 miles, (c) 50,000 miles and (d) 60,000 miles; and if he will publish the results; [32867]

  (2) what research has been carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory on the problem of cold start emissions from catalytic converters; [32868]

  (3) what research has been carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory on the performance of catalytic converters in service in reducing harmful vehicle emissions. [32866]

  Mr. Norris
  None. However, the Government recognise that improving catalyst performance and maintaining it under all operating conditions are key factors in securing improvements in air quality. New vehicle standards already in place for 1996–97 will deliver improvements in catalyst warm-up time. As part of the EU discussions on standards for 2000, the Government have made proposals for a cold start test aimed at further reducing warm-up time to within a few seconds, a study of the case for extending durability requirements for new cars from 80,000 km to 160,000 km and the use of on-board diagnostics to monitor emissions performance throughout the life of the vehicle.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cars built since 1993 fitted with catalytic converters use super unleaded fuel. [32869]

  Mr. Norris
  As at April 1995, super unleaded petrol accounted for approximately 4.8 per cent. of total petrol
  403
  sales. The precise number of cars using super unleaded is not known, although since October 1990 all petrol cars have had to be designed to use premium unleaded petrol, which is universally recommended by manufacturers. Moreover, very few new cars currently on sale in the United Kingdom can derive any benefit from the use of super unleaded petrol.

  Driving Licence Fraud
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce driving licence fraud. [32731]

  Mr. Norris
  We plan to introduce a new plastic card driving licence in July 1996 incorporating a photograph of the holder. This will help to eliminate misuse of licences and impersonation at driving tests.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about councils refusing to recognise the orange badge disabled parking scheme; and what plans his Department has to ensure that the orange badge scheme is accepted throughout the country. [33223]

  Mr. Norris
  We receive a small but steady flow of representations about the fact that the orange badge scheme does not apply in central London, and about arrangements introduced by some local authorities elsewhere which have the effect of excluding orange badge holders along with other motorists, either absolutely or unless they have a special locally issued permit.

  The local authorities concerned with the central London area have, with the Department's encouragement, agreed limited parking concessions for orange badge holders and the possibility of extension is kept under review. We have issued advice to local authorities that are considering pedestrianising an area that the needs of disabled people must be fully taken into account; and we have made clear that we discourage local schemes requiring permits in addition to orange badges, although we have no power to prevent them.

  Cones Hotline
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the total number of calls received by the cones hotline; and how many resulted in remedial action being taken; [32752]

  (2) what is the total cost of the cones hotline. [33115]

  Mr. Watts
  The cones hotline began in June 1992 and by the end of June 1995 it had received 17,700 calls. Approximately half the calls concerned cones and traffic management, and half were requests for information about roadworks or general queries about roads, planning, policy, and so on. Where appropriate we have taken steps to alter the layout of cones, improve signposting at roadworks, review diversion routes, repaint road markings and investigate road lighting at roadworks as a result of comments and complaints from hotline callers. In five cases, this follow-up action required the complete removal of cones and traffic management measures which were no longer required. During the last financial year, 1994–95,404
  the cost of the dedicated service line was approximately £5,000. The cost of staffing the line was met from within existing establishment and budgets.

  Pollution Monitoring Centre
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pollution monitoring centres are now operating in regard to vehicle emissions in each of the largest 20 cities in the United Kingdom. [32680]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following table shows nitrogen dioxide, NO2, and volatile organic compounds, VOCs, monitoring sites where the results are representive of vehicle emissions for the 20 largest cities in the United Kingdom:

  City

  Automatic NO2 sites

  Automatic VOC's sites

  NO2 diffusion tube sites

  Greater London

  5

  2

  72

  Birmingham

  2

  1

  4

  Glasgow

  1

  —

  4

  Liverpool

  1

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  1

  —

  —

  Leeds

  1

  1

  4

  Manchester

  1

  —

  4

  Bristol

  1

  1

  4

  Edinburgh

  1

  1

  4

  Leicester

  1

  —

  —

  Kingston upon Hull

  1

  —

  4

  Coventry

  —

  —

  4

  Belfast

  1

  1

  4

  Bradford

  —

  —

  4

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  4

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  —

  4

  Cardiff

  1

  1

  —

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  4

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  —

  Derby

  —

  —

  4

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Television
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's position on the European Parliament's amendments to the draft EC directive on the use of standards for the transmission of signals. [31914]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government are considering carefully the European Parliament's amendments to the draft EC directive on the standards for the transmission of television.

  Benchmarking
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how successful his Department has been at encouraging, the increased use of benchmarking within industry; and if he will make a statement. [33275]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department recognises that benchmarking provides an important stimulus to improving competitiveness within United Kingdom companies, and has a number of related initiatives in this area. Full details of our activities were published in the recent competitiveness White Paper.
  405
  The benchmarking challenge was set up in 1993 to encourage trade associations to form benchmarking clubs. Twelve successful associations were supported under the challenge and their activities are progressing. We are also collaborating with an increasing number of trade associations on the implementation of benchmarking initiatives. These activities are designed to improve the competitiveness of the association members.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced at the CBI conference and in the competitiveness White Paper that the Department would establish a national benchmarking scheme, to provide a high-quality benchmarking service for business links and business support organisations. Discussions are taking place between the Department, CBI and business links on the introduction of such a scheme.

  Consequently, demand for DTI benchmarking publications has been high, with over 40,000 publications being distributed in two years.

  Teaching Company Scheme
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the proposed locations for the six extra teaching company scheme centres for small firms which his Department intends to open by the end of 1995. [33276]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Bids from universities for five TCS centres for small firms are currently being considered; decisions are likely to be announced next month.

  In addition, a proposal is being considered for a TCS centre for small firms on Merseyside to be assisted by the European regional development fund.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many businesses in the metropolitan borough of Barnsley are currently participants in the teaching company scheme. [33281]

  Mr. Taylor
  One business in the metropolitan borough of Barnsley, Ice Technology Ltd. of Penistone, is currently a TCS industrial partner.

  Growth Targets
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what growth targets for business investment his Department has set. [33280]

  Mr. Eggar
  Companies, not Governments, are best placed to take decisions about business investment. The best encouragement the Government can give companies to invest is a stable economic environment based on low inflation. With inflation staying low and the recovery proceeding steadily, business investment is expected to grow by 4.75 per cent. in 1995 and by 9.5 per cent. in 1996.

  Defence Industrial Base
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's definition of the United Kingdom defence industrial base. [33233]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has not defined the United Kingdom defence industrial base. In conjunction with the 406
  Ministry of Defence and industry, my Department has commissioned a study on the value of the defence industry to the UK economy. The first phase is due to report in July. The key conclusions will be reported to the House.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the United Kingdom manufacturing output was accounted for by the defence industry sector in each of the last 10 years. [33232]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has produced the following broad estimates based on figures published by Central Statistical Office and the Ministry of Defence. Figures are available only up to 1992.

  Year

  Per cent.

  1982

  9

  1983

  8

  1984

  8

  1985

  8

  1986

  8

  1987

  7

  1988

  7

  1989

  7

  1990

  7

  1991

  7

  1992

  6

  Directors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what distinction his Department draws between the role of executive and non-executive directors; and whether non-executive directors are expected to supervise the day-to-day work of the executive directors. [33013]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The distinction between executive and non-executive directors is not defined in company law. However, I agree with the recommendation in the Cadbury code of best practice that non-executive directors should bring an independent judgment to bear on issues of strategy, performance and resources, including key appointments, and standards of conduct.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many bankruptcy orders were made in the Great Grimsby county court in each of the last three years. [32510]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The total numbers of bankruptcy orders made in the Great Grimsby county court in each of the last three years were as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Number of bankruptcy orders

  1993

  132

  1994

  134

  1995

  94

  Company Officials (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many directors were successfully
  407
  prosecuted by the Insolvency Service, indicating the relevant Act of Parliament and the section number, in 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994. [32603]

  Relevant statute

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Number of directors prosecuted (total for the year)

  116

  81

  65

  Nature of offence

  Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986

  Undischarged bankrupt acting in the management of a company

  Section 11

  29

  25

  23

  Persons acting in management of company whilst disqualified

  Section 13

  7

  5

  9

  Insolvency Act 1986

  Fraud in anticipation of winding up

  Section 206

  6

  1

  1

  Transaction in fraud of creditors

  Section 207

  —

  1

  1

  Misconduct in course of winding up

  Section 208

  2

  1

  2

  Material omission

  Section 210

  2

  2

  —

  False representation

  Section 211

  2

  —

  —

  Use of prohibited company name

  Section 216

  5

  4

  —

  Failure to cooperate

  Section 235

  —

  —

  2

  Non-disclosure

  Section 353

  1

  —

  —

  Concealment of property and failure to account

  Section 354

  —

  1

  —

  False statements

  Section 356

  —

  —

  1

  Undischarged bankrupt obtaining credit and trading under a false name

  Section 360

  6

  3

  —

  Failure to keep proper accounting records

  Section 361

  2

  1

  1

  Companies Act 1948

  Undischarged bankrupt taking part in management of company

  Section 187

  2

  —

  —

  Companies Act 1985

  Failure to deliver return of allotments

  Section 88

  —

  —

  1

  Public limited company carrying on business without a trading certificate

  Section 177

  —

  —

  1

  Failure to keep or maintain accounting records of a company

  Section 223

  91

  51

  28

  Persons acting in management of company whilst disqualified

  Section 295

  —

  3

  —

  Undischarged bankrupt taking part in management of company

  Section 302

  3

  —

  —

  Fraudulent trading by a company

  Section 458

  17

  24

  22

  Theft Act 1968

  Theft of property

  Section 1

  7

  7

  4

  Obtaining property by deception

  Section 15

  13

  7

  8

  Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception

  Section 16

  —

  1

  —

  False accounting

  Section 17

  —

  4

  —

  Obtaining a valuable security by deception

  Section 20

  45

  —

  1

  Theft Act 1978

  Evasion of liability/obtaining services

  Section 1

  1

  —

  —

  Section 2

  1

  3

  3

  Section 20

  2

  —

  —

  Perjury Act 1911

  False statement by a witness

  Section 1

  —

  —

  1

  Making untrue statements

  Section 5

  1

  1

  3

  Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

  Forgery

  Section 2

  1

  —

  —

  Forgery

  Section 3

  —

  —

  3

  Financial Services Act 1986

  Illegal investment business

  Section 4

  —

  —

  1

  Accessories and Abettors Act 1861

  Aiding and abetting

  Section 8

  8

  6

  5

  Criminal Attempts Act 1981

  Attempted criminal act

  Section 1

  1

  —

  —

  Criminal Law Act 1977

  Conspiracy

  Section 1

  4

  6

  —

  Conspiracy to Defraud

  —

  —

  8

  408
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The number of directors successfully prosecuted by the Insolvency Service in the last three and details of the offences concerned are as follows:
  409
  Information for the previous year could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many bankrupts were successfully prosecuted for offences under the Insolvency Act 1986 in 1994, identifying the relevant section, by the Insolvency Service. [32587]

  Mr. Evans
  In 1994 a total of 66 bankrupts were successfully prosecuted by the Insolvency Service for 128 offences under the Insolvency Act 1986 as a result of the Official Receiver's report. Details of the offences are as follows:

  Nature of offence

  Insolvency Act 1986 relevant section

  Number of convictions

  Misconduct in course of winding up

  208

  1

  Material omission

  210

  2

  False representations

  211

  1

  Non-disclosure

  353

  4

  Concealment of property and failure to account

  354

  13

  Concealment of books and papers; falsification

  355

  2

  Material omission and false statements

  356

  10

  Fraudulent disposal of property

  357

  2

  Undischarged bankrupt obtaining credit and trading under a false name

  360

  65

  Failure to keep proper accounting records

  361

  18

  Gambling

  362

  10

  Total

  128

  Astra Holdings plc
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were his Department's findings in respect of the care exercised by Mr. James and his colleagues on the main board of Astra in advising shareholders to subscribe to a rights issue for the acquisition of BMARC. [33108]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  As the opening paragraphs of the inspectors' report on Astra Holdings plc makes clear, the inspectors were asked to investigate in particular the circumstances surrounding the acquisition by Astra of PRB sa and the rights issue made in that connection. The inspectors also investigated a number of ancillary matters and reviewed the company's accounting policies. In relation to the acquisition by Astra of BMARC, the inspectors' report concentrates on the effect of this acquisition on the results of the Astra group.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will summarise the findings of his Department's inspectors concerning the manner in which the directors of Astra Holdings had performed its duties. [33050]

  Mr. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the report of the inspectors on Astra Holdings plc, published by HMSO, ISBN 0115153514, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House.
  410

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many oil and gas platforms in the North sea are estimated to he taken out of production by 2000; and of those how many are expected to be(a) brought ashore for dismantling; (b) toppled at site and (c) removed and sunk in a deep water location. [33536]

  Mr. Eggar
  Depending upon field performance and economic factors at the time, current estimates indicate that some 32 fixed offshore installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf could reach the end of their lives by the turn of the century. Of these, 19 are located in water depths of less than 75 m and in accordance with international guidelines will be totally removed. Their disposal will be considered on a case-by-case basis, but it is likely that they will be returned to shore. Decisions on those installations in deeper water, where under international guidelines partial removal is permitted, will be taken according to individual circumstances and in the light of a comparative assessment of the alternative options. This will have proper regard for environmental considerations and other users of the sea, as well as risk, technical feasibility and cost in order to arrive at the best practicable environmental option.

  Depressive Illnesses
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the President of the Boar of trade if he will introduce legislation providing safeguards to prevent persons suffering depressive illnesses from being discriminated against by insurance companies, and if he will make a statement. [33048]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No. However, the Disability Discrimination Bill, currently before parliament, will give some protection to people suffering severe depressive illness.

  International Atomic Energy Agency Report
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the most recent safeguards implementation report was completed by the International Atomic Energy Agency; what comments were made in the report about the application of safeguards on United Kingdom facilities and materials exported from the United Kingdom; and if he will arrange for a copy of the report to he placed in the Library. [32876]

  Mr. Eggar
  The International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards implementation report for 1994 was issued to members of the agency's board of governors in May 1995. The detailed report is confidential to the board of governors, but its contents will be summarised in the IAEA annual report for 1994, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House when it is published. In addition, the IAEA and its board of governors have recommended publication of an executive summary to the 1994 SIR, a copy of which will also be placed in the Library of the House when it becomes available.

  Post Office
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the external financing limit for the Post Office for 1995–96; and what was the figure for the two previous years. [32820]
  411
  Mr. Lang
  For 1995–96, the Post Office has been set a negative external financing limit of £213 million. For the two previous years, the figures were as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Target

  Outturn

  1993–94

  -181

  -182

  1994–95

  -226

  -235

  Newspapers
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 777, what response he has received from the Director General of Fair Trading regarding concerns about newspaper carriage charges. [32824]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I understand that the Office of Fair Trading is monitoring carefully the effects of the recent changes in the newspaper industry, including their impact on carriage charges. The OFT will keep under consideration whether a further reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would be justified.

  Ceramic Industry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the future employment potential of the ceramic industry in north Staffordshire. [33224]

  Mr. Eggar
  As with any other, the prospects for this sector—including employment—depend on the strength of its international competitiveness. The Department is working with the sector on competitiveness through initiatives such as a tableware strategy group, a manufacturing improvement club and regular discussions with the British Ceramics Confederation on a range of other issues which affect its future prospects.

  Mrs. Figoni
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department intends to seek further medical evidence in the case of Mrs. Figoni of Glan Gors Fawr Rhosybol, Amlwch, Ynys Mon, Gwynedd, before announcing his decision on the application by British Gas for a compulsory purchase order in respect of land at Glans Gors Fawr; and when the expects to announce his decision. [32658]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: Having considered the matter carefully, I do not intend to seek further medical evidence. I expect a decision to be announced shortly.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the procedure followed in the inquiry into the application for a compulsory purchase order by British Gas relating to land belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Figoni of Glan Gors Fawr Rhosybol, Amlwch, Ynys Mon, Gwynedd; and what assessment he has made of whether proper regard was given to the objections made to the location of the inquiry. [32659]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: I am satisfied that the procedure followed at the inquiry and
  412
  the opportunities afforded for representations to be made subsequently were adequate to ensure that proper consideration could be given to all matters relating to British Gas's application and that proper regard was given to the one objection made with respect to the location of the inquiry.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the criteria used by his Department to identify regulations as suitable for repeal. [33279]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the deregulation initiative, Departments have reviewed all their regulations which impact on business to identify candidates for repeal or amendment. In so doing, each regulation is considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not it still serves a useful need and whether it is unduly burdensome.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid (Inquests)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what studies have been initiated to discover the demand for legal aid in regard to inquests. [31470]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. However, this issue is raised in the legal aid Green Paper, on which the Government would welcome views.

  Court Practices
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will introduce legislation to modernise courts' practices. [31471]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Courts' practices are already being modernised through the increased use of information technology—for example, the use of closed circuit television links for child witnesses, lap-top computers and communication links for the judiciary, case tracking systems in various courts, infra-red hearing enhancement systems in courtrooms, and two widely used computerised bulk issue centres for summonses and warrants.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities are currently (i) high court judges, (ii) county court judges, (iii) circuit judges and (iv) chairpersons of industrial tribunals. [31474]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  On 1 June 1995 there were six female High Court judges, 31 female circuit judges and eight female full-time chairmen of industrial tribunals. On the same date there were, according to the best information we have available, no High Court judges of ethnic minority origin, four circuit judges of ethnic minority origin and two full-time chairmen of industrial tribunals of ethnic minority origin. Circuit judges sitting in the county court are included in the circuit judge figures.
  413

  Disabled People
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his Department's policy concerning the accessibility of the judicial system to disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [31475]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Facilities for disabled people are continuously reviewed and every effort is made to improve them as necessary.

  Court Service (Delays)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement regarding delays in the Court Service. [31476]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  While there will always be an element of delay in all court proceedings, the Court Service is taking active measures to keep it to the minimum.

  Legal Aid (Eligibility)
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has considered about eligibility for legal aid. [31478]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I receive many representations about legal aid eligibility. Recently there have been 50 responses to the consultation paper "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy".

  Limitation Legislation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to complete his review of limitation legislation. [31473]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As I informed the hon. Member on 13 March, the review is to be carried out by the Law Commission. It announced in its sixth programme that it hopes to have completed its work on limitation periods generally by the end of 1998.

  Law Commission
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the Government to publish their response to the Law Commission's report on mental incapacity. [33057]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government have set up an interdepartmental working group, chaired by the Lord Chancellor's Department, to consider the Law Commission report on mental incapacity. The group is to produce an initial report for consideration by Ministers by September 1 1995. The Government's initial response will he published once Ministers have had an opportunity to consider the working group's report.

  Small Claims
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to implement Lord Woolf's recommendation that the small claims limit, other than for personal injury claims, should be raised to £3,000. [33111]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No timetable has yet been set for the laying of a statutory instrument before the House.
  414
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to exclude all personal injury claims valued at under £1,000 from the small claims procedure. [33112]

  Mr. Taylor
  In his interim report on access to justice Lord Woolf recommended that, pending the introduction of a new "fast track" procedure, personal injury cases up to £1,000 should remain within the small claims jurisdiction, and the Lord Chancellor has accepted this recommendation.

  Internet
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to(a) allow or (b) compel HMSO to make available statutes, other official parliamentary publications from his Department and court judgments on the Internet; and if he will make a statement. [33113]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  These and related matters are kept under review but it would be premature to make a statement.

  Crown Office Liaison
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what liaison arrangements exist between his office and the Crown Office in Edinburgh. [31472]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department and Crown Office consult each other on matters where they share a common interest.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  RMS St. Helena
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when it is anticipated that the report of consultants on the sailing schedule of RMS St. Helena will be published. [31580]

  Mr. Hanley
  The consultants' draft report is currently under consideration. It is hoped that the final report will be available in approximately three months' time when copies will be made available to the Libraries of the House.

  Population Control (China)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the amount of funding support given to the Chinese Family Planning Association by the Chinese Government. [32016]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have asked the International Planned Parenthood Federation whether it can obtain this information. Any information received will he placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on whether the UNFPA has changed its view on whether the Chinese population control programme is totally voluntary. [32014]
  415
  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nations Population Fund does not claim that the ways in which the Chinese family planning programmes are implemented are always voluntary. UNFPA has continuously voiced its concern to the Government of China over reports of coercion.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the prevalence of articles encouraging coercive population control in Chinese newspapers in the 1990s. [32010]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are not able to monitor all press publications in China. However, we understand that the press generally reflects official policy on population issues.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the sums given by the UNFPA to the construction of factories in China for the manufacture of intra-uterine devices; how many factories have been built; when they were completed; how many IUDs are manufactured each year; if such IUDs are inserted coercively; and if China now imports IUDs. [32018]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nations Population Fund has assisted in the upgrading of five copper IUD manufacturing facilities at a cost of approximately $7 million. China has at least one other such facility. We do not have information on the completion dates of these facilities, or the number of IUDs currently being manufactured in, or imported to, China. We have received reports that IUDs have sometimes been inserted coercively, and we totally condemn such practices.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the training given by the UNFPA for Chinese population control officials; and if such training is offered to officials from the national, state and prefectural levels of Chinese government; what computer hardware and software is provided by the UNFPA to(a) the Chinese State Family Planning Commission and (b) prefectural level population control offices; what systems this equipment was designed to run and to what use the equipment is now being put; and what information he has on the training offered by the UNFPA in the use of IT for population control purposes. [32006]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nations Population Fund's recent training has focused on interpersonal counselling and informed consent practices for family planning and health workers at local level.

  UNFPA supplied computers for both the 1982 and 1990 censuses, and it has supplied computers to 22 Chinese universities for teaching population science. The computers that were provided for censuses are now used for inter-census surveys and research.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on any statements made by the IPPF or UNFPA which specifically condemn the use of coercion in population control in China. [32012]

  Mr. Hanley
  Both the United Nations Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation make it clear in their policies and statements that they strongly oppose the use of coercion in population and 416
  reproductive health programmes. Neither organisation issues public statements criticising the population policies of any individual country. However, both have expressed their concern, in written and oral communications with the Chinese authorities, about reported incidents of coercion. We believe that both the UNFPA and IPPF are capable of making the right judgments about how best they can help towards improving population and reproductive health policies in individual countries.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the role played by the Chinese State Family Planning Commission in the drafting and dissemination of coercive family planning regulations to Chinese states since 1979, in organising coercive population control initiatives, and in the initiation and implementation of the responsibility system and the veto with one vote system in which cadres are judged by their results in keeping to the one child policy. [32008]

  Mr. Hanley
  We understand that the State Family Planning Commission has overall responsibility for policy on family planning, and that provincial people's congresses, municipalities and autonomous regions are responsible for establishing their own regulations relating to family size. Responsibility for programme implementation rests with provincial family planning commissions. We have no authoritative information on the "responsibility system".

  Philippines Cordillera
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the European Union agricultural assistance programme in the Philippines Cordillera; and what changes he will be seeking in the next phase of this programme. [31845]

  Mr. Hanley
  The European Commission has not yet released the results of a recent evaluation of the Philippines Cordillera project. We understand, however, that it is likely to recommend the funding of a second phase of the project. We will seek to ensure the evaluation findings are fully reflected in the proposals for any such second phase.

WALES

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to continue with all the policies of his last two predecessors. [31451]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government's policies for Wales are clear and will continue.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary State for Wales what changes of policy he plans. [31454]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government's policies for Wales are clear and will continue.
  417

  Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he intends to take to encourage the work of the voluntary sector in Wales. [31438]

  Mr. Richards
  We shall continue to encourage, develop and maintain a strong, vigorous and independent voluntary sector.

  Caretakers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide funding to improve the working conditions of caretakers in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [31439]

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for the employers involved.

  Departmental Priorities
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state his priorities for the next six months. [31441]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government's policies for Wales are clear and will continue.

  State Nursery Schools
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the percentage of children of the age of three and four years currently in state nursery schools; and if he will make a statement. [31442]

  Mr. Richards
  Some 5 per cent. of three and four-year-olds in Wales currently attend maintained nursery schools, either full or part time. Almost another 31 per cent. attend nursery classes in maintained primary schools, and a further 36.5 per cent. attend maintained schools' reception classes, again either full or part-time.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced on 6 July, Official Report, columns 517–32, our proposals to give all parents the opportunity to choose a publicly funded place in nursery education for their four-year-olds.

  Official Duties
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he divides his time between his role as Secretary of State for Wales and his other official duties. [31443]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no other official duties.

  National Health Service (Dental Services)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on NHS dental cover in Wales during the past 12 months. [31445]

  Mr. Richards
  In the past 12 months, 218 representations on the question of dental cover have been received either from or on behalf of people living in Wales. Of these, 136 were for hon. Members.
  418
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made regarding the provision of NHS dental treatment in Wales. [31453]

  Mr. Richards
  There are presently 850 general dental practitioners in Wales, 36 per cent. more than in 1979. Some 1.7 million patients are registered with a dentist and some £68 million was spent on NHS dentistry in 1993–94.

  Earlier this year the then Secretary of State announced that he was making a further £2.5 million available in Wales to improve dental services in the community and an announcement will be made soon about how that money will be spent.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to meet leaders of the new unitary authorities in Wales to discuss service provision. [31446]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have already meet the leaders of two of the new unitary authorities and my colleagues and I look forward to meeting all of the other leaders in the future.

  Welsh Grand Committee
  Mr. John Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will renew the policies put forward in 1992 on the meetings and format of the Welsh Grand Committee. [31448]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is up to the Committee to determine when and where it meets and such things are arranged through the usual channels.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for a rural White Paper for Wales. [31450]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have no plans to publish a rural White Paper for Wales.

  Civil Service (Jobs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary or State for Wales how many full-time civil service jobs there are in Wales; and how many he expects there to be in two years time. [31452]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There were 28,724 full-time equivalent civil servants in Wales at 1 April 1994. This figure includes part-time staff who are counted as half units. Information on full-time staff only is not held centrally. The civil service will remain a significant employer in Wales.

  Welsh Development Agency (Property Sales)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what effect he expects the sale of Welsh Development Agency property to have on future investment and job creation in Wales. [31455]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Receipts from the sale of Welsh Development Agency property will be reinvested in the economy of Wales to create more jobs and more investment.
  419

  Fire Service (Reorganisation)
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to visit Wales in the next month to discuss the response to the proposals to reorganise the fire service. [31457]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No, the responsibility for fire brigades and their reorganisation in Wales rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  Countryside Council for Wales (Budget)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will reverse the recent reductions in the budget of the Countryside Council for Wales. [31459]

  Mr. Hague
  The most recent adjustment to the budget of the Countryside Council for Wales was an addition of up to £525,000 to enable necessary new work to be undertaken in the current financial year.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his policy on the tipping of contaminated soil and other substances in landfill sites. [31460]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Landfill sites for the disposal of waste must be licensed by waste regulation authorities. Individual licence conditions determine the types of waste which may be deposited at a site.

  The Government have provided guidance to waste regulation authorities in a series of waste management papers.

  Tuberculosis (Cattle)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has received on the reason for the change in the number of positive tuberculosis tests for cattle in the last five years. [31735]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There has been an increase incidence of the disease and investigations support the contention that much of the increase is due to infection from badgers. The Government are already carrying out research into ways of avoiding transmission of disease from badgers to cattle, including studies on the effects of badger removal operations on the badger population and their impact on the subsequent spread of disease within the badger population.

  A55
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost of building the dual carriageway A55 expressway between Chester and Bangor in current prices. [32931]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available in the form requested. The improvements to the A55 between Chester and Bangor cost some £700 million.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the completion date of the dual carriageway from Menai Bridge to Holyhead. [32930]
  420
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Schemes to extend the A55 dual carriageway across Anglesy are included in the "programmed" pool, planned to start before April 1998, of the forward trunk road programme published in the Welsh Office's departmental report, Cm 2815, on 9 March 1995. Once started, the schemes will be completed, as soon as possible.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of building the Conway A55 expressway tunnel. [32933]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The cost was £228,000,000.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures he will take to encourage local authority and housing association homes for single men; and if he will make a statement. [32936]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Cm 2901, "Our Future Homes", published on 27 June, set out the Government's proposals for meeting future housing need.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of building(a) the Hawarden bypass (b) the Chester southerly bypass (c) the Norling bypass and (d) the Mold bypass in current prices. [32932]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available in the form requested. The actual cost of each scheme was:(a) Hawarden bypass, £32,000,000; (b) Chester southerly bypass, £16,000,000; (c) Northop bypass, £14,000,000; (d) Mold bypass, £18,000,000.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to build the Alltami bypass; and if he will make a statement. [32934]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Proposals for an Alltami bypass form part of the A494 Mold-Ewloe improvement. This scheme is included in the longer-term consideration pool of the forward trunk road programme published in the Welsh Office's departmental report, Cm 2815, on 9 March 1995.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to encourage passenger and freight traffic to move from road to rail; and if he will make a statement. [32929]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government's programme for transferring the railways to the private sector will result in improved and more attractive services. Freight facilities grants are available to encourage the transfer of freight from road to rail or inland waterway where this would provide significant environmental benefits.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to pay interest on
  421
  hill livestock compensatory allowances to farmers in the event of late payment. [32389]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) on 27 June 1995,Official Report, column 614.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of farmers have now received hill livestock compensatory allowance payments for the current year. [32364]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Ninety-one per cent.

  Agricultural Claims
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of appeals against disallowance of claims for agricultural subsidies in the last complete year for which figures are available; and how many appeals succeeded on the grounds that the applicant had made a genuine mistake in providing the information. [32363]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not recorded and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 200, if he will list the dates on which each trust and directly managed unit in Wales employing nurses made a pay offer. [33288]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not held centrally.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 46, what special measures he proposes to assist those health authorities with out-patient waiting lists in excess of six months' waiting time to bring their lists into line with patients charter undertakings. [33290]

  Mr. Hague
  The second tranche of waiting times initiative moneys, some £6.7 million, was released to health authorities in April. All authorities have confirmed their commitment to the hospital waiting times measures in the patients charter for Wales. By the end of September it should be rare for anyone to have waited over six months for a first out-patient appointment.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 46, how many patients on the waiting lists of general practitioner fundholders are included within the total given for health authorities in each of the two columns listed. [33289]

  Mr. Hague
  The information relating to waiting lists at 31 March 1995 is shown separately for patients of health authorities and general practitioner fundholders in the table:422

  Number waiting more than six months for out-patient appointment

  Number waiting more than 18 months for in-patient or day case treatment

  Health authority area

  Health Authority lists

  GP fundholder lists

  Health authority lists

  GP fundholder lists

  Clwyd

  477

  224

  74

  —

  Dyfed

  1,231

  63

  92

  17

  Gwent

  2,588

  433

  2

  —

  Gwynedd

  315

  270

  11

  11

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,091

  445

  184

  19

  Powys

  206

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  2,612

  1,187

  132

  24

  West Glamorgan

  1,739

  1,643

  65

  35

  Wales

  12,259

  4,265

  560

  106

  National Parks
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of access agreements made in each national park in the most recent year for which figures are available. [33489]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available centrally. I will obtain the information from the parks and write to the hon. Member.

SCOTLAND

  Co-operatives
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to ensure that Scottish Enterprise recognises the potential of co-operatives in Scotland; what joint activities it is undertaking with the Scottish Co-operative Development Committee to this end; and if he will make a statement. [32473]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government encourage Scottish Enterprise to work closely with other relevant organisations to create opportunities for enterprise, employment and self-employment in Scotland. Co-operatives have a role to play in this. Any joint activity involving Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Co-operative Development Committee is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise. I have asked its chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Women's Aid Groups
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase funding and assistance to women's aid groups; and if he will make a statement. [32607]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The majority of the funding for local women's aid projects is provided by local housing and social work authorities. Housing authorities have a statutory duty to assist people who are homeless or potentially homeless, including women who are fleeing domestic violence. Under the community care arrangements, local social work authorities can contract
  423
  with women's aid groups to provide support and accommodation to the victims of domestic violence. Local agencies are best placed to determine the requirement for such services in response to local needs and circumstance.

  A large majority of the local women's aid refuges in Scotland are affiliated to the national umbrella organisation, Scottish Women's Aid. Scottish Office grant funding to the SWA has increased by over 60 per cent. in the past three years and provides around 75 per cent. of the organisation's total income.

  The Scottish Office also assists local women's aid projects through the urban programme. The Scottish Office provides 75 per cent. of the urban aid grant, with local authorities meeting the balance. Urban programme funding for women's aid projects has also increased significantly in recent years.

  Quality Standards
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make all companies which supply Scottish Office and local authorities meet and attain BS5750 standards; and if he will make a statement. [32606]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My Department is very conscious of the importance of a range of quality issues and gives these due weight in reaching procurement decisions. It is for the supplier to determine the quality management system to be used in providing goods or services, and my Department requires to be assured that there are such systems in place and it is normal practice to ask suppliers to describe these in their bid or at the pre-qualification stage. Accreditation to BS5750 is a helpful way for suppliers to demonstrate their quality systems, but we do not insist on this as it is not appropriate in all cases and there can be satisfactory alternatives.

  In relation to local authorities, it is for authorities themselves to determine the quality which they require. The question of whether or not a supplier has BS5750 accreditation is one factor which authorities may wish to take into account. For services subject to compulsory competitive tendering, we issued guidance to authorities on quality assurance in the Scottish Office Environment Department circular 13/93.

  Concessionary Travel Schemes
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce a national concession travel scheme in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [32608]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. Regional and islands councils have discretionary powers under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 which allow any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, to establish a concessionary travel scheme for eligible categories of person. After local government reform, the new councils will retain these powers and the Strathclyde passenger transport authority will have the power to establish a scheme for its area. Decisions on the extent and administration of such schemes are entirely for the local authorities to consider, taking account of local needs and circumstances. The Government see no need to introduce a national concession travel scheme in Scotland.
  424
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on arrangements for concessionary travel for passengers over the age of retirement after April 1996. [32894]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  After local government reform the new councils will retain the discretionary powers under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 which allow any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, to establish a concessionary travel scheme for eligible categories of person including passengers over retirement age. The Strathclyde passenger transport authority will also have the power to establish a scheme for its area. Decisions on the extent and administration of such schemes are entirely for the local authorities to consider, taking account of local needs and circumstances.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those local authorities that currently operate concessionary travel rates for pensioners. [32895]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All Scottish regional and islands councils operate a concessionary travel scheme, although the eligible categories and charges may vary between local authorities. The scheme operated by Orkney islands council is restricted to the inter-islands air service.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the current net real cost of allowing concessionary travel schemes for pensioners in the last three years for which figures are available. [32896]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Concessionary travel schemes are provided for different categories of person and separate figures are unavailable for pensioners. Local authority net expenditure on total concessionary fares in Scotland over the last three years is as follows:

  £ thousand

  Cash terms

  Real terms1

  1992–93

  38,868

  41,960

  1993–94

  41,518

  43,514

  1994–95

  45,735

  47,107

  1 Calculated from Her Majesty's Treasury GDP deflators dated 28 June 1995 converted to 1995–96 prices.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of extending concessionary fare practices to other local authority areas that currently have no concessionary schemes. [32897]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All regional and islands councils already operate concessionary fares schemes.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet local government representatives, pensioner organisations and the other interested parties to discuss concessionary travel schemes for retired people; and if he will make a statement. [32898]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No meetings are planned. Decisions on the extent and administration of such schemes are entirely for the local authorities to consider, taking account of local needs and circumstances.
  425

  Farm Thefts
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the number of cases of livestock theft for each of the last 10 years; [33130]

  (2) what was the number of cases of theft of produce from fields for each of the last 10 years; [33131]

  (3) what was the number of burglaries on farms and farm out-buildings for each of the last 10 years. [33132]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Travelling People
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance has been given to procurators fiscal concerning action to move on travelling people from unauthorised encampments in districts where official sites are available for travelling people; and if he will make a statement on the encampment by the A198 road at Prestongrange, East Lothian. [33060]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 1 April 1985, the toleration of unlawful encampment by travelling people has been linked to achievement by local authorities of provision of pitch targets set by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the basis of recommendations by his Advisory Committee on Scotland's Travelling People. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has issued instructions to procurators fiscal to the effect that, in considering the appropriateness of criminal proceedings in relation to unlawful encampment by travelling people, they need not have regard to the policy of toleration where the relevant local authority has met its pitch target. These instructions relate to the consideration of criminal proceedings where a report has been received from the police. The procurator fiscal at Haddington has yet to receive a report from Lothian and Borders police in relation to any encampment by the A198 road at Prestongrange, East Lothian.

  Private Finance Initiatives
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those projects incorporating private finance initiatives in Scotland specifying(a) the value of the private finance, (b) the region and (c) the type of industry. [29619]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: Details of projects involving the private finance initiative which are currently under way in Scotland are contained in the table. The value of each project is estimated since the investment has come from the private sector and thus falls outwith the responsibility of the Scottish Office.

  £ Million

  Project

  Estimated value £

  Skye Bridge

  23.6

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Boards:

  90 elderly care beds at Irvine

  3.8

  Lothian Health Board:

  Joint Venture on siting of Clinical Genetic Service

  0.8

  426

  £ Million

  Project

  Estimated value £

  Lothian and Forth Valley Trust Consortium:

  Waste collection and incineration

  5.0

  Northern Consortium Trusts and Health Boards:

  Waste collection and incineration

  5.0

  The Scottish Office document, "Private Finance Partnership in Scotland", published in March 1995 identified potential projects with a total value of £2.68 billion.

  Feudal Superiors
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on district councils' legal rights over feudal superiors of land on which houses are owned by district councils or the individual occupiers. [30662]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: In general, district councils' relationship with feudal superiors in respect of land is the same as that of any other owners. District councils have, for instance, the same right as other owners to apply to a lands tribunal to seek variation or discharge of feudal rights under section 1 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970.

  District councils have no legal rights in relation to feudal superiors of land owned by individual householders.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what legislation has been enacted to ensure feudal superiors could not repossess council houses bought under the right-to-buy legislation; and if he will make a statement on the legal rights of feudal superiors over land on which a council house has been purchased by the occupier and on the legal rights of the occupiers of houses previously owned by the local council on the ownership of their homes in relation to their feudal superior. [30664]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: The legal position is unclear following a decision of the Court of Session on 3 March 1995 which indicated that the right to buy does not prevail over rights of pre-emption of feudal superiors. That decision, however, did not deal with any other feudal rights and did not address the question of whether the superior could exercise a right of irritancy in respect of past right-to-buy sales in contravention of a right of pre-emption.

  The need for clarification of the law to protect the rights of purchasers is being considered.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many research projects were commissioned by the Scottish Office for 1993–94 and 1994–95. [31890]
  427
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: The Scottish Office commissioned 706 research projects in 1993–94 and 712 in 1994–95.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the companies, and where they are based, which were commissioned by the Scottish Office to carry out research projects in 1993–94,1994–95 and from April 1995; what research project each company was commissioned to carry out in each period; and how much each research company was paid for each project in each period. [31893]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: Information is not readily available in the form requested. Where appropriate, details of research projects, and those commissioned to undertake them, are published, for example in the Scottish Office central research unit's "Register of Research", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Most of the Scottish Office's research is commissioned with specialist research institutes or university departments rather than with companies.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for future funding of out-of-school care projects and development work(a) where there is Scottish Enterprise involvement and (b) on any other basis. [32233]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: The current out-of-school child care initiative will continue to be delivered in Scotland by the enterprise network until March 1996. As in England, any further proposals will be made in light of the final evaluation of the scheme.

  Further Education (Capital Equipment)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what examination is made of the system for disbursing capital equipment moneys following their transfer from individual further education colleges to the enterprise companies; to whom decisions on disbursement are accountable; what provision is made for publicising disbursement decisions; and what opportunities arise for students and other interested parties to influence the process. [32112]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: No funds have been transferred from individual further education colleges to local enterprise companies for disbursement to colleges for the acquisition of capital equipment.

  Blood Supplies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of blood supplies in each region was supplied to private hospitals in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will indicate the number of units involved. [32991]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: The Scottish national blood transfusion service supplies blood and blood products from five regional transfusion centres. The latest information
  428
  available about the supply of blood to non-NHS hospitals is for 1993–94. This is as follows:

  Blood product units

  North RTC

  0

  North East RTC

  408

  East RTC

  169

  South East RTC

  637

  West RTC

  1,975

  Total

  3,189

  The units issued to non-NHS hospitals represented less than 1 per cent. of total issues by regional transfusion centres during this period.

  NHS (Moneys in Trust)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the value of moneys held in trust by individual NHS trusts and health authorities. [32973]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: This information is not held centrally.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Kensington Palace (Tours)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who organises and sets the admission prices of summer evening tours of Kensington palace; and who receives the proceeds. [32945]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has statutory responsibility for the funding, management and presentation to the public of the state apartments and royal ceremonial dress collection at Kensington palace. Day-to-day responsibility for admission prices, the receipt of the proceeds and opening arrangements is delegated to the chief executive of Historic Royal Palaces, which is an executive agency of the Department of National Heritage.

  Advertising
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much has been spent on outside advertising agencies for each year since 1979; and if he will list the specific advertising campaigns undertaken by his Department, their purpose and their cost. [32483]

  Mr. Sproat
  Since it was formed in April 1992, neither my Department nor the Royal Parks agency has commissioned any outside advertising agencies. However, the Historical Royal Palaces agency regularly undertakes advertising campaigns to promote the palaces for which it is responsible. The costs since April 1992 are as follows:

  1992–93: £205,089

  1993–94: £717,000

  1994–95: £548,000

  429
  The specific advertising campaigns, their purpose and individual costs are broken down as follows:

  1992–93

  (i) TOWER OF LONDON

  Purpose: To increase the number of visitors.

  Cost: £92,000

  (ii) HAMPTON COURT PALACE

  Purpose: To increase the number of visitors.

  Cost: £113,089

  1993–94

  (i) TOWER OF LONDON

  Purpose: To increase the number of visitors.

  Cost: £355,000

  (ii) HAMPTON COURT PALACE

  Purpose: To increase the number of visitors.

  To increase the ratio of domestic visitors to overseas visitors.

  To change the perceptions of Hampton Court palace to a place where history comes to life.

  Cost: £262,000

  (iii) CORPORATE SALES PROMOTION

  Purpose: To launch the royal pass entitling visitors to entry to all palaces for £15.

  Cost: £100,000

  1994–95

  (i) TOWER OF LONDON

  Purpose: To increase the number of visitors.

  To launch the re-presentation of the Crown jewels.

  Cost: £370,000

  (ii) HAMPTON COURT PALACE

  Purpose: To increase the number of visitors.

  Cost: £92,000

  (iii) CORPORATE SALES PROMOTION

  Purpose: To consolidate further the royal pass and develop a multi-lingual joint Palaces leaflet.

  Cost: £86,000

  Capital Spending
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the expected capital spending figure for his Department for 1994–95; and what is the latest budget figure. [30878]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  Department of National Heritage

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Central Government's own expenditure

  167

  188

  Public Corporations' expenditure

  155

  130

  Local authority expenditure

  261

  —

  Total

  583

  318

  There are no figures currently available giving the departmental breakdown of planned local authority capital expenditure in 1995–96. The total capital expenditure 1995–96 will not therefore be comparable with the figure for 1994–95.
  430

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received, since I January, asserting that the incidence of sheep scab has increased since compulsory dipping was discontinued, and if he will make a statement on his policy towards(a) making sheep scab a notifiable disease, (b) making dipping compulsory on farms where scab has been found and (c) making testing for scab compulsory on neighbouring farms. [30271]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department has received a number of representations on the subject of sheep scab since 1 January.

  In response to claims early last year that the incidence of sheep scab had increased, we carried out our own investigations in March 1994 into the level of scab at markets and in flocks treated by private veterinary surgeons. Although the results were not conclusive, they indicated that the number of infested sheep had increased. In co-operation with the industry, we conducted a publicity campaign to encourage farmers to treat their sheep for scab. In addition, the official veterinary presence at markets was significantly increased; infested animals are being withdrawn from sale and treated and the owners risk prosecution under animal welfare legislation.

  A second state veterinary service survey has indicated that the numbers of sheep affected by scab sent to markets and sales has declined. This is an encouraging sign and should help to reduce the spread of scab.

  However, reports from practising veterinary surgeons suggest that the number of infected farms is increasing. The veterinary surgeons also suggest that some farmers are not treating their sheep strictly in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. This can lead to the temporary suppression of the disease which then re-establishes itself later.

  The full results of this years survey and those from last year are as follows:

  1994

  1995

  Market visits

  Number

  869

  867

  Batches with suspected scab

  177

  47

  Per cent. visits where scab found

  20

  5

  Serious welfare cases

  13

  6

  Other outbreaks of scab found by SVS

  Number

  53

  34

  Outbreaks of scab known to private veterinary surgeons

  Number

  254

  595

  The Government are concerned at the increasing spread of sheep scab and accordingly propose to carry out a publicity campaign to encourage good management practices, including the proper use of the available treatments. The newly established Meat Hygiene Service will be watching out for signs of scab infestation in sheep arriving at slaughterhouses and will report any welfare cases to the state veterinary service for follow-up action

  431
  on the farms concerned. Where necessary, appropriate action will be taken under farm animal welfare legislation. We will also be continuing our increased surveillance of sheep sales and taking follow-up action in connection with any welfare problems associated with scab infestation.

  In addition to the initiatives above, I have asked officials to consider what other options may be available for dealing with the disease.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reason the policy of compulsory sheep dipping was changed, and if he will make a statement. [31246]

  Mrs. Browning
  The decision to remove statutory controls for sheep scab, which included compulsory dipping, was mainly based on the failure of these arrangements to eradicate the disease and the view that they were unlikely to do so in the future. Given also the substantial demands placed on the state veterinary service and local authorities, the lack of EC interest in the disease—which would make it difficult to prevent scab being reintroduced again on imported animals—and the lack of commitment shown by a substantial minority of farmers, it was decided that Government involvement in the control of sheep scab could no longer be justified.

  This does not mean that the Government are no longer concerned about the threat posed by scab and I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson).

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the recorded levels of sheep scab in each of the last five years. [31244]

  Mrs. Browning
  The numbers of confirmed cases of sheep scab in Great Britain in 1991 and 1992 were as follows:

  1991: 116

  1992 (to 30 June): 94

  The collation of official records on the number of outbreaks of sheep scab was discontinued after deregulation in 1992.

  The official veterinary presence at sheep markets was increased between 1 September 1994 and 3 March 1995, during which time suspected sheep scab was detected in 49 out of 2,878 market visits. In total, 364 animals had to be withdrawn from sale and treated under the Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990 and a further 210 animals with suspected sheep scab were sent direct to slaughter.

  For further information on the amount of scab discovered during surveys conducted by the state veterinary service in March 1994 and March 1995, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson).

  Voluntary Oranisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many voluntary sector organisations his Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into contracts in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31314]
  432
  Mr. Baldry
  The information required to answer is not held centrally and can be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Milk Testing
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider establishing a national body to check standards of milk testing for British farmers. [31670]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Intervention Board executive agency, which is responsible for administering milk quotas throughout the United Kingdom, has already commissioned the Central Science Laboratory to check standards at laboratories which are approved to carry out butterfat tests on milk.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider establishing national calibration standards in respect of testing for butter fat, protein and total bacteria content in milk. [31668]

  Mr. Baldry
  The suggestion that a simple source for calibration standards be specified, whilst acceptable in principle to the Intervention Board executive agency and to those laboratories participating in milk testing, may be difficult to prescribe. It would, effectively, prevent those organisations currently supplying such standards from continuing to do so. In the current climate of deregulation within the United Kingdom dairy industry such action would need to be considered carefully and justified in terms of a clearly identified need.

  Tuberculosis (Cattle)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received on the reason for the change in the number of positive tuberculosis tests for cattle in the last five years. [31736]

  Mrs. Browning
  There has been an increased incidence of disease and approximately 90 per cent. of the cattle tuberculosis herd breakdowns in the south-west of England are attributed to infection by badgers after detailed epidemiological investigations. The Department is already carrying out research into ways of avoiding transmission of disease from badgers to cattle and is co-operating with university departments on studies on the effects of badger removal operations on the badger population and their impact on the subsequent spread of disease within the badger population.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the proposals to amend the system of field numbering on maps which are to accompany forms associated with the integrated administration and control system. [32362]

  Mr. Baldry
  A range of farming industry organisations has been consulted on proposals which, if adopted, would involve changing the system of issuing field numbers, for the purpose of applications under the integrated administration and control system. Officials are considering comments from those who have responded and meeting with organisations where appropriate.
  433
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has completed the exercise of standardising maps which are to accompany forms associated with the integrated administration and control system. [32361]

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department is not carrying out an exercise of standardising maps. However, a wide range of checks is carried out on applications under the integrated administration and control system. These include detailed checks of field data and maps submitted in support of area aid applications.

  Bull Calves
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to stimulate the domestic market for bull calves; if he is actively considering encouraging the establishment of alternative rearing systems or introducing tighter animal welfare systems; what help is being offered to United Kingdom farmers to assist in establishing a realistic animal friendly alternative that would help to end the continental trade in live animals for veal production; and if he will make a statement. [32425]

  Mrs. Browning
  The United Kingdom has since 1990 banned close confinement systems of veal rearing, and we are now working hard to achieve agreement to raise the less exacting minimum standards which apply at European Union level.

  Only a minority of bull calves born in the UK are exported live. None-the-less a move from live exports to the value added business of producing meat in the UK makes sense in the long run. The Ministry is encouraging this through research into improving the quality of dairy bread beef, and work with the Meat and Livestock Commission to promote beef exports.

  We are also funding a demonstration unit on welfare friendly veal at the ADAS research centre at Rosemaund, near Hereford. The aim of this unit, which opens later this month, is to show how to produce veal under systems which conform to the UK's high welfare standards.

  Fishing Incidents
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incidents have taken place between British fishing vessels and fishing vessels of other European Union countries in each of the last three years. [32672]

  Mr. Baldry
  Incidents between fishing vessels can take place in varying circumstances and are not necessarily reported to fishery protection vessels or to the fishery inspectorates. Comprehensive records of such incidents are not kept.

  Fishing (Discussions)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss access to the Irish box and western waters. [31160]
  434
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 6 July 19951]: My predecessor met representatives of the fishing industry on a number of occasions recently at which this issue was discussed, and I propose to do so again as the need arises.

  Meat Levies
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, column 528, on meat levies, what were the total levies for (a) sheep and (b) calves in each year since 1990; and what would be the total revenue raised for the Meat and Livestock Commission for (a) sheep, and (b) calves and (c) other in each year since 1992 if animal exporters had paid the levies on each animal exported in each year since 1992. [32388]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding reply sent on 6 July 19951]: The information requested is as follows.

  (1) Total levy receipts

  £ million

  (a) sheep

  (b) calves

  1989–90

  8.6

  0.02

  1990–91

  9.8

  0.02

  1991–92

  10.1

  0.02

  1992–93

  10.0

  0.03

  1993–94

  9.8

  0.03

  (2) Total levy due

  £ million

  (a) Sheep

  (b) Calves

  (c) Others

  1991–92

  10.2

  0.02

  19.0

  1992–93

  10.3

  0.03

  18.7

  1993–94

  10.1

  0.03

  19.8

HEALTH

  NHS Loto
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health (1) what rules govern the use of the letters NHS in publicity for private companies' projects; [31353]

  (2) what discussions have taken place between his Department and the organisers of NHS Loto to discuss (a) the distribution of any funds generated, (b) advising on the re-launch of the NHS Loto and (c) departmental approval of the project; and if he will make a statement; [31354]

  (3) what permission was sought from his Department to use the letters NHS to promote the NHS Loto. [31352]

  Mr. Sackville
  The use of the letters NHS is not the subject of any express provisions in legislations.

  NHS Loto is run by the registered charity National Hospital Trust and operated on its behalf by Pascal and Co. The trustees of the National Hospital Trust sought the endorsement of Department of Health Ministers prior to the relaunch of NHS Loto on 1 June 1995. This was not forthcoming.
  435

  Centre for Epilepsy
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Centre for Epilepsy. [31862]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have the personal written assurance of the chairman of the King's Healthcare national health service trust, Mr. Stanley Kalms, that the trust will encourage the development of specialised multidisciplinary treatment and care for people with epilepsy and will help the centre to establish itself as the focus for this.

  At present, the Centre for Epilepsy is established at the Maudsley hospital site. Owing to the current reorganisation of neurosciences services at the Maudsley, the centre has recently moved into temporary accommodation. The chief executive of the trust, has assured me at a meeting on 26 June, that the centre will return to permanent accommodation within the Maudsley hospital during November this year.

  Research Grants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which members of(a) the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, (b) the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food and (c) the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food receive research grants from his Department. [32419]

  Mr. Sackville
  Only Dr. S. Bingham and Professor M. Marmont of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy have research contracts funded through the Department's policy research programme or the nutrition research programme.

  Sensible Drinking
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the findings of the review of the "Sensible Drinking" message; and if he will make a statement. [32815]

  Mr. Bowis
  I expect the interdepartmental group on sensible drinking to complete its work around the end of the year.

  Nutrition Task Force
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the estimated budget for 1995–96 and 1996–97 for the nutrition task force; [32720]

  (2) what future changes are planned for the nutrition task force and if he will make a statement. [32719]

  Mr. Sackville
  The nutrition task force, which was set up in November 1992 to bring together relevant interests and prepare a programme of action to achieve the diet and nutrition targets in The Health of the Nation" White Paper, published its programme in March 1994. The remit of the task force was extended by a further year to set in train the implementation of the programme. It will make a final report to Ministers by the end of the year. The task force's remit to develop the programme will then have been fulfilled. Action set in hand as a result of the task force's work will be completed by the relevant sectors within the wider community.
  436
  The nutrition task force does not have a specific budget. Expenses are paid to members under normal rules. A total of £250,000 has been allocated for expenditure in 1995–96 on publicity arising from the nutrition task force programme. A similar bid has been made for 1996–97.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the local authority children's homes in England and Wales where child sex abuse is known to have taken place in each of the last three years. [32859]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Treatments
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to ensure that additional costs of metered water for essential water intensive health treatments, including hydro-therapy and renal dialysis, do not fall on(a) the health service and (b) patients. [32711]

  Mr. Sackville
  Since April 1994, local health authorities have been responsible for meeting the costs of water used in the course of home haemodialysis by patients whose water supply is metered by their local water company. I am not aware of other conditions which require equivalent volumes of water for treatment provided at home. These arrangements have been introduced relatively recently; there are no plans to review them at this stage.

  Nutrition Monitoring
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies on monitoring nutrition his Department plans to commission over the next two years. [32721]

  Mr. Sackville
  My Department plans to commission this year, jointly with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the national diet and nutrition survey of children aged four to 18 years.

  Elderly Patients, Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service beds in hospitals in the London borough of Wandsworth are available for the nursing of elderly patients. [33107]

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

  Performance Tables
  Sir James Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the performance of(a) the Dorset Healthcare national health service trust and (b) the national health service as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [33699]

  Mr. Malone
  I would like to congratulate the Dorset Healthcare trust on its excellent performance in the national health service performance tables for the second year running. Not only has the trust improved its performance against the existing performance tables indicators but the new indicators introduced this year show that 100 per cent. of patients are seen in out-patient
  437
  clinics within 13 weeks of referral by their general practitioner. Copies of the NHS performance tables are available in the Library.

  The tables show yet another year of achievement for the NHS as a whole. Performance has improved so that:
  93 per cent. of patients are now assessed within five minutes in accident and emergency departments;
  88 per cent. of patients are now seen within 30 minutes of their appointment times;
  over half of hospitals admitted 95 per cent. or more of patients in the eight main surgical specialties within 12 months of going on a waiting list;

  The figures for day surgery also show substantial improvement. Over 60 per cent. of arthroscopies and laparoscopies, more than a quarter of inguinal hernia repairs and a third of cataracts are now done on a day surgery basis. This is a better option for many patients who prefer not to have to stay in hospital overnight.

  Information is included in the tables for the first time on the waiting time to see a consultant following referral by a GP:

  82 per cent. of patients are seen within 13 weeks of referral; and

  95 per cent. within 26 weeks of referral.

  These figures suggest that the NHS is well on course to meet the new patients charter standard, introduced on 1 April this year, of nine out of 10 patients being seen within 13 weeks and all patients being seen within 26 weeks.

  The tables also show that 64 per cent. of GP practices have produced charters for their patients.

  This is an impressive record of achievement. Trusts have earned more than 3,000 five-star ratings this year. But not every trust has performed well on every indicator and action is already under way to secure even better performance next year.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent community psychiatric nurses were working in the NHS in each year since 1992; and how many of these CPNs have received training to implement the proposed power of supervised discharge. [32243]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of whole-time equivalent qualified, unqualified and "other" nursing staff—excluding agency—working in the community psychiatric nursing area of work in the national health service hospital and community health services in each year since 1992 is as follows:

  1992: 4,210

  1993: 4,320

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten whole-time equivalents.

  2. Agency staff are excluded.

  3. Figures are for England as at 30 September each year.

  4. 1993 is the latest year for which figures are available.

  Source:

  PD(STATS)B Non-Medical Workforce Census.
  438
  Information on nursing staff in the community psychiatric area of work who have undertaken training to implement the proposed power of supervised discharge is not available centrally.

  Contracts (EDS)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the contracts his Department has with the computer company EDS. [33175]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has no contracts with EDS.

  Committee Membership
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who are the present members of(a) the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, (b) the Medicines Commission and (c) the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment; by whom they are employed; what consultancies or directorships each holds with chemical or pharmaceutical companies; and which are engaged in research on behalf of chemical or pharmaceutical companies. [32899]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's change of policy regarding the place of registrars' and senior registrars' contracts following the abolition of regional health authorities. [33227]

  Mr. Malone
  Subject to formal negotiation with the medical profession and following the abolition of regional health authorities, contracts for registrars and senior registrars will be held by national health service trusts with deans of postgraduate medicine overseeing their educational needs. The detail of the new arrangements has yet to be agreed but it will need to ensure that continuity and quality of training programmes are protected under the new arrangements.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures will be introduced to aid junior doctors within training rotations to negotiate new contracts every six months with NHS trusts; and if he will make a statement. [33231]

  Mr. Malone
  Detailed arrangements for the transfer of junior doctors' contracts to national health service trusts are being discussed with the medical profession. These discussions include a package of safeguards. The six elements of this are:national terms and conditions of service with a degree of local flexibility;
  a "lead trusts" scheme to ensure that doctors on rotations are not required to strike new employment contracts with each new posting;
  continuity of service via the Health Authorities Bill, now secured;
  a network of employment, educational and service-level contracts tying the deans, trusts and junior doctors into a relationship designed to safeguard educational standards and appropriate levels of training;

  439
  a review of the proportion of junior doctors' salary costs funded by the deans; and
  additional training of trust personnel staff to avoid some of the problems currently arising when trusts manage house officer and senior house officer contracts.

  Mr. Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to ensure that NHS trusts will honour agreements on nationally negotiated packages for junior doctors with special reference to the new deal which limits their hours of work. [33226]

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are planned to ensure that NHS trusts implement national agreements limiting junior doctors' hours of work when NHS trusts are responsible for their contracts; and if he will make a statement. [33230]

  Mr. Malone
  National terms and conditions of service continue to apply to junior doctors including the limits on junior doctors' hours under the new deal which are set out in "Terms and Conditions of Service for Hospital Medical and Dental Staff (England and Wales)". All national health service trusts are required to comply with these limits.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional staff will be required in each NHS trust to manage junior doctors' contracts when their contracts are held at trust level; and if he will make a statement. [33229]

  Mr. Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the cost nationally of each NHS trust personnel department employing at least one additional member of staff to deal with junior doctors' contracts in the event of their being transferred to trust level after the abolition of regional health authorities. [33234]

  Mr. Malone
  It is for individual trusts to make decisions about staff numbers.

  Mr. Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made as to whether NHS trusts' personnel departments have staff with sufficient experience and knowledge to manage the complexities of junior doctors' contracts. [33228]

  Mr. Malone
  We are considering what training is necessary to ensure that registrar and senior registrar contracts are managed effectively.

  Contraceptives
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what guidance he has given for the provision of Norplant free by family planning clinics. [33271]

  Mr. Sackville
  A full range of contraceptive services should be available to those who wish to use them. It is a matter for local health authorities to decide how best to use their resources to provide comprehensive and accessible services that meet the needs of local users.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average amount contributed by the NHS to their pension fund prior to retirement of(a) female and (b) male doctors; [33237]
  440
  (2) what is the average amount paid in by comparable female and male doctors into the NHS pension scheme prior to retirement and the average amount female and male doctors receive in pension after retirement; [33236]

  (3) for how many years female and male doctors have put the same contribution into NHS pension schemes; and for which years payments can be taken into account in calculation of widowers' pensions. [33272]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service employers contribute 4 per cent. of pensionable earnings to the national health service pension scheme in respect of their employees. Female and male doctors contribute 6 per cent. of their pensionable earnings to the scheme and contribution rates in every year have been the same for both sexes. Information is not available centrally about the amounts contributed, and average pension received, by staff groups. Widowers' benefits are based upon service accrued after 6 April 1988 unless cover for earlier service has been purchased.

  NHS Appointees (Payments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is held by his Department or the NHS executive on expenditure on trust board and health authority member's allowances. [33249]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 16 February,Official Report, column 808, which gives the latest information available centrally about payments to members of health authorities and national health service trust boards.

  Tendering
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 259, what information his Department or the NHS executive holds on the costs associated with (a) market testing and (b) compulsory competitive tendering in the NHS. [33158]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is held on the value of a large number of individual service contracts which have been notified to the national health service executive by NHS trusts and other Units. Individual contract values are not released except with the prior agreement of the two parties concerned. It is not yet possible to access the information on contract values by numbers above or below a given size without detailed scrutiny of the full list of contracts.

  NHS Contracts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS organisations entered into contracts with either(a) Touche Ross or (b) Arthur Anderson Chartered Accountants in the period from December 1993. [33145]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is prepared to examine proposals to keep St. Bartholomew's hospital at Smithfield open. [33504]
  441
  Mr. Malone
  The recent decision on the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital was right for patients and for the future of hospital services in east London. Alternative options for the future of the Smithfield site are currently being examined by a task force chaired by Sir Ronald Grierson.

  Pay Review Body
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has appointed the new chair of the Pay Review Body for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors; and if he will list the criteria for selection. [33270]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 4 July,Official Report, column 102, on this subject. An appointment will be made in due course by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Hip Replacement Operations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the percentage of hip replacement operations that required(a) one revision and (b) more than one revision in each of the past 12 years. [29268]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The information is not available in the form requested. The information in the table shows the proportion of the total number of hip operations in each of the last six years that were revisions. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  Hip operations

  Revisions

  Percentage revisions

  1988–89

  46,490

  2,882

  6.2

  1989–90

  50,790

  3,555

  7.0

  1990–91

  50,725

  3,449

  6.8

  1991–92

  55,642

  3,895

  7.0

  1992–93

  57,437

  3,963

  6.9

  1993–94

  58,439

  3,740

  6.4

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics—Estimate from 25 per cent. sample.

  Hip operation codes—shortlist code WC1 and WC3.

  OPCS4R codes W37-W39, W46-W48.

  Revision code—37.3, 38.3, 39.3 46.3, 47.3 and 48.3.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Voluntary Organisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many voluntary sector organisations his Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into contracts with in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31306]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  Voluntary sector organisations

  Voluntary sector organisations

  Year

  Paid grants

  Value of grant £

  Awarded contracts

  Value of contract £

  1993–94

  1,342

  77,597,234

  326

  68,086,243

  1994–95

  1,373

  71,404,810

  321

  69,608,550

  442
  Some payments due under the letters of offer were made in the same financial year.

  Dungiven Bypass
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he now expects work to begin on the Dungiven bypass. [32447]

  Mr. Moss
  The Dungiven bypass is not included in the Department's current five-year major road works programme.

  Bridge Strengthening
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums have been expended to date on the bridge strengthening programme; and how long it will he and at what cost before the programme is complete. [32446]

  Mr. Moss
  In the last three years, approximately £13.2 million has been expended on the bridge assessment and strengthening programme. Information prior to 1992–93 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The provision allocation for the 1995–96 financial year is £5 million.

  It is planned that the assessment programme will be completed by 31 December 1998. The cost and the timing of the completion of the associated strengthening works will depend on the volume of work identified and the availability of finance.

  Limavady Bypass
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he now expects work to begin on the construction of the Limavady bypass. [32448]

  Mr. Moss
  Work on the first stage of the Limavady bypass is due to commence in the 1997–98 financial year, subject to the availability of finance.

  Further Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of capital expenditure on education has been devoted to further education in each of the past 10 years. [32904]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1984–85

  3

  1985–86

  3

  1986–87

  4

  1987–88

  5

  1988–89

  9

  1989–90

  10

  1990–91

  9

  1991–92

  6

  1992–93

  8

  1993–94

  7

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the proposed five-year building programme for further education colleges in Northern Ireland. [32906]
  443
  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 13 June,Official Report, column 466.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which further education colleges he has visited; and if he will make a statement on the physical condition of those colleges. [32903]

  Mr. Ancram
  I have visited Fermanagh, Omagh, Limavady, North-West, Magherafelt, North-East, Upper Bann and East Tyrone colleges.

  The physical condition of these colleges varies from excellent to some instances where provision is poor.

  Belfast Institute of Further Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will visit the Ormeau road premises of the Belfast Institute of Further Education; and what actions he proposes to take to bring its facilities up to modern standards. [32902]

  Mr. Ancram
  I always try to respond positively to invitations to visit schools and colleges.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 13 June, Official Report, column 466.

  Emergency Legislation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to start a full-scale independent review into the emergency legislation; and what will he its timetable. [32692]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The timing of the independent review of the continuing need for the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 has yet to be decided. The Government will take a number of factors into account before initiating the review and deciding upon its timetable. These will include assessing the security situation in Northern Ireland to see if confidence in a lasting peace has been clearly established.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if it is his policy that internment should not feature in the proposed successor legislation to the Emergency Powers Act 1964. [32693]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Provision for the detention of terrorists—in section 34 of and schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991—are currently

  Less than 24 hrs

  24 hrs-47 hrs 59 mins

  48 hrs-71 hrs 59 mins

  72 hrs-119 hrs 59 mins

  120 hrs-167 hrs 59 mins

  1994

  January

  24

  99

  3

  43

  0

  February

  17

  101

  10

  26

  7

  March

  20

  110

  3

  31

  2

  April

  27

  77

  4

  29

  24

  May

  30

  55

  7

  58

  4

  June

  42

  96

  7

  22

  5

  July

  43

  69

  3

  14

  1

  August

  25

  89

  5

  27

  5

  September

  8

  44

  2

  7

  0

  October

  10

  54

  1

  0

  0

  November

  10

  55

  0

  0

  2

  December

  14

  32

  0

  0

  0

  444
  not in force. The Government will carefully consider the continuing need for such provisions in the context of preparing the successor legislation to replace the existing Act which expires next year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussion he has had with the Chief Constable of the RUC on the desirability of using Police and Criminal Evidence Act powers rather than emergency legislation wherever possible; and what was the response. [32695]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Discussions between Ministers and the Chief Constable on security matters remain confidential. However, it is hoped that a changing and improving security situation will mean that the use of the powers contained in the emergency legislation will continue to decrease to the point where they are no longer needed.

  Detainees
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were held in each holding centre in each month of 1994 and each month of 1995 to date. [32694]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  1994

  Castlereagh

  Gough

  Strand Road

  January

  128

  37

  4

  February

  114

  44

  3

  March

  129

  35

  0

  April

  132

  22

  7

  May

  118

  32

  4

  June

  150

  15

  7

  July

  111

  17

  2

  August

  99

  39

  13

  September

  47

  9

  5

  October

  56

  6

  3

  November

  51

  13

  3

  December

  36

  9

  1

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many detentions under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1985 were made in each month of 1994 and each month of 1995 to date; and for what lengths of time detainees were held. [32697]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:
  445

  Less than 24 hrs

  24 hrs-47 hrs 59 mins

  48 hrs-71 hrs 59 mins

  72 hrs-119 hrs 59 mins

  120 hrs-167 hrs 59 mins

  1995

  January

  6

  26

  2

  0

  0

  February

  10

  40

  1

  0

  0

  March

  17

  26

  4

  2

  0

  April

  17

  19

  0

  0

  0

  May

  6

  21

  0

  0

  0

  Figures for June 1995 are not yet available.

  Diplock Courts
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to phase in more trials with jury rather than continuing the use of Diplock courts over the coming year. [32698]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government have no plans to amend schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, which lists those substantive offences that are dealt with on indictment by the Crown court without a jury in accordance with section 10 of the Act. The future independent review of the legislation will address the continuing need for all aspects of counter-terrorist law.

  Collegiate Court
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his response to the proposal by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights that consideration should be given to the establishment of a collegiate court pending full restoration of jury trials. [32699]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government are not presently persuaded that multi-judge courts are desirable to deal with scheduled offences. There is no evidence to show that a change to multi-judge courts would necessarily produce better justice, or significantly enhanced confidence in the court system. Any person convicted of a scheduled offence in a single-judge court has an automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal which itself comprises three judges, and there is an important safeguard in that the trial judge is required to produce a written judgment setting out his reasons for any conviction.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which projects have been selected by the Water Executive for the private finance initiative; what is the estimated cost of these projects; when they were due to go out to tender; and what is the estimated delay caused by these projects being included in the private finance initiative. [32823]

  Mr. Moss
  The Water Executive has a major capital construction programme designed to ensure compliance with national standards, incorporating those of the EC, over the next 10 years. This programme has significantly increased the executive's capital demands and it is appropriate that we explore the use of private finance in this context. It is a normal method of funding infrastructure projects internationally, as well as in the United Kingdom, and I am anxious that the potential for 446
  its application to the Water Executive's capital programme should be tested.

  Government recognise that using private finance must provide genuine value for money. I have therefore agreed that, as a first step the Water Executive should select two pilot schemes to test the viability of the private sector financing, building, owning and operating such facilities on a long-term basis. In order to assist with this work a consortium comprising Mott MacDonald Ltd., and NatWest Markets have been appointed to act as a manager and financial advisor of the pilot scheme.

  I am presently considering the final selection of the schemes to be included in the pilot project. They will probably have a combined capital value of over £20 million and I will announce the details in due course.

  I do not anticipate that the private finance initiative will cause any significant delays in these schemes.

  Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of Northern Ireland domiciled students leave to study at higher education institutions in Great Britain; and what percentage return to work in Northern Ireland. [32908]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1993–94, the latest year for which information is available, 24 per cent. of all Northern Ireland domiciled new entrants to higher education left to study at institutions in Great Britain, including 34 per cent. of full-time undergraduate new entrants. In the same year, 11 per cent. of Northern Ireland domiciled first-degree graduates from Great Britain universities returned to Northern Ireland to take up employment.

  Electronic Surveillance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to implement electronic surveillance of interviews with suspects in holding centres; and what form this will take. [32700]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government have said that they will give consideration to the introduction of an electronic recording scheme for the police offices, in the context of the successor legislation to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 if it still appears necessary to do so in the light of the developing security situation.

  Holding Centres
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to close any holding centres. [32701]

  Sir John Wheeler
  None at present.
  447

  Coroners Courts
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has had from the Lord Chancellor to the recommendations by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights on the reform of coroners courts in Northern Ireland. [32702]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In Northern Ireland, coroners courts and inquest procedures are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor has confirmed to the Secretary of State that he has no present plans to change the current system of inquests in Northern Ireland.

  Forensic Science Laboratory
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are for the future use of the site of the former forensic science laboratory at Newtownbreda; when he expects to make a decision; and if he will make a statement. [32994]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The former site at Newtownbreda of the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory is no longer required by Government. In accordance with standing policy it will be sold and it is intended to arrange a public auction for this purpose as soon as possible.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to cease using derogation under article 5(3) of the European convention on human rights and article 4 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. [32696]

  Mr. Howard
  I have been asked to reply.

  Limited derogations under article 15 of the European convention on human rights and article 4 of the international covenant on civil and political rights cover detention by the police on the Secretary of State's authority under the prevention of terrorism Act of persons suspected of involvement in Northern Irish terrorism. The Government continue to keep the need for the derogations under review but it is too early to be satisfied that they could safely be withdrawn.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each month since December 1994 the percentage of family credit claims taking five working days to be dealt with from the time of the claim being received by his Department and the figures for each subsequent day up to 30 working days. [31678]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of family credit is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 6 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the clearance of claims to Family Credit.
  448
  I enclose, at annex A, a table which details the proportion of claims cleared within 5 days and up to 30 days, from December 1994 to the end of May 1995.
  I hope you find this useful.

  Annex A: Clearance times for Family Credit claims—December 1994—May 1995.

  Days

  December 1994

  January 1995

  February 1995

  March 1995

  April 1995

  May 1995

  5

  31.1

  33.6

  39.2

  42.6

  45.6

  42.2

  6

  33.7

  36.0

  42.3

  46.3

  50.7

  46.9

  7

  38.6

  40.0

  48.4

  52.9

  53.3

  50.9

  8

  40.9

  42.3

  51.3

  55.8

  56.2

  57.5

  9

  43.4

  45.1

  54.2

  58.8

  62.7

  61.0

  10

  49.5

  50.3

  60.7

  65.0

  65.8

  65.5

  11

  52.8

  52.6

  63.7

  67.9

  70.5

  67.4

  12

  58.1

  56.3

  68.4

  72.4

  72.7

  69.4

  13

  60.6

  58.4

  70.6

  74.2

  74.7

  74.7

  14

  63.0

  60.4

  72.6

  76.1

  78.8

  76.7

  15

  67.9

  64.3

  76.7

  79.7

  80.7

  79.2

  16

  70.1

  66.0

  78.4

  81.3

  83.5

  80.5

  17

  73.7

  68.9

  80.9

  83.6

  84.6

  82.0

  18

  75.1

  70.4

  82.1

  84.6

  85.7

  82.0

  19

  76.5

  72.0

  83.3

  85.6

  87.9

  85.2

  20

  79.7

  74.9

  85.7

  87.7

  89.0

  86.3

  21

  81.1

  76.2

  86.7

  88.6

  90.4

  87.9

  22

  83.4

  78.5

  88.3

  90.1

  91.0

  88.7

  23

  84.4

  79.6

  89.0

  90.7

  91.7

  89.7

  24

  85.3

  80.9

  89.7

  91.3

  93.0

  91.4

  25

  87.3

  83.0

  91.2

  92.5

  93.5

  92.0

  26

  88.4

  83.9

  91.8

  93.1

  94.4

  92.8

  27

  89.8

  85.6

  92.6

  93.9

  94.7

  93.3

  28

  90.3

  86.4

  93.0

  94.2

  95.1

  93.9

  29

  90.8

  87.2

  93.4

  94.6

  95.8

  94.8

  30

  92.1

  88.8

  94.3

  95.3

  96.1

  95.1

  The figures provided indicate the cumulative total percentage cleared in each working day.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to commission further research into the exclusion of certain categories of borrowers from mortgage protection insurance policies. [32045]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have no such plans. However, we have already worked closely with the Association of British Insurers in developing guidelines to best practice which addresses many of the concerns about existing mortgage protection insurance. We continue to have on-going discussions with the Association of British Insurers and the Council of Mortgage Lenders and, as with any new policy, we will be monitoring carefully the changes to the provision of income support help with housing costs.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the dates of all meetings held by himself or his Department with(a) the Association of British Insurers, (b) representatives of individual insurance companies and (c) other individuals connected with the insurance industry to discuss the reduction of mortgage interest protection by income support prior to the initial announcement of this policy. [32047]

  Mr. Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had meetings with the Association of British Insurers. Ministers and officials in this Department have had regular, and on-going, discussions with the Association of British Insurers, representatives of individual insurance
  449
  companies and other individuals connected with the insurance industry.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were refused income support due to the habitual residence requirement in March; and how many of these were(a) British nationals, (b) European economic area nationals and (c) others. [32718]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is in the table:

  British nationals

  EEA nationals

  Others

  Total

  March 1995

  492

  802

  730

  2,024

  Note:

  "Others" include asylum seekers who had the habitual residence test applied to them but were paid benefit under other provisions.

  State Pension
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) divorced and (b) widowed pensioners are receiving a full state pension based on their spouse's national insurance contribution record; and of these how many are also in receipt of (i) income support or (ii) other state benefits. [32074]

  Mr. Heald
  [pursuant to the reply, 3 July 1995, c. 82]: The information given was incorrect. The correct information is as follows:

  The figures for widowed and divorced pensioners are not available separately. The total number in March 1993 was 1,783,000. It is not possible to identify how many of these people were receiving income support or other benefits.

  Source:

  Retirement Pension Statistics Biannual inquiry 31 March 93.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women are in receipt of the married women's pension of £35.25; and what is the Government's estimate of how this figure will change over the next 10 years. [32075]

  Mr. Heald
  [pursuant to the reply, 3 July 1995, c. 83]: The information given was incorrect. The correct information is as follows: the number of women in receipt of the married woman's pension of £35.25 at 31 March 1994 is 1,905,140.

  An estimate of how this figure will change over the next 10 years is not available. However, over the next 10 years the total of category BL and ABL pensioners is likely to remain approximately stable. Within this group the numbers with category ABL will rise and the numbers with category BL will fall.

  In the longer term, due to the effects of home responsibilities protection and the abolition of the married women's reduced rate option, more women will become entitled to a category A pension at over 60 per cent. The numbers with category A pensions will rise and the numbers with category BL and ABL pensions will fall.
  450
  Note:

  Category BL pension is payable to a married woman on her husband's contributions at up to 60 per cent. of the standard Category A rate, provided she and her husband have both reached pension age.

  Category ABL Pension is payable to a married woman and is a combination of Category A and Category BL. Where a married woman's own Category A entitlement is less than 60 per cent. of the standard rate, the pension is supplemented up to that level with Category BL pension based on her husband's contributions.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Benefits Agency district offices received increases in their budgets between I April 1994 and 31 March 1995 for(a) social fund loans and (b) community care grants. [32846]

  Mr. Burt
  All Benefit Agency districts received increases to their social fund budget allocations for both grants and loans at 1 April 1994. Details of the initial social fund budget allocations and additional allocations by district for the financial year 1994–95 are in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 27 April to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter),Official Report, column 641, what progress has been made in implementing the joint statement of intent negotiated between his Department and the fuel and water industries concerning procedures for direct payment of fuel and water bills from income support. [32847]

  Mr. Burt
  The joint statement of intent aims to facilitate proper use of the direct payment scheme for fuel and water charges. Copies have been sent to fuel and water companies, the fuel and water regulators, and to all Benefits Agency district offices. It is for the Benefits Agency and the utility companies at local level to follow the agreed procedures.

  State Pension Age
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to increase the state pension age of women from 60 to 65 years. [33235]

  Mr. Heald
  Our proposal to move state pension age for women from 60 to 65 was set out in the White Paper "Equality in State Pension Age", Cm 2420, a copy of which is in the Library. The change will be phased in over a 10-year period, commencing April 2010.

  Income Distribution
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage contribution of social security to the incomes of those in the bottom 10 per cent. through to 50 per cent. of the income distribution, by decile. [33474]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.
  451

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Student Awards
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will publish a table showing the latest available figures for the number of students in each local authority in England and Wales undertaking courses of further education aged(a) 16 to 18 years and (b) 19 years and over; and what proportion of these age groups was not in receipt of any discretionary award. [33146]

  Mr. Paice
  The number of students in each LEA in England who are undertaking further education(a) aged 16 to 18 years and (b) 19 years and over; and the estimated proportion of each of these age groups who do not receive an award under section 2 of the Education Act 1962, are shown in the following table.

  Numbers of FE Students by home LEA showing proportion of students not receiving grants under section 2 of the 1962 Education Act

  England 1993–94

  Total Numbers of FE Students by LEA of Domicile

  FE Students Not in Receipt of Section 2 Discretionary Awards Percentage of Age group

  LEA

  Aged 16–18

  Aged 19+

  Aged 16–18

  Aged 19+

  City of London

  32

  183

  97

  99

  Camden

  1,206

  7,243

  100

  100

  Greenwich

  1,690

  3,178

  68

  98

  Hackney

  2,654

  11,757

  72

  99

  Hammersmith

  1,161

  3,682

  99

  99

  Islington

  1,981

  8,857

  66

  100

  Kensington

  798

  6,306

  46

  99

  Lambeth

  2,463

  7,107

  100

  100

  Lewisham

  1,987

  5,014

  71

  96

  Southwark

  2,367

  7,091

  99

  99

  Tower Hamlets

  2,579

  3,879

  49

  99

  Wandsworth

  2,455

  22,646

  59

  100

  Westminster

  1,061

  4,424

  100

  96

  Barking

  1,296

  1,539

  45

  91

  Barnet

  2,597

  12,866

  97

  99

  Bexley

  2,187

  2,267

  92

  94

  Brent

  2,759

  7,422

  100

  98

  Bromley

  2,254

  2,980

  78

  98

  Croydon

  2,766

  4,065

  73

  99

  Ealing

  3,835

  8,948

  99

  99

  Enfield

  2,819

  9,124

  79

  100

  Haringey

  2,329

  8,465

  100

  100

  Harrow

  3,657

  8,772

  100

  100

  Havering

  2,623

  3,622

  62

  92

  Hillingdon

  2,133

  3,378

  100

  100

  Hounslow

  2,055

  4,330

  79

  94

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,114

  1,773

  82

  96

  Merton

  1,606

  3,163

  73

  97

  Newham

  2,590

  6,389

  60

  98

  Redbridge

  2,269

  4,493

  76

  96

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,093

  13,057

  93

  99

  Sutton

  1,658

  8,480

  96

  99

  Waltham Forest

  2,027

  4,756

  79

  98

  Birmingham

  11,063

  26,389

  87

  95

  Coventry

  3,480

  8,393

  84

  97

  Dudley

  4,501

  10,368

  92

  99

  Sandwell

  3,180

  6,283

  98

  98

  Solihull

  2,156

  9,858

  99

  97

  Walsall

  2,295

  4,483

  94

  95

  Wolverhampton

  2,641

  7,249

  98

  100

  Knowsley

  1,752

  3,342

  68

  88

  Liverpool

  3,524

  13,603

  71

  94

  St. Helens

  2,189

  5,057

  74

  97

  Sefton

  3,056

  8,107

  83

  93

  Wirral

  2,806

  11,579

  78

  96

  Bolton

  2,465

  4,471

  21

  89

  Bury

  2,537

  3,244

  75

  91

  Manchester

  3,883

  11,004

  38

  87

  Oldham

  2,030

  2,506

  53

  87

  Rochdale

  2,648

  4,457

  65

  70

  452

  Numbers of FE Students by home LEA showing proportion of students not receiving grants under section 2 of the 1962 Education Act

  England 1993–94

  Total Numbers of FE Students by LEA of Domicile

  FE Students Not in Receipt of Section 2 Discretionary Awards Percentage of Age group

  LEA

  Aged 16–18

  Aged 19+

  Aged 16–18

  Aged 19+

  Salford

  1,582

  6,752

  87

  97

  Stockport

  1,892

  4,223

  46

  88

  Tameside

  2,190

  6,127

  68

  96

  Trafford

  2,645

  8,870

  79

  98

  Wigan

  3,983

  6,275

  59

  98

  Barnsley

  4,305

  4,795

  100

  98

  Doncaster

  2,773

  9,188

  60

  96

  Rotherham

  2,489

  8,930

  46

  94

  Sheffield

  6,917

  19,851

  99

  80

  Bradford

  5,111

  21,833

  99

  96

  Calderdale

  2,100

  4,489

  95

  97

  Kirklees

  4,402

  14,692

  35

  94

  Leeds

  7,305

  27,359

  85

  97

  Wakefield

  3,158

  8,936

  77

  100

  Gateshead

  1,961

  4,254

  67

  89

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,005

  4,544

  76

  92

  North Tyneside

  1,583

  3,364

  58

  81

  South Tyneside

  2,177

  3,674

  82

  97

  Sunderland

  4,218

  8,119

  61

  97

  Avon

  8,852

  26,609

  75

  97

  Bedfordshire

  5,576

  12,270

  87

  88

  Berkshire

  8,156

  23,118

  91

  98

  Buckinghamshire

  6,101

  9,123

  94

  99

  Cambridgeshire

  6,968

  12,668

  98

  99

  Cheshire

  10,928

  32,930

  88

  91

  Cleveland

  6,556

  16,033

  67

  100

  Cornwall

  7,287

  28,016

  56

  97

  Cumbria

  4,720

  8,976

  84

  79

  Derbyshire

  11,911

  19,509

  83

  100

  Devon

  11,833

  15,624

  83

  99

  Dorset

  6,997

  9,924

  81

  52

  Durham

  6,776

  16,164

  100

  89

  East Sussex

  5,745

  23,531

  57

  95

  Essex

  15,584

  23,153

  87

  91

  Gloucestershire

  6,221

  19,439

  77

  96

  Hampshire

  17,556

  34,740

  82

  92

  Hereford and Worcester

  7,104

  21,489

  57

  94

  Hertfordshire

  11,243

  41,102

  89

  97

  Humberside

  9,808

  19,952

  80

  93

  Isle of Wight

  1,282

  3,636

  100

  100

  Kent

  15,222

  16,060

  55

  75

  Lancashire

  19,921

  59,776

  61

  99

  Leicestershire

  7,908

  17,412

  81

  80

  Lincolnshire

  6,967

  9,383

  90

  90

  Norfolk

  7,537

  8,746

  71

  88

  North Yorkshire

  7,612

  20,396

  49

  90

  Northamptonshire

  6,276

  20,170

  100

  97

  Northumberland

  2,561

  4,941

  61

  84

  Nottinghamshire

  10,789

  43,615

  84

  98

  Oxfordshire

  5,973

  13,010

  99

  98

  Shropshire

  4,786

  17,041

  93

  97

  Somerset

  6,621

  13,698

  80

  94

  Staffordshire

  11,865

  25,914

  90

  99

  Suffolk

  6,490

  22,790

  90

  97

  Surrey

  8,722

  11,470

  47

  94

  Warwickshire

  5,871

  15,716

  100

  100

  West Sussex

  6,824

  11,063

  45

  96

  Wiltshire

  7,499

  19.918

  100

  91

  England total

  492,317

  1,205,682

  78

  94

  16-year-olds
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest available figures for(a) the number and (b) the percentage of 16-year-olds in full-time education in (i) school sixth forms, (ii) sixth form colleges and (iii) colleges of further education in each local education authority. [33147]
  453
  Mr. Paice
  The number and percentage of 16-year-olds in full-time education in the 1993–94 academic year in

  16-year-olds in full-time education Student numbers and participation rate

  Student numbers

  Participation rate (percentage)

  Local Education Authority

  Further education institutes

  Sixth form colleges

  School sixth forms

  Total

  Further education institutes

  Sixth form colleges

  School sixth forms

  Total

  Inner London

  6,258

  1,254

  8,628

  16,140

  29

  6

  39

  74

  Barking

  302

  0

  658

  960

  20

  0

  44

  65

  Barnet

  631

  195

  1,916

  2,742

  19

  6

  59

  84

  Bexley

  681

  19

  1,094

  1,794

  28

  1

  45

  74

  Brent

  748

  125

  1,100

  1,973

  27

  5

  40

  72

  Bromley

  638

  20

  1,840

  2,498

  21

  1

  60

  82

  Croydon

  834

  1,019

  1,068

  2,921

  25

  30

  31

  86

  Ealing

  1,113

  44

  1,007

  2,164

  38

  1

  34

  73

  Enfield

  696

  44

  1,517

  2,257

  25

  2

  55

  82

  Haringey

  601

  68

  840

  1,509

  30

  3

  41

  74

  Harrow

  1,329

  158

  451

  1,938

  55

  7

  19

  81

  Havering

  838

  717

  562

  2,117

  31

  27

  21

  79

  Hillingdon

  560

  25

  1,283

  1,868

  23

  1

  53

  77

  Hounslow

  564

  31

  1,189

  1,784

  25

  1

  52

  79

  Kingston upon Thames

  298

  105

  864

  1,267

  22

  8

  65

  95

  Merton

  407

  261

  558

  1,226

  26

  17

  36

  79

  Newham

  719

  694

  253

  1,666

  28

  27

  10

  65

  Redbridge

  567

  9

  1,674

  2,250

  21

  0

  62

  84

  Richmond upon Thames

  702

  70

  448

  1,220

  49

  5

  31

  85

  Sutton

  418

  20

  1,090

  1,528

  24

  1

  62

  87

  Waltham Forest

  492

  788

  330

  1,610

  23

  36

  15

  74

  Birmingham

  3,006

  1,483

  3,725

  8,214

  26

  13

  32

  70

  Coventry

  839

  7

  1,515

  2,361

  25

  0

  45

  70

  Dudley

  1,485

  371

  176

  2,032

  45

  11

  5

  62

  Sandwell

  905

  303

  570

  1,778

  29

  10

  18

  56

  Solihull

  633

  868

  605

  2,106

  27

  36

  25

  88

  Walsall

  523

  1

  1,419

  1,943

  17

  0

  47

  65

  Wolverhampton

  587

  20

  1,353

  1,960

  21

  1

  47

  69

  Knowsley

  494

  32

  226

  752

  27

  2

  12

  41

  Liverpool

  675

  16

  2,613

  3,304

  13

  0

  52

  66

  St. Helens

  413

  420

  576

  1,409

  20

  20

  27

  67

  Sefton

  863

  351

  1,362

  2,576

  26

  11

  42

  79

  Wirral

  459

  460

  1,808

  2,727

  12

  12

  46

  69

  Bolton

  661

  602

  736

  1,999

  22

  20

  24

  66

  Bury

  901

  354

  220

  1,475

  44

  17

  11

  72

  Manchester

  1,200

  1,019

  911

  3,130

  25

  22

  19

  66

  Oldham

  572

  552

  606

  1,730

  22

  21

  23

  65

  Rochdale

  890

  117

  392

  1,399

  35

  5

  16

  56

  Salford

  457

  857

  38

  1,352

  19

  35

  2

  56

  Stockport

  503

  1,555

  303

  2,361

  15

  47

  9

  71

  Tameside

  625

  736

  55

  1,416

  26

  30

  2

  59

  Trafford

  813

  95

  660

  1,568

  33

  4

  27

  65

  Wigan

  1,170

  598

  265

  2,033

  33

  17

  8

  58

  Barnsley

  1,069

  4

  93

  1,166

  47

  0

  4

  51

  Doncaster

  551

  8

  1,446

  2,005

  17

  0

  44

  62

  Rotherham

  614

  395

  886

  1,895

  21

  14

  31

  66

  Sheffield

  2,276

  14

  892

  3,182

  43

  0

  17

  61

  Bradford

  835

  1

  2,821

  3,657

  14

  0

  46

  60

  Calderdale

  428

  107

  1,046

  1,581

  20

  5

  48

  73

  Kirklees

  1,149

  744

  1,052

  2,945

  25

  16

  23

  65

  Leeds

  1,489

  286

  3,264

  5,039

  20

  4

  43

  66

  Wakefield

  954

  334

  925

  2,213

  29

  10

  28

  67

  Gateshead

  441

  0

  675

  1,116

  21

  0

  32

  54

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  409

  0

  1,508

  1,917

  14

  0

  53

  68

  North Tyneside

  363

  392

  744

  1,499

  17

  19

  36

  72

  South Tyneside

  721

  0

  120

  841

  45

  0

  7

  52

  Sunderland

  1,413

  0

  432

  1,845

  42

  0

  13

  54

  Avon

  2,166

  475

  4,907

  7,548

  21

  5

  47

  72

  Bedfordshire

  1,398

  805

  2,809

  5,012

  22

  12

  43

  77

  Berkshire

  2,372

  63

  5,098

  7,533

  27

  1

  57

  85

  Buckinghamshire

  1,509

  3

  4,595

  6,107

  18

  0

  56

  74

  Cambridgeshire

  2,137

  1,008

  2,713

  5,858

  27

  13

  34

  74

  Cheshire

  2,644

  1,245

  4,205

  8,094

  24

  11

  38

  73

  Cleveland

  1,558

  2,181

  466

  4,205

  23

  32

  7

  62

  Cornwall/Isles of Scilly

  2,831

  0

  1,437

  4,268

  52

  0

  27

  79

  454
  England for each local education authority are shown in the table.
  455

  16-year-olds in full-time education Student numbers and participation rate

  Student numbers

  Participation rate (percentage)

  Local Education Authority

  Further education institutes

  Sixth form colleges

  School sixth forms

  Total

  Further education institutes

  Sixth form colleges

  School sixth forms

  Total

  Cumbria

  1,088

  340

  2,206

  3,634

  20

  6

  40

  66

  Derbyshire

  3,824

  37

  3,023

  6,884

  37

  0

  29

  66

  Devon

  3,822

  0

  4,495

  8,317

  34

  0

  40

  74

  Dorset

  2,245

  0

  3,411

  5,656

  33

  0

  50

  83

  Durham

  1,858

  389

  1,660

  3,907

  27

  6

  24

  57

  East Sussex

  1,645

  1,426

  2,364

  5,435

  24

  21

  35

  80

  Essex

  5,287

  2,362

  5,343

  12,992

  30

  13

  30

  74

  Gloucestershire

  1,743

  1

  2,852

  4,596

  29

  0

  47

  76

  Hampshire

  5,955

  5,291

  1,901

  13,147

  34

  30

  11

  75

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,917

  968

  3,224

  6,109

  23

  12

  39

  75

  Hertfordshire

  2,864

  96

  7,111

  10,071

  25

  1

  62

  88

  Humberside

  2,575

  1,662

  2,268

  6,505

  25

  16

  22

  64

  Isle of Wight

  298

  3

  729

  1,030

  22

  0

  53

  75

  Kent

  4,952

  5

  9,362

  14,319

  28

  0

  52

  80

  Lancashire

  6,223

  1,552

  2,876

  10,651

  38

  10

  18

  66

  Leicestershire

  1,997

  1,417

  4,339

  7,753

  19

  13

  40

  72

  Lincolnshire

  2,218

  105

  2,433

  4,756

  33

  2

  36

  71

  Norfolk

  2,439

  495

  3,041

  5,975

  30

  6

  37

  73

  North Yorkshire

  2,071

  842

  3,213

  6,126

  26

  11

  40

  77

  Northamptonshire

  1,678

  2

  3,568

  5,248

  24

  0

  51

  75

  Northumberland

  507

  0

  1,811

  2,318

  14

  0

  50

  64

  Nottinghamshire

  2,522

  818

  3,839

  7,179

  23

  7

  34

  64

  Oxfordshire

  1,672

  168

  3,624

  5,464

  25

  2

  54

  81

  Shropshire

  1,312

  820

  1,367

  3,499

  27

  17

  28

  72

  Somerset

  2,241

  410

  1,727

  4,378

  39

  7

  30

  77

  Staffordshire

  3,431

  801

  3,484

  7,716

  29

  7

  30

  66

  Suffolk

  1,554

  26

  3,876

  5,456

  21

  0

  52

  73

  Surrey

  2,386

  2,133

  4,785

  9,304

  21

  19

  42

  81

  Warwickshire

  1,660

  330

  2,126

  4,116

  30

  6

  39

  75

  West Sussex

  1,978

  1,523

  3,031

  6,532

  25

  19

  39

  83

  Wiltshire

  2,493

  2

  2,288

  4,783

  38

  0

  35

  73

  England

  145,852

  48,572

  192,015

  386,439

  27

  9

  36

  72

  Older Students Allowance
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to ensure that those students currently studying part-time access courses will be eligible for the older students' allowance after 1 September. [33151]

  Mr. Paice
  Students who are currently studying on full-time access courses will remain eligible for the older students' allowance if they undertake a follow-on course of higher education which begins on or after 1 September 1995. Students must be aged 26 or over at the start of their new course and meet the relevant earning threshold.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 282, if he will give the date that the refined inspection rating system, to determine the level of priority of a workplace visit from a Health and Safety Executive inspector, is to be implemented; and if the new inspection rating system will be published. [32318]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The refined inspection rating system has been in use in offices in the north-west region since 26 June 1995 and was implemented in offices in Wales on 3 July 1995. The system will be implemented in other offices in the near future, although dates have yet to be agreed.
  456
  There are no plans to publish details, because the system is an internal planning tool.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 281, if he will define higher risk premises and low hazard, low risk premises. [32317]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  Health and Safety Executive inspectors use their professional judgment to assess the degree of hazard and risk posed to employees and the public when they visit premises. In the field operations division this assessment is formalised in the inspection rating system, which enables premises to be compared according to the assessed hazards and risks. "Higher risk premises" are those towards the top of this scale. "Low hazard, risk premises" are those at the lower end.

ENVIRONMENT

  Leicestershire Museums, Arts and Records Service
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to safeguard the future on a country-wide basis of the Leicestershire museums, arts and records service; and in what circumstances he will use his powers under section 21 of the Local Government Act 1992. [30669]
  457
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The decision on how best to provide services for arts, museums and records must be for the authorities concerned. On the use of section 21 of the Local Government Act 1992, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 5 July,Official Report, columns 219–20.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many families with children aged 18 years or under were accepted as homeless in (i) York, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iv) England in each year since 1979. [31581]

  Mr. Clappison
  The available data relate to homeless households with dependent children in priority need for which local authorities accept responsibility to secure permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1985. The table sets out the reported data for York: 1979 and 1980 data are not available. The table also gives the data readily available for North Yorkshire, Yorkshire and Humberside and England: returns are not submitted by all authorities and it would involve disproportionate cost to provide figures, including estimates for missing data, other than for the years shown.

  York

  North Yorks

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  England

  1981

  310

  —

  —

  —

  1882

  178

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  128

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  100

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  138

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  180

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  1104

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  132

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  132

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  211

  —

  —

  84,120

  1991

  2103

  1583

  15,220

  88,950

  1992

  112

  720

  8,900

  85,300

  1993

  80

  580

  8,150

  76,390

  1994

  53

  570

  6,680

  69,300

  1 April to December only.

  2 January to June and October to December only.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people aged under 18 years were homeless(a) in 1988 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [32831]

  Mr. Clappison
  Data on the numbers of young people for which local authorities in England accept responsibility to secure permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act have been collected since the second quarter of 1991. The numbers accepted in the 12-month periods ending March 1992 and March 1995 were as follows:

  Homeless households in priority need with a vulnerable young person

  Young single people not in priority need

  1991–92

  3.460

  2,360

  1994–95

  3,600

  2.060

  458

  Underground Car Parks
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 107, if the research being undertaken into the reduction of the pollutants benzene and particulates with regard to ventilation in underground car parks takes into account their relationship with unleaded petrol and catalytic convertors. [32370]

  Mr. Clappison
  The research referred to in my hon. Friend's answer of 6 June is monitoring the actual levels of these pollutants found in car parks in use. Car park usage reflects the types of vehicles currently being driven, including vehicles using unleaded petrol and fitted with catalytic convertors.

  Advertising
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent on outside advertising agencies for each year since 1979; and if he will list the specific advertising campaigns undertaken by his Department, their purpose and their cost. [32486]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Figures are readily available for the past five financial years only. To go back further would involve disproportionate costs.

  Campaign subjects and the advertising costs for each of the past five years are as follows:

  £

  1990–91

  Nil

  1991–92

  Duty of care—waste disposal

  680,873

  1992–93

  Helping the earth—global warming Council tax Duty of care—waste disposal Flats above shops Right to buy Watch your waste week Eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS)

  5,965,992

  1993–94

  Helping the earth—global warming Rents to mortgages DIY self ownership Environment roadshows

  4,381,914

  1994–95

  Wasting energy costs the earth Eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS)

  3,765907

  Thames Strategy
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to encourage local authorities to adopt river-borne options for the transport of waste along the lines of the Government office for London's Thames strategy document; and how many London local authorities have contracted to move their waste by river rather than road. [32687]

  Mr. Clappison
  The advantages of using the river for transport of bulk materials such as waste are highlighted in several items of guidance relating to both waste issues and planning. Planning policy guidance note 23 on "Planning and Pollution Control", states in 2.3 that, where
  459
  waste cannot be disposed of reasonably close to its source, priority should be given to the use of rail or water transport where this would reduce the overall environmental impact and is economically feasible. "A Waste Strategy for England and Wales" published as a consultation document in January 1995 refers to the advantages of river transport for waste in paragraph 1.61. The need to safeguard relevant riverside sites is an important issue. This message is set out in the Thames strategy report, the Thames gateway planning framework and the report by the River Thames working group. Copies of these documents are in the Library. Local authorities are encouraged to take full account of environmental factors in reaching decisions on the award of waste transport and disposal contracts but such decisions are matters for authorities alone.

  I understand that, currently, seven London local authorities have contracts in place for the movement of waste by river.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many landfill sites for the disposal of waste have opened in each of the last five years, and how many have closed; and if he will list this information by region; [32649]

  (2) what guidance his Department has issued concerning consultations and investigations to be undertaken by each relevant authority in relation to applications for permission to create new landfill sites for the disposal of waste; [32643]

  (3) what priority he gives to each category of land use in determining the criteria for permission to create new landfill sites for the disposal of waste; [32644]

  (4) what was the previous use of each new landfill site for the disposal of waste created (a) since 1 January and (b) in each of the preceding four years; [32645]

  (5) what is his policy on the use for waste disposal of (a) greenfield sites, (b) agricultural land, (c) derelict industrial land and (d) contaminated land for (i) landfill (ii) other types of waste disposal; [32646]

  (6) what alternative means to the landfill disposal of waste have been considered by his Department; and what conclusions have been reached on each; [32647]

  (7) what is the average size of landfill sites for the disposal of waste in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) each region; [32648]

  (8) what is the number of landfill sites for the disposal of waste in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) each region; and what were the numbers in each of the last five years; [32650]

  (9) what is his policy on the creation of new landfill sites for the disposal of waste; [32652]

  (10) how many applications for permission to create new landfill sites for the disposal of waste have been refused in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) each region (i) since 1 January and (ii) in each of the preceding four years. [32654]

  Mr. Clappison
  Policy and guidance on waste disposal operations are included in the draft waste strategy for 460
  England and Wales published earlier this year, the planning policy guidance note on planning and pollution control—PPG23—and the series of waste management papers produced by the Department.

  The strategy contains details of the Government's waste management policies, which are directed towards the minimisation of waste and its reuse and recovery wherever possible. It is recognised, however, that successful policies in this area will not eradicate waste. As a nation, we will continue to produce large quantities of waste for which final disposal is the only economic and environmentally sound option. The Government's policy is to set in place the necessary controls to ensure that waste disposal takes place without endangering either the environment or human health.

  In order to operate a landfill site in England, it is necessary to obtain planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and a waste management licence under section 35 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Planning permission for landfill sites is granted by the relevant waste planning authority. Waste management licences are granted by the relevant waste regulation authority.

  Guidance on the consideration of planning applications for landfill sites is contained in PPG23. More generally, circular 15/92 and appendix B of circular 9/95 provide guidance for planning authorities on publicity and consultation arrangements in respect of applications for planning permission.

  A proposal to establish a new landfill site for the disposal of waste may require an environmental impact assessment. Guidance on the consultations to be undertaken, and on the form of the assessment is published in the booklet "Environmental Assessment—A Guide to the Procedures" and is also provided in DOE circular 15/88. Waste regulation authorities are likely to be consulted on any environmental assessment undertaken as part of a planning authority's consideration of a planning application for a site.

  Decisions on planning application for landfill sites must be made in accordance with the provisions of the development plan, unless material consideration indicate otherwise. The criteria adopted by waste planning authorities in their consideration of landfill proposals will depend on the terms of the policies, and the proposals for land uses, set out in the development plan. The assessment of applications for landfill sites must also take into account the objectives of the EC framework directive on waste, insofar as these are relevant, and the Government's planning policy guidance, including the guidance on waste management facilities in PPG23. Planning policies for the countryside and agricultural land, open space and green belts are set out in PPGs 7, 17 and 2 respectively.

  Details of the numbers of applications for planning permission for new landfill sites in England granted and refused over the last five years are as set out in the table.

  Details of the previous use of new landfill sites granted planning permission within the last five years are not held centrally.

  The information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my

  461
  right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  The Department has published guidance to waste regulation authorities on the discharge of their responsibilities concerning waste management licensing, including consultation procedures and initial investigations on licence applications, in waste management papers 4 and 26 and in DOE circular 11/94.

  Under section 36 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a waste regulation authority must consult the National Rivers Authority, the Health and Safety Executive and, where appropriate, the relevant nature conservation body, before it approves a licence application.

  Before an application can be determined, the applicant is required to provide to the waste regulation authority a working plan which shows how the applicant proposes to prepare and develop, operate, monitor and control pollution, and restore and complete the facility. The working plan should contain the operator's plans

  Application for new landfill sites refused and granted 1991–1994 and January to March 19951

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  January to March 21995

  Granted

  Refused

  Granted

  Refused

  Granted

  Refused

  Granted

  Refused

  Granted

  Refused

  North West

  22

  5

  51

  26

  43

  15

  16

  15

  5

  0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13

  2

  23

  16

  30

  7

  25

  7

  65

  North-East

  7

  4

  15

  5

  8

  1

  9

  2

  3

  0

  West Midlands

  47

  11

  23

  12

  22

  11

  5

  11

  6

  0

  East Midlands

  22

  14

  39

  9

  24

  7

  17

  6

  1

  1

  Eastern

  40

  12

  37

  8

  24

  7

  26

  3

  7

  0

  South-West

  68

  46

  91

  19

  68

  13

  49

  16

  12

  7

  South-East

  67

  42

  44

  15

  40

  12

  27

  11

  6

  1

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  England

  286

  136

  323

  110

  259

  73

  175

  71

  46

  14

  1 From 1 April 1992, statistics related to applications decided by county councils, metropolitan districts, London boroughs, urban development corporations and national park authorities. Data for earlier periods relate to decisions by county councils only.

  2 Figures for 1995 are available for the period 1 January to 31 March.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what criteria his Department uses to assess appeals on applications for permission to create new landfill sites for the disposal of waste; [32651]

  (2) how many appeals he has received (a) for the United Kingdom and (b) for each region (i) since 1 January and (ii) in each of the preceding four years concerning a decision to (1) grant and (2) refuse permission to create new landfill sites for the disposal of waste. [32653]

  Mr. Clappison
  There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a refusal by a planning authority to grant planning permission, and also against a refusal by a waste regulation authority to grant a waste management licence for a landfill site.

  Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1991 requires that every planning application must be determined according to the devlopment plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This
  462
  for the management of gas and leachate and for capping and restoration.

  Information on the number of applications for waste management licences granted or refused in each year is not held centrally. Waste regulation authorities hold information about the number of landfill sites in their areas, and the numbers opened and closed, as well as the size of each site. The total number of licences in force for landfill sites in England for the years since 1991–92 is set out in the table:

  year

  Number of licences

  1991–92

  3,330

  1992–93

  3,186

  1993–94

  2,618

  1994–95

  2,541

  The information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  requirement applies to local planning authorities determining a planning application, and to the Secretary of State determining a planning appeal.

  The first criteria for the assessment of landfill planning proposals are therefore those contained in the development plan. In particular, structure plans and waste local plans contain policies governing development for waste disposal purposes, but the policies of district local plans will also be considered.

  The Secretary of State gives guidance in planning policy guidance notes, PPGs and minerals planning guidance notes MPGs. Of particular relevance is part 5 of PPG23 "Planning and Pollution Control" and, where an old mineral working is to he filled, MPG7 "The Reclamation of Mineral Workings".

  Pollution control agencies will be consulted on every waste landfill planning application, and their advice will be an important consideration in determining planning applications and appeals.
  463
  Technical aspects of waste management are the subject of advice in waste management papers, published by the Department, parts of which may be relevant to the consideration of planning proposals for landfilling; parties to a planning appeal may refer to other published technical papers of standing, which may be material to a planning decision.

  The Secretary of State has received planning appeals relating to landfill sites in England as set out in the table. The information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Landfill-related planning appeals received by the Secretary of State

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  19951

  Appeals against refusal of planning permission

  18

  26

  14

  9

  4

  Appeals against non-determination of planning permission

  0

  1

  3

  3

  1

  Appeals against conditions in planning permission

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1 Covers period 1 January to 30 June 1995.

  Section 43(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides specified persons with a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision of a waste regulation authority to reject an application for a waste management licence. The Act, together with regulations 6 to 9 of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, sets out the procedure for making and determining appeals. Guidance on the regulations is provided in DOE circular 11/94 and guidance on determining licence applications is provided in waste management paper No. 4. The Secretary of State's decision on individual cases is dependent upon the specific issues brought before him by the parties involved.

  Since 1 May 1994, in England, three appeals have been made under section 43(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act against the refusal of a waste regulation authority to grant a waste management licence for a new landfill site. One of these appeals has been made since 1 January 1995. The appeals are before the Secretary of State for consideration. A new monitoring system was introduced on 1 May 1994 when the new licensing system came into force. Prior to 1 May 1994, the information was not kept in a form that can now provide comparable figures for the preceding four years. The information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for permission to create new landfill sites for the disposal of waste have been granted in(a) England and (b) each region (i) since I January and (ii) in each of the preceding four years. [33127]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to my earlier reply about landfill sites.
  464

  Local Government and Housing Act 1989
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 will come into effect; and what has been the cause of the delay. [32676]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 has already been brought into effect, except for certain sub-sections relating to the control of minority interests in certain companies which in keeping with the principles of the private finance initiative it is not now intended to bring into force.

  Energy from Waste
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to the promotion of energy from waste schemes in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each region in line with the national waste strategy; and what future consideration is planned. [32642]

  Mr. Clappison
  "A Waste Strategy for England and Wales", published as a consultation document in January 1995, sets out the means by which we can aim to manage waste in a more sustainable way and, in contributing to this, the role which energy from waste can play in recovering value from waste. The draft waste strategy highlights ways in which central and local government, working with industry, can further encourage its take-up. The Government are currently considering the many responses they have received on the draft strategy, and expect to publish the final version towards the end of the year.

  Stray Dogs
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the requirement on local authorities to check for any microchip carried by a stray dog. [33102]

  Mr. Clappison
  There is no requirement on local authorities to check for any microchip carried by a stray dog.

  Chancery Lane Public Record Office
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future use of the Chancery lane public record office. [31477]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Public Record Office is moving to greatly enlarged premises on its Kew site at the end of 1996 and, as a result, it will vacate Chancery lane by this date.

  This important historic building is part of the Government estate and responsibility for its future rests with Property Holdings. Extensive discussions have been held with English Heritage and the City of London Corporation, the relevant planning authority, about its future use and a number of options are being explored, including retention for other Government purposes. If the building is not needed by Government, a number of private uses are being considered. One of these is a

  465
  continuation of the legal nature of the building which would include barristers' chambers, other legal users, perhaps with some attendant residential use. It would also be suitable for educational/institutional use.

  Property Holdings will shortly be opening discussions with potential private sector operators who might implement one of these uses that is acceptable to English Heritage and the planning authority. Interested parties would be welcome to contact the agents, BH2 at their City of London offices.

  National Parks
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many representations he has received from members of the public in support of the amended national park purpose of promoting opportunities for quiet enjoyment and understanding in(a) March, (b) April, (c) May and (d) June of this year; and if he will place copies of these representations in the Library; [33482]

  (2) how many representations he has received from organisations in support of the amended national park purpose of promoting opportunities for quiet enjoyment and understanding in (a) March, (b) April, (c) May and (d) June of this year; and if he will place copies of these representations in the Library. [33481]

  Mr. Clappison
  The following number of representations has been received:

  Organisations

  Members of the public

  March

  13

  56

  April

  4

  11

  May

  1

  15

  June

  4

  7

  As these representations were not made in response to a public consultation exercise, it is not appropriate to place copies in the Library.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of access agreements made in each national park in the most recent year for which figures are available. [33490]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not held centrally. I have asked officials to seek details and will write to the hon. Member.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is now the status of the commitment to quiet enjoyment as set out in the Government response to the Edwards report "Fit for the Future", page 26, paragraph 12.1(i), in January 1992. [33483]

  Mr. Clappison
  We considered very carefully the consequences of introducing into the revised and updated national park purposes set out in the Environment Bill the phrase "quiet enjoyment". We concluded that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages in doing so. Subsequent debates on the Bill have reinforced our belief that this conclusion was correct.
  466

DEFENCE

  Explosives and Propellants
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 682, what account was taken of the sale of explosives propellants and related end products to countries abroad in reaching the explosives, propellants and end products agreement. [32437]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  One of the objectives of the EPREP agreement was to assist Royal Ordnance in becoming an efficient competitor. This objective related to both the national and international markets.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 682, what explosives, propellants and related end products were supplied to countries abroad under the EPREP agreement; and if he will list the relevant countries and products. [32436]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The EPREP agreement, signed on 28 July 1988, concerned the requirements of the United Kingdom armed forces. It did not cover supplies to countries abroad.

  Naval Bases
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the foreign submarines which have visited the Faslane submarine base since 1993 and the candidates on which they visited the bas. [32488]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date

  Vessel

  Nationality

  1993

  8–9 January

  USS BALTIMORE

  USA

  19–22 February

  HNLMS ZELLEEUW

  Netherlands

  6–13 April

  HNLMS TIJGERHAAI

  Netherlands

  19–20 April

  HNLMS TIJGERHAAI

  Netherlands

  21–23 April

  HNLMS TIJGERHAAI

  Netherlands

  10–17 May

  USS SAN JUAN

  USA

  21–24 May

  HNLMS ZWAARDVIS

  Netherlands

  25–28 May

  HNLMS DOLFIJN

  Netherlands

  27–29 May

  HNLMS BRUINVIS

  Netherlands

  31 May-1 June

  HNLMS ZWAARDVIS

  Netherlands

  31 May-2 June

  HNLMS DOLFIJN

  Netherlands

  2–3 June

  HNLMS ZWAARDVIS

  Netherlands

  3 June

  HNLMS DOLFIJN

  Netherlands

  3–7 June

  HNLMS BRUINVIS

  Netherlands

  4 June

  HNLMS DOLFIJN

  Netherlands

  20–22 August

  USS ALEXANDRIA

  USA

  30 August

  FS AMETHYSTE

  France

  13 September-5 October

  FS AGOSTA

  France

  14–16 October

  USS DALLAS

  USA

  14–18 October

  HNLMS DOLFIJN

  Netherlands

  19–22 October

  USS DALLAS

  USA

  25–28 October

  HNLMS DOLFIJN

  Netherlands

  31 October-1 November

  USS DALLAS

  USA

  23–30 December

  USS ALBANY

  USA

  1994

  18–22 February

  HNLMS TIJGERHAAI

  Netherlands

  13–17 March

  USS PHOENIX

  USA

  31 March-1 April

  HNLMS WALRUS

  Netherlands

  11–12 April

  HNLMS WALRUS

  Netherlands

  23–27 May

  HNLMS ZEELEEUW

  Netherlands

  3–6 June

  KNM UTSIRA

  Norway

  467

  Date

  Vessel

  Nationality

  10–13 June

  KNM UTSIRA

  Norway

  23–25 June

  USS WHALE

  USA

  6–11 July

  USS DALLAS

  USA

  16–19 August

  USS DALLAS

  USA

  21–22 August

  USS BALTIMORE

  USA

  1–2 September

  USS BALTIMORE

  USA

  22–27 September

  USS CINCINNATI

  USA

  4–7 October

  HNLMS BRUINVIS

  Netherlands

  12–19 December

  USS PHOENIX

  USA

  1995

  16–17 February

  HMCS OKANAGAN

  Canada

  21–26 February

  USS AUGUSTA

  USA

  10–13 March

  HMCS OKANAGAN

  Canada

  20–24 March

  USS AUGUSTA

  USA

  8–12 May

  USS NEBRASKA

  USA

  22–26 May

  FS RUBIS

  France

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual running cost of(a) RNAD Coulport and (b) CSB Faslane. [32489]

  Mr. Soames
  As explained in this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates", in 1994 the Department's running cost regime was replaced by a much broader operating costs limit covering all front-line and support expenditure. The provisional outturn figures, representing total operating costs for these establishments, for financial year 1994–95 are as follows:

  RNAD Coulport: £57,889,000

  CSB Faslane: £107,363,000

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a list of all United Kingdom and foreign submarines which have visited and the dates on which they have visited(a) Portland naval base, (b) Portsmouth naval base and (c) the naval base at Plymouth. [32491]

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

  Advertising
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on outside advertising agencies for each year since 1979; and if he will list the specific advertising campaigns undertaken by his Department, their purpose and their cost. [32476]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Defence Industry
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for an audit of the nuclear defence industry. [32474]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Financial and safety audit of the nuclear defence industry is a matter for the organisations concerned, together with relevant external regulatory bodies. Activities directly managed by the Ministry of Defence are additionally subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office. There are at present no plans to augment these arrangements.
  468

  Mutual Defence Agreement
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any information on the implementation of the 1958 Anglo-American mutual defence agreement on atomic energy matters has been withheld under sections 3(4) or 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958. [32490]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A number of papers relating to the early years of the UK nuclear programme are closed under the Public Records Acts. It is likely that many of these involve matters relating to the 1958 UK-US mutual defence agreement, but to establish exactly what is held would involve disproportionate cost.

  Trident Project (Faslane)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how and to what extent the lessons learned from the Trident project at Faslane have been implemented. [32487]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Experience gained during the Trident works programme informed the new procedures adopted by my Department in 1990 when it was untied from the Property Services Agency for new works projects. The procedures have been reviewed in the light of experience and are reflected in guidance subsequently distributed throughout Government by the Treasury.

  Firearms (Sales)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many small arms, rifles and hand guns, which were no longer of use to the armed forces, have been sold(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas in each of the last 10 years. [33154]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Sales records are not available for the last 10 years. In the last three years 40,000 small arms, rifles and hand guns have been sold to firearms dealers licensed under section 5 of the Firearms Act to meet overseas orders and 700 rifles have been sold on a Government-to-Government basis.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from chief constables on his policy for the sale of small arms no longer required by the armed forces. [33156]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I am not aware of any recent representations from chief constables about the sale of small arms no longer required by the armed forces.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on(a) the sale and (b) the destruction of small arms, rifles and hand guns, no longer of use to the armed forces. [33153]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Under current policy, sales may be made direct to an acceptable overseas Government or to a firearms dealer licensed under section 5 of the Firearms Act in the United Kingdom to meet an order from an overseas customer. MOD will sell only to a UK dealer who has a firm order from an overseas purchaser which meets end user and export control requirements. Dealers are not allowed to buy for stock. Only a small number of inquiries are received each year in either of these categories. Other surpluses for which no export market exists are fragmented first by crushing into granules and subsequently smelting. The majority of surplus weapons are disposed of in this way.
  469
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many small arms which were no longer of use to the armed forces he has destroyed in each of the last 10 years. [33155]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Disposal records are not available for the last 10 years. In the last three years some 93,000 small arms have been destroyed and the current rate of destruction is about 90,000 small arms per annum.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what discussions he has had with chief constables in the United Kingdom about the sale of small arms, rifles and hand guns. [33157]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Discussions on the sale of small arms, rifles and hand guns have taken place in the past with the Home Office, who are responsible for representing the views of the chief constables. Liaison with chief constables is effected by the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police in his operations.

  Defence Statistics
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department will publish the 1995 edition of "United Kingdom Defence Statistics". [33159]

  Mr. Soames
  On Friday 14 July 1995.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's aim during the negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. [33160]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Our aim in the negotiations of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty is to establish an effective and verifiable treaty commanding universal adherence as soon as practicable.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether Britain still has a requirement to use underground testing in order to maintain the stock of nuclear weapons. [33161]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We do not have any current plans for further underground tests of nuclear weapons. However, we are still considering what activities might be necessary to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons under a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

  Dog Training
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 183, what is the number taking part for each course for the latest year available; and what is the annual cost and the location of each course. [33282]

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

  Ministry Property Sales
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department holds on former MOD houses that have subsequently been resold. [33308]
  470
  Mr. Soames
  My Department does not monitor what may happen to properties once they have been sold by the Ministry of Defence, except where there is a specific reason for doing so.

  Contracts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts his Department has placed and to what value with(a) BT, (b) Rolls-Royce, (c) Alfred McAlpine plc, (d) Racal Electronics and (e) British Aerospace in the last five years. [33244]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Details of the number and value of contracts placed with individual defence companies are a matter of commercial confidentiality between the Ministry of Defence and those companies. The Department does, however, give broad information on contractors paid £5 million or more in table 1.16 of the annual publication "UK Defence Statistics" which is placed in the Library. The 1995 edition will shortly be available and the contractors listed in the question are included in those statistics.

  BMARC
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations he has initiated since 18 June within his Department to locate all outstanding BMARC documents. [30520]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 29 June 1995]: The deputy chief constable of the MOD police ordered a thorough re-sort of the seized property held by them and is now satisfied that all outstanding documents which were seized by the MOD police from Astra holdings and its subsidiaries, during the course of an investigation into corruption involving those companies, have been located and have been returned to their rightful owners.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 April,Official Report, column 1098, what investigations his Department undertook to determine which documents had been returned to the receivers of Astra in June 1993. [30050]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: The documents returned to the receivers of Astra in June 1993 were listed on the seized property forms which related to them and these are the record of the seized property which was returned at that time.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how additional documents were located by his Department's police relating to the arms companies BMARC and Astra. [30051]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: I have nothing to add to my answer of 19 June, Official Report, column 31, to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the action taken in connection with the files referred to in Detective Inspector Berry's letter to Cork Gully of 27 January 1993. [30103]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: No reply was received from Cork Gully by Detective Inspector Berry to his letter of 27 January 1993. After a further letter from Detective Inspector Berry, dated 15 June 1993, and subsequent telephone conversations, a large number

  471
  of documents were delivered to Cork Gully. It was believed at the time that these were all of the property seized by the Ministry of Defence police from Astra holdings and its subsidiaries, during the course of an investigation into corruption involving those companies.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which occasions Ministers in his Department communicated with Ministry of Defence police concerning the letter from Detective Inspector Berry to Cork Gully of 27 January 1993. [30105]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: None before it was sent.

  Portland Naval Base
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the level of expenditure over the last three financial years on(a) the Ward room, (b) tennis courts and (c) medical and dental centres at Portland naval base and HMS Osprey. [31542]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Wardroom

  96,290

  101,550

  95,020

  Tennis Courts

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Medical Centre1

  17,000

  5,200

  3,860

  Dental Centre2

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  1 Reducing costs reflect the rundown of the existing medical centre2 Approximate average costs for minor maintenance items which are not recorded separately.

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, columns 751–52, (1) what factors underlay the recent research in relation to export licences; if the research that uncovered the fact that Singapore Technologies was a consignee of exports from Royal Ordnance was conducted on pre-1992 records; and if he will make a statement on exports from Royal Ordnance to which he refers; [32912]

  (2) what inquiries he has made regarding the onward re-export and final use of munitions exported by Royal Ordnance to Singapore since 1980; [33025]

  (3) if he has anything further to add to his answer on Royal Ordnance and Iran to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), of 14 January, Official Report, columns 345–46. [33177]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 4 July, Official Report, column 180, except to confirm that the research underlying the answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent on 29 June, Official Report, columns 751–52, as it relates to Royal Ordnance was based on DTI computerised records which date from 1992.
  472

  Arms Embargoes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations his Department has made to overseas companies based in the European Union which have breached export embargoes on military equipment and weapons agreed by the European Union. [32877]

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not our policy to make representations to overseas companies. If we were concerned at the activities of an overseas company an approach would be made to the Government of the country in which the company was based.

  No such approaches have been made.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Rents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what new proposals he has to increase rents from Church lands. [31464]

  Mr. Alison
  We have no new proposals to increase rents from our agricultural land.

  Current practice on rental increases flows from the commissioners' ownership of good agricultural land, the provision of the fixed equipment needed for profitable farming and a constructive relationship with our tenants. There are no proposals to depart from this policy.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, following his oral answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 3 July,Official Report, column 15, if the civil servant in question was on paid or unpaid leave. [33297]

  Mr. Freeman
  The gentleman in question was on paid leave.

  Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff in his Department or its agencies have(a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised to dispose of shareholdings in the last five years, indicating the companies concerned. [33425]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not held centrally.

  Chessington Computer Centre
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets have been set for the Chessington Computer Centre trading fund for the current financial year. [33220]
  473
  Mr. Horam
  I have set the following targets for Chessington Computer Centre in 1995–96:

  (1) to achieve an operating surplus of £1.137 million;

  (2) to increase pay clerk productivity by 7 per cent. over 1994–95 performance;

  474

  (3) to increase use of the on-line data capture system (SPIRE) to 85 per cent.;

  (4) to maintain the minimum on line service availability at 98.5 per cent.;

  (5) to improve the range of services available to customers, in particular, to meet their needs on pay delegation.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers-Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is still their policy to bring the public sector borrowing requirement to zero by 1998–99.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government's fiscal objective is to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, that is a little different from what was in the Financial Statement and Budget report, which, as the Minister will know, said that it will be brought to zero by 1998–99. In his Answer, I hope that the Minister is not suggesting that there might be some relaxation of that aim in order to make tax cuts. Can the Minister confirm that there is no relaxation intended?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the words I used were those of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Mansion House speech. I thought that was a good enough source from which to answer the noble Lord. As regards tax cuts, we believe in prudent management of the economy. We shall cut taxes when it is prudent and sensible to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not a necessary condition of this objective that expenditure should be reduced? Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that expenditure on legal aid be cut drastically.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend makes a perfectly valid general point that the key to sensible management of the economy is the control of public spending. That is what we are doing and what we are usually attacked for doing from the other side. I hear what my noble friend says about legal aid. I believe that all government departments have to look very carefully at their spending and see what savings they can make.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, given what the Minister said about controlling public expenditure, will he confirm that the summer forecast published last week shows an estimate for the PSBR which is 5 per cent. higher than the estimate published in the Budget last November—that is to say, roughly three pence off income tax? In those circumstances will the Minister tell the House what is the Government's view on borrowing to pay for tax cuts?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought that I answered the Question about borrowing perfectly clearly when I said that our intention is to reduce the PSBR towards balance in the medium term.
1370
That remains our objective. Of course, if the situation allows us to reduce taxes that is what we shall do because we are by nature a tax-cutting party; unlike the party opposite, which in the other place has opposed every single tax-cutting measure we have made since 1979.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm the first part of my question, that the summer forecast shows a significant increase in the PSBR over that forecast at the last Budget?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the 1994 Budget forecast for this year was £21.5 billion. The summer economic forecast has put that at £23.5 billion. There is a slight increase, but that is part of the problem of forecasting. It is not an entirely accurate business and sometimes forecasts do not come out exactly as predicted.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of my right honourable friend's most admirable characteristics is the way in which he makes his meaning absolutely clear? Is it possible that on this occasion he contracted some sort of opaqueness from some of his colleagues and did not make himself absolutely clear beyond all doubt?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, my Lords, I do not believe that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer suffers from the problem of opaqueness. I believe that he makes himself perfectly clear when he speaks. Our aim, as I said, is to move the PSBR towards balance in the medium term. I need not remind my noble friend that during the premiership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher we managed to get into the positive side.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are two elements into which there must be thorough investigation before there are any cuts whatever? The first is the defence of our country and the second is the defence of the greatest piece of legislation in mankind's history—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I thought that was the Ten Commandments!
Lord Molloy:—namely, our British National Health Service?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, both aspects mentioned by the noble Lord are very important. As he will know, we have made considerable changes to the defence budget in the light of the changes in the world in general and the fall of the Russian empire. These changes are in place. As regards the National Health Service, throughout the period since 1979 we have consistently protected the National Health Service and increased spending on it, in contrast to the last Labour Government which actually reduced spending on the health service.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, this is merely a request for information. Can my noble friend tell me the date when the public sector borrowing requirement was last nil?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble and learned friend the exact year but, as I mentioned earlier, it was during the tenure of office of our noble friend Lady Thatcher.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, how on earth can the Minister talk about tax "cuts" when the percentage of tax taken is the highest ever as a percentage of GDP? How can the Minister talk about tax "cuts" when personal allowances have been reduced in real terms, when the married man's allowance has been reduced, when mortgage interest relief has been reduced and when a tax of 8 per cent. has been imposed on domestic fuel? In my book and, I should think, that of most noble Lords, those are tax "increases". Can the Minister explain how tax "increases" can become tax "cuts"?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, two or three years ago we had to take some serious steps to control public spending and to balance the position so that the PSBR did not go even higher. If the noble Lord is urging me to do the opposite and to make even deeper cuts, perhaps he, his noble friends and his right honourable and honourable friends in the other place might modify their language when they talk about more money being spent. I have fully admitted that we have had to increase taxes. We were reluctant to do that, but it was the sensible and prudent thing to do. Over time, we shall reduce taxes again. As I said, on every occasion on which we have reduced taxes since 1979 the party opposite has voted against us, including when we brought income tax down from its high level of 98 per cent., which was the top rate under the party opposite.
Lord Barnett: My Lords; we understand that the Minister was asked to say as little as possible in answer to this Question and he has managed to achieve that. Nevertheless, does he accept that saying as little as possible could be equally as damaging as if he had said that the Government have it in mind to relax the public sector borrowing requirement? Will he make it crystal clear that there is no question of relaxing the borrowing requirement?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have made it crystal clear. As I said in my initial Answer, our objective is to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term. To do that, we shall have to control public spending very severely—and that we intend to do.

Education and Training National Targets
2.46 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
In pursuing the objectives set out in the White Paper published in May 1995 entitled Competitiveness (Cm. 2867), where they place greatest emphasis in seeking improvements in education and training.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the new Department for Education and Employment provides an outstanding opportunity to secure for the United
1372
Kingdom the best qualified workforce in Europe. Demanding the new national targets for education and training endorsed in the Competitiveness White Paper provides the focus for all our efforts to achieve that.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, may I offer him my congratulations on this his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Minister of State, and may I refer him to another announcement that was made last week and to which he has just implicitly referred, the bringing under one roof of Employment and Education? May I ask him whether that means that we shall see a more constructive and harmonious relationship between academic and vocational qualifications and an improvement in teacher training to match? In that connection, may I refer the Minister to paragraph 7.46 of the Competitiveness White Paper which talks about the Teacher Training Agency? Is it the case that the Teacher Training Agency's liberal and rapid policy of accreditation of teacher training institutions is a measure of the agency's approval of the quality of work that goes on in those institutions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations to me personally and for his implied congratulations to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on bringing together the two departments of Education and Employment. As the noble Lord is fully aware, the point of the merger is to provide a degree of focus for all the policies and programmes which are designed to educate and train both young people and adults and to equip and re-equip them for work. On the noble Lord's specific questions about the Teacher Training Agency, I assure him that the Teacher Training Agency has already made its mark as an agency committed to improving the quality of teaching and learning. We shall be fully behind further improvements in the standard of teacher training. We believe that there is yet much more to be done.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, perhaps I too may offer the Minister congratulations on his new appointment. Does he agree with me that nowadays there is no clear dividing line between vocational and non-vocational education and training? Does he agree that that is because in today's knowledge-based world of work employers place much more emphasis on the ability to learn and to continue learning rather than on the application of specific knowledge?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. I fully agree with the sentiments that he has expressed on the divide between vocational and academic education. I believe that for far too long there has been perceived to be a divide between the two. We believe that that divide is false. I hope that the new merger of the two departments will allow us to continue to prove that that division is false.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, now that education and training have been brought within the ambit of one government department, as proposed two years ago by the National Commission on Education, will the Government now examine the possibility of establishing a framework for an integrated modular system of qualifications at 16 to 18, embracing the best

1373
of GCSEs, A-Levels, NVQs and GNVQs, so that young people who so wish can take a combination of vocational and academic subjects?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord makes some interesting and complicated suggestions to someone who has been in the department for a matter of just three days, and I have to say that two of those were spent on the beach with my wife and children. I take note of what the noble Lord had to say and I shall certainly pass it on to my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State for Employment and Education.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that every time we have had a recovery in the post-war period we have been short of skilled labour; that the real problem in Britain today is that, on the one hand, we have substantial unemployment and, on the other hand, there is a mismatch between what industry requires and the labour available? Will it be a prime objective of the new enlarged department to try to deal with that problem once and for all?
Lord Henley: My Lords, one of the new department's prime objectives is obviously to deal with our general competitiveness. Competitiveness in education plays an important part in ensuring that we have the right people with the right skills to meet the changing labour market. As the noble Lord on the Labour Front Bench said earlier, the important point is that people acquire the art of learning so that they can go on developing their skills and education over the years rather than think that they can rely on one skill that they acquired at the beginning of their career to see them through to the end.
Baroness David: My Lords, how does the Minister think that the recently announced scheme of vouchers for nursery education will contribute to the general improvement, when that scheme has been condemned by a great many well-informed educational circles?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it has been condemned by one or two people, but it has been supported by a great many people. I am sorry that the noble Baroness and the party opposite did not ask to have the Statement on nursery education repeated in this House last week. If they had done so, we could have debated this matter at some length and I hope that I would have been able to convince the noble Baroness—if it is possible to convince the noble Baroness—of the virtues of that scheme. Put simply, it offers parents a much greater degree of choice, and through that choice will allow them to develop nursery education to the benefit of all concerned.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, with respect to paragraph 7.5 of this White Paper, may I just ask if the Government will institute regular and rigorous international comparisons of education performance and be ready to emulate best practice in other countries, not excluding Scotland?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are always prepared to emulate best practice in all other countries, including Scotland. In the main, our comparisons with our main competitors show that we are doing rather well,
1374
particularly in matters such as graduate output. In terms of measuring comparisons precisely, it is a difficult art to produce meaningful accurate comparisons over a wide range of qualifications throughout all different countries. The basic point that the noble Lord is putting, that we should seek to learn from the best practice of our competitors, is one that I am more than happy to endorse.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his new appointment. Does he agree that one of the good results of the Government's work over the past few years is that many more girls are obtaining qualifications and therefore they will, of course, strengthen the employment position in this country? Does my noble friend agree that one third of girls are now leaving school with at least one A-Level, and that there are now more than twice the number of women in full-time education after leaving school than there were 25 years ago?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those remarks. They are remarks that we can accept. As regards general employment levels of women in the labour market, I can assure my noble friend that we already have the second highest participation rate of women in the labour market of all our European competitors.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as an old educationist may I say how horrified I am by the whole muddle involved in this change? Is the Minister aware that all educationists are aware that what he has been trying to do for young people has nothing whatever to do with solving the problem of the unemployed?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I fail to see how the noble Earl's question follows from what has been said. What we are saying is that we are trying to give a new focus to the work of the Department for Education and the vocational and training work done previously by the Department of Employment. We believe that will help the unemployed.

North Sea Pollution
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their latest estimates of the percentage of pollution of the North Sea caused by land-based sources and of the proportion of this originating from the rivers of Continental North-West Europe.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the best estimate which we have is that more than 70 per cent. of man's input of contaminants to the sea comes from land-based sources. Data from different countries are not strictly comparable, but it is clear that continental rivers are the largest source of anthropogenic contamination of the North Sea. Over 50 per cent. of some contaminants come from the rivers which flow into the North Sea

1375
from the German, Belgian and Dutch coasts. These estimates would be even higher if those countries were to use our rigorous measurement methods.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Cannot more effective measuring instruments be installed to record the pollution being caused by these North Sea rivers? Will the British Government counter misinformed information about Britain's role in the North Sea by pointing out, among other things, that the Brent Spar was not to be dumped in the North Sea but was to be sunk one-and-a-half miles deep many miles away in the Atlantic, where scientists have advised that it would have little effect on its surroundings?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are already harmonised monitoring arrangements in place for a wide range of contaminants in all UK coastal waters providing measurements in river estuaries at tidal limits. That includes the use of instruments where necessary. I agree with my noble friend's observations about Brent Spar. He is correct in saying that it was to be sunk one-and-a-half miles deep in the Atlantic. In fact less than 1 per cent. of it consists of sludge and scale which is only slightly radioactive. It is as radioactive, I understand, as a street of granite buildings in Aberdeen. It has a little zinc on the outside to help keep off the barnacles, and it contains a few mercury batteries containing some eight ounces of mercury. Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands every year put into the North Sea more than 40 times more copper and 70,000 times more lead than there is in Brent Spar.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have a Question on the Brent Spar on the Order Paper tomorrow? Will he give me an assurance that he will not just refer me to the answer that he has given today to a Question that is not about the Brent Spar? Bearing in mind his detailed statement about pollution in the North Sea caused through the rivers, is he aware that this country's record is not that great? Until a few years ago a great deal of pollution in the North Sea and other seas around Britain was caused by local authorities which then had the responsibility of disposing of sewage by pumping raw sewage out from pipes to where people were bathing. I know the situation has improved since that responsibility was removed from them, but will the Minister give us an undertaking that that activity has now been almost eliminated?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it seems that I have answered the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, which is due to be answered tomorrow. I had not realised that I had done so, but, if I have, he will be able to remove it from the Order Paper. He accuses me of answering that Question but in fact I answered the Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy—and a jolly good Question it was, and it received an even better reply.
The noble Lord is right to be concerned about putting sewage sludge into the sea. A great deal has been done and is being done to prevent that. I should have to let him know exactly what is the situation, but I do not believe that it has stopped completely. However, I remind the
1376
noble Lord that Belgium puts 50 per cent. of its sewage into the rivers which goes thereafter into the sea and all the sewage of Brussels goes into the Senne and thereafter out into the sea. Therefore, that record is a good deal worse than ours.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there seems to be no argument at all that the Brent Spar platform would not have been a major contaminant with the policy intended for it? But does he also agree that the problem is serious because there are literally hundreds of platforms which will have to be disposed of? The idea that they can all be dumped in the Atlantic is worrying. What is the Government's policy in relation to the disposal of those platforms?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there was not much argument by those who knew that the best place to put the Brent Spar was in the North Atlantic. But a great deal of argument was put forward by people inflamed by passion. If the noble Lord wishes to know what is the Government's policy in relation to the dumping and disposal of oil platforms in the North Sea, I should be happy to answer any Question tabled by him to that effect.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that research shows that we shall fail to meet five of our internationally agreed targets by the end of this year in relation to pesticides and heavy metal, including mercury and cadmium? What is the Government's policy as regards enabling us to meet the internationally agreed targets?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the targets set by the North Sea Conference were to halve inputs of 36 substances. The United Kingdom anticipates achieving the target for 24 of the 36 substances and reducing by more than 45 per cent. three other substances. Work is continuing to ensure that the targets are met as soon as possible.

Tibet: EC Aid Via China
3.3 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the £5.9 million EC aid package to the Chinese Government for the Pa Nam Integrated Rural Development Project in Tibet, as approved by the European Commission on 19th October 1994, is not contributing to the Chinese colonisation of Tibet, and what means exist for Her Majesty's Government to prevent such Commission aid projects in the event of their disapproval.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the European Commission aid proposed is intended to benefit the indigenous Tibetans and not to promote Han Chinese migration into the region. Individual EU projects are approved by qualified majority voting. A blocking minority of the member states is therefore required to prevent a project going forward.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full Answer. But given that the European Union's position on aid is that aid to politically

1377
and environmentally sensitive areas should be channelled through non-governmental organisations, do the Government agree that, by any standards, Tibet is an environmentally and politically sensitive area and that aid should be channelled through those NGOs rather than through a bilateral deal between the European Commission and China?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend will be well aware that I am extremely keen to use non-governmental organisations whenever it is relevant to do so. There is no laid-down European policy such as he describes. In this case, some nine months ago the United Kingdom was one of the first member states to express anxiety about the Pa Nam Project. We insisted that there should be a permanent monitoring unit which is now being set up for that project, although the final go-ahead for it has not yet been agreed. The Commission has recently been in close contact with European NGOs who have experience of Tibet, including the UK Tibet Support Group, Save the Children Fund and Médecins Sans Frontières. It has now asked two UK NGOs to advise on suitable consultants for a possible further appraisal mission. That further appraisal mission will give us information. On that basis, the working group will look again at the project before deciding whether or not to proceed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give us some indication as to which way Her Majesty's Government voted on the proposals? Were they part of the blocking minority? May we have a little transparency on that? Will the noble Baroness bear in mind that in the field of foreign affairs the United Kingdom has wider obligations to the preservation of international law and the fate of individual nations which arise not from the Community but from membership of the Security Council of the United Nations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, there was absolutely no vote on this matter. I made it quite clear that the United Kingdom was one of the first member states to express anxiety when the project was first discussed. It was because of our anxiety that indigenous Tibetan people should benefit from the project that the matter was considered further. The point about the project is that the Chinese are funding some 65 per cent. of the total project cost, including the main irrigation works. The remaining 35 per cent. of the costs, if the project goes ahead with EC funding, will be for veterinary, agricultural and water engineering advice to make sure that it benefits indigenous Tibetans. That is as transparent as I can be about the situation. I should say further to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that he is right that foreign and security policy is part of the third pillar, and long may it stay there.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are grave doubts about the project and it is feared that it will benefit the Chinese more than the Tibetans. Would it not be better for the Tibetans to direct aid to education and grass-roots projects, which would enable them to compete on more equal terms with the economic and social changes which they face? Will
1378
the Government consult the Dalai Lama on such matters because, after all, he is the authentic voice of the Tibetan people?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we well know that the Tibetan people are not opposed to overseas aid provided that it benefits Tibetans. The only reason that the European Community may be involved in this project is in order to ensure that other works that are going on benefit indigenous Tibetans. If the European Community does not contribute 35 per cent. of the total cost to the project, I am told that the Chinese will go ahead with it in any event. It seems to me that if we can have, as we have now been assured, the establishment of a proper permanent monitoring unit and provided that the work is done for the benefit of the indigenous Tibetans, we are likely, by being involved, to have more influence over what the Chinese are doing than by standing aside.

Business of the House: Debate, 14th July
3.8 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Friday 14th July to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Earl Howe to be taken before the Second Reading of the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill [H.L.].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bell's Bridge Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Bedfordshire (Borough of Luton) (Structural Change) Order 1995
Wiltshire (Borough of Thamesdown) (Structural Change) Order 1995
Derbyshire (City of Derby) (Structural Change) Order 1995
Durham (Borough of Darlington) (Structural Change) Order 1995
Staffordshire (City of Stoke-on-Trent) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order 1995
Buckinghamshire (Borough of Milton Keynes) (Structural Change) Order 1995
Dorset (Boroughs of Poole and Bournemouth) (Structural Change) Order 1995
East Sussex (Boroughs of Brighton and Hove) (Structural Change) Order 1995
Hampshire (Cities of Portsmouth and Southampton) (Structural Change) Order 1995
3.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 15th, 20th and 22nd June be approved [23rd and 24th Reports from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the Motions on the Order Paper I should like to speak to all nine orders, which are tabled in my name. The orders provide for changes in the future structure of local government in the counties of Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Derbyshire, Dorset, County Durham, East Sussex, Hampshire, Staffordshire and Wiltshire.
I hope that it will be of assistance to your Lordships if I take together the principal issues relating to each of the orders—where they are common to all of them—and that I may do so in the following sequence. First, the proposed new local government structure in each of the areas; secondly, the powers and functions which they will be given; thirdly, the electoral arrangements, staffing and planning; and, fourthly, how the proposals will affect the future role of the Lord Lieutenants and High Sheriffs in those areas. Where different arrangements are being proposed in specific areas, I will also briefly outline how and why they differ.
The structural changes which are to be made by the orders will come into effect on 1st April 1997—not next year, 1996, but in 1997. Bournemouth, Darlington, Derby, Durham, Luton, Milton Keynes, Poole, Portsmouth, Southampton and Thamesdown, which may be more familiarly known to your Lordships as Swindon, will become unitary authorities on their existing boundaries. The remainder of the counties within which they are located will remain two tier, retaining both district and county councils. Similarly, the City of Stoke-on-Trent will become a unitary authority on its existing boundaries, except for a very minor change to tidy up the boundary between Stoke and Stafford Boroughs.
There will be a new unitary authority of Brighton and Hove, comprising the areas of the existing districts of Brighton and Hove. The remainder of the county of East Sussex will remain two tier. In the case of Brighton and Hove, the existing Brighton Borough Council and Hove Borough Council will be abolished and will be replaced by a single new council for Brighton and Hove combined. In all the other cases, no new councils will be created. The existing councils will continue, but they will have unitary powers.
Except for the East Sussex order, the orders do not contain the provisions for co-operation and preparation which were included in previous orders. We have decided that, rather than repeat those provisions in each separate order, we should remove them and place them in general regulations. They will be tabled tomorrow and are subject to negative resolution.
I would stress, though, that there is no change of substance. The powers and duties which authorities will be given will be the same as in the orders which have already been made. We have consulted the affected local authorities, and the local authority associations, twice—once on the draft regulations and once on each of the draft structural change orders.
In the case of East Sussex, the provisions need to be expressed a little differently because, as I have explained, we are abolishing two old authorities and replacing them with one new one. For that reason, the East Sussex order contains specific provisions for co-operation and preparation; it does not rely on the general regulations.
I know that some noble Lords feel strongly that the role which the local authorities' staff will play in the re-organisation will be crucial to its success and that the interests of the staff must be safeguarded. I agree with that concern. We expect that newly-elected councils will pay close attention to staffing matters. Of course, it will be for them to decide on their staffing structures in the light of the new functions that they will be taking on.
That is not a process in which the Government will, or should, interfere. But, for all that, we have taken a number of steps in order to help to ensure that the transition to the new structures is as smooth and as fair as possible. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has had a constructive meeting with representatives of the local authority unions.
We believe that the elected members of authorities which are to be given unitary status should be given a fresh democratic mandate. Therefore, except in Brighton and Hove, all of the current district councillors will retire in May 1996, and there will be elections to the whole council in May 1996.
In Brighton and Hove those matters are more complex. The existing councillors will continue in office right up to 1st April 1997. Meanwhile, there will be elections in May 1996 to a shadow unitary authority. During the period up to 1st April 1997, this shadow authority will plan for the unitary functions which it is to inherit. On 1st April 1997, it will take over as the unitary authority and the old Brighton and Hove councils will be abolished. Between May 1996 and April 1997 it will, therefore, be possible for the same person—if elected—to serve both as a member of one of the old borough councils and as a member of the shadow unitary council.
The orders also provide transitional arrangements which return the authorities to electoral cycles prescribed in the Local Government Act 1972. Derby, Stoke-on-Trent, Portsmouth, Southampton, Thamesdown and Milton Keynes will be returned to their current arrangement of elections by thirds. In Brighton and Hove, Darlington, Poole, Luton and Bournemouth there will be elections in 1996 and 1999, and every four years after that. If any of those authorities wish to apply to the Secretary of State to change to a system of election by thirds, they may do so following the passing of a resolution by the council which must be passed by not less than two-thirds of the members.
The unitary authorities which we propose will all be responsible for strategic as well as local land-use planning for their areas. In Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Dorset, East Sussex, Hampshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire and Wiltshire, we have concluded that it is desirable for strategic planning to continue across the existing county area. In the cases of Derbyshire and Staffordshire, that would exclude, as it does now, the Peak District National Park. We are, therefore, asking the new unitary authorities, as structure planning authorities, to work together with the county council in each case to maintain a joint structure plan for their combined areas.
In Durham, the commission proposed that the Darlington Council should establish joint structure planning arrangements with the unitary authorities which are to be established in Cleveland. The order, therefore, provides for the transfer of County Durham's strategic planning responsibilities for the area of Darlington to the Darlington Council. That will enable Darlington to make voluntary arrangements with the Cleveland authorities to work on a joint structure plan for their combined areas.
Each order provides for the existing county police authority to continue to cover both the area of the unitary authority and the residual area. It also provides for the members of the particular police authority to be appointed by both the county council and the unitary authority.
There will be combined fire authorities covering the new unitary authorities and the remaining county councils so that the existing brigade areas will be preserved. In order that the Home Office can make fire combination schemes under the Fire Services Act 1947 to achieve this, the orders each provide for the relevant unitary authority to become a fire authority.
Several noble Lords have expressed concern that the orders do not provide for the appointment of Lord Lieutenants or High Sheriffs for the areas which are the subject of the orders. I can assure your Lordships that we will be making separate provision for that in general regulations.
Under those regulations, each unitary authority which is created under the orders will be deemed to be part of the relevant historic county for ceremonial and related purposes, and will therefore remain within the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff of that county. I hope that I can also reassure your Lordships that there will be no hiatus. The regulations will he made at the earliest opportunity after 1st April
1382
1996—when the review has been completed—allowing the new arrangements to be in place by no later that 1st April 1997.
The Government believe that the changes for which the orders provide will create better, more accountable local government in the areas which they affect. I hope that your Lordships will also be of that view. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 15th, 20th and 22nd June be approved [23rd and 24th Reports from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.19 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I rise to support the case for a unitary authority for Brighton and Hove as provided for under the ninth order on the Order Paper. However, I have one caveat to add; namely, that I am not happy about the four-yearly cycle of elections. I hope that the new authority will apply to the Secretary of State to be able to continue with the existing system of annual elections. I have no problem with transitional arrangements and I believe that the safeguarding of the staff is something which both Brighton and Hove authorities are extremely concerned to do.
At present, as a fairly new resident of Brighton, I find it very difficult to determine where the boundary between the two places actually is. If it were not for the statue on the front which everyone tells me is the boundary, it would indeed be most difficult to identify. It certainly seems to me to be completely irrelevant to the economic and social life of the two towns and is completely invisible, as I said, not only to newcomers like myself but also to visitors. Voluntary groups, social organisations and business organisations all operate across the two towns and to be able to deal with one authority will make things much easier for them.
The counter argument that has been put locally is that polls conducted by Hove Council and East Sussex County Council have called for the status quo. However, it is important to put on the record that in both instances the survey methodology was flawed. It was entirely self-selecting in response, did not enable more than one view per household to be put—it would be interesting to know which member of the household put the view—and offered no contextual information. Certainly the view of Hove Council was not supported by the electors at the May elections.
It has perhaps been unfortunate that East Sussex County Council has also distributed a leaflet to householders which referred to cuts in,
"support for the elderly and vulnerable people or for children with special needs",
and to, "increasing class sizes". Yet, more accurately, the county council had previously analysed in great detail the effect of the proposals for change on service provision and had concluded, in its report to the county council local government review panel, that authorities which had between 500,000 and 250,000 population would be self-sufficient local authorities. The new Brighton and Hove unitary authority fits nicely into that category with a population of about a quarter of a million.

1383
The county council also reiterated its view that Brighton and Hove should be a unitary council in its submission to the Local Government Commission, the main reason being—I think this is important—that it would provide savings of £3.4 million which would accrue year on year. While estimating the financial implications of a new council structure is somewhat hazardous—I would not attempt to do that—as I understand it, certainly Brighton Council agrees with the commission's calculations that there will be an annual impact from £2 million savings to £2 million costs.
The most important point about this amalgamation is that, economically, Brighton and Hove are considered as one and together they face considerable economic challenges. People who visit the town as holidaymakers are often surprised to discover that unemployment levels are exceptionally high, as are levels of multiple deprivation. In an attempt to overcome these serious problems the two borough councils have for the past two years worked closely together with the private sector through the Brighton and Hove Economic Development Company and have been supported by it and its board which has made it absolutely clear that a single unitary council for Brighton and Hove would be a major step forward in the area's ability to resolve many of the complex and interrelated economic development problems facing the area. It is vital that business confidence is rebuilt and that new business investment is attracted and retained. That view has also been supported by the Sussex Chamber of Commerce and Industry and many of the area's key employers who believe that a unitary authority is a necessary condition for the area's economic regeneration.
Being the largest authority on the south coast, the new authority will be able to provide a comprehensive range of services and a strong strategic unit for the coastal conurbation without having to resort to complex or fragile joint arrangements that might currently exist. I appreciate these will continue as regards the fire and the police services. It has been suggested that the residual county which is still under a two-tier structure would suffer. However, I believe it is clear that many of the current tensions created by Brighton and Hove's disproportionate pull on resources would be resolved.
The amalgamation of Brighton and Hove into a unitary authority makes sense. It will provide tremendous opportunities for delivering a better future for residents in the area, improved council services, clearer accountability, a more effective and coherent approach to economic regeneration, and, more importantly, better value for money. I therefore hope that the order will be supported.
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it is with pleasure that I see the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on the Government Front Bench. That is a pleasure not unmixed with some trepidation as his reputation for dealing briskly with the Opposition causes us great amusement and is well deserved. I hope that I do not cross him in any way.
1384
I have been opposed from the start to this whole process of review. I do not propose to go into the reasons for that because we have gone past that stage. However, what did not occur to me at the beginning of the review was that in implementing it, whatever the results were, we would encounter problems which would indicate that that implementation may not have been properly thought through. The problems were particularly great possibly because—I daresay unexpectedly—of the move towards hybrid change; that is, changes where some authorities become unitary and the existing county councils still remain, was perhaps not foreseen. However, it is quite widespread. There are 15 county councils which are currently affected by hybrid change and that number could increase to 23 of the existing county councils after the next phase of the review.
The whole business of hybrid change has increased the costs of this exercise. These costs have been estimated by the Local Government Commission to be between £55 million and £93 million for the existing 15 county councils I mentioned; but those costs are probably not capable of being funded by long-term savings, particularly in the context of capping. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned the importance of staff and staff effectiveness in ensuring that the changeover from one authority to another was smoothly carried out. But, however hard the staff work, they cannot "magic" money off trees, and the financial problems will still remain. Moreover, as I understand it, those costs will rest with the existing county council at a time when it will be facing possibly reduced efficiency in the provision of its services and therefore increasing costs.
Some other curious anomalies are being brought to light which affect county councillors. As I understand it, Draft Regulation 6, which will replace the previous individual indications of how authorities should manage change, prevents some councilors—that is to say, those councillors whose areas will in the future be part of unitary authorities—from taking part in the budget decision-making process next year. One can see a logic in that except that it is probably true to say that all budget processes these days concern themselves not merely with the next year's budget but also with implementing much longer term programmes and budget approaches. Further, for the purpose of budget making, most county councils regard themselves as corporate bodies. The corporate body in these cases will continue. Further, those county councillors have been elected to represent their people, and they will still represent those people even if decisions are to be taken in a different way in the future. Finally, by not permitting certain county councillors to take part in the budget making process, one may affect—I do not know how this will happen as I have not calculated the statistics—the political balance of the council as it takes those decisions in a way which may or may not reflect the way in which people wish their budget decisions to be decided. That is one of many infelicities which surround the present change.
I should like to concentrate on the problems affecting police authorities. Those problems arise because of the interaction of the current orders with the Police and

1385
Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 which, as I am sure noble Lords remember, provided for a majority of the members of the newly established police authorities to be elected councillors and that there should be a political balance in those police authorities which represents:
"the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of the relevant councils taken as a whole".
In other words, the relevant councils put forward their members of the police authority and then a balance has to be struck among those councillors.
However, a number of other factors come into this calculation. County councillors each represent many more people than either present local councillors or councillors who will be elected to the unitary authorities. Furthermore, some of the new unitary authorities will have more members than existing county councils. Therefore, on balance, Thamesdown, for example, should have more members on the police authority because it has more councillors than the existing and continuing county of Wiltshire, although the population of Wiltshire is many times that of Thamesdown.
Perhaps I may take the example of Bedford and Luton. I could read the entire figures, but it would be better if I select the more important figures and then perhaps leave the paper with Hansard in case they want to include the full figures. I hope that that will be agreeable to your Lordships. Is that a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter or must I read them all out if I want them to be included in Hansard?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Baroness, if she is kind enough to resume her seat. I need to take some advice, but without taking too much advice, I believe that that would be unacceptable. Otherwise, one might run into the trap of noble Lords saying, "It would be much easier if I just handed my whole speech to Hansard". That might be very agreeable to your Lordships but it would not be the right way of doing things.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, your Lordships will see what I meant when I referred to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as having a particular talent in answering Members of the Opposition. I accept his guidance, and I shall do my best with the figures and try not to read out too many.
In future, Bedfordshire County Council will have 49 councillors and Luton Borough Council, the new unitary authority, will have 48. There are nine members of the police authority. Therefore, one might say that the division as between the new unitary authority and the continuing county should be five seats for the county and four for Luton. However, on the basis of population it would he much fairer to suggest that three of the nine places available should go to Luton, and six to the county.
I turn now to rather disagreeable political considerations. On the county council the Conservatives have the largest group of members, although not an overall majority. They have 24 councillors. On the other hand, they have only two on Luton Borough Council, and Labour has 37 seats. The Liberal Democrats have 10 seats on the county council and nine on Luton Borough Council, but that is not particularly relevant. Therefore, if Luton appoints four members and the county council
1386
appoints the remaining five, there will be two Conservatives, eight Labour members and three Liberal Democrats. If the appointments are made on the basis of the political balance on each of the councils, with the county council appointing six of the nine members and Luton Borough Council three, the result would be three Conservatives, four Labour and two Liberal Democrat members.
It is simply not possible to get a representative police authority under these two pieces of legislation operating side by side, unless we lay down that for police authorities whose members are drawn from more than one council, the number of members put up by the various councils should reflect the number of people in those authority areas and not the number of councillors elected by each authority. If that were done, then I believe that the problem of political balance would solve itself. I hope that in responding, the noble Earl will at least assure me that the matter will be looked into because I believe that it is serious.
3.35 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I too should like to compliment the noble Earl on his new office. I am afraid that he went so fast in his introduction—I must say that I should like to have a two year-old as fast as him—that I may repeat a point that he has already answered. I hope that he will forgive me if I do.
I am speaking in a sense on behalf of local government generally and Hampshire in particular. Throughout the discussions on the future structure of local government Ministers have assured us that while new authorities may be created they never intended or envisaged the demise of the historic counties for ceremonial purposes. The order before us would establish Portsmouth and Southampton as counties separate from Hampshire. I understand that it is the Government's intention that regulations will be made so that Portsmouth and Southampton will be deemed part of Hampshire for what they call "ceremonial and related" purposes. Those include the lieutenancy, an office and function which is largely ceremonial but deeply rooted in our history and has a widespread popular identification with Hampshire.
The Department of the Environment has said that the necessary amending regulations will be made in the spring of 1996. I am not quite clear about that point. I hope that when replying to the debate the noble Earl will give an undertaking that he will bring before us as soon as possible the provisions necessary to ensure that the historic counties we are considering today will continue unchanged for ceremonial and related purposes.
My second point was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and relates to the membership of police authorities. So far as concerns Hampshire, the county council, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight jointly will appoint nine local authority members to the Hampshire Police Authority. Under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 those appointments must reflect the strength of the political parties on the separate councils. That concept of proportionality is tried and tested. However, because unitary councils will have more members than the

1387
county councils—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—their political proportionality will skew the calculations.
For example, there are 74 Hampshire county councillors representing 1.2 million people as compared with the three unitary authorities of Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight, which between them will have 132 members representing half a million people. I wonder whether a fairer approach might be to introduce some element into the calculation that relates proportionality to the population of individual authorities. I hope that the noble Earl will give us an assurance that the Government will invite the Home Office to look into a formula for securing better proportionality on the police authorities.
My third point relates to regional planning and structure plans. I speak with benefit of my experience as chairman of the South East Regional Planning Conference. The word "conference" conveys the coming together of many separate authorities—in the south east representing 18 million people—involved in successful regional planning. Successful regional plans cannot be imposed: they come from a shared understanding of the wider issues we face. I know how difficult it is, first, to secure agreement about regional strategy; and, secondly, to ensure that individual authorities act in the spirit and letter of that strategy. Therefore, the most important element in that process is commitment to the strategy among all those authorities in the area they cover.
The Government intend that there should continue to be a single structure plan—I believe that the noble Earl referred to that—and that unitary councils and county councils will have joint responsibility to keep that structure plan up-to-date and for carrying it into action. Many of us are concerned about the provisions in the orders on strategic planning. The orders are designed to enable the continuing county council and the unitary councils to maintain a joint structure plan for their combined area, but the orders do not describe any arrangements to achieve that. In some places, authorities will indeed work together, but in others, authorities, perhaps flushed with their new powers, might seek to "go it alone".
Current legislation does not provide adequately for this eventuality and new legislation is really required. If that is not forthcoming, as a minimum safeguard, I hope that the Secretary of State will publish advice notes imposing a clear duty to co-operate in structure planning, minerals and waste planning and in particular transportation. I am confident that most authorities will work together. However, I hope that the noble Earl will consider using the mechanism of advice notes to ensure co-operation in structure planning.
The orders are the culmination of several years of anxious examination and debate. I am glad to record that elected members and officers of all the councils in Hampshire and the cities are working in close co-operation to ensure the success of the new system. I hope, and guess, that noble Lords in this House will wish them well.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, first, let me say to my noble friend the Minister that he is a man of many parts and I wish him well in yet one more guise. I hope that he does not find the debate too complicated. In my speech I shall endeavour, if at all possible not to deal with figures.
I begin by making the accustomed declaration of interest. I have no pecuniary interest in the borough of Poole. However, owing to the fact that the order includes Bournemouth perhaps I should state that until January of this year, through a minority shareholding in a private company, I had a financial interest in a property in Bournemouth. That, however, is now sold and the company is in the process of voluntary liquidation.
It is only to Poole that I intend to refer this afternoon. I can claim an interest of another kind—a sentiment of loyalty perhaps—because I have had a close connection with Poole for 38 years; and for the first 28 of those years I had a home in the town. At one time I was an elected borough councillor, and for close on 15 years I had the honour of representing the borough of Poole in the House of Commons. Since then and up to March of this year, I have continued in office in Poole Conservative Association, mostly as president—a total of a further 16 years. It gives me much pleasure, therefore, to welcome the order in particular in relation to Poole.
During the preliminary stages of the Local Government Review, across the county of Dorset as a whole, the consultation exercise demonstrated that 72 per cent. of those who responded favoured a change to unitary authorities. In the case of Poole, 81 per cent. favoured such a change. That result in Poole demonstrates a strong sense of community and the desire to achieve a separate identity as the new County of Poole.
Poole Borough Council has an enviable record in the effective delivery of local services and there is a willingness, indeed an enthusiasm, embracing all sections of the community, both business and residential, to work together to meet the needs and aspirations of a population of 136,000 which is expected to reach 150,000 by the turn of the century. The town grows apace and by the year 2000 there will be almost double the number of residents compared with the figure when I first came to live in Poole in 1957.
It is a prosperous working town with great potential. It also has a strong sense of history. There was already a busy port and harbour in the 13th and 14th centuries and a number of capacious stone built houses of that era, which still exist, are proof of the prosperity of the merchants who lived in them. The nominal roll of mayors and admirals of the port begins in 1490. Probably the most surprising—and in many ways nowadays viewed as amusing—episode in the town's history was the grant of the Great Charter of Queen Elizabeth I in 1568. By this, Poole became a County Corporate with its own sheriff, courts, recorder and Commission of the Peace, and with the style and title of The County of the Town of Poole. The town thus took

1389
its place with only 16 other cities and towns which at that time were entitled to that dignity in the whole of England—cities such as London, Bristol, York, Newcastle, Norwich and Southampton. When I used the word "amusing", I have to remark that it was a strange advancement for a town which had only 1,400 people in it at that time. History does not relate how that came about, but certainly some person or persons had great influence in the right quarters.
Sadly, much of this independence was relinquished under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1888. At that time Poole Council opted not to apply for county borough status. No one can be sure why, but a guess is that like the English Crown before the Civil War, the Corporation of Poole was expected "to live of its own" and to meet all expenditure from its traditional revenues, and that that was found too difficult to accomplish. That is the opinion of the town's most distinguished historian, the late Mr. H. P. Smith to whose work I have been much indebted over the years. Incidentally, in that Civil War Poole was a supporter of Parliament: a Roundhead town in a Royalist county. The town's two Members of Parliament were Royalists. They came to Poole. When they came ad portas (to the town's gates) they were barred against them. They withdrew discomfited and were followed by threats. If I may say so, that is an early example of the process of parliamentary de-selection.
However, in the age in which we now live co-operation has taken the place of conflict and that is well expressed in the relationship down the years between the county council and the Borough Council of Poole. From time to time there have been tensions but never antagonism. I am pleased to think, therefore, that for ceremonial and related purposes the new County of Poole will remain within the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant of the County of Dorset and of the persons holding office annually as High Sheriff. It is a good example of Imperium in Imperio.
As it so happens, Poole's council historically has been responsible for many county level services such as education, libraries and trading standards, and agencies for the Dorset County Council such as highways. However, much remains to be done during the transition. One difficult task will be the disaggregation from Dorset County to Poole County of the new standard spending assessments. I think that will be extremely difficult to achieve. Working parties are already under way, dealing with the important matters of the police authority, the fire service and both strategic and land use planning where close co-operation with Dorset County Council is due to continue.
The role of the staff and the future of individual members of it are crucial in this reorganisation. Poole Council is paying close attention to these matters, in full co-operation with the local authority unions. In my day as a borough councillor, I heard repeatedly of Poole's aspirations for county borough status. There was some encouragement from Whitehall which implied that the magic figure to be reached before there could be any consideration of the matter would be 100,000 of population. Now at last, Poole is about to have its wish granted, albeit the magic figure has advanced to 136,000 and many years have elapsed in time. The borough
1390
council is to be commended for its able presentations to the Local Government Commission and the Department of the Environment. I congratulate the new County of Poole and wish it well for a successful future.
Finally, I offer my sincere thanks to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for turning Poole's long held ambitions into a reality in 1997.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, it is saddening that government policy compels me to welcome the noble Earl—as I do warmly—to his new responsibilities with some mild criticism of the orders. He has introduced them with his usual courtesy and celerity, as my noble friend Lord Carnarvon mentioned.
I should like to take this opportunity also to pay tribute the noble Earl's predecessor, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who was a model Minister in your Lordships' House, always helpful and thoughtful. We all regret his, I hope temporary, departure from the Front Bench.
These orders, these "nine bright shiners", play an apt part in the melancholy process of local government reorganisation. The process, as we all know, has been a long one, is lengthening still further and has been, to put it at its most kindly, ill–starred throughout. The basic mistake exemplified by the orders was the Government's insistence on a rolling programme rather than a conclusive single report. That entailed, in the words of the Banham Commission's final document, that Parliament and all other interests had to,
"react to the proposals for individual areas in ignorance of the overall picture, before both the Commission and the Secretary of State had made final decisions".
So we have suffered an incoherent succession of draft reports, revised proposals and final recommendations, produced at random intervals over a period of more than two years. These have been punctuated by the Secretary of State in a series of pronouncements whose illogicality has been exceeded only by their inconsistency.
Now, with these orders, here we go again. First of all, we had a number of structural change orders, whipped through this House and the other place before anything like the full picture had emerged. Now that most—though by no means all—of it has emerged, we are asked to approve nine further orders while the regulations setting out the general framework for the relationship between the transferor and the transferee authorities have still not been approved. I apologise for the Cherokee jargon. Rarely have so many carts preceded the horse.
The Local Government Changes for England (No. 3) Regulations will not even be laid until tomorrow, as the noble Earl informed us. There has, of course, been consultation, but meanwhile I am told there is continuing confusion among authorities about responsibilities for statutory duties during the handover period about the rights of consultation and information and about the exclusion of some county councillors from the budget process.
Other noble Lords have already registered, and some will register, their concern over such matters as finance and, in particular, police and fire authorities. There is

1391
the general point, too, that the draft regulations on which consultation has taken place are perceived by many, rightly or wrongly, as placing the powers and rights of the unitary authority above those of the amputated county.
I confine myself now to a word about joint arrangements, on which the noble Earl touched in his introductory remarks. Joint arrangements are fundamental to the whole of this wretched reorganisation. They need to be demonstrably robust, workable and effective. I continue to have acute concerns in this area, particularly about planning.
A number of noble Lords—most recently my noble friend Lord Carnarvon—have on various occasions drawn the attention of this House to the importance of maintaining effective strategic planning in areas where the review results in a county council being wholly or partly replaced by smaller unitary authorities. I was extremely grateful to the noble Earl's predecessor for his Written Answer on 5th July (Hansard, cols. WA 82 and WA 83), which place in the public domain what had been rumoured to be the case; namely, that the Secretary of State's power under Section 21 of the Local Government Act 1992 to establish a joint authority for those purposes is only available where the county council is wholly superseded by unitary authorities. It does not apply in what are commonly called "hybrid" areas where only part of the former county is to become unitary.
This newly acknowledged gap in the Secretary of State's powers must be viewed most seriously by all concerned, including many of the authorities affected by the orders now before us. On 9th March, when the Environment Bill was before this House for consideration on Report, I moved an amendment designed to provide for joint arrangements to ensure the continuation of strategic planning in areas where local government is being reorganised. I refer to cols. 438 to 444 of Hansard for 9th March 1995. In reply, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said:
"should these voluntary arrangements fail, the Secretary of State already has a reserve power under Section 21 … Where he considers that joint working is desirable … but such arrangements fail to emerge, he is able to establish a statutory joint authority … We do not believe that the provisions in the amendment are desirable or necessary".—[Official Report, 9/3/95; col. 443.]
That interpretation of Section 21 was given and accepted in all good faith. It is now acknowledged to be defective. Will the noble Earl, with his customary courtesy, undertake to re-examine the spirit of my amendment and come forward with proposals in a similar vein, using whatever legislative vehicle seems the most appropriate? In the meantime, advice notes as suggested by my noble friend Lord Carnarvon would be a great help.
I end with the observation that Forster, parodying Landor best sums up the role of the Secretary of State in fostering the flame of local democracy by his rebarbative reorganisations of local government:
"I strove with none; for none was worth my strife.
Reason I loved, and next to Reason, Doubt.
I warmed both hands before the fire of life And put it out".
3.59 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, after those erudite and well-informed interventions, I can be brief. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the way in which he introduced the nine orders. He made it clear that there will inevitably be further regulations which will tidy up some of the business which remains in hand.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, I am an unrepentant two-tier man. Many of the tribulations through which we are going need not have arisen had we stuck with the county council and the two tiers. So be it. We must not reopen old debates as these Motions go through. I was relieved by the assurance that my noble friend was able to give that some of the further regulations will concern lord lieutenants and sheriffs and that they will be put in place before the new county authorities come into existence in 1997. He assures us that there will be no hiatus. That is clearly helpful. The sooner these regulations come on-stream, the better.
Like others who spoke, I am relieved that structural plans are to be produced by the county councils and the new unitary authorities. But again, I suspect that that demonstrates just what we have thrown away with the county council structure. I hope that there will be advice or guidance notes, as two speakers have already urged. There is a particular need in the area of structural planning and transportation. I cannot help thinking that these arrangements always work more robustly within a two-tier structure.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, referred to "amputated" counties. I would draw attention to the problem that those county councils will face, losing, as they will, large centres of population. We shall be reducing the scale of their current activities, but not the range of their functions. They will continue to fulfil the same functions, though obviously with fewer resources; and they will have the disruption to deal with.
As I understand it—and my noble friend may correct me if I have misunderstood—the new authorities will draw on supplementary credit allowances, which will be repaid out of subsequent savings. That is clearly a commendable strategy, since inevitably there will he start-up costs. But equally, if there are start-up costs for the new unitary authorities, there will also, I fear, he costs incurred by the amputated county councils. And they will not have the same opportunity for savings. There will be a loss of income, and there will be a need to manage the disruption. The Local Government Commission pointed out that where only part of a county was to have unitary authorities, there would be little opportunity for savings in cost within the residual two-tier county. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to look at the funding implications and will be able to ensure that the people paying taxes under the new county councils will not be unduly disadvantaged.
4.2 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his courteous reply to my question about the lord lieutenancy. I am very reassured by his assurances that there will be complete continuity.

1393
I live in Hampshire. The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and my noble friend Lord Selborne referred to the work being done in transferring functions from the county to the unitary authorities in some cases. The strain on the county council should not be underestimated in relation to adapting all its organisations, changing its area offices and, as the noble Earl rightly pointed out, reducing the scale but not the quality of its services.
We are advised by the Local Government Commission that the costs of instituting the unitary authorities of Portsmouth and Southampton are between £7 million and £9 million. To ask the question again: who pays? In Avon, Humberside and Cleveland, where clear savings are expected, facilities have been made for extra borrowing to be repaid out of anticipated savings. As my noble friend made clear, not all the authorities covered by this order will be in that position. The Local Government Commission, quite unequivocally, made that abundantly clear. So there is no sense in borrowing to pay set-up costs where no savings are to be made. It merely defers the costs over a longer period. I therefore ask the Government to look at the costs to the county.
I live in Hampshire, as I said, but at some distance from Portsmouth and Southampton. I do not want my local library to have curtailed opening hours, or to have social services that were previously free now subject to a charge. Neither I nor my neighbours would regard that as a fair and equitable consequence of the creation of the two new authorities. I therefore once again ask the Minister to take another look at financing for the counties, and to ensure that Hampshire, as just one example, is not put in the position of having to reduce its services in order to pay for its share of the transitional costs. All the indications are that the settlement for 1997–98 will be at least as high as this year's. We must not place funding for the structural changes on top of the heavy burden that councils already bear.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that the local government commissioners' recommendation for four unitary authorities for Dorset was met in the county with almost across the board dismay. Only at district level was such a solution thought desirable. The decision of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to agree that Bournemouth and Poole should each go unitary, the rural remainder being subject to the status quo—the old two-tier system—represents a very acceptable position. It is one with which I am more than content.
I pay tribute to those at all levels of the local authority administration for the way that they are now buckling down to the business of running the three parts of the former old county. In doing so, I particularly commend to your Lordships the very good work of the chief executive, Peter Harvey. There is a general attitude in the county that the changes must be made to work. Temporary tensions have evaporated, and the friendly former working relationships have reasserted themselves. I very much welcome that.
1394
There are concerns, and noble Lords have referred to them this afternoon. One is the very important question of apportionment of funding for the rural areas. I think particularly of the higher cost of rural schools, transport to them and such services as libraries in rural areas. I hope that in the recalculation of the standard spending assessments, enough weighting will be afforded those inevitably higher-cost operations. I also hope that all that was said by all those concerned relating to the joint committees to deal with strategic matters, which were perhaps more easily dealt with under the old two-tier system, will be vigorously and persistently addressed. Dorset, perhaps more than many, has major strategic projects in the pipeline. I think particularly of the Melbury Abbas by-pass, which is of such importance to Poole and its very fine new harbour facilities—as referred to by my noble friend Lord Murton of Lindisfarne—and the Weymouth relief road.
I congratulate the Government on a very satisfactory outcome, and I wish my county all the success that it deserves.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap. I had not realised that structural orders would produce a list of speakers. I do so for two reasons. First, I am deputy chairman of the Commission for the New Towns, and the city of Milton Keynes is my special responsibility. I want to welcome this logical development for the future of Milton Keynes.
I know that noble Lords will remember the close connection that Jock Campbell had with Milton Keynes. I was proud to have the chance of working with him when I was a Minister in the department. He was one of the finest chairmen of the new towns that one could have wished to have. I know that he would have been a very happy man today. Knowing Jock, he is probably chortling from somewhere rather higher than your Lordships' House.
I have been in this House only three years. So far as I know, my noble friend Lord Ferrers is now wearing his third hat. He will, I am sure, take it as a compliment if I say that one of my favourite characters in Gilbert and Sullivan is Pooh-Bah. The only difference between my noble friend and Pooh-Bah is that Pooh-Bah had all the jobs at the same time—and, if I remember rightly, all the salaries at the same time. I do not think that my noble friend quite has that.
The tension that existed between the county and the then city has evaporated. The logic of making Milton Keynes a unitary authority became apparent to all. I chair the liaison committee which meets twice a year between the county, the borough and the commission, and certainly it is now recognised that all we have to do is work very hard in our co-operation to achieve a satisfactory future.
Having gone through this exercise in London nearly 30 years ago and served on an elected council, a shadow council and then a new council, I can tell your Lordships that it does work. We were very mixed. There were two Conservative boroughs and one Labour borough. We finished up with one Labour borough. The co-operation in that period was magnificent. We produced about 60

1395
recommendations, only one of which was never honoured. That one exception was the decision to have as our symbol an elephant's foot rather than a proper coat of arms. There was otherwise no problem. I welcome these orders but specifically the one that relates to the city of Milton Keynes.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I too did not realise that there would be a list of speakers since there were so many separate orders.
I take this opportunity to welcome the order that relates to Hampshire. I have been waiting for it for 23 years. Way back in 1972 I moved an amendment that sought to retain the status of a number of county boroughs, including Portsmouth and Southampton. I divided the House but lost the vote, but always thought that I won the argument. I have stated the case to this House for the unitary status of Portsmouth and Hampshire on a number of occasions, the last being on 30th March last. I am sure that it is unnecessary for me to repeat those arguments. However, I should like to comment upon the bipartisan consensus that has arisen following consultations. That is the most significant change relating to local government that has occurred in my lifetime.
In 1970, the Royal Commission made its report. The then Labour Government accepted the principle of unitary authorities throughout and said that they would introduce legislation to give effect to it in due course. An election followed and the introduction of a Conservative Government. A minority report of the Royal Commission had been signed by one member. He recommended that throughout there should be a two-tier system. The new Government adopted that system. Because of that election there was a move from one extreme to the other.
I hope that the consensus between the parties will bring that situation to an end and that the principle of the hybrid county is accepted so that the large urban areas have their separate authority but will co-operate with the county in all the matters that have been mentioned, such as strategic planning and police. On the other hand, I believe that for rural areas the two-tier system is the better and produces more efficient local government. I believe that what we are doing now is on the right lines, and that both the Government and the Opposition should be praised for the way in which they have arrived at this point.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the confusion of noble Lords who have spoken in the gap is as nothing compared with the confusion of those of us who arrived to speak at the time of the last set of orders. We found that there was no list and we all tried to find our places in the gap.
There must be many political equivalents of the Irish joke about the individual who asks directions and is told not to start from here. The local government review is perhaps the quintessence of that situation, but
1396
unfortunately it is no joke. I believe that those of us who think that the proper starting point is the function of local government and the effective delivery of services, not structure, have been vindicated. Most people will agree that the problem should first be analysed before a solution is attempted. As noble Lords have pointed out, that should certainly be done before producing a solution in the form of titillating, tempting sweeties that are distracting from the whole. If we had first considered function, we could have achieved subsidiarity in its proper and best sense, perhaps also at parish level, instead of what, sadly, many people may feel is a carve-up.
During the process the guidelines have shifted radically. Many of the proposed unitary authorities have not been consulted on the specific proposals as they are now. Where there was consultation, there has been a divergence between the preferences expressed in the polls and proposals that were not on offer until the Government announced them, for instance those for Brighton and Hove. Some of the responses are only partly replicated in the proposals. Among them are the proposals for Hampshire where I understand that strong representations were made for a unitary authority for the New Forest as well as for Portsmouth and Southampton.
I congratulate the Government on a post hoc rationalisation of their proposals, characterised by a number of people as cherry picking. They include cherries which understandably some Labour councils have been happy to go along with. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, put the matter more eloquently than I have been able to do. However, we start from here. I recognise that what is most important is certainty but within that certainty some matters are fundamental to the changes, including the matter of finance with which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, dealt earlier. County councils face problems. They will be reduced in size and population base but will have ongoing costs. I appreciate that the figures may not work out precisely. For instance, on the basis of population, East Sussex will lose one-third of its budget but only 5 per cent. of its geographical area. Authorities in a similar position are concerned about the costs they will have to continue to bear and the disproportionately lower resource base with which they will be left. They are right to be concerned and to draw the Government's attention to problems that will arise when county-wide support services are located in an area that is to form a new unitary authority. As the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said, there will be little opportunity for hybrid counties to make savings in future.
The problems of adequate supplementary credit approvals are very serious. I have made the plea on previous occasions that the Government take seriously the need for adequate supplementary credit approvals. It is borrowing that will be paid back over a period. It is not a plea for extra cash. The continuing counties are bound to worry that their needs may be put at the end of the queue because of the concern that the new unitary authorities should operate adequately. There are also concerns about competitive tendering and staff who will be transferred. There is also the issue of unfair advantage in relation to in-house direct service staff where contracts will have to be immediately re-tendered

1397
whereas outside companies which have won tenders will have protection as a matter of contract for the period of the contract.
Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood and the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, have referred to the absurdities that will arise in the arrangement of police authorities. The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, drew our attention to the genuine concern about joint arrangements and in particular planning. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said that he was grateful for the Government's Written Answer to his Question.
On reading the Government's analysis of the hole they had dug for themselves, I felt alarm rather than gratitude. When I first became involved in strategic planning as a councillor, a colleague said to me—it is politically incorrect to use the example but I shall do so because it is so vivid—"If there is no strategic planning authority, who is going to decide where the gypsy sites go?" That example can equally be applied to questions of mineral extraction and waste disposal. A small authority will naturally resist development—I use the word in its broadest sense in planning jargon—which has an effect on its own area.
There is disquiet too about the shadow period; the regulations to be laid tomorrow have been referred to. It may be useful to flag up what are already actual concerns in the case of East Sussex, which, as the Minister reminded us, is subject to a slightly different regime because of the different arrangements which are to apply. There is the rather loosely worded general duty to co-operate. But local government law is very clear: local authorities are empowered only to do what they are specifically empowered to do. Those authorities which try to transgress the boundaries, as the Government might see them, are sharply rapped on the wrist and told to draw back. It is essential that the transferor authorities as well as the transferees know their position with certainty, if for no other reason than knowing when expenditure on certain activities might be subject to audit challenge.
There is no right in the general regulations for the counties which remain to be consulted by the unitary authorities on how transferred services are to continue to be delivered. As I said, there is simply a duty to co-operate. But if there is a failure to consult, it could mean that the options available are not fully explored and it may turn out that some options have been closed.
Transferring authorities do not have the same rights as transferees to require information. Reference has been made to the exclusion of certain county council councillors from the budget process. I find that quite extraordinary. If councillors were debarred from contributing to decisions about their council budgets where they had a ward or local interest, no budget would ever be set. As my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood pointed out, budget-making is not a matter of taking a snapshot; it is a continuing process. In these days, cash is not pouring out of local authorities' pockets, and indeed, as a matter of good planning, many local authorities set themselves rolling programmes. Only by doing that and by sharing their plans with local
1398
communities over a long period can they have any hope of securing the confidence of those communities that they have a good overall view of what needs to be done.
Those are matters of particular urgency to East Sussex and to the other authorities which will be affected by the regulations to be laid tomorrow. Generalised expressions of good will are not enough. The Government must provide a robust framework and. I add, a framework which is even-handed between the new authorities and the remaining counties.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may first record that I am one of the many vice-presidents of the ADC. Like other noble Lords, I am delighted to welcome the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to the debate on the local government review. He joins it when most of the acrimony and much of the confrontation are over. I am sure he will agree that he could not have arrived at a better time.
The Government and Opposition agree on the need for a sensible exit strategy from what, as many noble Lords have quite rightly said today, has been a chaotic experience. These orders have widespread support and consent. Notwithstanding the remarks about amputated counties from the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, these orders will give unitary powers to those cities which, for the most part, were county boroughs before 1974 and have been running their own affairs for centuries. In my city of Norwich, we ran our affairs for 800 years, whereas the administrative county council has had a life of barely 100 years. So the vocabulary of amputation was perhaps unfortunate.
The orders will restore powers to those cities which have had a long experience of running their own affairs, while allowing the rather more rural parts of the country to remain, at least for the time being, as two-tier authorities. The Labour Party had a name for that in the late 1970s. It was called "organic change". Had the general election not occurred when it did but a few months later, the present proposals might have been achieved then. However, we now look forward to such sensible views being put into practice by a happy meeting of minds.
As we discussed earlier in the year, we see a first move in that direction with the abolition of those counties which were created through shotgun marriages in 1974. This second tranche includes many of the authorities known in the local authority organisations as "the big 11". The remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, and in particular his generosity to our departed former comrade and friend Lord Campbell of Eskan, were very welcome. It would, I know, have given Lord Campbell immense pleasure to know that Milton Keynes was obtaining the ability to manage its own affairs as a result of the orders that we are discussing today.
We hope that fairly soon, in the late autumn or new year, will come the 20-plus authorities which have been newly referred back to the commission. Then, either under this Government or the next, will come a further tranche of authorities, such as Ipswich, Oxford, Lincoln

1399
and Chester, which have good grounds for believing—and very often a long history of evidence to confirm it—that they should have been included in the bids for unitary status. I suspect that further changes, if they occur, will be dependent on constitutional changes. I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, a hope that in due course we shall see democratic regional government in this country.
The Minister has also arrived with a new commission, which is welcome. I hope that it, too, will see the wisdom of this settlement, at least for the time being, of the confusion and antagonism surrounding the unhappy local government review.
This array of orders accepts that city and countryside are different. Managing the city is about managing the problems of density, traffic pollution and population congestion. The problems of more rural areas are essentially those of managing sparsity—for example, the lack of transport or the insufficient number of families to justify maintaining the small village school or rural post office. The hope is that by going for "hybrid" solutions, as we call them—unitary cities within two-tier counties—that essential distinctiveness between town and country will be recognised and with it a recognition that one does not need a tidy, mathematical, uniform solution for local government throughout the country as a whole. Local government is about local difference and recognising the distinctiveness both of local geography, local history and local communities, though the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, was assuredly right when he said that nonetheless we should have had a coherent strategy on this from the beginning.
The local government review has major advantages. First, it will allow the new city authorities to provide much better services. At a time when community care is one of the major responsibilities of local government, housing and social services will be integrated, as will planning and highways. Those noble Lords who have been taking part in recent debates on the disability Bill, will realise the problems caused when a planning authority at district level gives permission for a disability access to be put onto a pavement which the traffic authority, which is the county council, then vetoes as a highways authority. By integrating those responsibilities into one authority, such changes will be more effectively delivered.
The review will allow for the integration of youth and community services. At a time when many young people are unemployed, which may often give rise to anti-social behaviour, that is surely wise. We hope also that the specialist services which currently operate on a country-wide basis (for instance, museums and archives) and which are working well and with consent, should not be fragmented but should go forward on a joint basis—a joint committee, a joint authority. I am confident, and we have plenty of experience to show this, that where joint arrangements are entered into voluntarily by partners of equal weight, they work well. They certainly do in the museums joint authority between my city and the county of Norfolk.
1400
There was discussion earlier in the debate—and it was particularly mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood—about proportionality of police authorities. As I understand it, there will be set numbers of police authorities and the apportionment will be left to local circumstances to decide. Where there is disagreement, the Secretary of State has the last resort power of knocking heads together. It is surely right that where possible the local authorities concerned should come up with their own proposals, provided that the Secretary of State holds backstop powers, which I understand is the situation.
A second advantage of the proposals is that by integrating services—for example, housing and social services—local government in those cities can focus on the needs of the user. It is too often overlooked when talking of pensioners, disabled people or homeless families who need an array of services, that split services means split providers, which means tunnel vision by separate providers. Each provider—the county, the city, the quango or the health authority—tries to export its costs onto another authority in order to keep its own down. The result is often confusion and unacceptable practice.
This integration of services will mean that at the forefront will be the needs of the user of the services—the old person, the disabled person or the homeless family—rather than the needs of the provider and the urge to export its costs to others. There will be no excuse for such behaviour in the future. As a result, these orders will produce better value for money. While some services, like housing and social services or planning and highways, are split but should be integrated, other services, as we know literally to our cost, are concurrent; they overlap; they duplicate. At the moment both districts and counties have overlapping responsibilities for planning. For example, the district is responsible for environmental health, the county for trading standards. When it comes to regulating an open food market, the district environmental health department is responsible if the food is stale, but the county is responsible if the food is underweight. That is absurd. It cannot be sensible to have two sets of authorities, two sets of councillors, two sets of officers, two sets of committees going over the same issue—and all too often coming up with different conclusions. How on earth are ordinary people to know who does what, to what standard and at what price if such confusion prevails?
That brings me to my final reason for welcoming the orders: they will produce in consequence better democratic accountability. The responsibility for all the services will be located in city hall. Voters in the new unitary authorities will know precisely who is taking the decisions and who to hold to account if the decisions made and the moneys spent are not to their satisfaction; they can vote them out. If we are to rebuild healthy local government—the recent commission on local democracy was right to emphasise this—it can best be done where the lines of accountability and responsibility for who does what are clear and unambiguous. In two-tier structures there can never be clear accountability. As all the surveys show, even now, 21

1401
years after the 1974 reorganisation, people do not know who delivers what service. If they do not know who delivers what service, they cannot hold their councillors responsible for it. That is a fact.
We greatly welcome the orders. With the exception of minor boundary changes at Stoke to include the Wedgwood factory, and with the major exception of Brighton and Hove, these authorities are going ahead on existing boundaries. There is no expansion and aggrandisement at the expense of neighbours. It means, again with the exception of Brighton and Hove, that we will not need shadow authorities but nonetheless will properly have all-out elections. As my noble friend Lady Gould said, Brighton and Hove are very much part of an integrated economic community.
The average size of the population in the new authorities is something like 187,000 which is larger than many existing unitary authorities in London and in the Mets. They are clearly competent to run their own affairs even though population size is a good indicator of that. They all have widespread popular support, as tested by the opinion polls and qualitative surveys; all have all-party support in their localities; all have clear and long-standing identities.
In relation to costs, in all the authorities it is clear that the Local Government Commission and the Audit Commission expect the transitional costs to be repaid within three to five years and thereafter there should be cost savings, though, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridgeman, said, it is right to emphasise that proper arrangements for funding those transitional costs for both district and county should be made. My only regret is that the staff, who bear the true cost of the reorganisation, have not even now been given the financial protection that they had in 1986 when the Met. counties were abolished. However, the ADC and the ACC agreement for 100 per cent. transfers will, I hope, continue to be honoured.
On financial matters, many noble Lords raised the concern that they hope and expect the standard spending assessment to be adjusted appropriately. We need clear assurances on that from the Minister. It is a matter of particular concern, for example, in Portsmouth; it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Murton, on behalf of Poole and I am sure that it was shared by all the authorities concerned.
These orders will create strong, confident city authorities. They will now have the full range of local authority functions and responsibilities. They can look forward to a vibrant future and I am sure that we wish them well. However, I hope—and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was absolutely right—that as we get the structure of local government finally into shape, we can begin the even more important argument and debate as to its functions and constitutional standing. Without a healthy local democracy, political citizenship in this country will not flourish.
4.39 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for giving such a welcome to these orders from the Front Bench opposite. I hope that this will be a prelude to the many
1402
occasions when she will agree with what the Government are doing. She is right in saying that for local authorities to run properly there has to be local democracy. That is what these measures are about.
I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, for his tribute to my noble friend Lord Ullswater, always the most courteous and considerate of Ministers. He was a ministerial colleague of mine; I know that his reputation is of great substance. I am grateful for that acknowledgement from the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft.
My noble friend Lord Murton graciously said that he hoped that I did not find these matters too complicated. They are complicated. My noble friend Lord Finsberg said that he had been in this House for three years and in that time I had been in three different jobs. I was thinking only this afternoon that in the past 12 months I have represented three different departments, which is rather odd, having been for six years in the Home Office. One moved from a position of relative solidity—I do not believe that that is the right word—to one of relative rapidity. Whether that is a good or bad thing I do not know.
The noble Lord said that I reminded him of Pooh-Bah. I say to him that as I entered my new department, my thoughts were much more akin to "The Nightmare" song of Gilbert and Sullivan, which, I believe, runs like this:

"When you're lying awake

With a dismal headache,

With your eyeballs and head

Ever aching,

Your slumbering teems

With such horrible dreams

You had very much better be waking.

For you dream you are crossing the Channel,

And tossing about in a steamer from Harwich

Which is something between a large bathing machine

And a very small second class carriage".

or words to that effect.
Noble Lords: More!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate. I was delighted to give that rendition, but it will not happen very often. It crossed my mind as being very appropriate on entering an enormous department. I shall discover, no doubt, that I wake up and find everything is sweetness and light.
I am grateful for the fact that so many noble Lords approve of the orders. Many have spoken of areas with which they are familiar. It is an upheaval in many respects and it is not uniform. It cannot be uniform because life is not uniform throughout the country. The whole purpose is to try to get better local government and better value for money in government. Local government should be closer to the people. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for saying that at last there is cross-party agreement about the two systems of local government in the single tier and two-tier systems.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, did not approve. My noble friend Lord Selborne said that he was a two-tier man. Those arc perfectly understandable reactions. This is a controversial matter. As the noble

1403
Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, I arrive in the department when a great deal of the acrimony and consultation is over. It is difficult when one makes changes to local authorities in which people have had great faith, pleasure and comfort. But time moves on. We have to recognise that in order to make local authorities more accountable and closely allied to people it is necessary to have these changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said that illogicality by my right honourable friend was exceeded only by inconsistency. That was a fairly spiky observation. If the noble Lord wants consistency one gets inflexibility: if one wants flexibility one is accused of inconsistency. There has been a great deal of discussion about these matters. I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, approves of Brighton and Hove now being considered economically as one. She said that it made good sense, and I think it is.
I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for the fact that I spoke too quickly. I do not think that that is a peculiarity normally ascribed to me. It may have been the result of one of those encouraging bon mots which the Chief Whip expressed to me just before I rose to speak. He said that he hoped that I had a short speech. That may have put my loquacity into overdrive. But the fact that the noble Earl could not understand all that I said is a cause of great distress to me. I shall try to answer some of his concerns.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said that she saw me here with a certain amount of trepidation. I assure her that she need feel no trepidation at all. I am always sweetness and light. For the expedition of our discussions it would be very helpful if she were always in fear and trepidation of me because then she would not ask me nasty questions and expect me to answer them.
Both the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Selborne were concerned about the cost of continuing the county council. Any transitional costs, such as the set-up costs which are incurred by the county council, can be met by borrowing. For many of these costs we have worked out special arrangements so that repayment need not start for three years by which time the county may have been able to make some savings as a result of reorganisation or will have been able to plan well ahead to meet those costs. The cost of servicing such costs will be very small in relation to a county's budget.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, was also concerned about Regulation 6 excluding the county councillors from budgeting. That is in the general regulations, not in the individual orders. We consulted in June on the draft general regulations. According to Regulation 6, where county councils are to become unitary areas, councillors should not take part in setting budgets for the year after reorganisation. I do not believe it right that councillors should be able to determine a budget for what is in effect a different council. This matter was discussed in another place only last week. I believe that there was general acceptance in principle on that point. We expect to lay the regulations tomorrow.
1404
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, were concerned about membership of the police authorities in Bedfordshire and Hampshire. Local authority members of police authorities are selected by a joint committee of the authorities concerned. I remember with very considerable feeling when that measure went through your Lordships' House some 12 months ago. The selection of members must reflect the political balance across the area as a whole, otherwise the local authorities will have a free hand. For instance, Luton may have no entitlement to a fixed number of seats. It is up to the good sense of the committee to work out how that is to come about. The joint committee is formed by the authorities by mutual agreement. If they fail to agree, the Home Secretary has reserve powers to appoint the joint committee members, but he has never exercised those powers and he does not expect to do so.
The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, expressed concern about lord lieutenants and high sheriffs. I believe that that was the moment when my speech may have been delivered too quickly for the noble Earl to keep pace. We shall be making separate provision for them in general regulations. Under them each unitary authority which is created under the orders will be deemed to be part of the relevant historic county for ceremonial and related purposes. I believe that is said slowly enough for the noble Earl to absorb. Therefore, jurisdiction will remain with the lord lieutenant and the high sheriff of the county. The regulations will be made at the earliest possible opportunity after April next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, was concerned that we were being one-sided against the county council. We do not have any intention of being one-sided and I do not believe that we have been. One of our main principles is that we should be prescriptive only when that is unavoidable. We do not believe that a successful reorganisation will be helped by an increasing level of regulation. In fact, our intention is that, rather than binding the hands of local government, councillors and officers should be allowed to use their detailed professional practical knowledge to take forward the preparation for reorganisation in the way they believe to be most suitable to local circumstances.
In many ways, the most important two provisions are those imposing a duty to co-operate and giving all authorities involved the power to start preparations. The provisions apply equally to the county and district councils. Where there is a further provision, it is because there are specific points which need to be addressed. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to extend the scope of the provisions beyond what is necessary. The unitary authorities arc given a right to information, for instance, because they will need information which might otherwise be covered by the data protection requirements, whereas transferors will not he in that position.
My noble friends Lord Murton and Lord Harmsworth and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the standard spending assessment. For a unitary authority, the standard spending assessment will take account of its new functions. The amount of SSA that it will get for its new functions will be determined after

1405
consultation with the unitary authority and the continuing county. We shall consult authorities on the disaggregation of the SSA in a reorganised county. That exercise will be concerned only with disaggregating the SSA for the county. Any other proposals, such as those relating to rural areas, for change to the SSA will be considered in each year's finance settlement and the authorities can, as usual, make such proposals at any time.
My noble friends Lord Selborne and Lord Bridgeman were concerned about the start-up costs of the amputated county councils. I think I can reassure my noble friends that the remaining county council can also apply for supplementary credit approvals to meet set-up costs. Special arrangements are made so that in many cases borrowings need not be repaid for some years. That will enable authorities to realise any savings or receipts from reorganisation or to plan well ahead to meet them. In any case, the costs of meeting the borrowings cannot be significant in terms of the counties' overall budgets. I can assure my noble friends that authorities will have an opportunity to comment on the arrangements for 1996 and later years. We shall he consulting on them later in the summer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned about the costs for continuing counties and about supplementary credit approvals. We have made £50 million available for supplementary credit approvals for 1994–95. We shall decide resources for 1996–97 as part of next year's finance settlement. I can reassure the noble Baroness that county councils can apply for supplementary credit approvals. We have said that we are considering extending the eligibility period for continuing counties. With regard to on-going costs, that must be a matter for the on-going authority. In any event, I doubt whether the costs will be found to be significant even in the context of a reduced county's budget.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for supporting the orders so generously. Of course, they are a change from what has happened before, but the fact that the noble Baroness, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, with myself speaking on behalf of the Government and others tend to feel that the result, change though it will he, will bring better accountability and better local authority representation and performance, is a good thing and is encouraging. I am grateful for your Lordships' support and commend the draft orders to the House—
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, would he be kind enough to answer the question on advice notes for structure plans because that is an extremely important part of the new arrangements for both existing county councils and the new counties?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl for not having done that. However, as it is a slightly technical question, perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to write to him about it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Film and Television Industry: ECC Report
4.54 p.m.
Lord Elibank Lord Elibank rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the European Film and Television Industry (Eighth Report, HL Paper 45).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing this report on audio-visual activity and the audio-visual industry in Europe, perhaps I may first thank all those who have contributed to it. I refer not only to the members of the sub-committee because we are also particularly grateful to two Members of your Lordships' House, the noble Lords, Lord Hollick and Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I am glad that the latter is to participate in the debate. It is also right that we should thank our specialist adviser, Mr. John Sanderson, who led us through what for most of us was pretty new territory which we approached with great caution. I should like to think that by the time we came to write the report, we could consider ourselves reasonably well-informed. I thank finally our then Clerk, Dr. Philippa Tudor, who made all the administrative arrangements and was largely responsible for producing the draft of the report.
It is easy to think of the audio-visual industry as a glamorous and frothy activity. It is most certainly glamorous, but it is not frothy. If we consider first what is perhaps the most important point, its effect on employment, your Lordships will see what I mean. It is very difficult to try to assess the employment figures relating to audio-visual activity because it is very difficult to say who is employed and who is not. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will treat with a certain caution any figures produced under that heading. However, the Commission suggests that about 2 million people are employed at the moment, with the expectation that that will increase to about 4 million—that is, the number will double. That is a notable contribution to a continent which is suffering grievously from under-employment. Most of the traditional industrial and service activities are shedding jobs. On the other hand, the audio-visual sector is increasing in importance, productivity and employment and as such deserves the support not only of this country and this Government, but of other governments in Europe.
It is difficult to break down the audio-visual sector into its separate parts, but one must try to do so. There are films, television productions, videos and others. I found it surprising to learn what a predominant part video production played in the overall scheme. In fact, 20 per cent. of the revenue generated by a typically successful film comes from cinema exhibitions, with 20 per cent. from television, 50 per cent. from video leasing and purchases and another 10 per cent. from ancillary sources. So, the production of films is interwoven with other forms of exhibition, and the revenue to be obtained from them is similarly interwoven.
One of the most discussed aspects of the industry, particularly on the television side, is the issue of quotas. That issue is still alive and, as far as I know, has not yet

1407
been resolved. It dates back some seven or eight years to when an effort was made to produce and to show more European-based productions on television. That became a directive which insisted that 51 per cent. of all productions shown on television should be of European origin "where practical". That phrase was a great let-out and the source of a great deal of controversy. That is how the position stands at the moment. The exclusion or limiting clause is under attack from many countries in continental Europe.
This country always takes a fairly pragmatic and commercial view of television productions. Almost without exception, all the witnesses who appeared before the committee took the same view. One has to have at least some sympathy with other countries in Europe, in particular France, which are leading the fight for the maintenance of quotas, and which see themselves deluged under a flood of Anglo-Saxon productions—95 per cent. or more of which are of course American—as compared with ourselves. We are, and have been traditionally, anti any form of quota, but the French, and many other continental countries, see quotas as the bastion of the defence of their culture which, rightly, is of importance to them.
The committee considered the quota issue and came to the conclusion that quotas were undesirable and unworkable. They are undesirable because they are in essence a form of censorship. They insist that the adult viewer should see 51 per cent. of European productions which may not be to his taste. They also stimulate the promotion of what are sometimes known as "quota quickies", which are effectively rubbish. They meet the quota stipulation and are shown on television to justify the station's ration of European productions. All in all, we thought them very undesirable.
Quotas are also becoming increasingly unworkable. They were first thought of when there were just four terrestrial channels in this country and a similar broadcasting capability in the rest of Europe. Since then, things have changed dramatically. With cable and satellite television, one can now see something between 40 and 50 channels in this country. With the advent of digital technology, that figure is due to increase to something like 500 channels.
With that bewildering array of entertainment and information being transmitted onto the television screen of the average citizen, it seemed to us impossible to try to set a quota which would adequately cover those various transmissions. So we share Her Majesty's Government's view that quotas are, in every sense, undesirable, and we hope that the Government will continue their spirited resistance to their imposition.
Financial incentives form another subject where we tend to differ from our European allies. On the Continent, it is commonplace to offer subsidies of one type or another for film productions. There are, for example, levies on cinema attendance—all the money going into the pot for national film production. We heard a good deal of evidence from various witnesses to the effect that in several countries many of the films produced under this system were mediocre to the extent that they were never seen by anyone. Another tranche
1408
was seen but was made up of poor films, by anyone's standard. They did not recoup the money invested in them. Subsidies for film production are an unattractive way of trying to stimulate business.
However, we looked at various tax concessions. As your Lordships will see, in the report we recommended a modest tax concession; that is to say, the right to write off production costs in the space of one year rather than three years would be a sensible change in the law and the regulations.
One must face the fact that film production as such is a competitive business. If a producer—he will commonly be an American—seeks to make a film about, say, Brazil, he may choose to make it in Brazil, but he will be looking at the financial regulations obtaining in alternative countries where the film could be produced, and at the technological back-up in those countries. A film about Brazil could be made equally well in Canada, Thailand, South Africa or the Highlands of Scotland. We are competing for business in a global market. If we wish to stimulate the production of films in this country and to obtain our share—preferably more than our share—of the production that is going, it may well be necessary to make some adjustment.
Lord Harmar-Nicolls: My Lords, how does the tax condcession that my noble friend is now commending compare with what the French give to their film industry?
Lord Elibank: My Lords, very modestly indeed. The French give a great deal of money in subsidies and taxes, and impose levies on entrance to cinemas, and produce, I think, the largest subsidy pot in Europe. Anything we could do in the direction that I have been suggesting would be of the most modest order in comparison. Whether it would be enough is a matter for debate. But there is no doubt that we will have to compete in the global market.
There are of course subsidies to the generality of European production—the MEDIA II programme. There was of course a MEDIA I programme but that has been supplemented by the MEDIA II programme to which the Government are of course contributing. There is 50 per cent. more going into MEDIA II than went into MEDIA I, and so an encouraging effort is being made. I could spend a great deal longer on that issue if time permitted. It is small money in total. It amounts to 310 million ecus, I believe. Whereas that is a useful contribution, it will not be a sufficient incentive to lure the big producers to Europe or to this country.
I wish to say a word or two about copyright. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, has given me notice that he intends to raise, and indeed I think to criticise, some of the committee's conclusions. It will be interesting to hear his point of view. Copyright is extremely important, and so is the reverse side of the same coin—piracy.
Most people who produce an artistic creation want to make money. There are exceptions: academics put things on the Internet free just for the benefit of their academic brothers. Most people who produce anything of artistic significance want money for it. If that production is not protected. they will not produce it. The

1409
issue of copyright is important. It has also become a great deal more difficult because of the multiplicity of channels to which I referred earlier. Of course they include the Internet which is a fact of life with which it is difficult for someone of my generation to come to grips. Its immensity and complication will make the issue of copyright difficult.
There are broadly two systems of copyright: the Anglo-Saxon one which provides for copyright of a production to vest in the producer, and the continental one which provides for it to vest in the author, the director, the producer and actors, not just for their lifetimes but for periods after their death. It seemed to us that the Anglo-Saxon system of vesting the copyright in the producer was the simplest and most direct one, and it is the one we recommend. Which system is adopted is second in importance to its efficiency. We must produce copyright in modern audio-vision which works and which encourages people to produce the kind of material that we would want to see.
The future for audio-vision, not just in this country but in Europe, is extraordinarily exciting. There is a bewildering variety and it is developing at a remarkable speed. It offers prospects for an increase in knowledge and entertainment beyond the grasp of most of us. For that reason, it is most important that any legislation, directives or rules which we produce for the audio-visual industry should, as far as possible, relate to the future and not be an attempt to regulate yesterday's world.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the European Film and Television Industry (Eighth Report, H.L. Paper 45).—(Lord Elibank.)
5.10 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate although I was not a member of the committee. Therefore, I start with both thanks and apology to the noble Lord, Lord Elibank. The thanks are to him and his committee for producing a report, which I have read, which was wide-ranging and extremely interesting. My apology is because I intend to raise a matter which is not covered by the report. I do not say that in any way as a matter of criticism but it is a matter of great interest to the Periodical Publishers Association, which has asked me to raise the matter.
The association has asked me to raise the subject because I am its vice-president, as is the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. It is an unpaid post although I should tell the House that tomorrow the association will he entertaining me to lunch. That is not at all because I am making this intervention but because it is its annual general meeting and vice-presidents are expected and, indeed, bound to attend.
The matter which the PPA has asked me to raise and on which I shall speak is what is known as the brand extension of magazines, especially the extension of masthead programming across Europe; that is, the adaptation of existing magazine or newspaper titles into television programmes. Such television programmes are produced by and bear the name of the magazine or newspaper concerned. That would meet at least one of
1410
the objectives of the sub-committee's report; that is, incentives to invest in programmes and movements towards deregulation and liberalisation.
However, there is a problem. The ITC interprets the sponsorship clause of the television without frontiers directive in such a way as to prevent publishers commissioning programmes for independent television which have the same name as a magazine or newspaper title. On the other hand, the BBC is not limited in that way. It can exploit its programmes by publishing magazines with the same name which then complement the programmes. For example, "Gardeners' World" is the name of a BBC programme and a successful periodical. On the other hand, Practical Gardening—a magazine—cannot produce independent television programmes entitled "Practical Gardening". Therefore, the BBC has a head start in an arena which is of some importance to the magazine publishing industry.
The situation throughout Europe is confused because the rules vary from country to country. Masthead programming is perfectly legal in Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy and possibly France, although there is some ambiguity in that country, as is not unusual. It is permissible also in the United States although it is forbidden in Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, newspapers and magazines are governed by some of the most stringent regulations to apply anywhere in Europe.
This is a matter of creating equal opportunities for owners of intellectual property so that they may exploit that property across media, whether magazines or television, without unnecessary restrictions. The intention is not to promote a brand name but to exploit intellectual property. Editorial involvement in the programme content means that the publisher is the provider of intellectual material and he is not seeking to promote the brand name. Therefore, masthead programming is quite a different concept from sponsorship. I merely wish to ask the Minister to look at that problem. I am not asking the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, to worry about it in his reply at the end of the debate.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. I have no doubt that we shall see him nodding benignly towards us from time to time. His predecessor was good enough to look at the problem and he asked for some information about the situation in Europe and that information is now available. Today I am merely asking the Minister to give an assurance that he will look at the issue at the earliest opportunity with a view to giving British publishers the same freedom to exploit the commercial multi-media world which television broadcasters already have.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, will forgive me if I do not follow him by dealing with the extremely interesting question which he raised. I am bound to say that when watching television I have thought that the BBC. which has no advertising at all, manages to advertise periodicals associated with the BBC with great ingenuity. Not for the first time, the rules of the ITC

1411
seem to be stricter than those which apply to the BBC. However, I shall say no more about that save to say to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that speaking as a member of the Nolan Committee I exonerate him fully in relation to the lunch which he is to attend tomorrow and I hope that he deservedly enjoys it.
Like other noble Lords who are to speak in the debate, I wish to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, and the Members of Sub-Committee B for a report which is highly informative on a subject the details of which are not widely known. It is one of the few subjects about which I know a little and I believe that the report is full of sound common sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Elibank, invited me to give evidence to the sub-committee, which I was happy to do. He asked me some extremely pertinent and succinct questions and when I reread my evidence I was rather dismayed to see how long-winded were my replies. I shall try to do better this evening. I shall concentrate on one or two aspects of the report relating to television and my noble friend Lord Falkland will concentrate on the film side of the report about which he has considerable expertise.
My starting point is that broadcasting is more than an important part of a high-technology and high-growth industry. More than any other communications medium, it shapes the social values and cultural climate of our society. How could it be otherwise when, according to the statistics, people spend on average 23 hours per week in front of the television screen? I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on his new appointment. I know that his Secretary of State is especially conscious of the impact of television on children and on their attitude to the world in which they live.
Therefore, I begin by saying how glad I am that the report chided the commission on overlooking in the Green Paper the vitally important role of public service broadcasting. The committee said that public service broadcasting,
"entails secure funding at an adequate level by national governments".
I commend those words to the new Minister on the Front Bench at a time when the Government are drafting the new BBC Charter and Agreement.
It is dangerous for European Union governments to get into the mood of believing that the so-called "digital revolution", with its potential of up to 500 channels, will absolve them from the responsibility for the quality of their traditional public service channels with their deep-rooted and familiar appeal. The report is absolutely right to say that you cannot, Canute-like, turn back the tide of technology. But you can harness a tide and navigate on it to a consciously planned destination. There is no need to drown in a tide of technology.
The new cable and satellite channels at their best are a complement to the balanced diversity of the public service channels in western Europe. They can provide useful theme channels of 24-hour news services, special sports channels, special music channels and teleshopping channels; indeed, all that adds to the range
1412
of choice. However, it would be a disaster if they were allowed to drive public service broadcasting in Europe, as we know it, out of existence.
I venture a prophesy: when the day comes when there are potentially 500 channels at our fingertips with our remote controls I suspect that most of us will find that 10 or 12 of them meet all the normal needs that we have. In my judgment, our national channels can remain the heartland of that broadcaster's dozen—provided governments and professional broadcasters keep their nerve.
What then is the European Union dimension in all this? I believe that your Lordships' committee got the balance about right in paragraph 116 of its Opinion. There the committee argued:
"The primary responsibility for attempting to regulate the European audiovisual industry rests with Member States … The Commission's … role [is] helping to establish 'a framework in which the industry can flourish'".
My own views on where national policies need supplementing with Community policies are, I must say, set out most generously in paragraph 36 of the report. They do not include subsidising pan-European programming which, in my view, is best left to professional broadcasters and, in most cases, best left alone altogether. However, there is a role for the European Union to subsidise and fund new dubbing techniques in order to bridge the language barriers which are one of the inherent handicaps of Western Europe within the global economy.
There is a need for European Union law on cross-media ownership to supplement national law and prevent excessive concentrations of economic power. Very recently, Italy had a Prime Minister who owned half of Italy's television systems; indeed, he owned and controlled that half and used it both to become, and to remain, Prime Minister. Now, Rupert Murdoch is riding to the rescue with proposals to add an Italian province to his global media empire.
On another front, Mr. Murdoch's undoubted enterprise has given him a dominating position in encryption technology—that is, the little black box which unscrambles signals for subscribers to a particular channel. As those channels proliferate and develop, none of us wants to have a proliferation of little black boxes on top of our television set competing with the family pictures and the Staffordshire china. Turner Broadcasting System, which gave evidence to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, was absolutely right to say that what was needed was,
"a standardised European encryption system".
However, if there is to be such a standardised system, what is also needed, in terms of competition, is that European competition law must ensure that programme providers should not also be the gate-keepers deciding the level of the toll to be paid by potential competitors. There is a major issue here both as regards the United Kingdom and the European Union as a whole.
Then there is the question of the present quota system to which the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, referred. Your Lordships' committee made a strong case for the abolition of those quotas at European level. However, it should be remembered that programme quotas have

1413
always been deeply embedded in our national legislation; that they remain there; and that they have in fact worked very well. The quota issue is a difficult and complicated one.
I would prefer to tackle the problem from the other end. Rigid quotas, particularly at the European Union level, undoubtedly deter new entrants, and that is wrong. That has been BSkyB's strongest case for a period of exemption from the programme obligations of our domestic broadcasters who are its competitors.
I do not want to intrude into that private quarrel which has been going on between Channel 4 and BSkyB about their respective contributions to the British film industry. However, the figures that were put forward recently by Channel 4's Director of Programmes, Mr. John Willis, were revealing. He claimed that BSkyB's income in 1994 was 50 per cent. greater than that of Channel 4. Yet, Channel 4 invested £179 million in new productions—85 per cent. of its total programme budget. But BSkyB, according to Mr. Willis,
"has made only negligible investments in new commissions … preferring instead to recycle existing material".
BSkyB's own enterprise—and it has been enterprising—and also its privileged, protected position has now put it in profit. Surely the time has come in next year's broadcasting legislation to level that playing field in regard to original programme making.
I was much attracted to the proposal put forward to the committee by the witness from Turner Broadcasting System for a European policy for the new cable and satellite broadcasters that would be fair also to traditional broadcasters; namely, an investment quota based on net revenues for original programmes. The committee rather dismissed that idea feeling that it would be difficult to monitor. I believe that fear to be exaggerated. In an industry that is well accustomed to being monitored pretty closely for levies, and so on, I should have thought that it could be adequately monitored.
I have one final word to say about the global sales potential of the European audio-visual industry because, as the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, said, that is of great importance in terms of potential employment. The BBC is proud to be Europe's largest exporter of programming around the world. Of course, that is building on the splendid reputation of the BBC World Radio Service and it is now a world television service. In India, for example, its success is rather embarrassing and it has become a more popular television service than the Indian National Television Service. That does great credit to the BBC.
Commercial television is also expanding its worldwide sales. ITV's domestic strength lies in its regional companies, but 15 separate companies, which can be a richness for us on the domestic front, can be a handicap in terms of international selling. I notice that Mr. Ward Thomas, a veteran of ITV and now chairman and chief executive of Yorkshire Television, has been seeking to correct that by setting up a joint venture of a number of all ITV companies. There is the prospect of a single overseas sales consortium of ITV companies to
1414
match the BBC's sales efforts. All that would undoubtedly be in our national interest within the European audio-visual industry.
However, the challenge for both the BBC and ITV is a formidable one. The United States dominates the international market place, but it very much likes to have it both ways. The United States complains bitterly about any European protectionism. However, at the same time there are elusive and effective non-tariff barriers of practice and habit by the great American networks which make it extremely difficult for European broadcasters, and even for British broadcasters without a language barrier, to penetrate that marketplace. I am therefore rather cautious in believing that the global marketplace for audio-visual programme material, while not unimportant, will be a great saviour of the western European economy in the future. I would be careful about that. However, having said that, Britain within the European Union starts with a big advantage in the international audio-visual marketplace of sharing a world language with the Americans. Certainly it is much in our national interest to make the most of that advantage.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I speak in this debate as a member of the Sub-committee which prepared the report before the House. I first wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, for his admirable chairmanship of our committee and for the skilful way in which he conducted it. We are all greatly in his debt.
What we are dealing with here is a small corner of a large subject. This is, as we all know, the age of the moving image and the screen. The printed page, which has been the means of diffusing knowledge and circulating information ever since the invention of movable type, is giving way to this new form of media. We all know this to be true and accept the concept; but the full dimension of the change is rather more difficult to grasp. Those of us who were brought up on the study of books and taught to operate in a literary society do not find it easy to transfer to the new technology and all it brings with it. I suspect, too, that governments suffer from something of the same difficulty. Their responsibilities are changing also, and it is not easy to recognise at first sight how governments should respond to the new circumstances. I suggest that the first step for us all, whether individuals or governments, is to accept the famous dictum of Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message, and that this has been fulfilled more completely than he could have imagined at the time of his death in 1980.
What, then, is the role of the European Union in forming policy on audio-visual matters? The Commission's paper does not perhaps address this question directly. The Department of National Heritage deals with some of the individual issues in its recent glossy document replying to the Select Committee in another place; but the previous Secretary of State's reply to our report also avoids discussion of that central question. I do not blame him for that as the definition and allotment of responsibility, both within our country and in relation to the European Union, is not at all

1415
simple. However, there is one aspect on which the situation is reasonably clear; namely, the responsibility, which our Government have for long exercised, over the supervision of television in this country. The statutes put responsibility for the terrestrial channels clearly in the hands of government in the last resort. The Government are responsible for broadcasting policy and that is relevant to our policy in Europe.
However, the Government have a much more limited interest in the world of the film, which is regarded in this country much as any other form of industry. There is broad surveillance, benevolent supervision and sometimes a little money. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, has remarked, in continental Europe the situation is different. National film production in France, Italy, and I believe also in Spain, is regarded as a vital part of their living culture, which they take significant measures to promote and protect.
I also note that the treaty on European Union has brought some fresh responsibilities to the Community. Previously, cultural issues were not part of the Treaty of Rome. This was altered at Maastricht, when Article 3 of the treaty—the article which sets out the broad activities of the Community—was enlarged to include the following phrase,
"a contribution to education and training of quality and to the flowering of cultures of the member states".
If one is not clear what this means, one may turn to Title IX of the treaty, which sets out, in Article 128, a general description of the cultural activities of the Union in somewhat less elliptical language. These new responsibilities of the Union are worth bearing in mind as the Green Paper is one of the first policy documents produced by the Commission in the cultural field since the Treaty of Maastricht.
The general view of the Sub-committee on this broad question of who does what in the cultural field was that the chief role of the Community in the audio-visual sector should be to improve the operation of the market. We had no confidence in the quota system for films shown on television, nor in levies on cinema tickets to finance film production. However, we supported the practical emphasis of the MEDIA II programme, which has now been approved by the Council, although at a rather lower level than first proposed by the Commission. We also suggested some improved tax relief to encourage film production in this country. With the exception of that latter point, the Government reacted positively to our report.
I should like to add two more personal comments. First, I want to oppose the argument advanced by many that the progress of technology is so inexorable that government policy in this area should be absolutely minimal. It is argued that any attempt to thwart, control or divert the limitless possibilities of the new technologies is a waste of time—in other words, technology wins. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I believe that this overstates the case. Government do have a direct responsibility for television, and can, if they choose, determine the way
1416
in which telephony, television and video-on-demand relate to each other. This looks like being a crucial factor in Europe as well as in our particular market.
The underlying cause of change in television is the extensive increase in the number of channels as the result of digitalisation and satellite broadcasting. It is my observation that television is an area of life where Gresham's Law operates. Diversity does not in itself encourage quality: rather, bad programmes drive out good. Here I beg to disagree with the Government's evidence presented to the committee. In particular I suggest that much more should be done, in Europe and on our own initiative, to exercise some degree of supervision over satellite broadcasting. I suggest that it would be in our own interest to do that, and to exercise some control and restraint over the number of digital channels made available for terrestrial broadcasting in this country. Failure to act will inevitably undermine the existing networks in this country—both BBC and commercial. As these stations are among the very best in Europe, we should not underestimate the danger and the effect.
It may be the case—it is a melancholy thought—that the golden age of television in this country is now drawing to its end. However, we do not want and do not need to accelerate its demise by accepting the proposition that everything which is technically possible must be encouraged. The example of American television, with its great diversity of channels and almost uniformly low quality, is the dreaded example which we seem bound to follow on our present course. I suggest that this is a field where there is a European dimension, particularly as regards the use of satellite television. We would do well to encourage some greater activity at the European level. We could begin by doing more to stop the diffusion of pornographic television programmes beamed at this country from continental Europe. It is one thing for a member state to allow such programmes in its own country, but quite another to permit their diffusion abroad. I recognise that the Government have achieved a satisfactory result in the case of the "Red Hot Dutch" programme, and I have read in the newspaper that they are taking measures as regards the new threat of the "Erotica" programme which is beamed to this country. I believe that more European powers, rather than relying on the goodwill of other broadcasting nations, would be in place here.
My second and final suggestion concerns media concentration, covered in paragraphs 143 and 144 of our report. This matter, although mentioned in our report, was not covered in the then Secretary of State's reply in his letter of 6th June to the chairman of the Select Committee. I believe that there have been developments since our report was written, and I understand that some further action by the Government may now be proposed, and I welcome that.
My purpose in referring to this matter today is to point out that we are not the only country in Europe where this issue arises. Obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, it is an issue of acute political concern in Italy, even after the recent referendum there. The Sub-committee took evidence from Frau Junker, the rapporteur of the European Parliament on the Green Paper. She spoke clearly to us about the need for both

1417
European and national legislation on media concentration so as to place some limits on the operations of large international media companies—she named Bertelsmann as an example—and to prevent undue concentration of power in their hands. Such legal controls already exist in the United States, where they have existed for some years.
If we look at the wider scene internationally, raising our eyes for a moment from the anxieties that may exist about the position here, it will be seen that the difficulty is widespread. The best approach may be, as Frau Junker suggested, action at both international and national level. It would be easier for European governments to take some limited and responsible measures to prevent abuse in this area if it could be shown to follow from a broad understanding in the European Union of the nature of the problem and the best way of handling it.
The Green Paper touches on only a few of the large issues which arise when we consider this important subject. I am certain that its international aspects will continue to grow. I hope that the Government will be able to play a positive role when the next version of the paper is presented by the Commission.
There is perhaps some lingering hesitation on our part whenever questions of European cultural policy arise. In the past—and I speak of something which happened a good many years ago—I noticed that our representatives became uneasy when the subject came up for discussion. That impression was confirmed when the representative of another European country asked me why it was that we seemed instinctively to react like an infamous Nazi leader at the mention of the word "culture". That person, it will be remembered, once said that when he heard the word "culture" he reached for his revolver. I was taken aback by that remark and had to explain, rather slowly and painstakingly, that the two situations were entirely different. The Nazis knew exactly what was intended when the word "culture" was mentioned, and they disliked the concept exceedingly; whereas in Britain the word often conveys little meaning, only recently having arrived in our language. For those above a certain age it might be taken to mean a fungus which grows on a saucer in a laboratory. To underline my point I introduced my friend to the work of T. S. Eliot, and in particular to his perhaps insufficiently known work with the revealing title Notes towards the definition of Culture published in the 1950s.
We have come a very long way since then and we now understand what the word "culture" means. All of us who have heard the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, speak in this House in the past two years will feel sure that he will prove a confident and clear-headed representative at meetings on European cultural matters. I am also hopeful that he will understand the importance of the European cultural dimension. We are part of that and can contribute to it and benefit from it.
5.43 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Elibank both for chairing our committee and for initiating the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson
1418
of Monifieth, is on the Nolan Committee, I must at once, with great trepidation, declare an interest, which is that I have worked in film and television for 30 years.
I believe that all of us on the sub-committee found the Commission's Green Paper on audio-visual policy a bit of a handful because it is so diffuse. For a start, there is a huge difference between film and television. But if one extends the phrase "audio-visual" further, into Nintendo, computer games, twisted pairs, video on demand, digital compression and the like, it becomes as diffuse as shoes and ships and ceiling wax and cabbages and kings, almost too diffuse to debate. Therefore, in order to be vaguely helpful in this debate I shall confine my remarks to traditional film and television, but even those two are completely different.
We start in the United Kingdom with this difference. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, we watch 23 hours of television a week. We watch two films a year. The money matches the habit. The BBC's income is some £1.5 billion a year. The British Screen Finance Corporation produces about £3 million a year, and that is not a gift, merely a loan. Therefore, I take issue with the response to the Kaufman Report by my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for National Heritage in the glossy document which has just been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. In that document the Government paint a glowing picture of the film industry showing how the number of films and admissions have doubled since 1984. However, they start from such a low base. In 1984 we watched only one film a year. Now we watch a mere two.
I almost prefer the cynicism of Michael Winner, who defines the British film industry as follows:
"It has three strands. The 'Carry on' series, the 'Doctor in the House' series, and the Hammer House of Horror".
That is all, qua industry. We have made many brilliant single films: "The Third Man", "Chariots of Fire", "The Bridge over the River Kwai" and the two "Henry V" films by Olivier and Branagh. Many of them win awards. Fewer of them make money. To my great dismay I have just discovered that our beloved Ealing comedies lost money and bankrupted Michael Balcon's Ealing Studios.
The Americans control our distribution system. It is unfair, but it is a bitter reality. In 1993 American films captured 94 per cent. of our box office receipts while we captured a paltry 2.5 per cent. The Americans may have a monopoly of distribution, but they are very good at exporting product. Other European film industries resemble our own. French, German, Italian and Spanish films just about scratch a living in their own countries, but they do not do as well as American imports. French films are highly subsidised. If my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who interjected while my noble friend Lord Elibank was opening the debate, happens to read my speech he will find that the French film industry produces many a lame duck of a film which never even reaches a French screen. A staggering 60 per cent. of French films arc never shown anywhere. They are simply too boring. The top 10 films shown in France are mainly American.

1419
What Europe can and does do well is to service American films. Last Wednesday I was at Shepperton. The place was alive with activity. The main film they are shooting there is "Muppet Treasure Island". It is occupying two and a half stages and the model theatre.
In 1993 we attracted to this country eight American movies with a total budget of £176 million. Some say that if we gave tax incentives we would attract even more, as does the Republic of Ireland. However, tax incentives are not everything. Ireland has as yet no proper studios, very little equipment and no technicians as good as our own. A senior technician such as a lighting cameraman cannot be created overnight. From my experience, I regard four years as a minimum in which to train him or her.
Ireland attracts what is called internationally mobile product—films which can be shot anywhere and which are not about the country they are shot in. The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, said in our committee that Ireland is just a jobbing shop. That is the situation at present, but Ireland could build studios, buy in equipment and train lighting cameramen. So we could easily lose that product to our friends across the Irish Sea, and we must be ever vigilant. It is for that reason, as my noble friend Lord Elibank said, that our committee recommends 100 per cent. first year tax write-offs and the simplification of withholding tax on the earnings of foreign entertainers working on films in this country.
Perhaps I may now turn to television. Most of Europe has a healthy home industry simply because people prefer to watch home products at prime time. No American programme can beat "Coronation Street", "Eastenders" or "The Bill". We cannot, of course, export these very British products to the Continent; and nor can the continental countries export to us their national prime-time soaps.
It is an interesting sideline, however, that we can export a format. Thus we export to Germany the plot of "The Bill". The police become the Polizei; London becomes Hamburg, and the programme is called "Stazione". There are also Dutch and Spanish versions of "The Bill". Similarly, the Australian series "Neighbours" is made more Teutonic and retitled "Nachtbaren".
I have dealt with domestic drama. There are other programmes which naturally cross all frontiers as they do not rely on dialogue: natural history programmes, sporting events and music.
However, what will never work is the so-called "Euro Pudding": a real co-production with German actors, French sets, Austrian pastimes and Scandinavian locations. That is sometimes rather cruelly called "Hermann the Riviera Vet on Ice". Naturally, it is doomed. The strength of Europe is its cultural diversity.
Even in the television field some transatlantic figures should cause us concern. First, America exported to Europe 4.1 billion dollars of television products, but Europe exported to America only 360 million dollars worth. Secondly, there is the sheer scale of the American operation: 104 episodes of "MASH" against a mere 12 of "Fawlty Towers".
1420
The Americans are masters of both film and television. There is no other way of explaining why Germans will watch American but not French programmes; French will watch American but not British programmes; Spain will watch American but not Italian programmes. How can it be that MTV, the new American pop music channel, is Pan-European and regularly reaches more homes than any other channel—a staggering 60 million?
By now noble Lords must have realised that we do not believe that there ever can be a European audio-visual industry to rival that of Hollywood and that the Green Paper is misguided if it suggests that there could be in the shape of some Euro pudding. As my noble friend Lord Elibank said, we are opposed to quotas. An insistence that a certain percentage of film and television must be national or even European merely encourages the second rate. We are opposed to subsidies. Those encourage people to make films which are so bad they will not be seen. There is evidence of that in Germany as well as in France.
However, we favour subsidiarity. An expansion of that theme is set out in paragraph 116 of the opinion of the Committee. I believe that paragraph to be the nub of our 290 pages of report and evidence. I was pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, felt the same way. Perhaps I may conclude by quoting some of the report. The heading is The rôle of the European Union, and paragraph 116 states:
"The primary responsibility for attempting to regulate the European audiovisual industry rests with Member States, and is exercised at national and regional government level and by the broadcasters themselves. For practical reasons, and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the European Union has a less direct part to play".
The paragraph concludes:
"The number one priority for the Commission in this area must be the creation of a level playing field so that the European audiovisual industry can achieve its potential".
And that, my Lords, is all that the Commission should do.
5.54 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I begin by commending the Select Committee for setting out the background to the report and for summarising the evidence so well. The report employs the usual flair of all reports of the Select Committees of this House—a flair which one compares with the long-winded Eurospeak which so often comes my way and, I am sure, the way of noble Lords concerning reports from Brussels, not least those which originated in the UK.
I wish to concentrate on the television side of the report. I am not close enough to the film industry to comment. I have no difficulty in agreeing with the 28 recommendations in the report in so far as they relate to television. However, I should like to identify and discuss two other areas. The first has already been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, on a rather higher level than is my intention.
I begin with conditional access and the associated problem of encryption. That is the first policy issue currently being debated by the EURIM working party

1421
on audio-visual matters. The Select Committee heard some evidence on this issue but very much less than I would have expected considering the unhappiness that it engenders in certain parts of the industry. The key question is: does BSkyB have a monopoly on encryption and thus on conditional access? That is a major part of the debate. If noble Lords wish to decide the answer for themselves, and have not already done so, I recommend the reading of BSkyB's evidence to the Select Committee on that point. It is a fascinating story.
I shall now indulge in matters which are commercial. I work with no commercial company. I take no money from any corporate body. However, I work with EURIM, for no money, and EURIM is an all-party group. Therefore, I hope that I am reasonably unprejudiced.
The working party's opinion—it was formed before BSkyB joined us, as it did recently, and has still to be ratified by a full meeting of our members—is that the TV market place is at the least Pan-European if not worldwide. It has noted that there are two other European encryption competitors: Canal Plus and Deutsche Welle TV. It also has evidence to show that digital broadcasting has quite separate problems from those of analogue broadcasting.
In its evidence to the Select Committee, BSkyB claims that it has competitors in analogue conditional access: satellite via the other European encryptors, to which I have just referred; satellite with advertising revenue; and the 22 UK exclusive cable channels. We have just had further dispute in that area with two of the cable companies complaining bitterly. The subject is now being reviewed by regulators.
The EURIM working party is satisfied that when we achieve digital transmissions the position on encryption is quite different. As some noble Lords may know, Digital Video Broadcasting group has European agreement to a digital encryption system from all the EU broadcasters other than UK terrestrial broadcasters—that is, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. The DVB has produced what is called a code of conduct, an agreement on fair access to allow all to have open access into the encryption system with separate smart cards on the single box. However, so far as I know, the UK terrestrial broadcasters may still be rejecting that. Why that is so, I have yet to ascertain.
There is no evidence to the Select Committee on digital encryption from either the BBC or the ITA. However, there is evidence from Channel 4 which implies that there is no difference between BSkyB's analogue encryption monopoly, so called, and that which will follow regarding digital encryption.
The BSkyB memorandum suggests that digital encryption is different, that ownership is undecided and that it accepts the DVB solution. EURIM has heard evidence that there are two alternative digital technologies, symulcrypt and multicrypt and that as yet they are too immature for positions on potential commercial ownership or profitability to be taken. We read that on 9th June in Paris the BBC, in accordance with other broadcasters,
"laid the foundations of a joint strategy which they presented as an 'act of faith'"
1422
It is a little difficult to know what that strategy was. I assume that they were presenting it for the Telecommunications Council of Ministers on 13th June.
So far as I can see from the reports available to me, the Telecoms Council on 19th June went reasonably well:
"Fine progress is being made with the procedure designed to adopt EU standards for TV broadcasts so as to avoid a veritable explosion in the number of decoders coming onto the market … Ministers took note of the amendments"—
made by the European Parliament—
"during their June 13 Telecommunications Council meeting and after the Member States' Permanent Representative to the EU … have given the matter more thought, the Member States are expected to signal their agreement to the Directive".
The report states in slightly more detail later on:
"Within the DVB enclosure, the participants have managed to reach a compromise proposing that those offering subscriber-only services (Canal +, BSkyB, Filmnet and so on) would be allowed to provide closed systems, on condition that they permit other operators to use their systems. The DVB also undertook to develop a common interface to allow the use of a single decoder that could be accessed by several access cards".
That sounds fine, but in the Economist there is reference to the fact that on 13th June the UK Government were the sole government rejecting the proposal. Unfortunately, the article does not say what was rejected by the UK Government, but it means that there is still quite a lot of confusion as to where we have got to. Obviously we all wish to see a fair trading position and a fair trading environment for our UK terrestrial broadcasters. It is difficult, though, to know how to respond unless we can understand the problem. Perhaps in his reply the Minister will be able to assist us. Obviously we are concerned that we should allow solutions to develop. If it is too early for that to happen, then it would be dangerous for us to agree on a final solution which will be a one-box solution before such solutions have developed further.
The second issue on which I wish to touch is multimedia and the regulators. EURIM wrote a paper on the G7 to government and the EC which supported the need for the EU to work on level playing fields, as does the Select Committee. However, the latter seems in its recommendations to be content to point out the need to end restrictions on tele-shopping. In EURIM, we went further. We said to ourselves: "The first problem about level playing fields is that they come up against differing legal systems which does not help them much. Secondly, they come up against genuine attempts by nation states to retain their national cultures". Neither of those points makes it easy to achieve level playing fields. Then we said: "Multimedia is round the corner, but we had better see who is actually regulating the various elements of it". We found that there were rather a lot of EU nation state regulators. We are worried that while the multimedia may be converging, it will probably be some time after it has converged that the regulators converge. On top of that, we have the great opportunity for the Commission to add another layer of regulation and make the whole thing tighter.
I know that the Minister is likely to explain that the Government have already made a start on the issue by expanding the ITC's responsibilities. But I think that there is a long way to go. Setting up in multimedia

1423
involves a corporate in three separate directorates general in Brussels and in the UK it may need clearance from any of the following: the DTI, the DNH, in some cases the Welsh Authority, Oftel, the ITC, the BBC, the Radio Communications Authority and the Radio Authority. If we want to sell something in the multimedia, we could find ourselves involved with the following bodies which are all connected in some way with standards: the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, BABT, ICSSTIS, the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Advertising Standards Authority, the Trading Standards Association, the Video Standards Council and the Data Protection Registrar.
Of course, multimedia products evolve gradually. Indeed, if we define multimedia as including such things as exist today as ISDN, coaxial cable and compressed analogue signals, then multimedia products are already evolving. The point is not that regulators need to converge this instant but that we need some plans to be developed to allow us to achieve regulatory convergence approximately in line with multimedia convergence so that the UK's interests in leadership and profitability in the field are not damaged.
Regulation inhibits innovation, but if we have no regulation then we get monopolies and unlevel playing fields. Once again, we are back to a balance. I recognise the difficulties in achieving such an appropriate balance between the rules and the freedom. I suggest that the UK's overall costs of regulation need to go down, not up, and that where appropriate decisions on regulation are in doubt the scales should fall on the side of freedom, due to our need to be as competitive as possible.
I have spent much time on two aspects of what could loosely be called infrastructure. Perhaps I may end by saying that recently I was given a little chart. It had two sets of boxes. There was the technician's view of how to reach the consumer which had 10 separate boxes between content and consumer. All were properly identified with the kind of things I have been talking about today. Below that was the consumer's view. It had three boxes: content, interface, consumer. So there are different ways of looking at the matter and it is getting the content to the consumer that makes the profitability.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, and his committee on a comprehensive report. When we consider that there are 51 paragraphs of recommendations, they obviously studied the matter in great detail. The noble Lord started by saying that in the beginning he did not have a great deal of understanding of the industry but he now understood more. When we were discussing what became the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 I started in the same position. I have learnt a little more and that is why in a minute I shall speak on copyright. I leave to other speakers, who have much more knowledge of the film and television industry, all the other aspects of this excellent report.
1424
It should be recognised at the start that the Green Paper and other documents on which the committee's report is based make no mention of copyright as a problem at this current state of the game in the European film and television industry. That is hardly surprising because, perhaps rather like our own government departments, DG X, which looks after the film industry, is at a couple of arm's lengths from DG XV, which looks after copyright. Therefore the fact that DG XV is in the process and may even have got out the first draft of a Green Paper on the problems of modern digital IT networking technology and copyright may not have reached the Department of National Heritage and certainly was not given in detailed evidence to the committee.
The more detailed discussions on copyright are covered in the report at paragraphs 73 to 77 and in the recommendations at paragraphs 145 and 146 and, with notes, at paragraphs 185 to 187. I declare an interest in discussing copyright in that I am a member of the British Copyright Council, a body which represents many of the interests of people who are classified as talent in the report. I myself have no work covered by copyright in the area under discussion in this debate.
The committee considered copyright to be an important topic. I refer to page 53 of the evidence. I suspect that was as a result of the British Screen Advisory Council's written evidence. It therefore seems most unfortunate that in referring in later pages to verbal evidence from the British Screen Advisory Council, the written evidence was not tested to discover what was meant about the feelings of the talent unions. I am afraid that I must contrast that with the evidence taken immediately afterwards by an organisation called PACT (pages 77 to 79), some of which was given by Sophie Balhetchet, even though in written evidence it is made quite clear (page 73) that she was much involved in damage limitation in the case of the harmonisation of copyright with the Commission. This indicates one of the problems that the committee may have had in trying to come to grips with the copyright situation.
Also—I rather regret this, because it slightly changes the balance of the case—the committee appears to have ignored the evidence (on page 35) of Channel 4 that current EU legislation is about right for the present situation, and, on page 39, in response to Question 121, that it is now happy with the amount of copyright legislation that is in force in the EU, and that it is the future development of the new technologies that is important. I shall not go on in great detail now; I have 20 further references to copyright in the evidence section of this report. Largely, the producers' point of view is presented. It is my regret that no evidence was called for from what I call the talent point of view.
It was said earlier that producers are not recognised in copyright law in this country. The author is the first holder of copyright. I quote from the 1988 Act:
"In this Part 'author', in relation to a work, means the person who creates it. That person shall he taken to he in the case of a sound recording or film, the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the making of the recording or film are undertaken".

1425
In an amendment to the Act which is in draft at the moment, those words are used in another section that is to be inserted with, in brackets after them, "film producer". I think that the committee was misled if it believes, as it reported in paragraph 145, that,
"The need to update copyright legislation … should be used as an opportunity for the European Union to reconsider the legal status of rights holders".
In this country at least, part of the European Union, they are rights holders.
Much has been made of the difficulty of assembling a package so that it can be retailed on afterwards to people in other markets. Again, if evidence had been taken on the talent societies, I believe that the committee would have discovered some bodies known as collecting societies, or licensing and collecting societies. These can represent authors, musicians and other groups of copyright owners. Their function is to administer the copyright rights and the intellectual property rights of individuals, and negotiate their extension if necessary and, more importantly, in Europe—unfortunately, again, in the draft legislation in preparation by the Government, which I hope will be amended—the collection of the rental and lending rights of that very important sector, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, video recording. It is much to my regret that the government department involved does not at the moment seem to realise that its idea that the producers should collect the equitable rights to remuneration from the video recording is vested in the producers. As the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, seems to indicate, that gives the producers a greater control over matters. But do the Government realise the problems?
Let us take the example of the producer of a video in this country. Perhaps it is not difficult for him in this country to go round the video shops, discover how much the video is being rented out, and reach a conclusion as to what the equitable remuneration is. But let us suppose that the same video is exported to, let us say, Spain, where there are quite a lot of English speaking residents. How will he go round the video shops there? If the task were to be given to a collecting society, the society already has the established systems for controlling these matters and, through an organisation in Europe, the International Council of Societies of Authors and Composers, it has the facility for working with similar societies in Spain or anywhere else which can monitor the rental of videos, and equally in due course the use of satellite and cable. Therefore there are problems that I should have liked the committee to investigate. However, we have to look forward.
I wholeheartedly agree with the real nub of the recommendations of the committee, which I feel is best summarised in Recommendations 185 to 187. I wholly agree that,
"It is essential that European copyright legislation should be revised to take account of technological developments and consolidate the legal status of producers"—
I would add the words "and others"—
"as rights holders".
1426
I believe that it can be done by the greater use of collecting societies. Recommendation 186 states:
"We support development of a pan-European broadcasting rights market allowing the acquisition and pricing of rights on a Europe-wide basis".
I wholeheartedly support that. After all, I realise that America is a one-language nation. But it is only the same size as the European Union. I am sure that that could be managed. Finally—this is a matter that I found very interesting in the evidence and the report—Recommendation 187 states:
"Piracy and unauthorised access to audiovisual material are the most important problems affecting the audiovisual industry".
The British Copyright Council has a working party looking at all aspects of piracy and unauthorised access to any form of network, the Internet or whatever. We have been most interested by some of the evidence given to the committee, and we shall follow it up with those who gave evidence. I congratulate the committee again on a very good report. I am sorry that I had to criticise a particular aspect. I also congratulate the Minister who is to reply on his new appointment.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I begin by adding my congratulations to those of previous speakers to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood on his new appointment. We look forward very much to seeing the noble Lord wearing his new hat on the Front Bench.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Brain will forgive me for not following him on copyright and related matters. The European audio-visual industry—if one can conceive of such a wide and disparate being—is an enormous prairie on which many buffalo still roam. As has been demonstrated this afternoon, there is an abundant supply of technologically equipped hunters hanging on the flanks. By this stage in the debate most of my animals have been shot. I am a non-expert member of the sub-committee (on which it is an education to sit under the wise chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Elibank). Accordingly, I select only one or two badly wounded animals to pursue. By "badly" I infer that their wounds have been severe, not that the aim has been poor. First, I turn to the continuing argument about whether or not this is a sector in the European Union which is a business with a cultural dimension or one with predominantly commercial objectives. Therefore, in trying to help the industry, should we be looking for cultural schemes with economic side effects or economic schemes with cultural side effects? The sub-committee had little difficulty in concluding that the primary, but by no means the sole, emphasis should be on the business and economic role.
The noble Lord, Lord Elibank, has reminded us of the hugely important employment aspect. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, have given us a health warning about forecasts of employment. Nevertheless, it is perhaps worth mentioning that we were told by a formidable German witness that the audio-visual media market was in his view the growth market. The numbers employed in that industry had increased from 430,000 in 1985 to 940,000 in 1993. For

1427
the Union as a whole, the Economic and Social Committee has set a target for the creation of 2 million new jobs in the audio-visual sector by the year 2000. Even if one takes that with the heaviest possible saline drip—which I am sure one should do—those are big figures in terms of useful future employment. We are discussing big business, not a cultural cottage industry.
My second target is film. That has also been the target of other noble Lords this afternoon. It is a bit of a paradox that the European Union has a strong television industry but a frail film industry. With respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, who made an extremely informed contribution, this country is an exception in the Union in that it has a recovering film industry, though from a very low base. Therefore, we do not view with quite the same anxiety as others—perhaps we should—the fact that American films fill 80 per cent. of the Union's market and that falling cinema attendances in the Union, though not here, have failed to affect the showing of US films.
I welcomed the former Heritage Secretary's enthusiastic, though in places guarded, response to our sub-committee's recommendations and those of the sub-committee in another place. Like other speakers, I am nonetheless grieved that he has been more guarded than enthusiastic about some of the tax proposals, particularly the introduction of 100 per cent. first year write off for investment in qualifying British films.
My third and final quarry is to do with broadcasting. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has emphasised and the report records, the Commission's Green Paper almost totally overlooks the vital importance of public service broadcasting. Our report encapsulates the point in paragraph 121:
"It seems likely that more than ever before public service broadcasters will have a heavy responsibility in pointing the way to standards of high quality and in presenting national and regional cultures in Europe to their national and regional audiences. The obligations and corresponding privileges of public service broadcasters must be safeguarded. This entails secure funding at an adequate level by national Governments".
I would print the last brief sentence with ail the solemn emphasis of capitals.
It is of interest to note that in its written evidence the BBC reported that it remained the leading British exporter of television programmes, accounting for 70 per cent. of all such exports, and that with a positive trade balance of about £50 million it was the largest production house in the world outside the US and Japan. Accordingly, it is quite reassuring to learn from his response that the former Heritage Secretary agrees with the importance that we attach to public service broadcasting. It is also good to see that he agrees that quotas should be eliminated or phased out in the near future.
The noble Lord, Lord Elibank, mentioned the modesty of the MEDIA programme. I believe it would be a little churlish not to acknowledge that the former Heritage Secretary at least partially took the sub-committee's advice and negotiated an increase in the MEDIA programme from 200 million ecus in phase 1 to 310 million ecus in phase 2. We would have much preferred 400 million ecus. But perhaps the most
1428
important statement of government policy is tucked away in the penultimate paragraph of the Government's flamboyantly produced response to the report of the sub-committee in another place. My noble friend Lord Bridges referred to it, perhaps implicitly, in his thoughtful speech. That paragraph refers to the creation of a new team in the heritage department
"with a specific remit to sponsor the audio-visual sector, which will augment the existing film sponsorship function and help to ensure that the Government properly understands the concerns of the industry and the difficulties confronting it."
That is a very important statement. Among other things, it is further confirmation of a turn in the ideological tide. Out of respect for the politically dead, I refrain from referring to a U-turn. Just as the d-word—devaluation—was banned from the Government's papers and lips for two years in the mid-1960s, so the s-word—sponsorship—was banned for the whole of the 1980s. This welcome reversal of the Government's industrial policy is further confirmed in the flamboyantly produced paper that I have waved before your Lordships. That reversal was foreshadowed by the then President of the Board of Trade in the public affirmation of his postprandial interventionism of a year or so ago, which all of us will recollect. We must all devoutly hope that he eats well and often in his new incarnation as first Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister. We must also hope that the new Heritage Secretary is not on a diet.
6.30 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, and his committee upon producing a most interesting document and also upon asking so many pertinent questions, to which they received some fascinating replies. So carried away was I that even when Mr. Cazès of Lumière was giving his evidence I found myself mouthing his words in a French accent; so persuasive was his evidence.
Incidentally, I was interested and indeed horrified to be reminded by Mr. Cazès that his company, Lumière, had acquired the library of EMI through Cannon and various other channels. That represents 30 per cent. of our total British film archive. It reflects rather badly on the Government's alertness and care of our film heritage.
Having said that, perhaps I may pass on. I thank my noble friend Lord Thomson for his flattering introduction. I am not an expert on the film industry. I worked in the film industry a long time ago. I must also declare that there are two close members of my family involved with the industry today; one on the commercial side in this country and one on the creative side in Los Angeles in the United States. So I am not short of advice—sometimes conflicting advice—as to the remedies for the European situation.
The European situation has developed over a long period. At one extreme, there is the British film industry—if I may so call it; it is not so much a film industry as an area of film activity—which has been overshadowed for countless years by the American film industry. We share the same language, which increases the difficulties of competing with that great nation of

1429
cinema producers, at least without them seeing the films that we make because it is only then that we make a profit. At the other extreme there is the German industry, described in the report by the eminent German film director, Wim Wenders, as being dominated by the lethargy of subsidies. Other countries fall somewhere in between those two poles.
It was somewhat unfair not to give credit to the French. As has rightly been explained, they have lavished a great deal of subsidy on their film industry, with the consent of the taxpayer. Theirs is indeed a film industry. It has reached the level of 150 films a year, though falling to about 80 films in recent years. They have found ways of introducing subsidy at almost every level of French film activity, whether it be the production of prints, encouraging exhibition, actual production and so on, with a certain amount of fine tuning. Quite recently they discovered—it cannot have been a surprise to them—that if production subsidy goes very far, one starts making bad films that nobody wants to see. Generally speaking, in order to get production subsidy in France, a film now has to have a box office success in order for subsidy to apply.
So with what is the European Union faced in regard to film? Quite frankly, it is faced with the new technologies, which are imminent and now brought forward to about two years away. The new technologies are digital, with the ability to dial for films on demand through a telephone line. There is also the liberalisation that goes with that. Understandably, that is seen as a threat, which explains the rather defensive tone used in its Green Paper and which was remarked on by several of those who gave oral and written evidence for the report. The natural reaction, like that of anyone who is feeling defensive, is that one should resort to the enforcement of rules which already exist and if those rules are not obeyed, sanctions must apply. That is alien to us in the British field.
To be fair to the European Commission, it has identified one absolutely crucial area for success in making major feature films which will create a profit; namely, that one needs enormous funding to do it. It is an extremely dangerous, hazardous and risky business. That is why the Americans on the west coast of the United States have been so successful for so many years. From the earliest times of cinema they have not only brought in a great deal of commercial acumen but also, if I may say so—it may sound surprising in view of some productions of today—a great deal of creative judgment and good taste. They have created a machine which produces fictional cinematic material of a very high quality. It is not easy to compete with them.
The reason why the Americans can continue with their economies of scale is that they have on tap the funding to finance the losers. The ratio of losers to winners is very high. Evidence on that was given to the All-Party Film Group. I see the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, nodding in agreement. He knows as well as I do that when the American majors come and explain to the All-Party Film Group why they do not invest more money in this country, they say it is because they have such a business to make a profit with so many losses to set against so few winners. I am afraid that the
1430
explanation is a lot more complicated than that. Nevertheless, that is the situation that we face. The European Commission has rightly identified as of primary importance some way to create the kind of funding which will allow continuity of production. That is what makes an industry and sadly we do not have it in this country.
Some 10 years ago I made my initial contributions to a debate during the progress of the Films Bill in 1985. That Bill was introduced by the Government, effectively to get rid of the Eady levy and produce a new economic background to the film activity. Over the past 10 years there has been an enormous change. I look back at what I said at that time and take some credit for predicting that there would be a recovery of film admissions in this country which would stem from an improvement in the exhibition sector. That happened within two years of the Films Bill coming onto the statute book.
The mostly American and Canadian investment in the new multiplex cinemas completely changed the viewing habits of cinema-goers. Nevertheless, film-going remains rather in the territory of young people under the age of 30 and mostly those under 24. So between 1985 and now, film attendances have grown from around 60 million a year to double that number. They will probably be even more this year. That is a result of the multiplex development with very high quality prints, good sound, good comfort and American standards of service. I cannot praise our native endeavours in that area, although some have followed in the wake of those North American innovations.
Apart from that, British film activity has been very slight. The British Government cannot be blamed for not succumbing to the blandishments of various interest groups, not all of which have been absolutely in step one with the other. The arguments presented to them have been confusing and they have been doubtful about our ability to compete with the Americans in any meaningful way. If we have a film industry at all, as I said recently during a Starred Question in this House, we have to be thankful to the BBC and Channel 4 for it. Quite understandably, they produce films which will show well on television, but they have kept the activity alive. In order for us to make a real impact, as the Commission identified, we have to find some way to create the continuing funding which will raise the average budget of pictures, so that we can compete and produce the kind of films that people appear to want to see.
Perhaps I may jump to one of the conclusions of the committee in that regard. I was rather disappointed in its recommendations, though I agree with all of them. However, I fancied I detected again an anti-cultural note creeping in. It said that scripts for films were of absolute importance. I agree with that. It is the development of scriptwriting in this country which will make an enormous impact. But it is not at the script stage when one knows that people will see one's film; it is somewhat later. A good script will give people a proper basis on which to judge whether or not it is a film in which they wish to invest money. Big budgets will need

1431
good scriptwriting and, as happens in the United States, probably multiple scriptwriting with dialogue writers and specialist writers brought in.
I did not like the phrase "aesthetically squeamish". I am afraid that I have been guilty in the past—in the presence, unknown to me, of the Member for Hampstead—of saying that too many films were made for West Hampstead and Belsize Park. I was roundly castigated by the right honourable lady who represented that constituency when she crept in behind me at the meeting where I said that. I excused myself, probably not to her satisfaction, but I agree that there has been too much in the British industry at small budget level which has been parochial and pretentious in an intellectual way which has put off cinema-goers. However, to call screenwriters aesthetically squeamish is not accurate. They are not frightened of the appeals of major budget pictures; there just is not the money around to make them. We have the expertise generally to make good films. However, there is a great deficiency in the screenwriting because television has taken over in the writing skills area from screenwriting. Provided we have the money, we have the skills to make a decent contribution to compete with the United States in a much more fruitful way than we do now.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State for National Heritage left us. I did not feel, at the various meetings I attended, that he necessarily spoke the language, but I became more and more attracted to his approach. The more I read the report, the more I find I agree with what he said, to the extent that I even agree with something he said with which the committee disagreed. At his visit to the Bordeaux meeting of cultural ministers he suggested that added on to the responsibilities of the media programmes should be some way of encouraging exhibition. He was absolutely right. The committee did not agree with that.
Exhibition is fundamentally important, as I said in 1984 about our own case. It is certainly important in some of the countries of Europe. If we want to see a French film which one has heard is good—to be fair, a good percentage of French films are well worth seeing—it is much better to see it in London. The quality of the print and the sound will be better; the seat will be more comfortable, though admittedly, the price will be slightly more expensive and one will not obtain such a good meal afterwards. Nevertheless, the way in which our films are shown in the new theatres in this country is excellent and that is something to which the Europeans need to address further attention.
The evidence from the American producers was very fair in that they said more effective marketing, sales and distribution was absolutely crucial to improvement in the industry. That is something which is extremely weak in Europe. It cannot be artificially stimulated through subsidy; it must emerge through increased activity of the right kind based on good scripts, more funding and so forth. The less necessity there is for government intervention, the better.
I have said enough about the situation. I am not optimistic in regard to the ability of the European Commission vastly to improve the chances of a
1432
"Eurofilm". Cinema exhibition in this country is vital to the opening of a film. Films are made on celluloid stock and made to be shown in cinemas. If one wants to get the best flavour from a film, one should see it in a cinema. Only 20 per cent. of the revenue now comes from theatrical releases; 50 per cent. from video; 20 per cent. from television and, as I learnt from the report, 10 per cent. from ancillary sales—marketing offshoots, clothing and so forth.
A film makes its initial impact in the cinema and it is vital that it should continue to do so. Nobody in the video or television field would deny that; they all rely on it and would encourage it. They would probably agree with me that, by and large, the quality of exhibition in this country by way of cinemas needs to be further encouraged, though the improvements have been beyond all measure. Indeed, some middle-aged people are now going to the cinema, which I thought would never happen. I hope that more will.
It is not an easy situation to deal with. On the language side I was intrigued to see that the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, said—not about film, but about television—that culturally we in this country did not like dubbed material. He is absolutely right. In relation to film there is a good reason for that. Technically in this country we developed a procedure of using sophisticated sound stages in the making of studio films. In the Latin countries they did not do that; they almost exclusively dubbed even their own productions.
I discovered that fact when a great pin-up of mine, the Italian actress Claudia Cardinale—I admit to having pin-ups in my youth; Claudia Cardinale and another very lovely actress called Gina Lollobrigida, both of whom I believe are still alive today—made her first Hollywood film. In fact, her voice had been dubbed all along and the wonderful, soft, melodious voice that I had listened to in the Italian films was in fact gravelly and raucous (not without attraction, I might say, but I can understand why it had been dubbed). On the other hand, Gina Lollobrigida had a very sweet voice. She was not such a good actress and used her own voice, but still dubbing the material. The Latin countries are used to mouths which do not work in "synch" with the voice. It is something that we find difficult to accept. I hate dubbed films. I much prefer sub-titled films. I do not know whether my noble friend mentioned it, but the dubbed soaps from France were a total failure. I fancy that most people, even before they became involved in the plot, were slightly mystified by some of the strange mouth movements.
It is a difficult problem. We must look for ways in this country of dealing with our problems; above all the quality of scripts. We must encourage the national film and television school at Beaconsfield, and I urge European countries to do likewise. I welcome the new Secretary of State for National Heritage. I am sure she will do an excellent job, continuing the excellent trend shown by her predecessor and supported by the Minister who will be responding today, who we welcome to his post. I look forward to some interesting exchanges across the House on this subject.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wish to join in the welcome to this excellent report from the noble Lords on the Select Committee. It is obviously very thorough. It seems comprehensive and I sympathise with most of its recommendations. I shall not attempt to cover its totality because that would keep the House too long, especially from the tug-of-war which is starting in a few minutes. I should like to consider a few of the major issues—not so big as the tug-of-war, but of some significance—because we are dealing with major industries.
Although the definitions, frontiers and estimates of size vary, it is generally agreed that film and television are major industries with great economic, employment and cultural significance. They are growing rapidly and changing technologically at dramatic speed. Indeed, media technology is advancing at such a rate that it is inevitable that any recommendations may be out of date. I believe that the Green Paper—not this report—is particularly weak on technological advance and seems over-attached to earlier media structures, while not taking on board the most recent technological advances. One sees that especially in the relationship between the video and the film industry, which has just been mentioned and the implications of the rapid growth of cable and satellite broadcasting.
In our considerations we must distinguish very clearly between film and television because they are very different industries. Film is genuinely international: the European product is very weak against the United States, and European audiences seem to prefer United States films. European television is, by contrast, strong. It is second to the United States in world markets and it is basically a national industry where European audiences prefer domestic programmes. There seems little scope for pan-European television programmes although much scope for European-wide financing.
We must also distinguish between the commercial and cultural objectives involved. Commercially, we want a strong film and television industry to promote growth and jobs. Culturally, there is the very difficult question of protecting the wide European culture from being swamped by that of the United States. On that issue I personally sympathise very much with the French and agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said on culture, of which we should not be ashamed. However, I admit that it is not always clear how we protect our own individual national cultures within the European Union.
Commercially, film, and especially television, as I have said, are important growth industries, but they are not simply commercial like, say, the motor car industry. They also have important cultural content and implications. Unbridled commercialism represented by complete deregulation could lead to endless "Miami Vice", perhaps with greater audiences and greater private investment, but involving neglect of the cultural factors. In fact, the mass international commercial market does not readily promote or protect the cultural identities of any society, particularly European societies. So there is a genuine dilemma here and a tension in our choice between cultural and commercial priorities.
1434
Commercial dominance also threatens public sector broadcasting which, as the Select Committee says, figures too little in the Brussels' proposals. We need to strengthen that side of the European approach. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said about that.
As regards the European aspect of this subject, it seems to me that the Government have been unclear in the recent past on whether or not they want to play a part in the European discussions on important film and television issues. We on this side see Europe as a positive and fruitful vehicle for dealing with several of the trans-national issues that confront us, although not all. We do not always accept the Commission's proposals. We hope that the leadership outcome opposite will stop some of the dithering that we have seen and lead to a more positive approach in Brussels and a clear recognition of the Commission's competence in certain of these matters. For a start, we hope that the Government will send Ministers and not just officials to important discussions there.
As the report states, the Commission's role is to establish a general framework while the main policy decisions lie with member states. But we must not underestimate that European dimension. We find often that the stickiest problems—and I refer only to cross-media ownership and the critical creation of a level playing field of laws and rules—can only be dealt with at the trans-national level in Europe. Here the question of copyright, on which the noble Lord, Lord Brain, spoke with such authority and detail and in which Britain has a major financial interest, is a good example.
Of course, among ourselves we may take different views on how strong a role is to be played by the European Union and the Commission. Is it to be strongly interventionist or simply enabling? Certainly, the Commission and individual member governments are not suitable to be directly involved in film or television production. We believe their role is to establish a level playing field of rules and the law in Europe, as was the first recommendation of this report. They have a role to encourage investment; to regulate cross-media ownership, as I have said, and to control excessive concentrations of power; to deal with particular monopoly or oligopoly situations as, for example, encryption; the gateway which must he opened—and I shall come back to that again—and in film distribution. There is also technological harmonisation to enable the European industry to compete worldwide. In all those areas I believe that Brussels has a competence and a very important role to play.
Looking more specifically at the film industry, I cannot compete with the intimate knowledge of the noble Viscounts, Lord Falkland and Lord Mersey, but the significance of the issues is clear to all. There is already existing here a web of financial incentives for film production in Europe. Member states spend 10 times as much as Brussels itself. In Ireland and Germany that appears to have encouraged film production, with Ireland either taking, or threatening to take, some or much from Britain. In France, which has been subject to some criticism tonight in the House, 30 per cent. of

1435
the films shown there are French. That is probably the best European exhibition rate. But whatever the incentives, the share of European films shown in Europe continues to fall as do audiences, except recently in Britain.
Obviously, we must be careful on the subject of financial incentives. We do not want Brussels bureaucrats picking winners. The Select Committee is properly wary of some of the suggestions on pan-European levies. We need not always be too wary. The British film industry, once so successful, needs nurturing back to life. One of the strongest recommendations in the report is in paragraph 134, which recommends,
"a new programme of support for film production in the United Kingdom",
adding "without such support" there might well be no British or European film industry in the 21st century. It then recommends the tax breaks.
We shall await with interest what the Government propose to do and perhaps as regards the tax breaks we shall have to wait until the Budget. Obviously, the Government must do much more than was stated in the Secretary of State's mini-statement on the film industry in another place on 6th June.
Other noble Lords, especially the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned the related areas of film distribution and exhibition which are crucial to the success of the film production industry. Here, as has been said, Britain and Europe have been very unsuccessful. I am not sure that the Brussels proposals will take us much further. In distribution, we face the massive power of the American global distribution networks. When relying on them for the distribution of our films, we do so against the competition of the Americans' own film products. In cinema exhibition, the United Kingdom has demonstrated with growing audiences what can be achieved by investment in high quality multiplex cinemas. The Europeans have not so far followed that successful example. I thought the most interesting figure was that video accounts for 50 per cent. of film receipts versus only 20 per cent. from cinemas. To me, it seems as if the future is already here. The Brussels Green Paper did not deal adequately with that point.
The Select Committee rightly welcomes the MEDIA II initiatives in training for filming and television work. We join strongly in that welcome. Apart from acting and direction, the United Kingdom's particular strengths in film and television lie in animation and special effects. They depend particularly on skilled training, so the MEDIA II proposals would reinforce our existing infrastructure.
We also support the proposals for aid for script development, but we need to know the Government's views on that. In the past, the Government have seemed to have reservations because it appears to involve subsidy—a "bad thing"—and government intervention—a "bad thing", and an unhappy thing on the Government's experience. I believe that that general approach is not reasonable and that it is too ideological. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that the
1436
Government can and should act in those areas and not just bow before finance or the allegedly irresistible advance of technology. In fact, the proposed assistance is not a direct subsidy to the industry. It is better seen as assistance to creating an efficient and competitive infrastructure. What is the Government's approach to that? How should we improve our training? What projects will be put forward for MEDIA II grants? Will the Government promise that they will enthusiastically support British project applications in the Brussels jungle?
I note that the Select Committee opposes the Commission's policy on quotas. That stance has received support this evening. Certainly, quotas have had little effect up to now. They have been ignored by satellite broadcasters. We look forward to having a level playing field some day in terms of regulation. Quotas have had little impact in the United Kingdom where UK content rules are legislated and stricter.
The arguments against quotas are serious. Quotas are easily avoided by repeats and late-night showings. There is no guaranteed coincidence of Euro-content and quality. Quotas are increasingly unenforceable in the technological world of multi-channels and video on demand. We are impressed by those arguments, but behind the quest for quotas lies a serious and valid point. Complete deregulation would allow suppliers to buy United States mass products at a marginal cost with which no European producer could compete. That would probably lower the quality of our television and would certainly lower the European cultural content. Moreover, any sudden abandonment of quotas could have a devastating impact on the fragile base of the European production industry.
Our prime objective must be to nurture the European film and television production industries, yet we accept that percentage quotas on exhibition showings may not he the right way. Investment quotas may be a more interesting approach. They are not easy to monitor, but they would ensure that British companies would invest in new programmes made in Britain, thus using British skills and developing our indigenous film and television industries. That approach needs further and sympathetic investigation.
On the delicate issue of digitalisation and the encryption process, I look forward to hearing the Government's views and their reaction to the sound comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, with which I entirely agree. When digital arrives, viewers will need that black box to encode and rescramble the picture. Whoever controls and supplies that box and the encryption system controls the gateway to that myriad of channels. At present, one company controls the ability of other television suppliers to gain access, yet that company is itself a major programme supplier. What do the Government think of that? Europe is obviously worried—and rightly so. Europe believes that there should be a common interface—so do I, and I want to know what the Minister thinks.
I turn finally to education. Britain has a great opportunity and a great competitive advantage in this regard, given the common English language and the history and experience of the Open University with its

1437
vast body of course material. We must add to that software the opportunities presented by cable and satellite, especially in distance learning. There is a worldwide thirst for education and for the English language. Therefore, educational programming presents a great commercial and cultural opportunity. I should like to hear how the Government propose to exploit that in the European context.
In conclusion, the film and television industries are of crucial importance to our collective futures. They have a huge capacity to generate jobs, profits and exports and are of great importance to the protection of our culture. I trust that the Government will begin to treat them as such. The French do so, despite their language disadvantage in international markets. The European Commission does, seeing their importance to European culture and commerce. The Select Committee rightly did so in its report. The British Government should do so also and should resist their instinctive hostility to so-called "subsidy" and "government interference". The Government should—we trust that they will—recognise film and television for the great industries that they are.
7.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I feel certain that I am speaking for all in your Lordships' House when I thank my noble friend Lord Elibank for raising this important and interesting topic this afternoon. Given that this is almost my first time out to bat, I must confess that I wish that my noble friend had chosen a subject that is slightly less multi-faceted.
However, this is an important industry. It is important for cultural reasons. I was interested to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, about the British view of culture. The industry is important for economic reasons also. At the beginning of the debate my noble friend mentioned the employment figures and from his speech onwards, right to the end of the debate, there has been unanimity about the fact that the industry will he of increasing significance. I do not mean merely that it will generate jobs, but that it will generate money. That is important for the future of the industry itself. It is important to emphasise that they are not alternatives. They are two sides of one and the same coin. Finally, the industry has significant social ramifications, although we have not debated that point as much as I had expected.
We are aware that this is a fast-changing world. Practically every speaker has touched on that point, from my noble friend Lord Elibank, who opened the debate, right through to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. Things may soon change technologically to make much of what we have said seem out of date, but I can confirm one thing: we are concerned to ensure that the highest standards of public service broadcasting will be maintained whatever may occur.
It is equally important that we realise that aspects of that change—it is really a revolution—are causing considerable concern in all parts of society. Of course,
1438
the Government have a role to play. Indeed, a failure to appreciate that is an abnegation of the very concept of government itself.
Not only are the issues under discussion this afternoon central to the Department of National Heritage, but in a wider context they are central to the future development of the European audio-visual industry in which the United Kingdom plays a large and significant part. The report from your Lordships' European Communities Select Committee, which has formed the basis for our debate, fully recognises that and takes forward the debate in a positive and constructive way. Indeed, the Government agree with a great many of the points made by your Lordships. I will a little later go on to deal in detail with some of the key issues raised in this debate, but I would also like to take this opportunity to bring you up to date on the developments which have taken place since my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for National Heritage replied to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on 6th June.
The findings of the report we are discussing and the reply of 6th June by my right honourable friend to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, follow a similar format. Like my noble friend Lord Elibank I shall try to disaggregate the issues. At the same time, I shall try not merely to repeat what is already known, but to update that and make some comments. Clearly I cannot comprehensively cover everything that has been raised this afternoon. I shall try to deal with the main matters and I shall write to noble Lords if there arc any outstanding points to be considered.
There is one point which is not directly relevant to the debate which was touched upon by a number of noble Lords. It relates to cross-media ownership. We are fully aware of the importance of relaxing the present rules on cross-media ownership so that they correspond better to the realities of the present markets. Our proposals for adjustments to the rules were set out in the recent White Paper. We hope to bring forward legislation on that in the next Session.
I shall try to concentrate on the MEDIA II programme and the proposed new television without frontiers directive. I must begin with the European Union and its role which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. We agree with paragraph 116 of the committee's report. We believe that the audio-visual sector is part of the single market. Equally, we are sure that the Community must not just usurp the role of member states in terms of regulation. At the same time, however, we must not overlook the fact that in the technological revolution that is occurring there are benefits in economies of scale. As a number of noble Lords have said, the main force in the industry worldwide is the US industry.
I shall begin with a few comments about television. We too appreciate that there is a distinct set of problems relating to television as opposed to films. I shall turn first to the directive. The European Commission's report on the application of the 1989 television without frontiers directive which it was required to make five years after the adoption of that directive, and the Commission's proposals for amendments to it, were not available to your Lordships' European Communities

1439
Committee before the completion of its report. Those are set out in EC document 9742/95 which was deposited with Parliament on 27th June and which will be the subject of an explanatory memorandum later this week.
Your Lordships will be pleased to know that the Commission has come to one important conclusion which is in accord with one of the recommendations of the committee's report. It is that the scope of the directive should not be enlarged to cover new point-to-point services such as video on demand or telemedicine. While there are important consumer protection and other regulatory issues to consider in developing such services, they are clearly telecommunications services and should not be included in a broadcasting directive. But it is fair to say that there is an undercurrent of unease among member states, some of them arguing that the means of delivery should not necessarily determine the way in which we regulate services which in content are similar to those of some broadcasters. We shall continue to resist the inclusion of those point-to-point services, but we will consider carefully any proposals which are made for regulation of them at a European level.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that it is the Commission's proposals to remove the existing flexibility in the application of European programme content in Articles 4 and 5 of the 1989 directive which cause us, and the majority of other member states, the most concern. I welcome the attention your Lordships have given in the debate to that important issue, and I trust that the clear messages which have been delivered will reinforce the majority view that those proposals are unacceptable and will not achieve a strengthening of the European production sector.
We welcome the proposal to end a quota regime after 10 years, although we and a number of other states would prefer that abolition to take place immediately. In the Government's view, it is essential to pursue policies that avoid the creation of artificial barriers and regulatory measures which would stifle the development of new business. The matter of possible investment quotas for creating a level playing field between terrestrial channels and new cable and satellite channels was raised. That is one of the Commission's proposals upon which we are taking the industry's views. We shall consider carefully, in the context of the wider debate, removing the flexibility of meeting the majority European content, where practicable, progressively over time.
I should like also to draw your Lordships' attention to the revised Articles 2A, 22 and 22A of the proposed new directive which relate to amendments to protect minors and add the concept of public morality. I hope that will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, with regard to some of his concerns which he explained to the House. This is not yet legislation and there will be further negotiations in the council before a conclusion is reached. I should like to emphasise the assistance that we believe will be provided for the British case from the Select Committee's report.
1440
I shall move on now to film. Like noble Lords, we see that the problems of film are separate but in many ways similar to those we discussed earlier in the debate. Before I comment about the MEDIA II programme, I should like to comment upon the point about tax which was raised by a number of noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Elibank and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the comments made by the National Heritage Select Committee of another place.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mersey for pointing out that the grass is not always greener in Ireland, and all is not doom and gloom in the UK film industry. Nonetheless, we are considering those matters. They are under review. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, was right: this is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than for me.
The most important development at the Audiovisual Culture Council, held on 21st June, was the political agreement to come to a common position on the MEDIA II package. There were two decisions. One concerned training and the other development and distribution. That represents a significant achievement by the French presidency which had made the audiovisual field one of its four presidency objectives.
If your Lordships will bear with me, I will describe in a little more detail the MEDIA II proposals, and the outcome which the Government consider an entirely satisfactory one from the UK's perspective. The MEDIA II proposals were adopted by the Commission on 8th February in the form of the paper entitled Audiovisual Policy—Stimulating Dynamic Growth in the European Programme Industry.
They comprised two draft council decisions, one on training, based on treaty Article 127 (which is subject to qualified majority voting) and the other on development and distribution, based on Article 130 (which is subject to unanimity). The Government welcomed those proposals. While we believe that primary responsibility for the audio-visual sector in its many forms lies with the authorities of member states, we recognise that there is a role for the community to play at the European level, not least to help counteract the dominance of foreign-owned companies, in particular those from the US. We see a need for support to correct market failure in this area and avoid terminal decline in the European audio-visual industry. That is also in line with our own stated policy aim of sustaining the UK production infrastructure.
The Government also welcomed the proposals as giving substance to the need to reorientate and refocus the present MEDIA programme, in particular by concentrating efforts on the areas of development, distribution and training.
I can confirm that support will be given under the new MEDIA II programme for dubbing, subtitling, and multilingual productions under the development and distribution decision. Limited support will also be available for cinema exhibition under the same part. There will also be support for script development and for marketing and distribution. In addition, the lottery will also contribute towards the improvement and refurbishment of cinemas. I can confirm also that we

1441
will endeavour to do what we can to ensure that the British film industry benefits as much as is possible from those initiatives. Of course, in the past the UK industry has a track record of success in that regard.
In the debate leading to the council's decision, we said also that we wished to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity were maintained fully in relation to the training proposals which should properly support and supplement member states' own programmes and not seek to replace them. I am pleased to report that the majority of our concerns have been met. Intensive negotiations within the official working group of the council culminated in the council, on 21st June, agreeing a common position as regards training and reaching a policy agreement on the development and distribution decision. We were able to achieve a reduction in the budget from the 400 million ecu originally proposed by the Commission to a satisfactory compromise of 310 million ecu. In both decisions we were also able to secure the inclusion of sound value-for-money principles and the adoption of strong "comitology" arrangements to oversee the programme as well as a host of improvements on points of substance.
We believe that the UK has negotiated a sound value-for-money package which will play a valuable part in strengthening the audio-visual industry in Europe, thereby enabling it to compete more effectively in both European and world markets.
Those MEDIA II proposals have been part of a larger package of audio-visual proposals from the Commission following on from the Green Paper of last year. The need to agree a programme to carry on in January 1996 from the existing media programme meant that the package has to some extent become unravelled. In your Lordships' report on the European film and television industry, a large number of associated issues were addressed and I should like to single out the most important of those which relate to the proposed amendment to the broadcasting directive and the new European financial instrument. Those form the other elements of the package which will occupy the attention of member states under the Spanish presidency. The Spanish presidency intends to give them a high profile as did the French presidency in relation to the MEDIA II proposals. I am grateful for the guidance which your Lordships have given to the Government both in respect to the report and to the remarks in today's debate.
The third element of the Commission's package, that of a financial instrument, might be seen as just the sort of supportive mechanism which would prove a perfect complement to the MEDIA II programme. But I am pleased to learn that your Lordships are as sceptical as are the Government on developing a new parafiscal measure which in essence would appear to use Commission money along the lines of the European Investment Fund to lever out further monies from the private sector. The Government will weigh up the merits of the particular proposals when they emerge from the Commission, but we are clear that the Commission must demonstrate that intervention is necessary, that a market failure exists to be successfully addressed by the proposed measure and that the measure would offer value for money. We have made it clear that the
1442
Government will not support a European Union-wide tax measure or novel forms of Community financing impacting on the audio-visual sector but, in any case, such measures are ultimately for finance Ministers and not for the Audiovisual Culture Council.
A number of your Lordships focused on the matter of copyright. That is a central factor in the matters which we are debating. One noble Lord said that most artists create work in order to gain some reward thereby. As Dr. Johnson said:
"No man but a blockhead wrote, except for money".
Secondly, it is important that we have a usable system. A very telling point was made about that by my noble friend Lord Elibank. Thirdly, whatever system is in place it must be enforceable, as science develops technical remedies against piracy and a means of monitoring the use of copyright works, particularly in connection with digital transmission. However, it is for rights' owners to choose whether to use such devices and between competing systems.
One point which it is important to note in that respect is that the value of copyright law does not merely relate to the creation itself but it has a significant impact on the merchandising of goods. As has been mentioned, that may form a very significant part of the return to the person who has the copyright rights. Indeed, looking at the Daily Telegraph today, it seems that the current Rolling Stones tour is likely to gross for the performances something in the order of £162 million while the profits derived from merchandising seem to be more in the order of £200 million.
My noble friend Lord Chelmsford mentioned the important matter of encryption. We have taken very careful note of the points raised by him and by other noble Lords and will ensure that they are brought to the attention of my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the President of the Board of Trade. At this point I am not in a position to make any statement because it is a matter of enormous difficulty and sensitivity, involving issues of competition as well as regulation at national and European levels.
In addition, reference was made by a number of noble Lords to the involvement of a large number of departments and authorities in the regulations of multi-media products. I can confirm that multi-media developments clearly affect government and public organisations at many points. To assist the Government in ensuring that opportunities arising from that are explored fully, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has established a multi-media advisory group with representatives from the different industry groups.
Just as the report from your Lordships' Committee was constructive and positive—indeed, those are qualities which are well known in your Lordships' reports right across the European Union—so, too, this debate, which has been characterised by so many expert contributions, has given the Government food for thought and has encouraged us in the work that we are doing in Europe. It is precisely, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, because we see the audio-visual industry, both film and television, as big

1443
business and not as a cultural cottage industry that we do not support indulgent protectionist measures. The industry is growing and developing rapidly on a global scale. Each member state has a part to play, nurturing its own products. But those must compete ultimately on the basis of quality and watchability. The European Union can and does add an extra dimension to that competitiveness but it must do so by working with market forces and not by denying them. In the negotiations in the months to come, that will be our message.
I am most grateful for your Lordships' approval of the Government's overall approach and support for the audio-visual industries in the United Kingdom. Media matters are very important and I expect that I shall be returning to the Dispatch Box to deal with a number of them in the months ahead.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, in conclusion I thank the members of my Committee for their kind remarks about me which are much appreciated. I must also thank noble Lords who have spoken today for their welcome of and appreciation for the report and the work which was put in to achieve it. Finally, I congratulate the Minister on his robust defence of the Government's policy. Also, I welcome the appreciative way in which he has dealt with the recommendations of the report. I hope that he will be able to follow some of those recommendations.
In introducing a debate like this, one can select only a few points on which to comment. I feared that some other equally valuable points might go by default. They have not done so. In one way or another in the course of the debate, your Lordships have covered all the main points of the report.
My noble friend Lord Chelmsford raised the matter of encryption. That is an exceptionally important subject. Control of the gate-keeper or gate-keepers of the system is a matter of national concern. I am not at all sure that the present situation in this country is entirely satisfactory. I shall say no more about that at present.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made the point about the importance of sheer quantities of money that are needed and the ability to ride many failures before you have the one blockbuster success. That is often underestimated by the general public who see the occasional "Chariots of Fire" or "Four Weddings and a Funeral" and think that we are on our way. We are not on our way until we have the type of financial backing which produces one or two good films but which can ride through many unsuccessful films.
Finally, I should at least refer to the courteous criticism of the Committee's report in relation to copyright made by the noble Lord, Lord Brain. I do not believe that there is quite as much difference between us as I had thought at first. But even if there is, the Committee would have to admit that in the diversity of subjects at which we looked, we were unable to go into any of the matters, particularly in relation to copyright, in the kind of depth that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, would have wished. That is a limitation imposed on any committee which is looking at a wide diversity of
1444
subjects in a Green Paper or whatever it is studying. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel satisfied that we did our best within the time constraints which were inflicted on us. I thank your Lordships, again, for participating in the debate. My last message to the Government would be: audio-visual is a sure-fire winner; do back it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Exports and Inward Investment
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what new policy developments they are considering to build on the current levels of exports and inward investment.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his new post and wish him and his right honourable friend well. They have a crucial remit.
Much has been achieved in recent years. British export volumes to the rest of the world have hit new records, and the upward trend is expected to continue. Exports are driving the economic recovery and are leading the UK out of recession.
I have combined inward investment and export strategy into this evening's debate. There are linkages. The conditions that are essential to our exporters are what attract inward investors. Indeed, 40 per cent. of our exports is derived from foreign companies having invested in the UK. It is the stable macro-economic conditions, competitive and flexible labour markets, the adaptability of employees, and a vibrant small and medium-sized business sector introducing new technologies to British industry, stimulating new managerial and working practices, that are the key.
We debated this subject in part some 18 months ago. There are those who suggest that, as the prognosis is favourable, there is no need to conduct regular assessments. I cannot share that opinion. Past successes suggest that we are on the right track; but we must emphasise the need for constant evaluation of performance, and indeed be formulating a plan not just for this year but for the next five years. Does the Minister agree and, if so, will we be told about forward policy tonight?
Competition for the available world level of investment is now so strong that we must constantly consider new mechanisms. As other nations wake up to the opportunities, the fight to attract new investment, and retain existing investment, will become harder.
First, perhaps I may be allowed to turn to inward investment. I want to draw attention to four areas where I believe that our present efforts could be enhanced: the need for clarity in promotional activities; the grants regime; the tax structure; and immigration matters. The delivery of the UK's promotional activities could be improved by providing services through a single point. There are many organisations in the UK which undertake activities aimed at encouraging inward investors. That can confuse the potential investor, especially as different bodies promote the same area.

1445
Such a body would co-ordinate and disseminate all relevant information. It would also ensure that all in the business of selling the UK do not compete to the detriment of the product by confusing the inward investor.
That concept could be taken one step further. At present, the bodies promoting the UK are separated from those responsible for the awarding of grants, such as Regional Selective Assistance. They could, and should, be integrated. That would be a logical extension to the "one-stop shop" approach advocated by the DTI in its Business Links programme. It would also be helpful to have an effective measurement of agencies' performance. Are they providing value for money?
I should like to say a word on grant and tax issues. The UK is the only European country to impose a cost-per-job limit when negotiating Regional Selective Assistance applications. That should be removed. The concept of "additionality", at present used in considering grant applications, could be replaced with a less confrontational approach. Grants, for example, could be decided as part of a process of negotiation as adopted by competitors elsewhere. However, the UK tax regime generally compares well with major international competitors, although some countries have incentives aimed specifically at inward investors.
Steps have been taken to make the UK as competitive, but the systems introduced are often seen as complex and do not place the UK on a par with some of its European Union partners. That need not result in an overall loss to the Exchequer. The investor, without incentives, might not have come to the UK anyway. Indeed, tax incentives would he cash positive as there would be a liability to indirect taxes.
However, I do think that investors seek near certainty as to the tax implications of their investment decisions. Our system does not allow the granting of advance tax rulings. That leaves the investor uncertain as to the tax effects of investing here. More might be done in this area.
I want to touch on difficulties faced by key personnel sent to the UK to evaluate investment potential first hand. Until recently, such individuals could enter this country to establish a representative office. However, the Home Office has recently re-interpreted the rules. The practical effect is to prevent entry, unless there is a commitment at the time of arrival to incorporate a company. That is a disincentive, especially for investors from the Pacific Rim countries.
Countries such as Nissan and Samsung first considered a tangible presence in the UK by the use of a representative office. My fear is that potential investors might be dissuaded from considering the UK as a result of that new interpretation.
We need to continue to attract inward investment. I have identified a number of areas where action is required. Major inducements are not necessarily the answer. Simplification and a levelling of playing fields will enhance the UK's position. They will help not only to keep existing investors here, but also to attract others.
We must fully understand the reasons why investors decide to locate in other European member nations. France, for example, now attracts a similar level of investment to the UK. That was not always the case.
Of course, there is a lot on which the Government can be congratulated. I was delighted to hear at the annual presentation of the Invest in Britain Bureau last week, for example, of the aftercare initiative. I am sure that we shall hear more in detail on those points from the Minister.
I must move on. In my remaining minutes I shall turn to export matters. One of the UK's real advantages is the worldwide access to market intelligence, but we are failing to drive home our advantage. The export intelligence service receives from oversea posts information that could, if of high quality and disseminated and quickly distributed to British industry, dramatically increase exports.
Research has shown that the quality of service has fallen with users critical of the information. Who maintains the quality of that contract, and what steps are being taken to improve the service? When will the agreement be negotiated? What will be the mechanism and criteria for selection? Following on, why do we not yet have a centrally-run business database, complete with company details and products, updated annually, so that buyers around the world can receive details of companies by return which are able to offer the products and services being sought? That is long overdue. Why has it not been implemented?
The export promoter initiative, which was launched some two years ago, has been successful. Will the programme be allowed to lapse? Many exporter promoters have built upon strong links with major UK exporters and foreign governments in their country of specialty. That experience is being lost as the promoters leave their posts and are reabsorbed into their own companies. Can the Minister confirm that the initiative is to be extended; and what steps are being taken to ensure that the experience gained over the past two years is not lost?
I turn now to the Business Links programme. There are those who suggest that the initiative is in serious trouble and floundering. An audit report has criticised the medium and long-term viability of established Business Links as being uncertain. What is the situation? Can I encourage the Minister to react to the anxieties?
I came here this evening expecting to be critical of the cost and availability of credit guarantee insurance but I find that the UK is a competitive marketplace for short-term insurance. Will there be a commitment by the Treasury to have sufficient funds available to match our future increase in exports? I am also pleased to hear of a new product, the Compact Policy, that NCM Credit Insurance is designing to cater for companies that export sales of up to £1 million. This is evidence that credit insurers are addressing the needs of small exporters. This is important.
Another essential category is that of education and training. The Institute of Export does an excellent job of training those at the centre of the export trade, hut there seems to be a growing demand for a course addressing the needs of export managers. Do the Government recognise that more needs to he done in

1447
this area, and what help might be made available? The DTI must be encouraged to develop a professional career structure for export staff.
Time allows me to comment only briefly on trade missions. Many small and medium sized exporters are critical of the limited number of trade missions they can attend with DTI support. How successful are these missions, and what steps are being taken to ensure that the most suitable companies are selected? What are the pre-qualifying criteria for selection?
Finally, a recent in-depth export-related survey conducted by NCM Credit Insurance and the Institute of Export—and analysed by the Bank Relationship Consultancy—shows that despite large sums invested in services to exporters, on average only 50 per cent. of exporters use the various services. Many are simply not aware of the assistance available, The more precisely we can define and evaluate the services exporters need, the sooner the services can be improved and the better exporters will perform for the benefit of the export-led recovery as a whole. But the questions remain: are we doing as well as we should, and what needs to be done to increase our market share?
7.43 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I also wish to start by congratulating my noble and learned friend the Minister on his new job. I hope that he will be as sympathetic to the subject on which I am speaking as his predecessor was. I also commend the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on his choice of such an important subject. I am surprised that more speakers from the Opposition are not contributing this evening. The export arena is crucial to the nation, and Labour policies will not help with issues such as the minimum wage. I look forward to hearing how this point and others are defended. I see from the Liberal Benches that the Liberal Party clearly is not interested in this subject!
One of the most frequent questions that I hear being asked is: why cannot we have some good news for a change? It is therefore a great pleasure to report glad tidings from the British motorsport industry, which comprises thousands of companies, large and small, providing specialist, high level, innovative technology, now exceeding aerospace technology. Annual revenue is nearly £2 billion, more than 40 per cent. of which is exported. Over 50,000 people are directly employed in this industry in this country and the motorsport sector has developed to the point where it can justifiably be recognised as an industry in its own right.
Most of the Formula 1 and Indy 500 cars and engines, with their leading edge technology, are designed and built in Britain. The tremendous growth of the British Touring Car Championship is an example of how promoters have recognised the needs of the public for a series that provides close racing in cars with which they can identify. The series is attracting record crowds and commands huge international TV viewership. In rallying, British technology and management is regarded as the best in the world. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government for providing the political environment for this industry to flourish.
1448
I have spoken to many companies involved with the motorsport industry and without exception they are highly complimentary of the DTI. This point needs to be made tonight. The DTI is supportive of the motorsport industry. Complacency is the biggest threat to the industry. The Japanese, the Americans, the French and the Germans probably dislike continually having to buy British, but in motorsport where success or failure is measured in thousandths of a second, they recognise that only the best will do. The industry is fragmented and some component companies are in an extremely parlous state. Team Lotus and Simtech have gone and others at the top are struggling for sponsorship.
We must accept the importance of the tobacco industry to motor racing and all the jobs that go with it. Benetton, Tyrrell, Williams, McLaren, Jordan, Ligier, Forti and Ferrari are all very dependent on this source of sponsorship, which is not easily replaced. Sadly and inexplicably neither Shell nor BP support a Formula 1 team, unlike other foreign oil companies and I hope the Government will shame or bully both of them into supporting British teams next year.
What new policy developments can the Government consider to help the industry build on its current success and level of exports, and to encourage more inward investment? One issue needing attention is the shortage of good engineers. This applies as much to the motor as the motorsport industry, and is a particular problem for component manufacturers. These companies, mostly employing 50 or less, many almost cottage industries, are one of the engines of future growth and employment for this country. But a recent survey by Anderson Consulting concluded that the gap to world class performance standards is still gaping in components.
There are various problems. First, unlike Germany, France or Japan, engineering as a profession does not have the respect it deserves. Why do more students not go into science engineering? One reason is that teachers do not have a good view of the industry. Schools need to visit factories and other suitable work places so that children can be talked to direct, and feel for themselves the glamour and excitement. These days they will not leave with dirty hands! Industry itself can help here. Toyota has set up an educational foundation, in which it has invested heavily in the past three years, to encourage children to take up engineering at school. The Government can help by encouraging more companies to invest in future engineers in this way.
Secondly, the education system does not prepare engineers to he ready for immediate use. In the case of the motor and motorsport industry, they need to go through significant training before they are any practical use in jobs such as the design of cars. Mechanical design should be more widely taught in engineering courses as it ultimately affects the ability of manufacturers to design and develop components to a high standard. This problem is the single most significant concern of the big multinationals such as Toyota and must be addressed as it is a vital ingredient in attracting inward investment.
How can we encourage component manufacturers to achieve higher standards so that they are better able to compete internationally? How can we address the staffing needs of component manufacturers in the motor

1449
and motorsport industry and promote the industry as a viable career option in this increasingly high-tech era£ How can the Government liaise more closely with colleges, schools and universities to ensure that the right courses are in place to meet the needs of the industry as we move into the 21st century'£ I should like to make a proposal.
The Prime Minister committed himself last week to holding conferences to hear industry's needs. With DTI assistance the Motorsport Industry Association would be prepared to organise a conference to address its problems. The DTI would be able to hear at first hand the needs of small companies operating exclusively in this important industry and receive ideas on how to make engineering more attractive and exciting to students from those businesses which will need them. In turn the DTI would be able to brief companies on the support it can offer in respect of exports and inward investment.
I declare an interest as the unpaid president of the MIA. However, I can promise substantial interest and support on the part of the motorsport industry. Autosport magazine, the leading motorsport publication in this country, and Race Car Engineering, the definitive trade publication, are both prepared to give any proposed conference major coverage. The engineering director of Cosworth would be happy to chair any conference. I suggest Silverstone or the Williams Grand Prix Engineering base as ideal venues. I look forward to a sympathetic response from the Minister.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for introducing this crucially important debate. I congratulate the Minister on his promotion, if it is promotion. If it is not I hope he regards it as promotion to a crucial department. I hope that he will stay awake while I speak because, however boring I am, I have a particular message for him and the new President of the Board of Trade. Therefore, if he should nod off I hope that he will at least read my speech in Hansard afterwards. If he could give me a friendly nod or wink I should be reassured on that point.
I have been brought up on the maxim "export or die". Like the noble Lord, Lord Astor, I am concerned about the small number of your Lordships who saw fit to put their names down for this debate. Looking around, particularly at the Benches opposite, and also the Benches behind me which are hardly bulging with noble Lords, it seems to me that there is a real possibility that we are going to die. I congratulate noble Lords in the Chamber for putting their names down to speak this evening and taking the trouble to support the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in bringing the matter forward.
I shall not detain your Lordships long. I shall focus on one facet of export promotion, namely, the role of the Royal Yacht in export promotion. I am happy to inform your Lordships that the inaugural meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Royal Yacht Group is due to be
1450
held at 1700 hours on Thursday, 13th July in Committee Room 3A. Any noble Lords who are interested and wish to attend will be extremely welcome.
Some noble Lords will be wondering why this chap did not put his name down to speak on this subject on Friday when there is a full-scale defence debate. The answer is simple. The Royal Yacht now has a minimal defence capability. It is true that she is funded by the Ministry of Defence, which is a curious anomaly and based on historic reasons alone. She was built as a hospital ship but cannot really fulfil that role today. She can really only be used as an ambulance. She has one operating theatre only and any sophisticated plastic surgery of the type which was so necessary in the Falklands to deal with the horrific burns as a result of napalm bombs, which our soldiers, sailors and airmen suffered, could not reasonably be dealt with on that ship.
Obviously the Ministry of Defence is not particularly concerned about the Royal Yacht. That is a great pity. Her Majesty has made it clear that in view of the changes in the pattern of Royal visits the yacht is not essential for Royal travel alone. The Government have decided to review the question of a replacement in the light of the significant contribution made to national prestige and trade promotion by the Royal Yacht in the past. The Royal cachet of the yacht and the occasional participation of the Royal Family in promotional events can act as a considerable draw for influential contacts. "Britannia" provides a prestigious venue for trade promotion through its use as a conference or event venue when berthed overseas or through sea days, which are essentially day trips from foreign ports for parties of UK and overseas businessmen, government Ministers and officials. These events are often arranged as part of a wider trade promotion campaign, the most recent ones being held in Bombay and Johannesburg. These were viewed by the business community as very successful. Possible promotional visits planned for 1996 include Pakistan and a tour of East Africa.
Any noble Lords who are geographers may have wondered how it was that the Royal Yacht managed to achieve such success in Johannesburg. I certainly raised my eyebrows when I read that in a brief from the DTI. I could understand the yacht being at Bombay. I spent many years of my working life in the Royal Navy so I know that Bombay is a port. I visited Bombay in a cruiser, the flagship of the East Indies Fleet, many moons ago and enjoyed a welcome visit there. But Johannesburg had me guessing. I rang up the department. I was told that it was true that the Royal Yacht would have had difficulty berthing in Johannesburg, a point that I had difficulty in comprehending as Johannesburg is many thousands of miles inland. Even noble Lords who do not understand naval matters will grasp that point. Apparently the visit was part of the Johannesburg trade fair, and the ship berthed in Cape Town.
I emphasise that point to show that the Royal Yacht's export promotional activities are not confined to ports, although two thirds of the surface of the globe is covered by water. She can have tentacles going thousands of miles inland through good organisation and

1451
preparatory work. That will show noble Lords that she is even more effective than perhaps they thought previously.
In conclusion, I urge the new Secretary of State to grasp the nettle while the going is good and offer to fund and run the Royal Yacht in co-operation with the Ministry of Defence. I do not for one minute suggest a civilian crew. Surely it should be possible for the crew to be leased from the Ministry of Defence. Indeed, a new Royal Yacht should be designed and built for Royal duties and export promotion. That could be a pearl in the hands of the new President of the Board of Trade. I commend the idea to him.
8 p.m.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, I join my noble friends in congratulating the Minister on his new appointment. I note that he did not fall asleep during my noble friend's speech, but he still has my contribution to come. I also join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on initiating what I consider to be a critical debate, and on his well informed and thought provoking contribution. I, too, am thoroughly surprised by the lack of presence in your Lordships' House, not only on these Benches but in particular on the Benches opposite. I can only think that everyone is recovering from perhaps another victory on the tug-of-war scene outside.
I must declare an interest, for when not present in your Lordships' House I am usually representing Wedgwood, a Staffordshire-based potmaker, in its many overseas markets. As we are just past 4th July and the celebration by Americans of their victory in achieving their independence, I feel safe to reflect on an incident which took place in Williamsburg, Virginia, as our cousins were revolting at the beginning of that war. They ransacked the town and, naturally, were particular in the destruction of anything made in England. As the looting continued, barrels containing Wedgwood products were thrown out of the merchants' windows. Needless to say, at the end of those hostilities, Josiah Wedgwood wrote, "God bless Lord North and his Stars". He was then able to resume his trade across the Atlantic, as did many other manufacturers.
Over 200 years later, as the company celebrates the genius of its founder at the Victoria and Albert Museum, Wedgwood continues an extremely lucrative business in North America. Often referred to as the melting pot of the world, the United States of America is naturally the most competitive market, not only in ceramics but in nearly every other category of product manufactured in this great country. In a global market, where price is a major factor, it is a great credit to any manufacturer to compete in such a market.
My experience in North America, the Antipodes, the Far East and, more recently, in Europe is that we can hold our heads high in the global market. Our products compare most favourably; and there are many reasons for continued success in maintaining such a high level of export. As the Minister, I am sure, will point out, export growth is at an 18-year high.
1452
In the ceramic industry, over 50 per cent. of production is exported. Less than 30 per cent. of that figure is imported. Therefore, the industry is a considerable net contributor. However, import penetration has increased from about 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. in the past five years.
We must never forget that a serious consideration of the consumer is the quality of the product. It is the element that distinguishes British products from others; and, thanks to our forebears, manufacturers in Britain have a legacy of quality production which as a whole is unequalled. The skill and dedication of workforces in surviving generations have kept that essential element alive. We must encourage wherever possible to maintain our enviable advantage.
As in the beginning, constant innovation and the use of modern technology has allowed our manufacturers to remain competitive. However, as many companies have discovered in recent recessionary periods, complacency is a very dangerous thing. Manufacturers should be constantly aware of what is happening in the world market. My right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Needham, before, sadly, he retired his post, put forward and carried out numerous projects to this end. I am sure that his successor under the direction of my right honourable friend Mr. Lang will continue to do the same. Visits to the newly developing countries around the world, like China, will pay tremendous dividends as we recognise that technology and cheap labour inevitably will teach us to maintain a high level of reinvestment in our own industries and force our manufacturers to be competitive.
There is another side to the knowledge gained by those visits. In countries with state run industries, there is far greater control of labour, energy and raw material costs. More importantly, the prices of exports are determined politically. In other words, cheap products can be made even more cheaply. The effect of dumping products that do not reflect their true value will distort the market, not only here but in our own export field. That unfair competition will be devastating leading to the closure of more companies and the demise of more than one industry.
As part of a review set up with the completion of the single European market, there has been a call by a number of countries, including Britain, to scrap import quotas. Undeniably that will increase import percentages with the devastating effect that I have just mentioned. I do not mean to be parochial, but in the ceramics industry we have a good example of that threat. There have been warnings of a potential loss of as many as 20,000 jobs in North Staffordshire alone. I am proud to say that with the initiatives of the British Overseas Trade Board, other agencies, and the natural inclination of our own industry, we have already adjusted accordingly and are prepared to do battle. Mr. Kevin Farrell, director of the manufacturers organisation, the British Ceramic Confederation, has said that fewer than 5,000 people work in the mass or volume end of the tableware industry. That would be effected, for example, by the Chinese dumping cheap products in our markets.

1453
However, the real point is that long term distortion will work its way through the higher price points and eventually kill the industry. Winning battles can be won on sound and efficient corporate policy, but to win the war we must be dealt an even hand. A free market is all very well but we must police and control it as other countries do. An unfortunate example of possible unfair play is the proposed development by a Turkish company to manufacture tiles in Liverpool. The plan to support that with considerable government funds while our own industry receives no grants even in the critical area of research is hardly a level playing field—unlike Edgebaston it is not even of our own making.
British industry has sustained through many troubled times. The companies it has spawned and the products manufactured have met the challenge. I urge the Minister to use his very considerable influence in encouraging even further export promotion programmes, such as my noble friend Lord Ashbourne put forward. As I said, the British Overseas Trade Board plays a vital role for which industry must be most grateful.
The British Overseas Trade Board financial report quotes an estimated cost for 1994–95 as £199.8 million. It is estimated that £144.3 million is the cost of staff, man hours including staff time in FCO posts in overseas offices, and other overheads, leaving £55.5 million for gross direct expenditure. Whichever way one breaks that down, it seems a small price to pay for an area so central to our economy.
Not only must our manufacturers be given every encouragement to compete in world markets, but even tougher directives must be given to staff in FCO posts with commercial sections. All too often it has been my experience that those offices will participate with fine representation at social gatherings where we subtly, or sometimes not so subtly, present our products for sale. It is extremely painful to hear a comment such as, "With products like yours you don't really have to sell them, do you?" The level of naivety is astounding. Representing a company that has an Irish sister, I witness at first hand how officials from the Emerald Isle support their own. They are committed and they are very effective. It would be helpful to us to have more creative and aggressive support from these offices.
It is most reassuring to learn about the success of the inward investment programme as presented by the Invest in Britain Bureau. The number of investment decisions, the great percentages of important countries like the United States and Japan investing in Britain as opposed to elsewhere in Europe and the incredible achievement of 11 out of 12 investments from Taiwan, all indicate a tremendous endorsement of the programme.
But I fear that we can be lulled into a false sense of security. Too often I hear the complaints from potential overseas investors who have enjoyed the hospitality of our regional offices but have discovered that they are sometimes poorly staffed and poorly funded, leaving open the opportunity to invest elsewhere. Again, we must provide the bullets to maintain a winning edge.
Much of what I have to say is about competition. Our forefathers saw it clearly. Through great innovation they produced products of indisputable quality, they identified their market and set about selling their wares
1454
at a competitive price. For a country that depends heavily upon a high level of exports, we must compete more. We must encourage manufacturers to even higher levels of quality. We must help more to identify potential markets. Government must he even-handed in their approach to those problems. Our manufacturers have a responsibility to themselves to be competitive. Individual companies are not holding out their hands, although support is always appreciated. Competition, however, must be fair.
I am sure that if other noble Lords had been present they would have been able to offer a better case in the field of macro-economics, but with so few speakers I would hazard saying that the general recovery from the recession, based on even and relatively stable growth and currencies not fluctuating wildly is going fairly well. At least, as we know, our core manufacturers are contributing to a healthy export situation.
However, in the high street we are suffering from what I call bumps and starts. There is no consistency to consumer spending which makes retailers very uneasy. I realise that my point is slightly wide of the Question, but it wiil have an effect on many industries involved in exporting their products. The health of the home market affects our order books and in turn production as a whole.
In closing, I congratulate the magnificent work forces up and down the country; their managers for their tenacity, dedication and ability in many cases to adapt to an ever-changing world. To the world we remain Great Britain. It is thanks to those men and women that we can hold our heads high, with products to match.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I too begin by congratulating the Minister on his appointment. I welcome him to the Dispatch Box. I also ask him not to be deterred by a seeming greater interest in the tug of war going on outside than in trade and industry matters in your Lordships' House. The work is in fact very important. It affects the standard of living of all of us in this country.
The Minister may be aware that almost a year ago the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, introduced a similar debate on exports. I am most grateful to him for introducing the subject again this evening because it gives us an opportunity to review the past year and look forward to the future. The Minister may well feel cheerful this evening as we are perhaps dealing with one of the happier sectors of his new responsibility. Our performance on exports and inward investment seems to have been quite good over the past year.
What are the reasons for that? It seems to me that there are half-a-dozen reasons which vary in importance from industry to industry and firm to firm. The first reason is that some of our companies have simply become more competitive. Quality has improved, unit labour costs have gone down by 3.4 per cent. during the past year, and our products have been better marketed, better designed and better produced.
Secondly, because of devaluation our goods have become cheaper. Thirdly, we have had a stagnant home market. Lack of demand in the UK has forced

1455
businesses to seek new opportunities of selling abroad and, to their credit, many companies have risen to the challenge. Fourthly, there has been better support from government. The Minister can take some comfort that his department is starting to develop a partnership with industry by preparing a marketing strategy for different countries and different industries. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, referred to that and asked whether the initiative would be extended. We look forward to the reply. Government Ministers have travelled many thousands of miles on trade missions with business people and the Minister has all that to look forward to.
Fifthly, improving world trade has helped and we have been able to cling on to our share of it. Finally, we have started to benefit from the European single market, even though it is both a threat and a challenge.
Despite all that, we are, however, still showing a deficit in our balance of trade in manufactured goods. The deficit was £7.5 billion in 1994, compared with a deficit of £8.1 billion in 1993. I hope that those figures are correct. They come from the Central Statistical Office, but I am sure that the Minister will join me in showing some concern about our trade statistics. A surplus of £0.6 billion for the last quarter of 1994 has now been revised down to a deficit of £0.5 billion. The current account deficit for the whole of 1994 has been revised upwards from £0.2 billion to £1.7 billion. I hope that the Minister will ensure that we are at least measuring our performance correctly. He will quickly learn the art of selective statistics, but it is important that the selective statistics are accurate.
However one selects the statistics, it is true that our improved export performance sucks in more imports, particularly capital goods such as machine tools, printing machines and plastic moulding machines, because we produce too few of those and similar products. As the Financial Times said recently:
"Investment spending tends to suck in more imports than consumer spending, because Britain has a relatively small capital goods industry to satisfy demand".
That is one reason why, on these Benches, we have been calling for measures to increase investment in producing capital goods so that we can make the equipment here instead of importing it.
So much for the past. What about the future? It is certain that our exporters will face strengthening international competition in all markets. Other noble Lords have spoken about that. How can we maintain and improve our position? Certainly not on the back of a weakening currency. Both the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor have emphasised their determination to maintain financial rectitude. Anyway, Germany, Japan and the USA have all, in the last few days, started to reduce their interest rates. Also, our customers are insisting more and more that we sell in their currencies or in European currency units. We can only maintain and improve on our position in world markets by improving the performance of our businesses and improving the performance of the DTI in supporting them.
When speaking to the Institute of Directors recently, the President of the Board of Trade complained that we had too many inferior companies being dragged along
1456
by too few world-class companies. I agree. What we have to do is to increase the number of world-class companies that we have in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, spoke of that.
Any company can aspire to be world class. It has to have the will to follow the process of achieving quality of product and technology and low unit costs, and to embrace continuous improvement, mobilise its management and empower its employees. But in today's global market the end product is usually a combination of components from many suppliers. A company will not be world class if its suppliers and its suppliers' suppliers do not share the same aspirations. The end product will succeed only when they are all world class.
In Japan, because of the web of interdependence that grows naturally, there is an integrated approach. Our culture is different, and these relationships have to be encouraged. To do that, I should like the Minister to concentrate on his department's world class manufacturing programme. The companies that adopt the programme will be the companies that will sustain our export performance in the future. The programme is particularly suitable because it takes the training, the work and the information direct to the companies and their executives and employees. It is not just a subsidised consultancy. The programme is designed to deliver and encourage standards of customer care, service, quality, technology and manufacturing equal to those existing in the best international companies, and to continue the improvement. The programme can apply to all sizes of businesses, with tens, hundreds or thousands of employees. It is self-selecting. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, referred to that when speaking of the motor industry.
There is a very good home grown example. In 1990, British Steel started the joint training of managers whose only link was that they worked for a company involved in the supply chain for British Steel. It was pioneering work and I urge the Minister to encourage more of it.
An added advantage of this world class benchmarking is that it gives businesses a framework within which to invest. I spoke earlier about the importance of investment. Companies are much more likely to invest within this framework than they are as a result of simply being exhorted to do so.
I spoke about improving the performance of the DTI. I join the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in referring the Minister to the recent survey of international services provided to exporters commissioned by the Institute of Export. I recommend the report as important background reading. Ten thousand companies which are already exporting were surveyed. It was found that one in eight exporters are unaware of the services provided by the department, and another 50 per cent. do not use those services. It is not as if the services are poor. Those who use them consider them to be good. Therefore the task of the Minister is not to introduce more services, but to make sure that the existing ones are better used. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, reminded us, export and inward investment are interconnected. On

1457
4th July the Invest in Britain Bureau reported that almost half of our exports were made by foreign owned companies, and the trend seems to be rising.
So how can we encourage inward investment? First, we must understand it better. The raw figures show that inward investment is dwarfed by outward investment, but we need to disaggregate the figures because there are different types of inward and outward investment. The largest part of both is simply buying shares in existing companies. I hope that the Minister will take steps to disaggregate the figures, because the important inward investment is the kind made by many of the world's better businesses whose investment brings new jobs, new technology, new products, new management and a general air of optimism.
But it is expensive. Regional grants and special grants are required to attract this investment; and the investing companies know that there is a lot of competition for their presence and they drive a hard bargain. Also, how long-term is this investment£ We all hope that it is long-term, but let us remember that Du Pont closed down the fibre business that it bought from ICI within a couple of years, with a loss of 525 jobs. Raytheon Jets closed down one of the most advanced production facilities in the aerospace industry less than 18 months after buying it from British Aerospace.
There is a lot of myth as to why companies invest here. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, referred to the minimum wage. Ministers and Members opposite often use the success of inward investment as proof of the success of the Government's employment policies. I advise them against doing so, as it is an exaggeration. The Invest in Britain Bureau commissioned a survey of 200 manufacturing, assembly and research and development companies which have already invested in the United Kingdom. They were asked their main reasons for investing in Britain: 126 mentioned the need to be in the European Union as part of their world strategy; 32 mentioned the English language; and only 12 mentioned labour costs.
I hope that the Minister will take note that, on the basis of the survey, the Government's employment policies are pretty irrelevant. What is absolutely clear is that investment in this country is seen as an investment in Europe; and if we are to continue to attract inward investment, the first priority is for the Government to sort out their policies towards Europe. That helps to explain why half our exports emanate from those companies.
The research also showed that another important factor in attracting inward investment is teamwork and continuity. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, spoke of confusion created by the lack of such teamwork. The team consists of the Invest in Britain Bureau; the development agencies; the local authorities; and the local private companies on which the inward investor will depend. Each has a role to play.
Bearing in mind that virtually all the local authorities and regional development agencies are Labour controlled, I urge the Minister to emphasise that, in order to put a stop to suggestions that there would be a lack of commitment towards inward investment if there were a change of government. The actions of those
1458
Labour authorities prove that the commitment would he just as great, and by emphasising that continuity the Minister would be helping to encourage inward investment.
Every encouragement is required because attracting inward investment is becoming more and more difficult. Competition for such investment is coming not only from other European Union countries; it now comes from eastern Europe too. Countries such as the Czech Republic are managing to come up with very attractive packages. Also, the inward investment scene is shifting to Asia. In his department the Minister will find recent figures published in Japan showing that we are ninth on the list of receivers of Japanese investment. Of the eight countries ahead of us, the United States is in third place and all the others are in south east Asia. China heads the list.
So what is our message for the Minister? First, encourage the creation of more world class companies, which will improve our export performance and also attract inward investment. Secondly, sell the services of his department more effectively. Thirdly, encourage the Invest in Britain Bureau to range far and wide and emphasise teamwork and continuity. Fourthly, be positive towards the European Union.
I hope that the Minister finds these suggestions helpful. They are offered in that spirit. I look forward with interest to his response, not only now but also in the future.
8.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who introduced this debate, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for the kind words of welcome that they extended to me on taking up this portfolio within the Department of Trade and Industry. I say to my noble friend Lord Ashbourne that I have no intention whatever of nodding off to sleep during debate on this particular set of issues. I am hound to say that there are debates on some issues in this House during which the desire for sleep can be overwhelming, but on this occasion that is certainly not the case. My noble friend arrested my attention entirely when he seemed to suggest that the Royal Yacht was steaming into the port of Johannesburg.
The one point that has clearly emerged from this very important debate is that we are all in agreement. It is of vital importance to the United Kingdom and international trade that there should be proper cross-border investment. Export growth is at a record 18-year high, as my noble friend Lord Wedgwood remarked. The current account deficit, as corrected, was indeed £1.7 billion in 1994, but it was the lowest since 1986. The invisible trade surplus of £8.9 billion in 1994 was the highest ever.
In the first quarter of 1995 exports are up a further 9 per cent. on last year, with imports up only one half per cent. At the same time, the CBI reports the strongest growth in export optimism since 1973. Forty per cent. of those manufactured exports are accounted for by international investors in the United Kingdom. The

1459
inward investment story is one of success. The competitiveness of our economy is nowhere better shown than in our ability to attract inward investment. Over 40 per cent. of all United States, Canadian and Japanese investment—and over 50 per cent. of Korean investment—in the European Union is located here.
Further, 1994–95 was another record year for inward investment. A record 434 overseas companies announced their intention to invest here, bringing with them over 88,000 associated jobs. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will agree that what was particularly encouraging was the fact that there were 28 research and development projects, and 245 projects were expansions of existing investments.
The Government's policy to encourage inward investment has brought enormous benefits to our economy. Since 1978–79 it has created or safeguarded nearly 700,000 jobs. The expertise of those companies has had a knock-on effect throughout United Kingdom industry, strengthening competition and innovation and boosting the productive capacity of our own companies. Our recent record is one of which we can be proud. My noble friend Lord Astor and others were entirely right to point out that, even now, this was not a time to be complacent. We cannot afford to stand still in the face of international competition, and we must continue to seek ways to improve our efforts. That goes for increasing the quality of our export promotion work and the level of investment in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Waverley, began by asking me to look forward. Perhaps I may refer him to the White Paper on competitiveness launched in May of this year. There the Government set out their long-term strategy for export promotion. They have committed an extra £40 million over the next four years which will be spent on enhancing the professionalism of staff in the overseas trade services—a theme that emerged from a number of contributions—reinforcing and improving the delivery of services at business links, increasing the number of trade fairs from 334 in 1994–95 to 400 in 1996–97, mounting a number of British excellence fairs and increasing the number of outward missions to 280.
The noble Lord, Lord Waverley, was particularly concerned that there were too many different organisations promoting inward investment. As a Scot, I clearly recognise that all areas have a legitimate interest in promoting the most positive image of themselves. In many circumstances local organisations are best placed to market their products. It may seem that there is some duplication, but the organisations co-operate with each other in order to market themselves most effectively overseas. The Invest in Britain Bureau of the DTI is responsible for the promotion of inward investment to the United Kingdom as a whole. Overseas posts also liaise with local offices of the territorial and regional agencies to minimise duplication.
As far as the United Kingdom tax regime is concerned, at 33 per cent. the United Kingdom has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe. At the same time, the new rules on advance corporation tax and the reduction of the overall rate to 20 per cent. should increase the United Kingdom's attractiveness as a
1460
location for headquarters operations. We are confident that these are the right measures to maintain the United Kingdom's attractiveness within the Union.
I believe that the noble Lord is mistaken in his belief that as far as regional selective assistance is concerned the United Kingdom is unique in the imposition of a cost per job limit; nor is it something that the Government are likely to drop. One of the key criteria of the scheme is that it should create jobs. That is an important measure by which we can gauge the scheme's value for money. Similarly, the scheme is selective in that grant is given when there is a proven need. The noble Lord also alluded to the recent re-interpretation of the Home Office rules on entry into Britain. I understand his concerns that potential investors should not be dissuaded from investing in the United Kingdom, but the Invest in Britain Bureau has no evidence that these changes have had any adverse effects on inward investors, nor on the attractiveness of the United Kingdom as an investment location. Nevertheless, he is right to raise this and other issues. I hope that he will be reassured that we constantly monitor our inward investment organisations to minimise duplication and ensure value for money.
I believe that our performance on inward investment speaks for itself. Of course, other European countries are sometimes successful in attracting inward investment, but I believe that we need to look at long-term trends, not simply one-off comparisons. It is reassuring that in 1994–95 57 per cent. of investment in the United Kingdom recorded by the IBB was reinvestment or expansion by companies already established here. If I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, I do not believe we need to trade whether or not minimum wages have an effect. I invoke, as so many of my colleagues have in the past, President Delors' comment that the United Kingdom was potentially a paradise for investment. I have not seen that recently contradicted. I was also asked whether or not there would be a commitment on the part of the Treasury to match future increases in exports. There is already such a commitment. In 1994 the amber zone budget, which controlled the new level of ECGD exposure in markets where the risk was high, continued to rise over the financial period in question.
I turn to the issue of exports and the comments made on the export intelligence service. This is monitored regularly by in-house staff, and it is intended that regular reviews should continue. I was also asked why we still did not have a centrally-run business data base. The Government do not regard it as part of their role to duplicate the information already available on a number of private sector data bases. A recent review within the DTI recommended that commercial sources could be enhanced if some non-competitive data held by the Government for regulatory purposes was made available to the private sector. We are looking into these matters.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Wedgwood that the export promoter initiative has been successful. I hope that he and others will be glad to learn that there are no plans to wind down the scheme. Industry continues to be supportive by offering high calibre people for secondment to the department. It is true that

1461
in their two years many export promoters build strong links with United Kingdom exporters and buyers in foreign markets. There may be some concern as to what happens to that accumulated experience. We are confident that it is not lost. Where appropriate, new export promoters pick up where their predecessors leave off, and dedicated desk officers who work alongside the export promoters are also well-placed to maintain the export strategy relating to the market.
I turn to the business links initiative. There have been some teething problems. However, the initiative is nothing short of a revolution in the delivery of government services. We believe that it is the right way to proceed. Delivery through business links meets our objective of getting closer to customers, and it adds an extra dimension to government services and is now offered as part of a wider range of support to meet business needs. Inevitably, there has been some disruption in the early stages, but the benefits are emerging. Leicestershire business link is an excellent example of co-operation in action. DTI staff work closely with staff from chambers, the European information centre and the export development counsellor to produce a joint export strategy. I am fully aware of the concern that we must make more businesses aware of, and get them to use, these services. That very role of the business links initiative is to reach more companies which are developing their business and export strategies and to introduce them, through government support where appropriate, to new markets.
As far as outward missions are concerned, it is true that many small and medium-sized exporters are critical of the limited number of trade missions that they can attend with DTI support. Following a formal evaluation of the outward mission scheme, it was agreed that with effect from 1st April 1993 assistance would be limited to 10 missions per company, with a maximum of three to any one country. So far no company has been turned down because it has exhausted its limit of 10. Even after a company has received assistance for 10 missions it is not precluded from attending future missions.
Between 1993 and 1995 we have annually supported around 150 outward missions, with something like 2,700 annual participants. I want to emphasise that we realise the importance of those missions and are set to increase the figure for 1995–96 to 250. That should lead to around 3,500 participants. The importance was also noted in the increased funding going from £1.7 million to £2.9 million next year. The success can be seen in the £150 million worth of contracts reportedly won by the companies.
1462
I am conscious that there are a number of detailed points that I shall not be able to follow through. I was dismayed by the observations of my noble friend Lord Wedgwood with regard to the professionalism of those who make a contribution. I can assure him that within the overseas trade services we shall seek further ways in which to increase the professionalism of our staff both in the DTI and the FCO. A programme of secondments between DTI and FCO staff involved in commercial work and with the private sector will help us make the most of trading opportunities. I warmly welcome the commitment of the FCO to trade promotion work and the increased resources promised for the years to come.
I turn to the particular point made by my noble friend Lord Astor on engineering and the vehicle components industry. I know that the motor sports industry association is well known to the vehicles division within DTI, which is responsible for sponsorship of the vehicle industry. I am sure that it would be prepared to consider favourably the association's suggestion of a conference on the industry's needs. We are also aware of the problem of engineering skill shortages and we announced an action for engineering initiative in the 1994 competitiveness White Paper. That is a joint initiative between industry and academia supported by the Government. The Engineering Council has already announced higher standards for educating, training and developing engineers and technicians. The work of that initiative is set to continue through 1996.
I share the interest of my noble friend Lord Ashbourne in the Royal Yacht. I am aware of the value that it has provided for us in export promotion. I noted what he had to say. It is a difficult issue, as I am sure he appreciates. The question of a replacement is being considered by the Government and a decision will he announced in due course. I regret that this evening I am not immediately able to give him the assurance that he sought from me. However, I very much understand his interest and commitment to this matter.
If I have failed to answer any detailed points, I shall be grateful if noble Lords will let me know. I certainly want to ensure that clear attention is paid to the detail of all these important efforts that we are making. It is not just because it has indeed been a success story in recent years. There is little contradiction in your Lordships' House that, if we do not maintain that effort to the very best of our ability, it will indeed undermine the prosperity on which the nation is founded.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.

  Domestic Violence: Women Sentenced for Murder
  Domestic Violence: Women Sentenced for Murder
  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE—DATES AND LOCATIONS OF APPEALS
  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE—DATES AND LOCATIONS OF APPEALS
  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE—WOMEN SENTENCED FOR MURDER
  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE—WOMEN SENTENCED FOR MURDER
  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE—TRANSCRIPTS OF TRIALS
  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE—TRANSCRIPTS OF TRIALS
  NHS Meeting and Lecture: Costs
  NHS Meeting and Lecture: Costs
  East London Underground Line
  East London Underground Line
  Education Statistics
  Education Statistics
  European Year of Lifelong Learning
  European Year of Lifelong Learning
  School Books: Spending
  School Books: Spending