Sitting of 12 July 1995

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Intensive Care (London)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  10.4 am
  Mr. Roger Sims: First, I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to have this debate, and the manner in which you responded to my application.
  Just before 11 pm on 6 March, the London ambulance service was called to an incident in Orpington, where the ambulance crew found my constituent, Mr. Malcolm Murray, lying unconscious with severe head injuries. He was admitted immediately to Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup, which lies within the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath).
  The senior house officer, an experienced and able clinician, concluded that the patient needed neurosurgery, and efforts were immediately initiated to find an intensive care bed where he could receive such treatment. None could be located in the London area, so the search was extended further afield, and eventually Leeds general infirmary agreed to accept the patient. Speed in transferring him was of the essence, but the London helicopter medical service does not operate at night, so the Royal Air Force was called in. It picked up Mr. Murray from Queen Mary's by helicopter at 6.30 am, and he arrived at Leeds at 8.15 am. Sadly, the patient did not survive.
  Medical opinion is that it is most unlikely that any treatment, wherever it was given, could have saved Mr. Murray, but the incident attracted nationwide comment and concern. Naturally, the concern was particularly strong in the neighbourhood in which Mr. Murray lived. The incident in which he suffered the injury has led to a man being charged with murder. It is not difficult to imagine how the tragedy has affected his girl friend, Teresa Davy, and his many friends, and their distress was compounded by the difficulty in securing proper treatment for him. Ms Davy and others mounted a campaign and drew up a petition that attracted more than 4,000 signatures. She came to see me at my advice bureau expressing determination that action should be taken to prevent a repetition of those events.
  Miss Davy's reactions and those of others in my constituency and further afield were fully justified. We are all entitled to expect that, should we suffer sudden illness or accident and need intensive care, we shall get it.
  In the aftermath of the incident, inquiries into it and its implications were set up by both the regional health authority and Queen Mary's hospital trust. On 23 March,
  864
  the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) initiated a brief Adjournment debate on neurosurgery, in the course of which he referred to this case. But at that stage, full details were not known, and the reports had not yet been published. A few days later, they were, and they made various recommendations and raised a number of issues, referring mainly to the availability of facilities.
  Both reports speak well of the care that Mr. Murray received at Queen Mary's hospital and of the staff there, with one exception. They are unfairly critical of the consultant orthopaedic surgeon, Mr. Anthony Percy, who also happens to be my constituent. Mr. Percy's treatment is an aspect of the case about which I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup feels particularly strongly. I shall confine myself to saying that statements made by the region and the trust, and comments in the media, about Mr. Percy were, in my view, grossly unfair, and have damaged his clinical reputation. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity of putting the record straight.
  One matter that obviously needs clarification is exactly how many intensive care beds there are in London—by which I mean broadly that area within the M25. Following an exchange on the radio with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), in which he claimed that the number of intensive care beds in London had decreased in recent years and I said that they had increased, I tabled a parliamentary question and had an exchange of letters with my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am glad to see in his place to respond to the debate.
  This is not an issue on which we should seek to score party points with regard to statistics, but perhaps we might have clarification as to how many intensive care beds there are in London, as distinct from North Thames and South Thames regions, which cover a far wider area.
  Having established that figure, I would then ask whether it shows that there is an adequate number of intensive care beds, and what formula is used for calculating how many are needed. Since March, there have been other similar cases of patients being transferred out of London, which certainly does not suggest that we have a surplus of intensive care beds.
  A few weeks ago, I initiated a Wednesday morning debate on the future of Guy's hospital. I shall not rehearse that today, but I draw attention to the fact that Philip Harris house at the hospital has been planned and equipped, among other things, to accommodate 15 intensive care beds. Surely, far from now planning to use those spaces for other purposes, they should be brought into use as soon as possible.
  The issues include not only the number but the type of beds. Not all intensive care beds are the same with regard to the equipment adjacent to them or the staff to service them.
  Any one of us or our constituents might at any time suffer a heart attack, and the chances are that whatever hospital we were taken into in the London area would be able to treat that condition. However, if, for example, we were involved in a road accident and suffered head injuries necessitating neurosurgery, that would not necessarily be the case. Only a handful of hospitals can offer that treatment. Although, in theory, sufficient beds should be available to meet those likely needs, obviously there is a question whether there are sufficient. The Malcolm Murray case suggests that there are not.

  865
  The Department of Health is not short of advice on that matter. A report by the Society of British Neurological Surgeons published in February 1993 recommended that four neurosurgical intensive care beds should be available per million of the population. At present, in the whole of South Thames, there are nine beds for a population of 7 million—little more than one per million. The Brook general hospital, which has a catchment area of more than 3 million, had two intensive care beds.
  I say "had", because the Brook unit has closed. The King's/Maudsley neuroscience centre is currently running at 40 beds short, as the new Ruskin wing has not yet been commissioned, and, although the surgeons from the Brook have been transferred to King's, they have yet to be allocated secretaries or operating space.
  Commenting on his report on the Malcolm Murray incident, the chairman of the South Thames regional health authority said on television that there was no shortage of neurosurgical intensive care beds in London. Who is right—he or the surgeons? Does the Minister accept the Society of British Neurological Surgeons' report, and does he intend to take steps to implement its recommendations?
  I have dwelt on neurosurgery, because it is so important, but similar considerations apply to other specialties. I ask again: is there any formula to decide how many intensive care beds we should have in London and the different types of beds there should be, and any policy as to where they should be situated?
  Another general issue is how many intensive care beds should be used for routine surgery, and how many earmarked for emergency. I realise that there is a difficult balance to be struck in maintaining empty beds, and staff for them, at considerable cost for emergencies that may not arise, when the beds might be used for elective surgery such as bypass operations. Does the Department issue any guidelines on that?
  I also suggest that there should be some clarity on where authority lies when hospital staff seek intensive care beds. In their report, the regional health authorities say:
  "In the Panel's view, greater senior clinical advice and direct involvement at Queen Mary's may well have been successful in securing a more flexible response from the hospitals contacted, notwithstanding the pressures they were experiencing."
  That, of course, implies criticism of Mr. Percy, whom I have mentioned, and were the grounds on which he was censured. Indeed, in his covering letter to the Secretary of State, the chairman of the regional authority wrote:
  "The direct involvement of the senior clinician in obtaining a referral would have made a significant difference".
  In fact, in subsequent correspondence with Mr. Percy, the trust has accepted that finding beds is a management responsibility.
  In any case, if a clinician is considered sufficiently qualified and experienced to be in charge of a hospital accident and emergency department, surely his judgment should be accepted, regardless of his status in the hospital hierarchy. Indeed, paragraph 6 of the hospital's report says:
  "The clinical acceptance of referred patients should not depend upon the seniority of the referring clinicians".
  That surely must be right, and I hope that the Minister can confirm that.
  866
  An extraordinary feature of that case was the amount of time that staff at the hospital had to spend simply trying to locate a bed. The conclusion that Mr. Murray needed a neurosurgery bed was reached just after midnight, and the hospital's report comments:
  "Chasing beds and securing transfer arrangements continued until 05.00 hours. That should not have been necessary and is unacceptable. The lack of any central reference point under such circumstances is a case for extreme concern."
  To that we should all surely say, "Hear, hear," and it appears extraordinary that, when we now have so much sophisticated technology available to us, the only way that staff could find out if there was an empty bed was to telephone hospitals one by one.
  The first recommendation in the region's report reads:
  "A register of intensive care beds availability across the Thames Regions should result in easier and better communication of bed availability. Work on this has already started and the register will be introduced in mid-April. The register will be able to be sourced by telephone and will be updated twice a day."
  Can the Minister confirm that that system is now in place, and, if so, is it operating effectively?
  Finally, can my hon. Friend confirm that the procedures to be followed in such cases as that have been clarified? Another of the region's recommendations was:
  "Commissioners must ensure that hospitals have and follow agreed intensive care bed management procedures and their initial review should be completed within three months."
  That recommendation was made on 28 March, so the three months has now elapsed, and I hope that the reviews have been completed.
  I hope that, in the course of the debate, the matter of the unwarranted criticism of my constituent Mr. Tony Percy will be resolved and that he will be cleared of the charges made against him.
  Miss Davy and her friends were determined that whatever happened in the case of Malcolm Murray should not be allowed to happen again. I believe that they were perfectly entitled to make that demand. I hope that the Minister will give the assurances that they, and I, seek when he replies to the debate.
  10.19 am
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: I am sure that Labour Members would endorse all that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has said. I share his views about the medical staff at Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup, and I wish to be associated with his remarks in that regard.
  I will not dwell upon the specific circumstances of the Malcolm Murray case and the events of that tragic night, because I dealt with it in the earlier debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The hon. Gentleman also set out those circumstances very clearly this morning.
  However, I remind the House and the Minister of the tragic death of Roberta Gerardo on new year's day. I have nothing but praise for the medical and nursing staff at the North Middlesex hospital, but there was an eight-hour delay in finding an intensive care bed for that mother of two. There were telephone calls to hospitals as far away as Cambridge in an attempt to find a bed. One was eventually located 20 miles away in Hemel Hempstead, but, sadly, the case of Roberta Gerardo had the same tragic ending as that of Malcolm Murray.
  The recent report of the Health Select Committee found that, for a number of years, the former Secretary of State had ignored all the signs of a crisis in the London

  867
  ambulance service. The Select Committee said that, if the political will had existed, the crisis could have been averted. I draw the Minister's attention to the existing crisis in the provision of intensive care facilities, not just in Greater London but, as the hon. Member for Chislehurst said, in the area within the boundaries of the M25.
  There is sufficient evidence to show that it is not just a matter of an occasional crisis, such as the cases of Roberta Gerardo and Malcolm Murray. Night after night, hospital staff throughout the capital and beyond spend hours on the telephone trying to find appropriate facilities for patients whose lives are at risk.
  The former Secretary of State accused Labour Members of being obsessed with the issue of hospital beds. But every time we asked the former Secretary of State and the Department of Health about the availability of beds and about hospital closures since 1979, she replied that the Department did not know. The Department of Health does not know how many beds have been lost, and it does not know how many hospitals have closed. The Department of Health does not collect details of the number of existing hospitals, let alone details of hospital closures.
  Fortunately, the Library of the House of Commons has produced figures about the number of hospital beds available in London. I do not think that we can divorce the provision of acute services and acute beds from the crisis in the provision of intensive care facilities.
  The Library data show that, between 1979 and 1993–94, the number of national health service beds in Greater London fell by 49 per cent., and the number of acute beds by 45 per cent. I know that the new Secretary of State has said that he does not intend to revisit the decisions of the former Secretary of State, but I urge him to re-examine the basis of the decisions to rationalise hospital services and to close beds in London.
  We know that the Government are still pursuing the Tomlinson agenda. A recent survey showed that, in order to reach the Tomlinson targets and equalise with the rest of the country, 400 beds had to be lost in 1992–93. In fact, 1,499 beds were lost in that year.
  The crisis goes across all emergency services. Hospital staff and consultants who provide acute care are spending inordinate amounts of time on the telephone trying to find beds, and we know that the same crisis exists in the mental health and psychiatric spheres. In my constituency, which has a bed occupancy rate of 120 per cent., patients must often be transported to facilities as far away as Oxford.
  The calculation of the number of beds required in London is based upon the Tomlinson report and the subsequent report of the King's Fund. The Secretary of State must also examine the later report of the King's Fund entitled "London—the Key Facts", which was published in April 1994. It stated:
  "The Capital's health care needs have been underestimated. There are now good reasons for believing that London merits a larger—not smaller—share of the NHS cake".
  Unless London receives an additional share of the cake, I do not believe that it can begin to address the acute needs of its communities and the problem of the shortfall in intensive care provision without damaging other areas of the health service. The King's Fund estimates that London needs an extra £200 million. If the York formula of resource allocation had not been tampered with, it is
  868
  likely that London would have received those funds already. However, the Government have adapted resource allocation which distorts the formula and takes resources away from areas of social need, such as London.
  The hon. Member for Chislehurst referred to the closure of the Brook hospital—the hospital that should have taken Malcolm Murray but which did not have a bed available on that evening. As the hon. Gentleman said, the hospital is now closed. Service planners in the South Thames region say that a neuroscience unit requires five or six intensive care beds. At the time of Malcolm Murray's death, the King's site had two intensive care beds and the Brook had three.
  It has now been decided to relocate the Brook unit to King's hospital. The services which are provided for the people of south-east London and north Kent—the area represented by the hon. Member for Chislehurst and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—have been relocated in inner London. That area is close to the M2, the M20 and the M25, and the high incidence of road traffic accidents may result in the need for intensive care and neurosurgery services. It makes no sense to relocate those very important services further away from the area they are intended to serve and closer to central London.
  The situation is the same north of the river in east London. The neuroscience facilities at Oldchurch hospital may be transferred to the Royal in inner London. For years, a threat has been hanging over St. George's trust and the world-renowned Atkinson-Morley hospital in south-west London. Moving specialist units and the intensive care facilities that go with them further into central London seems to fly in the face of the Government's original aim to move services out of the centre of London.
  Although, in some ways, inner London may be over-supplied with acute services, the same is not true of Greater London as a whole and those constituencies on the periphery of London. It seems strange that the current practice should fly in the face of the Government's professed policy of allowing services to follow the patients. We now find patients chasing scarce resources and scarce beds.
  No one has adequately explained to me or to my local community health council why the former Secretary of State took the decision to shoehorn the services at the Brook hospital into the King's Maudsley. The former Secretary of State ignored the fears, concerns and dissatisfaction expressed not only by my constituents but also by consultants involved in service provision.
  The hon. Member for Chislehurst referred to the way in which the services have been shoehorned into the unit at King's with 44 Maudsley neurology beds, without easy access to medicine, surgery or intensive care.
  The Secretary of State says that proximity to psychiatric services will be advantageous to the neurosciences. It would not have been advantageous in the case of Mr. Murray or most people requiring acute neurosurgery. There is no logical argument for locating neurosurgery services with psychiatry. They need to be located in a major trauma centre with intensive care facilities.
  It would have been possible to transfer the services from the Brook, either to the new Queen Elizabeth hospital when the trust takes it over from the Ministry

  869
  of Defence, or alternatively, to Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup, where it would have been perfectly placed to serve the sub-region for which it was designed.
  There is chaos in the neurosciences following the closure of the Brook hospital, and I am particularly concerned about paediatrics. At the moment, the neurosciences are split; neurology is at the Maudsley, neurosurgery is at King's, and paediatric neurology is split between Guy's, St. Thomas's and King's. Paediatricians at Greenwich are now saying that they would prefer to send their patients to Great Ormond street, where all those services, including intensive care, are provided under one roof.
  A worrying aspect of the report into the incident involving Malcolm Murray is the suggestion that perhaps the region should be looking at private facilities. Is that the route that the Government are taking? If there is sufficient supply of intensive care specialist facilities, why should the region and the trust have to look to the private sector?
  The Minister talks about more effective bed management, saying that it is not a matter of the number of beds but how they are used. The hon. Member for Chislehurst said that there has to be a balance between keeping emergency beds open and using them for necessary, urgent and acute work. To my mind, that demonstrates the pressure on the acute beds and the inadequacy of provision to meet the demand for acute services. I also fear that what the Minister is saying may inevitably lead to the earlier discharge of critically ill patients than is clinically justifiable.
  In the debate on 23 March on neurosurgery services in the south-east, the Minister referred to a meeting two days earlier between the Secretary of State and the royal colleges, the Intensive Care Society and the British Association of Critical Care Nurses to discuss the MacPherson report. He said that the meeting had been brought forward. I do not know whether that was because of my Adjournment debate or because of the tragic circumstances of Malcolm Murray, but it is worrying that it requires such a tragedy to spur the Secretary of State into action.
  What was the result of that meeting, apart from the establishment of the steering group? What are the recommendations of that working group, and when is it likely to report to the House? I hope that the Minister will provide some answers to the questions that are being asked today, and that it will not require a further tragedy such as that of Malcolm Murray or Roberta Gerardo before the Government act to address the number of intensive care beds required to serve the capital city.
  10.34 am
  Sir Edward Heath: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has had the opportunity of raising this subject today. I owe him and the House an apology for not being here for the first part of his speech, owing to traffic conditions entirely beyond my control. Since then, he has given me the opportunity of reading his speech, which I have done, and I thoroughly support everything he said.
  As my hon. Friend knows, I should like to add one or two points. There are two major aspects of the problem that has been raised today. The first is the national one,
  870
  which concerns the facilities available for dealing with such cases. The second is the personal one concerning Mr. Percy, who is a constituent of my hon. Friend. He came to see me directly after the events, because Queen Mary's hospital is in my constituency, and that was where he became involved.
  I shall first add a word to what my hon. Friend and Opposition Members have said about the provision of intensive care facilities in Britain under the health service. It is quite obvious that they are not sufficient. Today we are discussing two cases. One involved a patient in Maidstone who had to be driven to Southampton before a bed could be provided where he could have proper treatment. That cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs. In respect of Queen Mary's, as is well known, a patient had to be flown from Sidcup to Leeds by a helicopter that was specially commissioned from the Royal Air Force, and paid for by the Royal Air Force, before he could receive proper treatment.
  There is general agreement among the medical profession at Queen Mary's and at Leeds that everything possible was done by the doctors involved. There is no question about that, so it is not the problem. The problem concerns the facilities where treatment can be provided.
  We have just heard that the Brook hospital was immensely important for many decades. For as long as I have represented Old Bexley and Sidcup, there have been attempts to close down the Brook hospital, all of which were successfully resisted until the present one. We now have a case where the lack of facilities at the Brook hospital meant a flight from Sidcup to Leeds. The Brook hospital was telephoned, but as it was closing down, no facilities were available.
  I have said previously that the reports that were produced in recent years on the hospital service, and the distinguished people who wrote those reports, dealt with everything except the patients. They have centralised everything for the benefit of the medicos and the administrators, but the fact that a patient, instead of being able to go to the Brook hospital, had to be flown to Leeds never crossed their minds. That is the essence of the matter as to the proper provision of such facilities.
  The chairman of the region stated that there were ample facilities in the London area, but he is quite wrong. His comment must raise doubts whether he is suitable as a regional chairman. He said that beds were available at the Royal Free hospital that night. That is also untrue. The Royal Free was telephoned, and replied that there were no beds available. It has now said that, had a more senior person telephoned the hospital, a bed might have been available.
  What philosophy or approach is it to say that a bed is available only to a top person who is said to be influential, but not if those on duty at the hospital and carrying out the work there apply for a bed? That cannot possibly be tolerated as an approach to service in our hospital system.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister would not for a moment suggest that such an approach can continue. The report produced by Queen Mary's, Sidcup, was very full, and made a number of suggestions that have been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst. Like him, I hope that they will receive full consideration in the Department. The Minister may not be able to say at the moment whether they are all acceptable, and I quite understand that.

  871
  We now have a new Secretary of State for Health, who may have a different approach from his predecessor. He and the Minister might want to look at those suggestions. As far as I am concerned, the fuller the consideration they get the better, because a great deal of thought has gone into them and into what should be said and done about them. There are practical propositions, but the fact remains that beds with the equipment to deal with neurological cases are not available in London, and they are the basic necessity.
  I now come to the personal position of the doctor involved at Queen Mary's. The matter has been handled deplorably. The first investigation, which was hastily rushed, was carried out by the chairman of the region, and three lay people. Not one was a medical person. It was said that they consulted a doctor, but what his qualifications are we do not know. Was he familiar with all the problems of this particular field of medicine?
  The committee produced its report, and the chairman went on television and said that Dr. Percy had not only been criticised but condemned for his mistreatment of this case. The chairman was followed by the Secretary of State herself, who also said on television that the doctor had been condemned.
  What sort of justice is that? They were three lay people, not in any way experts or experienced in these matters. What is more, the doctor himself was not invited to appear before them to give his account of what happened or to attempt to justify his actions. I cannot consider that that is possibly justifiable in any organisation, be it private or public, but least of all public.
  To behave in that way is totally unacceptable, and I hope that it will be made clear to them and to all the other regions that, if doctors are going to be criticised in this acute way, the investigations have to be properly handled. The committee should include people who are experienced, and the people being considered should be invited to give evidence, as fully as they like, about their own position. Nothing else is possibly justifiable.
  There was a leak of the report of the region. How it happened or where it came from we do not know. It has been denied by the region, but it led to a press attack on the doctor, of the most extreme kind. As the case is coming before the courts, I do not propose to say any more about it. It would be improper on my part, even though the House of Commons has special arrangements.
  As a result of the leak, Dr. Percy has, in the minds of millions of people in this country and throughout the English-speaking world, been condemned for his conduct in this case. We all know when that happens how difficult it is for any person to wipe out what has appeared in the press in the most extreme form. That was the consequence of the leak.
  The inquiry that was made by Queen Mary's took longer and was thorough, and all those involved, in addition to Dr. Percy, were invited to give evidence to it. They did so. In addition to making recommendations about the general situation, it also commented fairly fully about the doctors involved.
  What is very important is that the people who were working that night in Queen Mary's were also described fully. In paragraph 12, the report says:
  "The Panel felt very confident that the team in place on the night in question were of a high calibre and sound experience. Indeed, ironically, if they had not been so experienced help may have been sought at an earlier stage."
  872
  There was no question about those who were in charge in the hospital. The senior doctor in charge had been at Queen Mary's for a comparatively short time, but was very experienced in the problems that arose that night. There was no criticism of him or of any of those who were working with him.
  I am told that, altogether, a group of 15 hospital specialists worked on this case, all through the night, until they could get the RAF helicopter. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst mentioned the administrative arrangements, which need to be improved, to get facilities for handling such cases. They did extraordinarily well to find out that, although other helicopters were not available, the RAF had one, and to get around the problems of paying the RAF, which, with limitations on Government expenditure in mind, wanted an assurance that it would get the cash quickly once the helicopter was used. There is room for improvement in the administrative arrangements as well.
  We then come to the question of Dr. Percy and what he did. Let me quote again from the report:
  "It was the view of the Enquiry Panel that there were no grounds for criticism of the clinical supervision of the patient"—
  no grounds.
  "However, once the call had been received by the consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon"—
  Dr. Percy—
  "at 0217hrs he could have taken greater responsibility in helping the junior staff on site possibly by attending the hospital or by telephoning neurosurgical colleagues in specialist centres when it became clear that Leeds was the only option available."
  There are two things about that. First, the panel says that Dr. Percy could have taken greater responsibility in helping junior staff, possibly by attending the hospital. In fact, he did what the junior staff asked. He was absolutely certain that the staff were doing their job properly after they reported to him, and advised them about getting in touch with hospitals where beds would be available. He later advised them on how to solve the transport problem. In that respect, he had done what was required, and had done it properly.
  The report continues:
  "Nonetheless, at 0217hrs with a patient who clearly required specialist attention it is probably the case that the involvement of the consultant would not have made any difference to the clinical outcome."
  Those are two statements. What grounds are there for censuring that doctor? Justice has gone badly astray, to the permanent damage of the doctor, who is highly skilled and respected, unless this is corrected—and it must be corrected, because it is entirely unjustifiable.
  The report continues:
  "With the benefit of hindsight the consultant has recognised that he could have telephoned the Brook consultant neurosurgeon at home to try to ease the administrative situation".
  It is very doubtful whether he could have telephoned, but how he could have eased the administrative situation when the Government are determined to close down the whole show, I do not know.
  "This reflection was positively welcomed by the panel." That endorses the fact that there were no grounds for censuring Dr. Percy.
  The panel did not censure Dr. Percy. The fact that the chairman of the region went on television and announced that the doctor had been censured was entirely unjustifiable. The fact that the previous

  873
  Secretary of State for Health also went on television and gave her view that the doctor had been justifiably censured was also completely unfounded.
  I cannot over-emphasise the damage that it does to a person in a professional career to allow such things to be said. There is still confusion. I, among others, was assured by the hospital that the doctor had not been censured. I do not think that one can take the sentences that I have read from the report as censure. On the other hand, he has been told by the administrator that he has been censured. That, again, is entirely unsatisfactory. I ask the Minister and his advisers to get to the root of this and sort it out. We are relying on him to do so.
  I want to say one word in general to the Minister, which perhaps he could pass on to the new Secretary of State, and it is this. The health service is doing a good job—there is no doubt about that—but it has one great drawback, which is that, publicly, it is always announced that more and more money is going to the health service. Yet the health service knows that, because of the rapid advance of medicine in so many different spheres, its need for finance is increasing faster than the amount that it receives. It is that which Ministers must take account of if there are to be proper arrangements for looking after the health of the British people.
  Medicine has not stood still. It has probably advanced almost faster than any other scientific area, except nuclear and space. The fact that that is not acknowledged by Ministers is why people do not have confidence that Ministers know how to deal with the situation. That goes to the root of the question.
  The same is also true of hospitals. Queen Mary's hospital has a tremendous reputation, and the result is that it can often deal with patients more quickly than neighbouring hospitals. We are then told that, if hospitals can deal with patients more quickly, they do not require so much money. The fact is that they require more money because they are dealing with more patients because they are dealing with them more quickly.
  Could we please have a Secretary of State who recognises that, and perhaps mentions it occasionally, so that we know that he recognises it? That is essential to an understanding of the position of the health service.
  The other aspect that I want to mention is that there are matters which are not satisfactory, such as the one that we have been discussing this morning. Will the Secretary of State please agree that these things are not satisfactory, and tell us how he will deal with such unsatisfactory aspects? Instead of merely emphasising again how much money is going into the health service and how much the Government want to maintain it, let us have a little quiet appreciation of the problems where they do exist, and an indication of how they will be dealt with for the benefit of the patients and of our constituents.
  If the Secretary of State adopts that attitude, he will be far more successful in commending to the population—the voting population is getting closer and closer—the good things that the health service is doing, because our constituents will see that those things that are at the moment lacking are being satisfactorily looked at and dealt with.
  10.52 am
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I count it a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), and, like the right hon. Gentleman, I congratulate the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on having secured it. It is an important debate. It is important to Mr. Murray's family and friends, to the clinicians who cared for Mr. Murray, and to other health service workers who tried to do their best for him. It is also important because it raises wider questions about the provision of intensive care beds in the capital and the capital's catchment area.
  When the incident occurred, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who is to reply to the debate, wrote to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) about the case. In his letter, he did something which was, frankly, deplorable. He said:
  "The junior doctor in charge of his case at St. Mary's failed to persuade any of the other local neuroscience centres he contacted to admit him."
  In other words, the letter sent by the Minister pins the blame firmly on the junior doctor.
  Like the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, I deplore that scapegoating of health-care professionals. It is not justified. In any event, it is the job of the bed managers of hospitals to find beds. I cannot see how a senior doctor could find a bed that a junior doctor could not. A bed was either available or it was not.
  That is the issue to which those who have responsibility for the health service should address themselves, rather than seeking to scapegoat health-care professionals. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I also deplore the appearance of the previous Secretary of State on television pontificating on who was guilty and who was not before the matter had been properly inquired into.
  The Under-Secretary of State went on to say that he had already commissioned a study of intensive care provision. That will be an important study, and we look forward with interest to seeing the fruits of it. This is not the first time that the House has debated the provision and availability of intensive care beds in the NHS and, in particular, in the capital. There has been a spate of highly publicised incidents in which seriously ill or injured patients have been transported from one hospital to another in a desperate search for a bed in an intensive care unit. Mr. Murray's tragic case is one of the most dramatic, but it is not an isolated incident.
  I well remember the Prime Minister being asked about this at Question Time. He defended the 200-mile journey by saying:
  "I understand that Mr. Murray required a highly specialised form of treatment with which Leeds was particularly able to help".— [Official Report, 9 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 454.]
  It is incumbent on the Minister when he responds to say what the highly specialised form of treatment was—a form of treatment which apparently was not available in the capital. It is also incumbent on him to say how it was that Leeds was "particularly"—the Prime Minister's word—able to help. I look forward to the Minister's explanation, and I hope that it is as plausible as he can manage.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) pointed out, incidents such as this have sparked a series of inquiries into the availability of intensive care in the NHS. It is right in a debate such as

  875
  this that we should ask what is the size of the problem. The Department of Health has already conducted a study entitled "Study of Provision of Intensive Care in England", dated 1993. It provides us with some useful facts and findings to guide our debate.
  The Department of Health tells us, for example, that, in the United States in 1992, the proportion of moneys spent on intensive care was 10 per cent. of total health costs. In the United States, total health costs consume some 12.4 per cent. of GDP. In the United Kingdom, for the same year, we spent on intensive care 1 per cent. of health-care costs, and in this country health-care costs consume only 6 per cent. of GDP. That represents a twentyfold difference.
  The report goes on to state:
  "We found that considerable numbers of patients were denied the possibility of intensive care because the intensive care units were full."
  It does not go on to say that perhaps, if a junior doctor had tried harder, or if a more senior doctor had asked for a bed, one would have been found. The Department's own study says that the intensive care units were full.
  It goes on:
  "In our study we have shown that intensive care provision in England based on numbers of staffed beds is unequal between regional health authorities."
  Our debates on provision in London have highlighted that.
  The hon. Member for Chislehurst referred to an exchange about whether there had been increased or decreased provision for the capital in recent times. I wrote to him after the exchange telling him where I obtained my figures. I obtained them from the Minister in answer to a parliamentary question. They relate to the two London regional health authorities, and show that, between 1992 and 1993, the number of beds fell by 12 to 724. In other words, the two London regional health authorities covering London and its immediate catchment area have lost provision.
  A survey was carried out in January this year by consultants at St. George's hospital, which showed that, out of 35 hospitals within the M25, only eight to 10 intensive care unit beds were available. Between 30 and 40 of those beds were closed because of funding or staff shortages. That is a slice of life revealed by a survey conducted by consultants at St. George's.
  A second survey was conducted in February 1995 of five cities—London, Birmingham, Manchester, Cardiff and Glasgow—which found that, of a theoretical total of 452 intensive care beds, only 376 were open. The figures that the Government like to use do not reveal the whole story.
  The Government responded to the survey by admitting the existence of pressing problems in the provision of intensive care beds, especially in London; and, as the Minister's letter reveals, they have ordered an urgent review. Given all that Ministers have said about the Labour party's call for a review and a moratorium on closures, it is a bit rich for them to say now that they will conduct an urgent review of intensive care provision.
  Despite the Government's commitment, only two months passed before the previous Secretary of State signed the warrant for the closure of Guy's hospital, and approved the ripping out of brand new and as yet unused intensive care equipment from a ward in Philip Harris house. The hon. Member for Chislehurst knows what an
  876
  obscenity I consider that to be; we have debated these matters in the House before, and I do not suppose that his views differ much from mine.
  It is fair to say that the provision of intensive care is very expensive. One bed costs about £1,500 for 24 hours, and health authorities and trusts think carefully before purchasing and providing more than is absolutely necessary. That apparent drive for efficiency, however, can have terrible, tragic results, especially in the event of an unexpected increase in demand.
  The case that we are discussing suggests that one accident occasioned an unforeseen increase in demand in the capital on the day in question. What if four people had been injured in a traffic accident, rather than one? The tragedy would have been multiplied by four. If one bed was not available, four certainly were not.
  It is clear to me—as it is to every observer, whether politically neutral or not—that there is a crisis in provision in the capital, and, indeed, in other urban areas. That crisis is money-driven, and driven by the Government's peculiar approach to the management of the national health service: savings are everything, and the provision of a front-line service must take second place.
  The demand for intensive and emergency care cannot be entirely predictable, by its very nature. No one can predict when a serious traffic accident, for example, will occur—or, indeed, when a hospital operation will go wrong or something unexpected will be discovered. It is therefore essential to proper patient care to allow a reasonable margin of safety in the number of intensive care places that are funded and staffed.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) pointed out, that margin of safety has not been in evidence in several instances. It is not good enough for Ministers to pass the responsibility on to local management, or, even more shamefully, to try to scapegoat individual clinicians.
  As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has observed, it is the duty of Government to ensure that there are enough intensive care beds. If today's debate has highlighted that need as well as the tragic case of Mr. Murray, I hope that it will have done some good.
  11.3 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on raising a matter that has caused considerable concern not only in his constituency but nationally as a result of the dramatic events on the night of 6–7 March. I welcome the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who has been involved through his discussions with the doctor concerned.
  The Opposition Members who spoke have used the words "crisis" and "chaos" liberally, no doubt in an attempt to draw attention to what they were saying. There is no crisis, but an intelligent discussion is needed about the number of intensive care beds. For reasons that have already been given, a difficult balance must be struck between wasteful over-provision—the provision of resources that are then not used for much of the time—and the need to minimise the risk of incidents of the kind that we are discussing.
  Both Opposition speakers refrained from specific discussion of the number of intensive care beds, and attempted to widen the argument to tie question of the

  877
  number of acute beds generally in the London area. The two issues may be conncected to some degree, but it is inappropriate to suggest that "a bed is a bed is a bed". As we all know, there is a world of difference between the question of how many acute beds there should be in London hospitals, and the specific issue of how many intensive care units there should be and how many staffed beds should be available in them.
  Today's debate principally concerns the incidents that took place in March, and the lessons to be learned about the provision of neurosurgery and intensive care. Hon. Members discussed, in general terms, the sorry circumstances of the transfer from Sidcup to Leeds on the night of 6–7 March in a debate on 23 March. At that time, we were awaiting the report of an investigation of the case; I am now able to reveal the findings of that investigation, and the action that has been taken since. Before I do so, let me add my condolences to those that have already been extended to the Murray family in their bereavement.
  Much has been made today of the treatment of Mr. Anthony Percy, the orthapaedic consultant at Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup. I appreciate the reasons for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup expressed concern, but the investigating panel felt that Mr. Percy—who was contacted at home at various times by the senior house officer in his attempts to find a bed for Mr. Murray—might have done more to help in what was a highly unusual and difficult situation for hospital staff.
  It is a matter of record that the trust's chief executive wrote a private letter of censure to Mr. Percy, commenting on his contribution—although stressing that he had been responsible for no failure of clinical care, and that the question of disciplinary action did not arise.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup suggested that that was inconsistent with another statement that the clinical outcome of the case would not have been affected, but it is not. No one has suggested that the clinical outcome was necessarily affected, however unsatisfactory it was that the patient had to be transported to Leeds. No one has suggested that that had a significant adverse effect on the patient—although I should be the last to say that what happened should have happened in that way: it is unacceptable that the patient had to be taken to Leeds.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sackville: No.
  I well understand Mr. Percy's wish now to do all he can to put right the damage that he feels has been done to his reputation, and I very much regret the way in which the whole matter was reported.
  Mr. Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sackville: No. The hon. Gentleman had his chance to give his views; I have quite a long speech to make.
  Given the possibility of legal proceedings, hon. Members will appreciate, as my right hon. Friend has said, that I cannot comment further on this matter. What I can categorically state is that there is no question of Mr. Percy being used as a scapegoat to deflect criticism of bed shortages in London.
  878
  Indeed, the investigation panel concluded that there was not a shortage of beds. Although the intensive care beds in neurosciences centres were certainly all very busy, the panel believed, on the evidence it had before it, that Mr. Murray could have been treated that night in London following his head injury. The key point is the management and use of beds and the co-ordination and communication between units, rather than the absolute number. That is the real issue, and I shall return to it.
  Mr. Sims: My hon. Friend says that there is no question of there being any scapegoats in this matter, but has he read all the correspondence, in the course of which the chief executive says that he fears that scapegoats were required, the implication being that Mr. Percy is the scapegoat? Can my hon. Friend say whether Mr. Percy was censured or not? If so, why was he censured, and if there were no grounds for him being censured, why cannot that censure be withdrawn?
  Mr. Sackville: I have stated the facts as I know them: a letter of censure was written to Mr. Percy by the hospital, critical of his performance. That is a matter of record.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Minister told the House that it was a private letter. If so, why did Ministers go on television and talk about it?
  Mr. Sackville: We did so because it was very germane to the whole account of what happened on that night that the hospital was critical of Mr. Percy. There was enormous press interest in the matter. As I said, however, I regret the way in which some newspapers and media carried the story. I can understand why Mr. Percy feels that he has been unfairly treated.
  Sir Edward Heath: That letter was sent some time after all this began, and I have quoted from the report of the hospital panel and its chairman of chancellors. Their conclusion was obviously different. The letter was sent by the administrator of the hospital. By what authority did he send that letter, when it was not justified by the whole panel of the hospital, with the chairman presiding?
  Mr. Sackville: I understand that the letter was sent with the full knowledge of the chairman of the hospital, and that clearly the hospital was critical. The fact that that was perhaps blown up to a considerable extent by the media is regrettable, but it remains a matter of fact that, with the full knowledge and permission of the chairman, the hospital was critical of Mr. Percy.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sackville: No. I will carry on, because I have a lot to say about the action that has been taken since on intensive care beds.
  On the situation during that night, the panel also concluded that the Royal Free hospital did have two intensive care beds available and could have taken the patient. I appreciate that that raises all sorts of queries, and I would like to make it clear that a call was made by Queen Mary's hospital, and the information was given to the doctor concerned that the Royal Free considered it clinically inappropriate to transport the patient across London. That was its opinion, and it was therefore asked to see whether some nearer facilities could be found.

  879
  As far as can be ascertained, there was no further contact after that. The Royal Free was not contacted again. That is why I say that there was a failure of communication and co-ordination, but it remains clear that two intensive care beds were available at the Royal Free. That much we know, and it is a matter of great regret that that was not followed up. I am not blaming anyone. The situation was confused and difficult. Later, a decision was therefore taken to transport the patient to Leeds.
  The report makes it clear that, with the proper use of existing intensive care facilities and better co-ordination between hospitals, it should be possible to minimise the risk of inappropriate transfers of this sort occurring in the future.
  Sir Edward Heath: Does it not seem to my hon. Friend to be quite extraordinary that, if those beds were available at the Royal Free, which it has since denied, and a doctor is on the other end of the telephone, the hospital should not say to him, "Yes, it would be much easier and more suitable for the patient if you could get him into the Brook, but if you can't get him into the Brook, then come back to us." It said nothing of the sort. It said to the doctors in Queen Mary's hospital, "Aren't the beds available? Try the Brook."
  Mr. Sackville: That is not the information that I have, which is that the hospital said that beds were available, but advised that nearer facilities be sought. Unfortunately, that was not followed up. That is one of the factors that led to the inappropriate transfer of this patient to Leeds.
  As the House already knows, the report calls—
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sackville: No. I shall continue, and I have said what I understand to be the facts about what happened in relation to that telephone call.
  The report calls for the establishment of stronger systems for the referral of patients to specialist neuroscience centres, better co-ordination of bed usage between neuroscience centres, and improved communication between specialist centres and their referring hospital. Those are important recommendations. All of them are being implemented, with some already in place and others being refined.
  A key recommendation was that the London emergency bed service, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst asked me earlier, should extend its service to cover intensive care beds. The new service began on 17 April, and is already proving to be of considerable assistance to units in helping to match supply and demand for intensive care services.
  Trusts in the region were asked immediately to review their on-call protocols to make much clearer the involvement expected of staff out of hours.
  All acute hospitals are required to make formal relationships with one of the specialist neuroscience centres. That is the centre that they will contact initially if they need to refer a patient for neurosurgery. Many hospitals in South Thames have already confirmed that they have such procedures in place.
  For their part, the specialist neuroscience centres have introduced procedures to inform hospitals that normally refer patients to them of any severe pressure on beds and the alternative arrangements available. The burden of
  880
  finding a bed is thus co-ordinated by the specialist centres. If the specialist centre cannot identify a place, a referral is made to the emergency bed service, which maintains a comprehensive information service on bed availability for all London hospitals.
  The procedures that have been established should ensure that, when a patient needs access to a specialist centre, the referral can be organised efficiently and with optimal clinical effectiveness. I have gone into the matter at some length, and I want to make it clear to the House that, with good organisation, the things that occurred on that night should be avoided in future. I hope that some of those actions that have been taken will minimise the risk of such events recurring.
  Health authorities are actively considering intensive care provision, and are working with their local hospitals to ensure that the referral procedures are in place. The two Thames regions are also holding detailed discussions to ensure a fully co-ordinated approach to forward planning and bed usage between their specialist neuroscience centres.
  Mr. Murray's injuries were severe, and he required both neurosurgery and intensive care. An intensive care unit is a specialised hospital ward where critically ill patients with organ failure can receive treatment and monitoring, using invasive techniques and high-technology equipment, and benefit from the high staffing ratio—at least one to one—necessary to maintain adequate care. The number of available intensive care beds in England has risen by over 100 since 1989 to more than 2,600, and the number of qualified intensive care nurses has risen by 1,000 to 7,650. The working group that has been set up will produce guidelines on admittance and the better use of those beds.
  Despite those increases in facilities, there were allegations of shortages long before the Murray case. To clarify the matter, we commissioned a report from Professor Klim MacPherson of the health promotion sciences unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine on the provision of intensive care services in England.
  That thorough report showed that, overall, there was sufficient provision. However, it identified a number of problems and important issues. In particular, it showed that about one in six admissions to intensive care are considered by clinicians to be inappropriate, on the grounds that the patients are either too ill to have any reasonable chance of recovery, or not ill enough to require the level of specialist care that is provided in an intensive care unit.
  On 7 February, the report was formally sent to all health authorities and trusts asking them to examine local provision carefully in the light of the findings and recommendations. Following the publication of the report, Ministers met leaders of the relevant professional bodies and, in the light of those discussions, a working group of professionals, to which I have just referred, is considering guidelines for admission and discharge. It is also looking at the relationship between intensive care units and other less intensive forms of care, such as high dependency units.
  Given the resources that are required for an intensive care bed, it is vital that we get the balance right between meeting the need for both emergency and planned treatment requiring intensive care, and avoiding those facilities being under-used. As we have heard in the

  881
  debate, that is a difficult balance. Getting it right remains a challenging priority for all those involved, given the fluctuations in demand for this highly specialised and intensive treatment.
  The Government's policy, whether for London or for the rest of the country, is that it is for individual health authorities to plan the level of provision that is appropriate for their, areas, taking into account all factors of need, demand and the availability and desirability of other services.
  Of particular interest to the debate is information on London. Professor MacPherson's report found that each of the Thames regions had more general intensive care beds per head of population than the national average. The former South East Thames region had the highest ratio in the country, with three beds per 100,000 of the population. The Department's information returns show that, in inner and outer London, the average number of available intensive care beds rose from 480 to 501 in the year to 1994.
  The Government do not hold central information on the number of intensive care beds within different specialties. According to the London emergency beds service, there are currently 247 general adult intensive care beds in 35 hospitals within the 16 London health authorities. There are also 29 neuroscience intensive care beds, 50 paediatric intensive care beds and 186 beds in cardiothoracic units. In addition to these 512 beds are intensive care beds in renal, liver and other specialist units that are not presently covered by the emergency beds service.
  To help to ensure the best use of available resources and to improve communication and co-ordination, the emergency beds service has extended its coverage to intensive care services, including neurosurgical intensive care in the Thames regions and surrounding area. It is operational 24 hours a day, and it contacts every intensive care unit in the Thames regions twice a day—or three times a day for those with specialist neurosurgery or paediatric beds—so as to update its information on bed availability. It is thus able to respond immediately to units that are seeking to transfer a patient because they have no spare capacity.
  Initial experience of the emergency beds service is that it is proving very helpful. In the first 45 days of the service, there were 173 inquiries from 53 hospitals. On average, that is four a day, and there were as many as 13 on one day in April. The work of the service led to 112 patients being transferred to 54 destinations. Some 78 per cent. of the inquiries were for general intensive care and 14 per cent. were for neurosurgical intensive care.
  The service is of considerable assistance to units in helping to match supply and demand for intensive care services. Similar services are being established in other parts of the country, with considerable benefit.
  In the light of Professor MacPherson's finding that many intensive care beds are inappropriately used, no discussion of intensive care would be complete without considering acute bed provision. That the NHS generally will have fewer acute beds in 10 or 20 years' time is common ground. However, neither the Tomlinson report nor "Making London Better" includes a planned or target reduction in beds, and it is not Government policy to set such targets.
  We have said that, in London, as in the rest of the country and in the world, more patients will be treated with fewer beds. Developments in modern health care,
  882
  such as non-invasive diagnosis and treatment, and new and improved drug therapies, mean that, overall, the demand for beds is steadily falling. That trend is clear in Britain and overseas.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sackville: No. I should like to continue.
  The common theme from many studies is the need for better management. That was the key message of a report on beds from the chief executives of the inner London health authorities. Considerable work is being done to develop neurosciences in the Thames regions and London. That is well in hand, and the transfer of neurosurgery from the Brook hospital is being phased to ensure the continuation of safe and effective services. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst spoke about that transfer.
  The new neurosurgery service, which was established at a cost of £7 million including magnetic resonance imaging facilities at the Ruskin wing of King's, will begin to take patients next month. It will be complemented in 1999 by the move of the neurology service from the Maudsley to King's, so that a comprehensive service will be available in one building. The Higher Education Funding Council is also investing in specialist research and teaching facilities. That will bring an academic dimension, and further complement the service at King's.
  A clinically led review of neuroscience services in South Thames recently proposed that a new specialist neurosurgery unit should be located at St. George's hospital, Tooting. If health authorities agree to those proposals, the new centre will replace the outdated facilities at Atkinson Morley hospital and Hurstwood Park. Actions already taken and current considerations demonstrate the commitment to ensuring that London and South Thames in particular have the best possible pattern of neuroscience services.
  The events of 6 and 7 March underline the urgency and the importance of the work that is already in hand to define and facilitate the best possible future pattern of neuroscience and intensive care facilities in the Thames regions. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate the Department's commitment to ensuring that everything possible is done to avoid any repetition of the unacceptable events of that night. I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst about what happened.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) for his comments about the good work of the NHS. I agree that the many new technologies, new medicines and new ways of treating patients mean that there will be a demand for ever greater resources for the NHS. I hope that my right hon. Friend was not entirely correct when he said that Ministers have failed to acknowledge that.
  I take it as read, just looking at the history of resources in the NHS, that the same pattern will continue; that we will need to find more and more resources to provide for ever greater demand for health as new ways of treating patients emerge. I think that many problems will exist. The problem of balancing the need for intensive care beds with supply will always exist. I hope that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup suggested, we will take a quiet and sensible approach to the matter, and that some of what I have said will convince him that we are doing just that.
  Sir Edward Heath: Does my hon. Friend accept that, while we welcome the improvements that he has outlined and hope that they will be more effective than the present arrangements, I for one cannot accept the information that he has been given on Mr. Percy? As the matter is likely to come before the courts, he has heard far from the last of it.

  Radioactive Waste
  11.30 am
  Mr. Clive Betts: I want to raise today issues surrounding the disposal of radioactive waste from the nuclear industry and that which is generated by medical processes in local hospitals. I want to concentrate on low-level waste, which has been the subject of particular concern in my constituency during the past few months. I hope that the Government will reiterate some good news on that subject.
  The Government published a consultation document on 14 August last year in which they reviewed nuclear waste and its disposal. Last week, a White Paper was issued in response to that consultation process. I want to place on record straight away that I welcome the Government's decision to abandon their initial intention, as expressed in the consultation document, to allow waste from the nuclear industry to be deposited on public refuse sites. This morning, I want to ask questions about how we have come to have this debate today and why it was necessary to consult on the issue in the first place.
  I also intend to discuss some issues raised by the White Paper appertaining to low-level waste and its disposal—I want to seek some clarification from the Minister on that point. Last, I want to raise some issues surrounding the transportation of waste from the nuclear industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) hopes to raise his own concerns on transportation.
  It goes without saying that the issue of radioactive waste is highly sensitive. It naturally worries the public. Even when the waste in question comes from local hospitals, and people can therefore see an obvious benefit from the processes that have produced it, local residents are worried about its disposal and treatment. Those public concerns are naturally heightened when the waste is from the nuclear industry. It does not take speeches from politicians at public meetings to produce that concern; it is natural. The issue has therefore to be handled with sensitivity and I shall today question whether the Government have not been guilty during the past few months of substantial insensitivity.
  In my constituency, we have a large public refuse tip called Beighton tip. Only four or five years ago, planning permission was granted to extend it. Tipping will continue on the site for the next two to three years. It is surrounded by houses. A local school and a nature conservation area of reclaimed land are next door to it. Excellent work has been put in by volunteers from the local community who are committed to our natural environment.
  The tip has naturally caused public disquiet. No one likes living next door to a refuse tip, but when proposals are made to dispose of radioactive waste from the nuclear industry at such a site, it is natural that residents become extremely alarmed. For many years, radioactive waste from local hospitals has been deposited on the site. Even that causes some concern. A local group of residents has formed the Hackenthorpe against the tip campaign and been vigilant in monitoring all matters in connection with the tip. They attend regular meetings with me, local councillors and council officers, at which they raise concerns about the depositing there of any radioactive waste whatever.
  In Sheffield, we have considered the possibility of incinerating radioactive waste, but we were worried about emissions into the atmosphere. On balance, it was thought

  885
  that depositing the waste in a controlled and authorised way at Beighton tip was probably the best way forward. However, there is a difference between dealing with radioactive waste from hospitals and dealing similarly with waste from the nuclear industry.
  The first difference is that there are no problems of definition with waste from hospitals. It is all low-level waste. It is not a matter of where one draws the line. It is all the lowest level radioactive waste that is in need of disposal. That is not the case with waste from the nuclear industry which, as the Government's consultation document illustrates, comes in various grades from low level right the way through to high level, for which specific plans are made. There is also a difference in type, which I shall deal with later.
  There is a scientific difference between waste from hospitals and waste from the nuclear industry. The Government's consultation document published in August last year therefore made chilling reading. I shall quote from the key points in the document. It says:
  "Some of the waste from nuclear sites which is currently disposed of to Drigg could in principle be safely disposed of to local landfills, while still providing full radiological protection of the public, although each case would need to be carefully considered. Yet even though the charges for disposal at Drigg are high compared with landfill burial, the majority of the nuclear industry has not switched to alternative disposal routes, nor does the ability to charge for radioactive waste disposals seem to have generated interest from private landfill operators."
  It is probably not surprising that people are not queueing up to take the material, but the document expresses some surprise that, despite the willingness of the nuclear industry to pay, even private operators have not been willing to take the material on board and put it on private sites.
  The document continues:
  "This current practice creates needless pressure on the disposal capacity at Drigg. The Government therefore believes that there would be advantage in encouraging waste producers to make greater use of controlled burial. Views are invited on this, as well as on the methods by which it might be achieved."
  That was the key part of the proposal in the consultation document last August. It was some time before there was public recognition that the proposal was around at all. Indeed, the public profile of the issue was raised only when Greenpeace issued a press release and there followed an article in the Observer.
  It is worth asking questions at this stage about why the idea was put out to consultation. I accept that it was a suggestion for consultation, but still it was raised. Once the public read about a Government proposal, even though the Government keep on saying that it is merely a matter for consultation, they become worried that what is proposed will happen—that waste from the nuclear industry will appear on their doorsteps. They know that, for all the security measures that are taken on refuse tips, children go and play on them and that, although they should not, people have motorbike scrambles on them. People can put up all the warning signs and fences in the world, but they will not completely prevent public access to such sites. People therefore become extremely concerned.
  It is even more worrying that the proposal seems to have been brought forward for two reasons. The words that I have just read out gave the game away. First, the
  886
  Government were concerned about the cost of using Drigg and were considering burial at public refuse sites as a cheaper option—it was about saving money. Secondly, they were looking to save money by considering Drigg for the disposal of intermediate-level waste, which would be cheaper than the way in which it is currently disposed of.
  There is also the complication of reprocessing waste from nuclear industries in other countries. The Government decided not to return the totality of that waste to other countries but have chosen, for cheapness of transportation, to send back high-level waste in concentrated form and leave substantial volumes of low-level waste for disposal in this country. That presents the Government with the problem of how to dispose of the low-level waste. Given the capacity problems at Drigg, and the pressure it will be under if it is also to be used for intermediate waste, there will be a difficulty not merely on cost but on where else the waste can be disposed of.
  It is worrying that the Government brought forward the proposals because of their policy decisions on reprocessing waste from other countries and because of considerations to do with cheapness. Burial on refuse sites was thought to be an easy, cheap and convenient way out of their difficulties.
  It was also unfortunate that the Government chose to raise such a sensitive matter without bringing it more forcibly to public attention. Until the Observer story, the proposal had gone largely unnoticed. It was hidden away in a few paragraphs towards the end of a very large document which mainly dealt with other grades of waste from the nuclear industry. The Government made no attempt to highlight their proposals. That shows that, while it was a consultation document in name, little effort was made to activate the consultation process and bring it to the attention of people who might want to have a say—not least ordinary members of the public such as my constituents who live around the Beighton tip.
  The Government also said that there was not a list of tips into which they were proposing to put waste from the nuclear industry. In one sense, that was technically correct, because paragraph 126 of the report mentioned that authorisations were necessary. It states:
  "Disposals are permitted only when the waste containment characteristics and performance of the site have been fully assessed".
  I accept that, even if the Government had carried on with this proposal and had come to a different conclusion the day after the White Paper was announced, waste from the nuclear industry would not have been deposited on tips without careful consideration of their containment characteristics. However, the fact is that the document listed municipal refuse sites that would be considered for the disposal of nuclear waste—nuclear waste would not be disposed of at those sites but they would be considered for it.
  The existence of a list heightens public concern. People know that, even if the tip they live near has not been designated as a disposal site, it is on the list for consideration to be so designated. The public naturally react. They believe that Government lists have some validity and that proposals that the Government make are likely to come to fruition.
  It is not as though the Government could not have foreseen what would happen. Indeed, I find it staggering that the Government felt that they did not have to offer

  887
  any extra explanation or to contact local authorities and ask for views on the proposals. They must have realised what the reaction would be because there was a parallel case in the mid 1980s. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that. He will want to say what lessons were learnt from the row in the 1980s when the Government climbed down on similar proposals in a consultation document.
  In the mid-1980s, the Government brought forward proposals to create disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste from the nuclear industry at Fulbeck, South Killinghome, Elstow and Bradwell. That led to a major campaign by bodies such as Greenpeace and the county councils involved—Humberside, Bedfordshire and Essex. It was a cross-party campaign. I do not think that anyone in the councils supported the proposals, whatever party they came from.
  The issues raised in that campaign were the same as those that have been raised in the past few months: the definition of low-level nuclear waste, the fact that the definition might be changed at some stage because it is a quantitative definition and quantities can be changed and the concern that, once a site had been established for low-level waste, a policy change could mean that intermediate waste could be deposited there too, especially as the Government were thinking of doing that at Drigg. There did not seem to be an overall policy for coping with the capacity difficulties of the nuclear industry. Those issues were raised then and they are pertinent to this debate.
  In 1987, the Government withdrew the proposals. I am sure that the withdrawal of those proposals in, I think, May of that year had nothing to do with the general election that was about to take place; or with the fact that three of the four Members of Parliament for the constituencies involved happened to include the Government Chief Whip and Under-Secretaries of State at the Home Office and the Department of Health. All of them spoke out against the proposals.
  The press reports at the time, and the undue haste with which the then Secretary of State, Nicholas Ridley, rushed the announcement through the Commons on a Friday morning, interrupting private Members' business, suggest that the Government had an eye on the electorate's views. Ultimately, they gave in to public pressure. The Times said:
  "Public action led to nuclear waste ruling, says Nirex".
  Nirex, which was involved in evaluating the sites, had no doubt at all. Mr. John Baker, the chairman of Nirex said that it was public opposition to the schemes which stopped them.
  The Government should therefore not have been surprised, when they brought forward proposals in 1994, that there was a public reaction. There had been a reaction in the 1980s. The public affected by all four sites that had been designated to receive low-level waste reacted. County councils, Greenpeace and local Members of Parliament reacted. In the end, the Government reacted too, and climbed down. That incident is clearly a parallel.
  It would be interesting to know to what extent the Government took account of what happened in the 1980s before they put their proposals in the consultation document. It seems inconceivable, given what happened in the 1980s, that the Government could have been unaware of public opposition and failed to take account of it. Why, then, did they put forward a proposal this year
  888
  only to withdraw it a few months later, again on the grounds of public opposition? That is the reason that the Government have given for withdrawing the proposals in their consultation document.
  When challenged about the consultation document, the Government argued that it was not too sinister because they were not proposing—with one minor exception, as was explained to me in a written answer—to change the law. The law as it currently stands allows for the disposal of radioactive waste both from medical processes and from the nuclear industry, providing, of course, that proper authorisation from Her Majesty's inspectors is given for disposal on a site. Obviously, the site has to be properly inspected and recognised as having the necessary containment characteristics.
  The Government said that what was proposed was not a big deal as they were not changing the legislation—but they were changing policy. Although low-level waste from the nuclear industry could legally be deposited on public landfill sites, it had not happened, as the consultation document recognises, so the Government were in effect proposing a change of policy.
  In many ways, that change of policy was more worrying and frightening than the change of policy proposed in the mid-1980s when the campaign was run on the four sites that I mentioned. Those four sites were to be specifically designated for low-level waste from the nuclear industry. The change of policy proposed in the consultation document in 1994 was not to create four new specifically designed sites but to deposit the waste on public refuse tips.
  If because of public opposition the Government withdrew a proposal to create four specifically designated sites in the 1980s, did they not think that the public might be even more worried about proposals to put such waste on refuse tips on which their children could play? It is incomprehensible that the Government could come up with such a proposal without realising the likelihood of public outrage.
  As a Member of Parliament, I received letters and telephone calls immediately. People asked whether the proposal was real. When I said yes, they said that the Government must be off their head. No one could regard the proposal as serious. A large public meeting in the constituency was attended by 200 people. We did not merely berate the proposal but invited people from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the hospitals, environmental health officers and people from the South Yorkshire waste regulation unit. We ensured that local people had all the technical information that they needed to form an opinion. Needless to say, at the end of the meeting, no one thought that the proposal was a good idea.
  The local residents who were part of the Hackenthorpe against the tip campaign were outraged and made their views clear, as did Greenpeace. Essentially, however, it was ordinary local people who said that they did not want their children brought up next to a tip where nuclear waste was deposited.
  The Government can give all the assurances in the world that nuclear waste can be deposited only on tips that have a proper clay base which is not permeable so that there should be no leakage into the local water courses. However, at Beighton tip, which happens to have a clay base and where thorough inspections were carried out and advice given by the National Rivers Authority

  889
  and the waste regulation unit before it was used for its current purposes, there have been unforeseen leakages of leachate into the Shirebrook. The city council has been fined £5,000 for allowing those leakages to occur. Even with proper planning, such problems occur. Local residents were aware of the risks and asked how they could be absolutely certain that leaks would not occur if nuclear waste was put on their local tip.
  Residents asked whether, as the tip was a council tip, the council could refuse to accept such waste. The answer came back that the council could not refuse. Although the council has to be consulted, an authorisation from HMIP means that the council cannot refuse to take radioactive waste even though it owns the tip. That is currently the case with waste from local hospitals and would be the case with nuclear waste if the change of policy had come about. In a written answer, the former Minister for the Environment and Countryside said:
  "Under section 18 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1983, local authorities have a duty to accept radioactive waste for controlled burial if the regulatory bodies authorise disposal to sites provided by them. The consultation document contained no proposals to alter or extend that duty."—[Official Report, 6 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 132. ]
  Officers of Sheffield city council attended the meeting and gave professional advice and made it clear that they were opposed to the proposal. However, as the law stands—and with no proposal to alter it—the council might well have been compelled to take waste had the Government's proposals gone ahead.
  There are, of course, some private tips in the South Yorkshire area which could have agreed to take the waste. In that case, the council would have no statutory right even to be consulted on behalf of the local populace. With the establishment of the Environment Agency, the waste regulation unit's remit in these matters will be removed, so local opinion will not be reflected through the democratic process.
  At the meeting, someone said that waste from the hospital was already deposited on the tip and asked what difference additional waste would make, as it would all be the same low-level waste. I am not a scientist, but I understand that such matters are now included in general certificate of secondary education courses. There are apparently differences in terms of the isotopes involved in the medical processes that create radioactive waste.
  David Purchon, the director of environmental health for whom I have the highest professional regard, explained at the meeting that waste including alpha-emitters has a low penetrative quality and that one can walk on it without being exposed to radioactivity. In fact, one has to swallow it for it to have any effect, which is wholly understandable in view of the medical processes that create it.
  The difference is that waste from the nuclear industry includes gamma and beta-emitters. Waste may be classified as low-level waste, belong to the same category as hospital waste and have the same energy, but when alpha and beta-emitters are involved, the waste has a different penetrative quality. Putting it on a public refuse site poses a greater risk to the public as there is a possibility of radioactive penetration such as would not be possible with the same grade of waste from medical processes. All that was explained at the meeting. It might have slightly reassured people about the medical waste
  890
  being deposited on the site, but it provided no reassurance at all about the possibility of industrial nuclear waste arriving on their doorstep. Indeed, people felt even more compelled to mount a campaign.
  We had a very good campaign. Local television reporters and journalists attended the meeting and we had a great deal of local coverage. There was a silent vigil on site which was attended by many local residents, and a petition of 10,000 signatures was collected. Those involved were ordinary people who probably did not understand all the scientific issues but who were very worried about what they regarded as a threat to their environment. We were also supported by Sheffield city council and we welcomed the resolution that it passed. We received support from Greenpeace, and I congratulate that organisation on raising the issue in the first place and on its campaigning.
  The campaign also received tremendous support from the local tenants' federation in Sheffield, which collected many of the signatures for the petition. People from the federation talked to ordinary people and enabled them to express their concern through the petition. I pay tribute in particular to Olive Caterer from the federation for her energy and enthusiasm. The Hackenthorpe against the tip campaign might have been voluble in its criticism, but it worked hard. Its chair, Irene Dawtry, spoke at meetings and to the media and kept local residents informed of what was happening. I congratulate all the individuals and organisations involved. The fact that they managed to collect 10,000 signatures is a tribute to their energy and enthusiasm, and evidence of their burning desire to stop a wrong being committed against their community.
  I conclude by asking the Minister some questions. My constituents are delighted with the outcome of the consultation process, in that their campaign was successful and represents a victory for the ordinary people of Sheffield. It is good that the Government listened to them, but why on earth was the proposal included in the consultation process in the first place?
  Why on earth did the Government make such a suggestion, having experienced the public opposition to the proposal in the 1980s? It is good that public opinion has been listened to and that the campaign mounted by my constituents has succeeded, but why was it necessary to upset and concern them?
  Will the Government give a commitment that this is the last time that they will bring forward any such proposal? Will they confirm that they are not just saying that, for the time being, they do not have any ideas about dumping waste from the nuclear industry on public refuse sites?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) kindly met a delegation of my constituents who came down with a large part of the petition. In his own direct way, he spoke for all of them when he simply said that the proposals were daft and should never have been put forward. He made it very clear that when the Labour party forms the next Government, it will not ever contemplate such proposals. I hope that the Minister will give a similar commitment on behalf of his party.
  Will the Minister indicate why the Government, in recognising that such dumping is a stupid idea, are not prepared to change the law? At present, it is legally possible for waste from the nuclear industry to be put on public refuse tips. The Government are saying that it is not their policy at this stage to do so, so why do they not relieve public concern and change the law accordingly?

  891
  I have a few more questions about waste from local hospitals. I have explained that I understand the differences between hospital and nuclear waste. The public recognise that waste from hospitals is not merely different in type, but that it is all low level, and that they feel some sense of obligation and responsibility for it in their community. One concern is about the Government's indication that, in future, only local authority tips will be compelled to take waste from such processes. There will not be any compulsion to do so on private tips or on tips owned by local authority waste disposal companies.
  Given that most local authority tips are being transferred to LAWDAC ownership, how many tips will remain under the ownership of local authorities in respect of which compulsion can be used? Will local authority tips left under local authority control have to take more such waste because other tips will not take it? If there is not a clear answer to that question, my constituents will become concerned.
  Will the Minister also explain why, as the White Paper indicates, local authorities will be consulted on all proposals about the authorised disposal of radioactive waste, but will not have a statutory right to be consulted on proposals to put waste on private tips? Why does not the Minister give them such a statutory right? If the Government accept that it is right that they should be consulted, why should not they make such provision statutory?
  I do not know whether it is a technical slip in the White Paper, but while the Government accept that there should be consultation about the disposal of radioactive waste from hospitals on private tips, they do not indicate that there should be consultation on such waste being disposed on tips owned by LAWDACs. I do not know whether that is a mere omission and that, in fact, the Government intend to consult local authorities in such cases. I recognise that local authorities are entitled to—I think—20 per cent. of directorial representation on LAWDACs, but as local authority members or officers are to sit on a LAWDAC as directors, and are not there simply to report back to their authorities, and in view of their responsibilities as company directors, I should have thought that direct consultation with local authorities would be in order.
  Finally, I shall raise the issue of transportation of nuclear waste, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South will shortly provide more detail. I spoke to the chief fire officer in South Yorkshire about the matter. There has been much correspondence from South Yorkshire on the transportation of nuclear weapons—there has also been a lot about nuclear waste.
  The Government feel no obligation or need to advise fire authorities in advance that waste will be moving through their areas. The police are told, but the fire authorities are not, even though fire authority staff would have to turn up to deal with any accident or emergency. Certainly in the case of nuclear waste, a description of the material being carried appears on the outside of the vehicle transporting it, yet no advance warning is given to enable fire services to prepare.
  I also understand that there is no capacity for joint training between the nuclear industry and local fire services so as to form a mutual understanding of the materials involved and the sort of joint processes that might have to be conducted if an emergency or accident occurred. That is very worrying. I do not understand why
  892
  the Government are intent on keeping the matter secret. Why cannot they be more open about it? Why cannot they trust the fire services, which have an important—indeed, essential—and often dangerous job to do on behalf of the public? Why cannot the Government give advance warning, facilitate joint training and enable greater public safety in such matters?
  In conclusion, I want to emphasise that, for my constituents, this is a day for celebration. It is a day for congratulating the Government on withdrawing proposals that should not have been made in the first place and for congratulating the people of Sheffield, especially in the Attercliffe constituency, on a great public campaign to stop waste from the nuclear industry being dumped on Beighton tip. Many people who have joined in the campaign with enthusiasm deserve great credit.
  I hope that it is also a day for clarification of the issues concerning medical waste and a day for obtaining further assurances on the legalities of disposing of waste from the nuclear industry. I also hope that it is a day on which a clear commitment will be made—that we will never again debate this matter in the House because we will never again worry people, especially my constituents, that nuclear waste will appear on their doorstep, or on their local refuse tip, because never again will any Government propose a policy that gives rise to such public concern.
  12.7 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has obtained this debate. I share many of his concerns about the disposal of nuclear waste—concerns which are likely only to increase as we have to face the decommissioning of nuclear power stations as an issue of today rather than a distant prospect for tomorrow. I shall concentrate on the transportation of nuclear materials, which has an equally practical focus.
  In the early hours of 26 June, a lorry going through part of my constituency was involved in an accident at a roundabout. As a result, a concrete bunker containing nuclear materials was thrown off the lorry and split open. The canisters inside, containing caesium and beryllium, were deposited on to the road. The good news is that the lead casing of those canisters was not fractured and the risk to the public turned out to be minimal. If the canisters had been fractured, we would have been talking about a very different matter. I understand that those substances would in a very short time have a catastrophic effect on the nervous system of anyone exposed to them.
  The roads concerned were closed for about four hours while the wreckage was cleared and tests were conducted for the prospect of any leakage. It turned out that that lorry movement was just one of 600,000 vehicle movements around the United Kingdom every year. The lorry was not delivering nuclear waste but nuclear materials for use on an oil rig and was travelling from Morecambe to Great Yarmouth. What worried me was that as we tried to explore the public safety implications of such traffic movements the matter became more of a farce than an accident.
  The shift from accident to absurdity was exposed by journalists on the Nottingham Evening Post, to whom I am particularly grateful, when they tried to find out who knew what about the contents of the containers being transported and the risk levels to which—potentially—members of the

  893
  public were exposed. The farcical element started when the journalists contacted the Department of Transport. The response of the officials there was that such matters had nothing to do with them but were the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive. But the HSE said no, such matters were the responsibility of the police and the Department of Transport. We then turned to the Central Office of Information and were told that there was a joint responsibility between the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Transport. When we went back to the HSE, however, the people there said the matter was not their responsibility. They did not accept responsibility for the regulations and told us to go back to the Department of Transport to clarify what the regulations were. Eventually, when we got in touch with the HSE yet again, it agreed that the regulations were its responsibility after all and said that it would look into the matter.
  I was extremely alarmed when HSE staff said that under the existing regulations there was no obligation to notify the HSE, the Department of Transport, the emergency services or the local authority about the movement of nuclear materials. My alarm was compounded when I contacted the people who, over many years, I had come to expect to be responsible at a local level for the discharge of duties in relation to public safety and the transport of goods in the local environment.
  I contacted the chair of the public protection committee and the emergency planning officer for Nottinghamshire. The emergency planning officer confirmed to me in writing:
  "The Police are only notified of military consignments, none of the emergency services are notified of civilian movements … safe routes and the volume of traffic is not known."
  The chair of the public protection committee replied to the county council which, understandably, was as concerned as local residents, in the following words:
  "Neither I, nor the Emergency Services are made aware of the movement of radioactive materials through our county. Since the use of radioactive isotopes is relatively commonplace in our hospitals, universities and industry, it is to be assumed that they are transported from time to time. These materials that are less hazardous concern me less than the intermediate and high level radioactive substances that can be and I am sure are transported through our county. The storage and use of such materials is controlled by HM Inspectorate of Pollution under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and the Fire and Rescue Service is notified of the nature and location of such sources. However … they have no knowledge of where or when radioactive material is being transported."
  The Government consultative document on the transport by road of radioactive materials must be welcomed, but it still focuses on only three main areas—packaging, labelling and driver training. That misses out a whole series of areas which, understandably, public authorities would like clarified. Many terms in the consultative document are obscure and unhelpful, and both my local authority and the Association of County Councils have shared those concerns in previous representations that they have made.
  The document uses terms such as "a suitable container" without defining what would be suitable to contain radioactive materials. The document also mentions a duty for the carrier to "take reasonable care", but nowhere is there a code of conduct defining reasonable care. There is a clear recognition of the importance of testing containers for suitability and strength at the beginning of their lives,
  894
  but no requirement to test for wear and tear during the lifetime of their use. We contacted the HSE to ask what the word "suitable" meant, and the spokesman replied that he did not know but would do his best to find out. As yet we have received no explanation.
  The document mentions driver training but says nothing about carrier licensing. It worries me to realise that there is no licensing requirement for any vehicle weighing less than 3.5 tonnes. The requirement is simply a notion of some sort of training, which is not monitored. The danger is that if that is not more tightly regulated it could turn out to be a cowboys' charter and the lads who offer to tarmac our path one day could be trundling radioactive materials past our house the next day, having invested £200 or £300 to make the signs for their vehicle but without meeting any of the standards that we should demand in a system for the movement of radioactive materials with licensing at its core.
  The consultation document still does not mention an obligation to notify anyone about the frequency or direction of road transport movements. I fail to understand why that should be so. It does not seem to me a party political point at all. I can see no interest on either side of the House that would be served by the lack of a requirement to notify public authorities and especially the emergency services of the movement of radioactive materials on public roads.
  In the context not only of today's 600,000 road traffic movements but of the near certainty that that number will increase, a publicly notified and regulated set of procedures to govern the terms and frequency of such movements is essential. We need a statutory framework, and it should consist of four elements.
  First, there must be prior notification of the police, the fire services and other emergency services which would be involved in clearing up an accident involving the transport of nuclear materials. They need to know in advance what plans there are for such movements. Secondly, there should be a requirement for prior consultations with the public bodies through whose areas the loads would be transported. That is a simple matter of common sense.
  If Nottinghamshire county council had been asked for its suggestions about the safest and most acceptable routes along which to move radioactive materials through the county, it would have provided that information—and I doubt whether it would have directed such loads through the built-up urban areas that the lorry was passing on the night of 26 June. It would have suggested a route avoiding densely populated areas rather than passing through them simply because that might be a few minutes quicker.
  The county council would also have been able to offer, through the police, a form of guided transport through the county, or through the city of Nottingham. That could be done if there were an obligation to notify in advance. At present, it cannot be done because no such obligation exists. I cannot see any suggested framework being workable or acceptable to the public if it is not attached to a strict licensing system for the carriers of nuclear materials. It is not enough to know where the load will end up, although I accept that there are huge issues about where the load will end up and how it is to be disposed. There should be public concern, and concern among Members of Parliament, about the quality, reputation and experience of carriers involved in the transport of radioactive materials.

  895
  Finally, a point must be changed in relation to the wording of the consultative document about public risk. As it stands, the document refers only to environmental damage. There are experienced people in this House, around the country and internationally who understand that measuring public damage from exposure to radioactive materials in many cases comes many years after the damage has been done, so it is singularly unhelpful to have that as a benchmark of the Government's consultative document. It would be far better to build in a requirement which defines the prohibition of unauthorised releases of radioactive materials into the environment. That recommendation has been made by public authorities around the country to the Minister, and I hope that he will take it on board.
  Accidents such as the one which occurred at Nottingham should not happen, but in a country where we will face an increasing volume of road traffic movements involving radioactive materials we must accept that there is a risk that we cannot entirely eliminate. We must establish an ethical basis for allowing such movements to take place, and we must build two things into the system. First, the public and local authorities have a right to know about movements taking place through the environment which are potentially affecting their lives. Secondly, we need a legal framework which offers the highest standards of public protection at a reasonable cost. We are not talking about something that is likely to cost a great deal, but about a framework that could change the process from a clandestine, inadequate and ill-informed one into one that is open and above board.
  The House must ensure that a fully informed response mechanism exists to deal with accidents involving the transportation of nuclear waste. That, rather than a farce, is what the public have a right to expect of this House. We do not have the right to expose the public to unnecessary risks because we will not provide a regulatory framework. Nor have we the right to expose members of the emergency services to unnecessary risks by not telling them in advance the nature and contents of loads, the frequency of traffic movements and the times and directions of the loads being transported. A small regulatory requirement could produce a huge benefit to the public, and that is the duty that the House must meet.
  12.23 pm
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Whether we like it or not, we live in the nuclear age. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle and the discoveries of nuclear scientists cannot be undiscovered. Nor should they, as the peaceful uses of nuclear energy have bestowed enormous benefits upon mankind, especially in the generation of electrical energy, upon which all modern societies depend for the health, welfare and well-being of their citizens.
  We must do everything we can to save energy and use it most efficiently, but there will always be a need for large-scale generation. The generation of electricity by nuclear means is enormously safe and does not create carbon dioxide or emissions of nitrous oxide which, as we all know, are damaging to the environment. The safety record of the nuclear industry in this country is second to none.
  When nuclear materials are used, waste is created, and proper facilities must be provided for the disposal of that waste. Much of the low-level nuclear waste that has been referred to by the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe
  896
  (Mr. Betts) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) is generated by hospitals. While there is always a danger in handling nuclear materials, the benefits in terms of the lives saved and prolonged and the improvements in the quality of life from the use of nuclear materials in our hospitals outweigh the dangers that those materials pose to society.
  This is an emotive issue. Whenever one uses the word "nuclear", the emotional level is raised. That is possibly because of the connotations of nuclear weapons and explosions and the terrible suffering caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not only by the explosions but by the subsequent radiation. Organisations such as Greenpeace use that emotion to the best possible advantage in pursuit of their case.
  Greenpeace has established such a position in the world that, to some people, everything that Greenpeace says is right while everything that the Government say is wrong. I do not think that that is the case. Greenpeace has a role to play in bringing our attention to environmental dangers, but it was wrong about the incidence of cancer in the Sellafield area and about the emission of dioxins from high-temperature incineration, and it grossly exaggerated the environmental effects of the Braer disaster. Greenpeace is not always right.
  I am concerned that organisations such as Greenpeace are flourishing in the area of what is called direct action, where a group of people decide that something shall or shall not be done, bypass the democratic process and seek to impose their will on their fellow citizens. That is not the way to proceed in a democratic society. The place in this country where decisions must be made affecting all of our citizens is here in this House. We do not live in the age of the suffragettes or the Tolpuddle martyrs, when thousands of our fellow citizens were not represented. Decisions affecting our fellow citizens must be made in this House after a full debate in which the House can hear all points of view from Members representing all sections of the community.
  I have no particular knowledge of the tip to which the hon. Member for Attercliffe referred, but I was a member of Essex county council at the time of Bradwell, so I have some experience of the issues involved. Low-level waste can be a particularly emotional issue, particularly when it is planned to dispose of it not far from an area of human habitation. But we must not get carried away by emotion or by the "not in my backyard" factor. We are all politicians, and so are local councillors. It is all too easy to jump on to an emotional bandwagon to get oneself elected or re-elected or to promote the interests of one's political party. We must resist those temptations.
  We are here as the representatives of the people of this country as a whole, and we must make decisions in the interests of those people and not in the interests of people who happen to live in a particular place at a particular time in history. We have a heavy responsibility not to allow people to believe, as many do today, that it is possible to live in a risk-free society. It is not. We never have lived in a risk-free society, and we never will. Those who believe that death is optional should think again and realise that we live in a real world.
  It is easy for us to regulate. Opposition Members have suggested ways in which we might fill 10 or a dozen more pages of the statute book. But we must resist the temptation to regulate and impose unjustifiable burdens on the community and businesses that serve the

  897
  community. Opposition Members have not pointed to a single incident in which a member of the public's health or safety has been damaged. Given the many hundreds of thousands of movements of nuclear materials around the country, those responsible for that transportation have not demonstrated a bad record.
  I am pleased that the nuclear industry has been given the freedom of going into the private sector. I am sure that it will use that freedom with skill and responsibility. The export potential is enormous. I am sure that, if the nuclear installations at Chernobyl had been designed and built by British engineers and operated to British safety standards, the problems that occurred there would not have arisen.
  The disposal of nuclear waste is a world problem and those countries which are best equipped to deal with it safely and securely have a responsibility to mankind to perform that function. Safety is paramount in the nuclear industry, as everyone who works in the industry knows. Nuclear materials must be handled to the highest standards and, wherever possible, children must not be exposed to them. Scientists well understand the difference between alpha, gamma and beta emissions, and regulations must be made accordingly. Of course we must have joint training and, within reason, notification, but we must have regard to the costs imposed on the organisations concerned of excessive notification, and we must have clear lines of responsibility when something goes wrong.
  Britain can be proud of its nuclear industry and the skill and inventive genius of the men and women who work in it, who have made and will continue to make a vital contribution to the well-being of mankind throughout the world.
  12.31 pm
  Dr. Robert Spink: The transport and management of nuclear materials, where it is within the control of, for instance, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., is conducted in a professional and responsible manner. That needs to be put on the record in view of some of the scaremongering comments made by Opposition Members.
  As time is short, I shall concentrate on just one issue: waste substitution and BNFL's part in it. BNFL first proposed waste substitution to the Government in 1988. Since then, there has been considerable consultation, particularly that on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant, which was carried out by the Department of the Environment in 1993. The most recent consultation was carried out this year during the Government's review of radioactive waste management in the United Kingdom, when more than 250 representations were received from individual organisations.
  This issue has therefore been well aired and carefully considered by the Government, who have now endorsed the waste substitution philosophy as the agreed, sensible and commonsense approach to returning nuclear waste to overseas customers. I welcome the fact that, in their White Paper on radioactive waste management policy, the Government fully accept the principle of waste substitution and integrate BNFL's proposals within their nuclear waste policy. So BNFL can now engage in waste substitution for intermediate and low-level waste. It can
  898
  have detailed discussions with customers about returning their waste in the most effective, practical and safe manner.
  It might help if I outline some of the considerations surrounding waste substitution. The radioactivity contained within overseas customers' low and intermediate-level waste, which would be retained in the UK, will never be greater than the extra high-level waste that would be returned to customers. The required number of nuclear waste shipments overseas, which means shipments in this country as well, would therefore be cut from 1,000 to just 100—that is, decimated. That also saves the burning of 1.25 million tonnes of fuel oil, which would yield considerable improvements in terms of safety and economics. Although that is self-evident, let me spell out some of those improvements.
  It would reduce transport and handling costs by several hundred million pounds and put BNFL in a strong position to win the £2 billion to £4 billion-worth of further export business that it seeks. Without substitution, BNFL would be at a considerable competitive disadvantage, particularly to Cogema, the French nuclear reprocessor. If BNFL were to get the business, as I hope it does—all hon. Members should hope the same—that would sustain 5,450 additional full-time jobs in the UK well into the next century. That is no small consideration.
  The increase in low and intermediate-level waste would amount to less than 8 per cent. of total waste arising in the UK, and that waste could be easily accommodated in the Nirex repository without expanding it. Indeed, it amounts to only 5 per cent. of the capacity of the proposed repository. Since BNFL made its first waste substitution proposals, the volumes of waste arising each year at Sellafield have been cut by 30 per cent. through a programme of waste minimisation, which should be continued. If it is, as I believe that it will be, further substantial volume savings will be achievable.
  Those are all important considerations. I congratulate the Government on their pragmatic, safety-first and putting-Britain-first approach to this problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) said, the problem will not go away, so we must deal with it effectively. I urge the Government to set an early start date for the Nirex repository, as that would deal with some of the issues that Opposition Members have raised and would be in the best interests of the public, the industry and our economy.
  12.37 pm
  Ms Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on securing this important debate and on setting out so clearly the concerns of his constituents about disposal to landfill. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), who expressed his constituents' concern for safety in the transportation of nuclear materials.
  This debate has focused on civil nuclear power generation and its waste, and waste arising from medical processes, but as the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) reminded us, there is a link with the military programme. In an energy-rich nation such as Britain, the costs of a civil nuclear power programme would never have been justified had it not been for that link. Today, the many reasons advanced in favour of nuclear power

  899
  should not blind us to the fact that it has been an enormously expensive programme that has depended entirely on the public purse and given rise to lethal waste products.
  Dealing with that waste presents a legacy for the future, which stretches far beyond the imagination of anyone here today. That is why ordinary people are, rightly, deeply concerned about both Government and commercial activities in this sector, and particularly about the secrecy that surrounds them.
  As with all waste, the first discipline should be minimisation. Given that neither the present Administration nor the Opposition see a case for supporting new nuclear power stations, it is conceivable that, over a period, nuclear waste production may diminish. However, decommissioning of old nuclear power stations and obsolete military hardware means that the problem is likely to get worse.
  It is difficult to obtain meaningful figures for nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is divided into three categories—high, intermediate and low level. Only low-level nuclear waste is disposed of. The other two categories are stored, as no safe method of disposal has been developed.
  Will the Minister give us a clear account of the extent of radioactive waste production and future projections? Will he tell us whether the Government continue to stand by the 1991 inventory of radioactive wastes—that is, projected to 2030, that there would be 8,180 cu m of high-level waste, 208,000 cu m of intermediate-level waste and 1,420,000 cu m of low-level waste—and will he say whether that includes waste from the military programme? Will the Minister give us the projected costs of nuclear waste disposal and storage both from the civil and military programmes?
  The safe decommissioning of obsolete nuclear installations presents us with a major challenge and a colossal cost—originally a cost recognised by Government, but now set aside in the drive to sell off anything to raise money for tax cuts.
  Dr. Spink indicated dissent.
  Ms Ruddock: Yes; it is true.
  Privatisation of the nuclear industry would be an act of gross irresponsibility. Major questions should be asked, not only about operational safety in a privatised industry, but about the enormously expensive disposal, storage and transport of nuclear waste arising from that industry.
  Mr. Stephen: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Ruddock: I cannot; there is no time.
  The most extraordinary aspect of all the Government's plans to sell off the nuclear industry is that they dispose of public assets—no doubt yet again providing opportunities for fat cats to avail themselves of massive share options—while retaining at the taxpayer's expense all the current major liabilities of decommissioning the Magnox reactors.
  In 1993, the National Audit Office report on the cost of decommissioning nuclear facilities estimated liabilities to Nuclear Electric, Scottish Nuclear and BNFL at £15 billion at 1992 prices, but will the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's liabilities are estimated at a further £8 billion and that the generators' and BNFL's liabilities for management of spent fuel and nuclear waste are estimated at an even
  900
  higher figure than those that would arise from decommissioning? Taking all the categories together, will the Minister confirm that the gross lifetime cost of discharging nuclear liabilities is well in excess of £40 billion?
  The Government, in retaining public responsibility for decommissioning the old power stations, are acknowledging that private industry will not pick up that price. What guarantee have we that in future a privatised industry will safely conduct those enterprises, dispose of the waste and so on? Is it not a fact that recently, faulty bloodbags have made a nonsense of the privatisation that is occurring within the national health service, and that in future, similar risks might be taken with potentially cheaper fuel flasks? Privatisation will exacerbate the already difficult, dangerous and costly problems of disposing and storing nuclear waste.
  As to transport, the local authority associations said in their evidence to the nuclear review:
  "Every proposal for storage or disposal of radioactive material away from the site of origin … involves potential risks to the areas through which the material is to be transported to its next resting place—a factor which is equally relevant when the station is ultimately decommissioned".
  The fears that the local authority associations expressed in that evidence have been well documented and spelt out by my hon. Friends in their speeches today.
  We are deeply worried about the continuing incidents and accidents that do occur, no matter what the Government tell us. The National Radiological Protection Board records that, between 1964 and 1990, there were 406 transport accidents and incidents, 65 of which they identify as significant in terms of the severity or radiological consequences. This year, there has been a considerable number of disturbing incidents.
  In March, Greenpeace discovered an unattended lorry containing spent nuclear fuel rods from Chapelcross. What is the Minister's reaction to the fact that the driver and security guards of that vehicle had taken a tea break?
  Only a week later, a 22-tonne lorry carrying low-level waste overturned on the M5 north of Bristol. I am told that, as recently as last Friday, a train transporting nuclear waste from Dungeness to Sellafield was taken into a siding at Rugby because of "weird noises emanating from a fuel flask." Can the Minister confirm that incident and tell us what happened?
  Nuclear waste transport is a cause of considerable anxiety in my constituency, through which irradiated nuclear fuel from Dungeness is carried on the Hither Green-Lewisham-Nunhead line twice a week, passing through highly populated areas and unstaffed and insecure stations. What does privatisation of the railways mean for the safety of that transport, given that we already know of a catalogue of incidents at the very least, if not potentially serious accidents?
  Finally, I shall comment on the White Paper. Like my hon. Friends, I have questions for the Minister. We are told that the Government favour land disposal for the long-term management of vitrified high-level waste. Will the Minister tell us what is meant by
  "putting in hand the steps to develop and implement the necessary research strategy"?
  What is the time scale—when will the development of that much-needed facility take place?

  901
  Will the Minister confirm something to which one of his hon. Friends alluded today—that the Government are prepared to allow high-level foreign nuclear waste to be stored in the United Kingdom?
  Low-level nuclear waste was comprehensively discussed in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe. His anxiety and that of his constituents about the possibility of disposal to landfill are entirely understandable. I trust that the Minister will reply to the pertinent questions that my hon. Friend posed, and those that were asked by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South.
  As the debate has shown, although we all have good reason to celebrate the victory of public pressure and good sense over landfill of low-level nuclear waste, major worries remain about the transport and safe disposal of a huge volume of highly dangerous and toxic nuclear waste.
  12.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I am glad to have the opportunity to wind up a debate on an important and interesting subject, and to have the opportunity to respond to the arguments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). I am also glad to have had the opportunity to listen to the constructive and realistic points of view that were expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) and for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) in their speeches.
  Dr. Spink: It is extremely remiss of us that none of us have welcomed this most noble and honourable Minister to his new position.
  Mr. Stephen: May I associate myself with those remarks?
  Ms Ruddock: May I do so also?
  Mr. Clappison: I am overcome by the kindness that has suddenly been showered on me from all directions.
  As the House has heard, last week the Government published a White Paper containing the final conclusions of its review of radioactive waste management policy. The review was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in May 1994, and preliminary conclusions were published in a consultation paper in August 1994, to which the hon. Member for Attercliffe has referred at length. The final conclusions have been reached in the light of the responses that were received.
  The purpose of the review was to examine policy in the light of changes since the Government's national strategy on radioactive waste management was published in 1984. The primary aim throughout has been to ensure that radioactive waste, irrespective of whether it is produced by public sector or private sector operations, is properly managed, and to ensure that people and the environment are not exposed to unacceptable risks now or in future. Those are the underlying principles.
  As the House has heard, there are a number of categories of radioactive waste ranging from very low-level waste—including that to which the hon. Gentleman referred—from research or medicine, to
  902
  high-level waste from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The waste has the potential to cause harm and needs to be managed carefully.
  The Government are committed to maintaining and developing a policy which ensures that radioactive wastes are not created unnecessarily; that such wastes as are created are managed and treated safely and appropriately; and that they are then safely disposed of at appropriate times and in appropriate ways. The Government will do that by means of a regulatory framework which ensures that producers and owners of radioactive waste fully meet their responsibilities and develop appropriate waste management strategies.
  The Environment Bill, which is currently before Parliament, contains provisions that will streamline the handling of applications to dispose of radioactive wastes for nuclear licensed sites in England and Wales by making the new Environment Agency the sole authoriser, with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Welsh Office as statutory consultees. The White Paper also says that developers of major projects may, if they wish, submit early applications for disposal authorisations and the regulators will then be able to decide on them before major commitments of money and effort have been made.
  The review has confirmed the Government's commitment to disposal rather than indefinite storage of radioactive waste as the best means of meeting our commitments to future generations and therefore contributing to sustainable development. In the case of high-level waste, which British Nuclear Fuels plc is converting from liquid into glass, the waste must be stored for at least 50 years to allow for the short-lived radionuclides to decay and heat generation to reduce. However, after that the Government favour disposal to geological formations on land as the best option for the long term. We have said that we will put in hand the development of a research strategy to help us produce a statement of future intent, setting out the decisions to be taken and the milestones to be achieved.
  In the case of intermediate-level waste, the Government consider it appropriate that Nirex should continue with its programme to identify a suitable site for a deep disposal facility. The Government have decided that no advantage would be gained from delaying the development of the repository itself and that, once a suitable site has been found, it should be constructed as soon as reasonably practicable. The precise timetable will depend on the granting of planning consent and compliance with regulatory requirements, including the establishment of a sound safety case. The Government have already promised to hold a full public inquiry into an application for the repository.
  Disposal routes are already available for low-level waste which, depending on its concentration and level of activity, may go to BNFL's shallow disposal facility at Drigg in Cumbria or for "controlled burial" at suitable landfill sites.
  I shall deal now with the points raised by the hon. Member for Attercliffe. A large number of members of the public have expressed concern about controlled burial. That form of disposal has been used for many years by non-nuclear industries which process raw materials containing natural radioactivity, and by major hospitals and universities for their relatively more active waste streams. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the

  903
  disposals by hospitals in Sheffield to the tip at Beighton, to which he referred. That method has also been used by BNFL for waste from its uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication plants and, at its Sellafield site, for lightly contaminated excavation spoil.
  A site usually receives waste for controlled burial from no more than one or two sources. In considering an application for controlled burial, the regulators assess not only the type and activity of the waste but the containment characteristics of the site to which it is to be sent. If an authorisation is granted, the regulators also arrange for leachate from the sites to be monitored and for the results to be published.
  It was proposed in the preliminary conclusions of the review that there would be an advantage in encouraging waste producers to make greater use of controlled burial in order to relieve needless pressure on the disposal capacity of BNFL's disposal facility at Drigg in Cumbria. Contrary to reports made at the time, that would not require new legislation; nor would it involve deregulation of the nuclear industry, as the route is already open to it and disposals would continue to be strictly controlled by the regulators. That is a very important point and the hon. Gentleman referred to it. There is a very tight system of regulation in place.
  Although the proposal was supported by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and the National Radiological Protection Board, the Government have recognised the genuine anxieties that their proposal has aroused among local residents and, for that reason, they have decided not to encourage greater use of controlled burial by the nuclear industry. Nevertheless, there are sound economic and radiological grounds for controlled burial and the Government believe that it should continue to be available as a disposal route, particularly for "small users"—such as hospitals, universities, research laboratories and non-nuclear industries—subject to the agreement of the site operators and to the necessary regulatory requirements being met.
  I shall now deal in more detail with the points raised by the hon. Member for Attercliffe. He recognised and noted very fairly the Government's response in the White Paper following the consultations that have gone on since last August. The hon. Gentleman has clearly been involved in making representations and in the discussions that have taken place. The issues have been ventilated, and the hon. Gentleman will know from reading the White Paper that, while the Government recognise that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely in that type of landfill operation, they have made it clear that they are responding to public anxieties and the sorts of views expressed by the hon. Gentleman and are not encouraging the nuclear industry to use that disposal method. That point is plainly on the face of the White Paper.
  The White Paper contains positive proposals for inviting the environment agencies to offer suggestions for making more transparent the information about which landfill sites receive such waste and for issuing formal guidance to the agencies about the need to consult local authorities about authorisations for controlled burial. The Government have no proposals to introduce legislation which would force private operators or local authority waste disposal companies to accept radioactive waste. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by the White Paper on that point.
  904
  The White Paper proposes a policy of national self-sufficiency in dealing with radioactive waste. The Government believe that countries which are sophisticated enough to have a nuclear industry should also be able to develop their own waste facilities and that accepting their waste would reduce the incentive for them to develop facilities of their own. On the other hand, countries should not be precluded from taking advantage of the non-nuclear uses of radioactivity, such as medical diagnosis and treatment, simply because they do not have the resources to develop waste facilities. Equally, there may be sound technical reasons why waste should be imported for treatment, provided that there is no environmental detriment to the importing country. Certain exceptions will therefore be allowed.
  Consistent with their policy of self-sufficiency is the Government's requirement that BNFL should exercise its return-of-waste clauses in contracts with foreign customers for the reprocessing of spent fuel. The Government have accepted that that policy can be implemented by waste substitution arrangements which ensure broad environmental neutrality for the United Kingdom, but they consider it prudent that they do not become irrevocably committed to waste substitution in the absence of appropriate disposal arrangements within the United Kingdom.
  In agreeing equivalence between categories of waste, some additional high-level waste should also be returned over and above that calculated on radiological grounds alone in order to account for some minor non-radiological environmental consequences of substitution. Substitution does not mean that the United Kingdom will become a "nuclear dustbin", as some have alleged—far from it. The Government are adopting a properly cautious approach to ensure that there will be no environmental or radiological detriment to this country.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) raised the question of transport. I apologise for dealing with it only briefly, but time is pressing. A strict regime is in place. Responsibility for policy concerning the safe transport of radioactive materials, including waste, is a matter for my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
  The movement of waste is governed by regulations recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The purpose of the IAEA regulations is to ensure that the packaging for transport should adequately protect transport workers and the public under all foreseeable circumstances, including the occurrence of a severe accident. Rather than requiring the use of special vehicles or special routes, the regulations ensure that appropriate safety is built into the design of the package in which the radioactive material is carried.
  The regulations specify design performance standards which are independent of the means of transport. Where the radioactivity to be contained exceeds specified levels, the standards include tests for demonstrating the ability of the container to withstand damage from involvement in a severe accident without any significant release of its contents or an increase in external radiation.
  A national scheme, called the nuclear industry road emergency response plan, has been put in place to provide contingency arrangements in the event of a road accident involving radioactive materials. Its participants include a number of important publicly recognised organisations such as the Ministry of Defence, Nuclear Electric,

  905
  Rolls-Royce and Associates and Scottish Nuclear. Those organisations have agreed to dispatch qualified health physicists from the nearest organisation to deal immediately with any incident.
  I shall write to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South setting out the details. I shall also write to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) who raised many detailed points. It is a serious subject that involves long-range planning—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must move on to the next topic.
  1 pm
  Mr. David Alton: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for enabling me to raise this issue in the House today. I also thank Madam Speaker and the Minister, who is in his place. I draw his attention to the all-party early-day motion 1380 tabled today by myself, the right Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is in his place. It draws attention to the recommendation of Dr. Maria Fitzgerald in a report commissioned by the Department of Health that
  "the effects of trauma of any kind to the developing nervous system should be minimised as far as possible by whatever means are available."
  The Minister should be congratulated on his Department's response to date on the issue of foetal pain. Let me explain the background. In 1988, the Department of Health commissioned a report from Dr. Fitzgerald, of the department of anatomy and developmental biology at University college, London—to whom I have just referred—on the evidence for foetal pain.
  In 1994, a team led by Professor Fisk of the centre for foetal care at Queen Charlotte and Chelsea hospital, published pioneering work on
  "the level of response in the unborn to potentially painful procedure; intrauterine needling".
  Its research concluded:
  "The human foetus feels pain in utero and may benefit from anaesthetic or analgesia for invasive procedures."
  In the light of that research, Dr. Fitzgerald updated her report, and, in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten)— who I am pleased to see in his place and to whom I am grateful for his encouragement and support in promoting this cause in the House—the Department lodged a copy of its findings in the Library of the House.
  Dr. Fitzgerald finally concluded:
  "It cannot be denied that the foetal nervous system mounts clear protective responses to tissue injury and this cannot be ignored … If a foetus or a pre-term infant is to survive and mature into an adult it is essential to consider this issue. The effects of trauma of any kind on the developing nervous system should be minimised as far as possible by whatever means are available."
  Today's debate is in response to that report. I should stress immediately that the debate is about foetal pain, and not about the Abortion Act 1967. My position on that legislation is perfectly clear, and I have never tried to hide it. However, there are a hundred and one other intra-uterine operations which can cause pain to the foetus.
  Surely no one in the House would not wish to combat pain and suffering wherever they occur. As a parent, I have watched my own children on the ultrascan. For many of us, that is an increasingly common introduction to the wonders of the developing human being. I saw one of my sons at nine weeks' gestation, and I saw my daughter at 18 weeks' gestation. By that stage, the child is about a foot in length and pumping 50 pints of blood a day. Every single one of its organs is in place. The child is sentient, and responds to light and sound. It is most extraordinary that, with the aid of science, we can now see those marvellous developments in human characteristics.

  907
  There is no difference between a child at that stage in its development and any person in the Chamber, other than in terms of size and weight.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman will know that I gave my maiden speech on this subject. It is an extremely important issue. Does he recall the film "The Silent Scream", which was produced seven or eight years ago, and was never given the coverage that it deserved? It proved quite conclusively that everyone in Britain and throughout the world should be considering that it is proven beyond doubt that the foetus feels pain, and something should be done to protect it from that pain.
  Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. The film "The Silent Scream", and others like it, are subject almost to a conspiracy of silence. I cannot understand why it was never shown on our national television network, especially when one considers some of the programmes that are broadcast. We see every medical procedure known to mankind, so it is extraordinary that such a programme has not been given a wider audience.
  I hope that, as a result of today's debate, others may take the time to search out that film and see it, but unfortunately—this corroborates what the hon. Gentleman has just said—there are those who attempt to sweep under the carpet the facts about foetal pain. That may explain why, despite the existence of evidence of foetal pain since the 1960s, we have statute law protecting foetal, larval or embryonic animals from any scientific procedure likely to cause pain, but none to protect the human foetus in the womb.
  It seems extraordinary to me that, although some people and hon. Members find it credible that animal foetuses can feel pain, others balk at the notion that the human foetus also feels pain. I refer the House to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, for which most of us voted. It states:
  "Subject to the provisions of this section, 'a protected animal' for the purposes of this Act means any living vertebrate other than man."
  It continues:
  "Subject to the provisions of this section, 'a regulated procedure' for the purposes of this Act means any experimental or other scientific applied to a protected animal which may have the effect of causing that animal pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm."
  In the debate about when life ends, it states:
  "For the purposes of this section an animal shall be regarded as continuing to live until the permanent cessation of circulation or the destruction of its brain."
  I cannot help thinking wryly that only when a seal is washed up on our shores holding a placard saying "Save the human race" will we see the illogicality of the decisions that we take. Crucial and important as animal welfare may be, the same rules should apply to our own species.
  In an attempt to blur the issue, there are even attempts to argue that pain is almost a metaphysical experience, based on understanding and memory that the human foetus has not had the opportunity to develop. I hope that we can lay such bunkum to rest once and for all. I refer the House in particular to the pioneering work of Professor Kenneth McAull on the issue of foetal memory.
  Pain is a physical fact. There are thousands of patients suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer's who have no memory or understanding of their plight. Despite that, they can experience physical pain, and any doctor who suggested otherwise would be in severe trouble.
  908
  The old chestnuts used to describe the human foetus as "a blob of jelly" or "a clump of cells" have long since been shown to be a parody of science. A human being, however small, who can react to light and disturbance and even show taste preferences, could never be described as a jelly.
  There is more bad science peddled on the subject. Some attempt to argue that the foetus can feel pain only through the cerebral cortex. That notion is wildly outdated, following the most recent research showing that it is in the lower part of the brain, the thalamus, that pain receptors discharge electrical impulses telling the body to react to trauma and noxious stimuli. The earliest response from the thalamus occurs at the end of the seventh week of pregnancy.
  Those who attempt to dismiss foetal ability to feel pain should take a lesson in science from Baroness Warnock and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. When Baroness Warnock and her committee were attempting to settle a time limit for destructive experiments on the human embryo, one factor that they took into account was the embryo's capacity to feel pain. They state in their report:
  "As long as the embryo is incapable of feeling pain, it is argued that its treatment does not weigh in the balance.".
  The report concludes:
  "The time limit for research on the embryo could be set either when the first beginnings of the central nervous system can be identified or when functional activity first occurs."
  Expert evidence was sought from the Royal College of Gynaecologists, and the Warnock committee reported its findings:
  "The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists suggested that embryos should not be allowed to develop in vitro beyond a limit of seventeen days, as this is the point at which early neural development begins."
  In the light of that, and the recommendations not only of Professor Fisk's team but of the Department's own report, I suggest to the Minister modest and reasonable action that he could take that would settle the matter, I hope, once and for all.
  First, a circular could be issued to health authorities and to doctors, drawing their attention to the conclusions of the latest research and recommending action to anaesthetise foetuses before any invasive procedure, such as needling or intra-uterine surgery liable to cause trauma to the foetus. Secondly, in the interest of a fully informed decision, any parents who are considering giving permission for such procedures should be alerted to the possibility that pain will be inflicted on their unborn child.
  If such action was properly and promptly taken, and adequately complied with, it might not then prove necessary to write pain prevention for the human foetus into statute, as it is at the moment with animals. I should also warn the Minister that, if such action is not taken, this issue will not go away, and legislation may be the only way to ensure that the suffering and the pain currently inflicted on the foetus will be alleviated.
  1.11 pm
  Mr. John Patten: I am glad to have the chance to intervene briefly and to make three points. First, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessors in the Department of Health on taking this issue seriously; on immediately

  909
  bringing before the House, in May this year, the most recent Department of Health report; on laying it in the Library; on making it publicly available; and on ensuring that there is no cover-up of the information that is available. My hon. Friend deserves our congratulations on that.
  My second point flows directly from the first. The information is publicly available and the Department of health has, I understand, accepted the report that foetuses feel pain during various procedures in the uterus. Just suppose that information had been made publicly available that a drugs company had a product on the market, a product that was used by pregnant women and caused pain to the foetus. Imagine the uproar that there would have been: early-day motions in this place; screaming headlines about a new drugs company scandal; learned leaders opining that something must be done; and Ministers dragged from their beds early in the morning on to the "Today" programme to explain why nothing had been done.
  I do not suggest that there is a conspiracy of silence by the media about this issue—after all, the report has been available for many weeks—but I have seen no mention of it in the public prints. I suggest to the House that there is a blanket of silence about the issue, and it should now be brought as quickly as possible to the public notice.
  I am sure that the BBC will be giving proper notice tomorrow to the debate. This is a classic issue for my friend, Michael Grade, whom I personally greatly admire, to ensure that it is properly aired, for example, on Channel 4, so that the public are awakened to something that would be seen as a scandal if a drugs company were involved, but over which a heavy blanket of silence has been drawn.
  Thirdly, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would not seek to say that nothing should be done after the report. The first and most important thing to be done, as a matter of urgency in the coming weeks and months, is to give guidance to doctors, health authorities and trusts, and to private clinics as well, about the evidence shown by the report, to minimise the pain that foetuses may experience in all sorts of procedures, not just abortion. That is a matter of prime urgency.
  Clear guidance should also be given to those who counsel mothers and fathers considering an abortion. One of the factors they should bear in mind and weigh in the balance when making that terrible decision—which many take but from which quite a few draw back—is that the procedure they are permitting and encouraging to go forward will involve pain to an unborn child.
  They should have a clear understanding of that. It is a matter of prime importance. It is a considerable humanitarian issue, and the House expects a rapid reaction from Her Majesty's Government on it.
  Dr. Robert Spink rose—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Can I be clear that hon. Members who are now seeking to catch my eye have the permission both of the organiser of the debate and of the Minister? It is also usual to inform the Chair in advance.
  1.14 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because, as you know, I am always very deferential to the Chair.
  The right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) referred to do a conspiracy of silence. I believe that there is a conspiracy of silence. The reality is that it does not suit those who argue the right to choose—as freely as they would wish to exercise it—to have to consider the implications of foetal pain. That is the real world. It is an argument that is going on in America, here, and no doubt in other parts of western Europe. Only by publicising the issue will women face up to the responsibility of having to consider the implications of late abortion.
  1.15 pm
  Dr. Robert Spink: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on bringing the debate to the Floor of the House. It is a very important issue.
  Although I very much respect the hon. Gentleman's intention not to focus on abortion this morning, we cannot ignore the fact that many methods of abortion will bring pain and much suffering to a foetus. We heard quite graphically about how a foetus can experience suffering and pain.
  I would therefore ask the House to reflect on the attitude of women who sign up to the Labour party's "Emily's List", because, I believe, one of the conditions for signing that list is that the women who do so have to accept that they are pro-abortion, and that that has certain implications. That needs further investigation, and we should look at it extremely carefully, because it is an important area. It is something that the country deserves to learn about.
  I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of raising that issue.
  1.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on his success in raising a topic which, as we know, he has raised in different ways in the House on many occasions and about which he feels very deeply.
  Perhaps I should first make clear the Government's position on abortion, as the matter is germane. Parliament decided that abortions may lawfully be carried out in the circumstances set out in the Abortion Act 1967, as subsequently amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The present provisions are in place as a result of a series of free votes in the House in 1967 and again in 1990. It was clear then and it is clear now that there are strongly held and widely differing views on the subject. In spite of that wide divergence, the Government must operate within a framework laid down by Parliament.
  We have a duty to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly applied until and unless Parliament chooses to change that law. In England, the operation of the Act is monitored closely by the Department of Health, through the Department's control of the private sector, and the investigation of specific complaints. Similar arrangements

  911
  apply in Scotland and Wales. Last year, the Department of Health reviewed and updated its arrangements for improving and inspecting places approved under the Abortion Act.
  All medical practitioners carrying out terminations are required to notify the chief medical officer of each abortion they perform. The notification form includes the grounds for abortion, the method of treatment and the estimated gestation—that last point being particularly relevant to the matter that we are discussing today. The notification forms are scrutinised by staff authorised by the chief medical officer, to ensure that they do not indicate any contravention of the abortion law.
  I am setting out the details of the Department's monitoring activities, because it is important for the House to understand the context and framework within which we operate. Monitoring is not a passive activity.
  The Government do not take their responsibilities in this area lightly. We are conscious of the turmoil and worry that women face when they undergo termination of a pregnancy. We are sensitive to the feelings of those who oppose abortion. For many women, it is a tragic and difficult decision they face: it is no easy option. We recognise the importance of counselling for the women concerned, and all centres carrying out abortion or providing advice on abortion have guidelines on this important prerequisite. Furthermore, if an abortion has to take place, distressing though that may be, the earlier in pregnancy the better for all concerned.
  There have been developments since the 1967 Act. The viability of the foetus at 24 weeks has been recognised, and for the great majority of cases that is the upper limit for termination. Medical, in contrast to surgical, termination has become available. In other words, for late terminations, drugs can be used to terminate the pregnancy instead of surgery.
  Mr. Alton: As the Minister is setting out the record, I am sure that he will also want to make it clear that, since 1990, abortion is allowed right up to and even during birth on a handicapped baby.
  Mr. Sackville: I am aware of that, but I reiterate that the vast majority of terminations are much earlier.
  Some people who oppose abortion claim that those who accept it simply have no regard for human life. That is not the case for the Government.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister bring his speech to the issue of foetal pain, which is what we are here to debate?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have been following carefully, and my understanding was that the Minister was seeking to sketch in the background. One must also bear in mind the fact that there is rather more latitude in Adjournment debates than there might be on other occasions.
  Mr. Sackville: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I want to illustrate the fact that the Government listen to all views by reminding the House that the Department of Health responded quickly to representations from the hon. Member for Mossley Hill on the disposal of foetuses after termination of pregnancy. All centres carrying out termination have clear instructions. Full account must be taken of any personal wishes expressed. I am sure that all
  912
  hon. Members accept that respect is due to the dead foetus based on its loss of potential for development into a fully formed human being.
  We must always take the humane view in all aspects of the termination of pregnancy. For that reason, the topic raised by the hon. Gentleman for debate this afternoon deserves careful consideration, the question being whether the foetus experiences pain.
  The House has heard today mention of an article in The Lancet of 9 July 1994 entitled "Fetal Plasma Cortisol and Beta—endorphin response to intra-uterine needling". The work reported in The Lancet is a welcome addition to our knowledge on the subject. However, one of the dangers with any such issue is that conclusions may be jumped to which are not justified by the evidence. Therefore, let us consider for a moment the main conclusions of the article.
  The studies involved relate to life-saving blood transfusions before a baby was born, not to abortion. One process required the passing of a needle which carried the blood into the foetus's abdomen. That process was compared with another whereby the blood transfusion was via the umbilical cord. The comparison is important, because the umbilical cord has no nerves.
  The hormonal response was then measured—the actual measurement being the concentration of cortisol and beta-endorphin, the substances referred to in the title of the article in The Lancet. A known physiological response to stress is the production of those substances in the blood.
  The researchers found that in neither case did the concentrations of cortisol and beta-endorphin increase in the first 10 minutes of the transfusion. However, after 10 minutes, a substantial increase was observed when the transfusion was via the abdomen of the foetus. The study suggests that the foetus mounts a hormonal stress response to invasive procedures. What the study does not tell us is whether the foetus can be said to feel pain.
  Other studies have shown that those parts of the brain that may recognise pain are developing in the second three months of pregnancy, but some of the anatomical changes can be recognised only beyond the end of that period. However, the fundamental question of when the foetus is conscious of feelings remains incompletely resolved.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am grateful now for not being the only woman, besides yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the House today to be considering a subject which is of major importance to women in particular.
  Does the Minister agree that the study in The Lancet to which he has referred is a study of foetuses over 23 weeks, and that any connection between that study and a general opposition to the present legal right to abortion in this country would be inappropriate, because late abortions are not only undertaken with extreme distress and unwillingly by women, but also only in rare cases where there is foetal abnormality anyway?
  Mr. Sackville: I have already made that distinction clear. Most abortions are now below 24 weeks. There have to be unusual grounds for late abortions.
  This is a matter which is clearly worthy of research. The Medical Research Council is always ready to consider soundly based research proposals. In the meantime—
  Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Sackville: I must carry on, because I want to continue my argument.
  In the meantime, I feel sure that the study to which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has drawn attention will have been studied carefully by obstetricians and gynaecologists, as well as anaesthetists who are involved with invasive clinical procedures.
  In 1988, a report on sensory development in the human foetus was prepared, as has been said, for the Department by Dr. Maria Fitzgerald in connection with the report of the committee to review the guidance on the research use of foetuses—the Polkinghorne report. In the light of recent interest in the subject, we asked Dr. Fitzgerald to update her earlier commentary. A copy of that updated report has been placed in the Library. It continues to support the view that, up to 26 weeks, the foetus does not feel pain.
  A necessary prerequisite for pain perception is considered to be the presence of mature neural pathways to the cortex of the brain. In the human foetus, the relevant nerve fibres begin to reach that cortex only from 26 weeks' gestation. Before that, foetal movement in response to stimuli should be regarded as a reflex involving peripheral nerves and the spinal cord.
  All these matters are open to different interpretations. What has appeared in an early-day motion may put Dr. Fitzgerald's recent report in a slightly different light. In its summary and conclusions, she says:
  "The existing evidence shows that little sensory input reaches the developing cortex before 26 weeks and therefore these reactions to noxious stimuli cannot be interpreted as 'feeling' or perceiving pain."
  While I appreciate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) said about the need to acquaint health authorities and parents with the latest science, I stress that those conclusions do not support the view that, before 26 weeks, foetuses feel or perceive pain. I am afraid that we must view the subject within that context.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We now move to the next debate.

  Gilts and Bonds (Taxation)
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who now has one of the most fascinating jobs in Government. There is no doubt about the importance of taxation. My hon. Friend has probably already discovered the difficulty of reconciling the various principles: we all want simplification, but we also want fairness. The subject of taxation of gilts and bonds illustrates that difficulty very well.
  This may seem a somewhat technical subject, but it is important. A surprising number of private investors have holdings in gilts—three quarters of a million, I understand. Many others have holdings in zero-dividend preference shares, and use both gilts and those other instruments for the purposes of legitimate financial planning arrangements.
  When my hon. Friend's predecessor published a consultative document on the subject on 25 May, it provoked considerable interest. I entirely support the twin objectives contained in its proposals. The first was to simplify taxes by sweeping away 100 pages of legislation dealing with the taxation of different financial instruments, and stating that no distinction would be made between capital and revenue in regard to gilts and bonds: the whole lot would be taxed as one.
  That was clearly straightforward, but it involved a major extension of tax. I rather agree with The Daily Telegraph, which said yesterday that, if matters were to be simplified, it was probably better to abolish taxes than to extend them. Nevertheless, I support the objective.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said:
  "The current tax rules for gilts and bonds originate in the 19th century. As the financial markets and the tax system have evolved, more and more special rules have been added."
  If that is the case, the whole thing had become very complex.
  The second objective was to support the establishment of a gilt strips market, and to facilitate the development of new varieties of bond in the market, to ensure that London remained a leading financial centre. You may not know what "strip" means in this context, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a helpful definition at the bottom of page 3 of the Bank of England's consultative document:
  "Originally 'stripping' referred to the practice of physically stripping coupons from a bearer bond certificate. As the US market developed, the term 'STRIPS' was employed to stand for Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities."
  You are now fully au fait with the term, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  A serious point is embodied in that objective, quite apart from the wish to ensure that London remains a successful financial centre. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will recall much discussion in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill earlier in the year about the gilts repo market. All the changes involved the laudable aim of reducing the Government's funding costs by trying to ensure that the instruments available to investors matched their needs as far as possible.

  915
  The reform was simple. The idea was, and still is, that all profits should be treated as income and all losses should be relievable. What caused concern was the extension of the proposals to cover private investors. Professional investors can cope with complex financial instruments and, indeed, complex taxation; it is much more difficult for private investors to do so. The document proposed the extension of the proposals to all private investors, subject only to a fairly low threshold: a nominal value of about £20,000-worth of gilts was suggested.
  That prompted two sets of concerns, about the substance and about the timetable. I would not say that lower coupon gilts designed for the private sector had been marketed by the Government, but there is no doubt that they were introduced for the benefit of the private investor and, in particular, for higher rate taxpayers, on the understanding that they would not be subject to capital gains tax. There was a problem for those who held gilts individually, and a major problem for collective investment schemes. Many people prefer to invest through either a unit trust or an investment trust.
  The second concern related to the fact that people had been asked to respond by 30 June to a consultative document published on 25 May. I believe that, notwithstanding the timetable, some 400 people have responded. My right hon. Friend the Member for Acton said that he would make a decision soon after that date, which prompted a worry about parliamentary consideration: it was clear that, by the time the Finance Bill went into Committee in January next year, all would be signed, sealed and delivered, and we would be considering it retrospectively. We ought to have the opportunity to consider such a major change before its full implementation.
  I do not particularly like legislation by press release. It is fair enough if the Inland Revenue discovers some major source of tax avoidance and wants to clamp down on it quickly, but a major change such as this should not be introduced in a press release. Another important consideration is the operative date: when such changes are made, taxpayers should be allowed a reasonable period in which to reorganise their affairs.
  On Monday afternoon, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced major alterations to the proposals. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the speed with which he has moved since his appointment to deal with the matter; however, it could be said that, after having to deal with the problems of Cornish fishermen, he finds dealing with the men from the Inland Revenue a doddle.
  In Monday's press release, the Chancellor dealt with most of the major concerns expressed by those who commented on the consultative document. The vast majority of private investors will now have to pay income tax on interest only, as a £200,000 threshold is to be introduced. That will leave only 4,000 private investors subject to the new regime. Why, however, does my hon. Friend consider a threshold necessary? Why can there not be a separate regime for private investors generally?
  I have received a number of letters from constituents about that. One, who had chosen to invest in gilts the wealth that he had created during a lifetime in business, told me that he had an investment of £1.5 million. I think that we should welcome the fact that people are prepared
  916
  to support the Government's funding requirement in that way, and I am not sure why my constituent should be subject to the new regime simply because he has a large holding.
  None the less, the change is extremely welcome, exempting as it does the vast majority of taxpayers, and so is the proposal—this could be the answer to my constituent, who has such a large holding—to exempt two particular low coupon gilts: the 3.5 per cent. 1999–2004 and 5.5 per cent. 2008–12 because they are held by private investors in particular. I suppose that one could say to my constituent that he could choose to switch into those two, although some cost would be involved.
  Unit trusts that are wholly dedicated to gilt and bond investment are also to be excluded from the new regime. That, too, is extremely welcome, as is the fact that zero-coupon preference shares will be excluded. Some details are to be sorted out in relation to the transition. I am sure that my hon. Friend will now be familiar with what is known as the kink test. That will have to be considered. As with all these things, we shall have to ensure that we do not have a regime that is subject to abuse. That is extremely important.
  I should like to mention the position of investment trusts, because, unless I have missed something, I do not think that Monday's announcement referred to them. Of course, a number of them also invest in gilts and bonds, and it is therefore not surprising that the Association of Investment Trust Companies is still concerned. A letter that it has sent me today states:
  "under the proposed rules investment trusts will be subject to taxation on capital gains on holdings of gilts and bonds.
  The key principle underpinning the taxation of investment trusts has always been that, wherever possible, investors should not be any worse off should they choose to invest indirectly through an investment trust, than if they had chosen to invest directly in the underlying investments."
  As they presently stand, however:
  "The government's proposals would run counter to this principle as investors would be exposed to double taxation".
  They would be paying capital gains tax inside the trust, and then capital gains when they sold their shares in the trust. I hope that the Minister will consider that point, because a strong case exists for putting investment trusts on the same footing as unit trusts.
  Of course, there is a difficulty when one gets collective investment vehicles that invest partly in gilts and bonds and partly in equities. It is for that reason, and also because it is important that Parliament should have an opportunity to consider the proposals in detail, that the change in the implementation date, which was announced on Monday afternoon, is most welcome.
  The proposals will not come into force until 1 April next year for institutions and 6 April for individuals. That will both provide an opportunity for some of the detailed technical matters relating to collective investment vehicles and other matters to be sorted out, and ensure that we have full parliamentary debate on all the details. That is a much more sensible way to proceed.
  First, I welcome the change, because the objectives are entirely laudable: secondly, I welcome the amendments that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed, because we will have a sensible system that will allow some simplification—although, inevitably, there will be more legislation than there would have been. As I said, however, that is the problem if one wants to have equity.

  917
  The proposal will encourage the development of the strips market in the City, and reduce the cost of borrowing to the Government.
  1.43 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for his kind warm words of welcome. He is entirely right that this is my first appearance in my new role at the Dispatch Box. May I also say how pleased I am that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is here as well? I am sure that we will debate matters across the Dispatch Box in perhaps more combative terms than today.
  This is not, however, my first parliamentary outing since joining the Treasury, as, within but a few hours of my appointment, I was debating a double taxation agreement on the subject of Bolivia and Belarus. I think that, at that point, I realised, in the nicest sense, what I had let myself in for in transferring my responsibilities from Cornish fishermen, who showed their dissent by throwing things at me, to this more esoteric world. I have yet to find out what angry taxpayers do.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate on this important subject. In considering his correspondence in the Treasury, I am conscious of the substantial amount of campaigning that he has done on this issue on behalf of private investors in gilts and bonds. I also acknowledge his particular interest in tax matters in general, which his opening remarks attested to, and in the special subject of tax simplification.
  As my hon. Friend said, not only does this proposal offer us a way forward in that subject, but Monday's announcement shows that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend who preceded me in my job and I listened carefully to all the views expressed on this important matter.
  Before responding to my hon. Friend's sage remarks on this subject, I hope that the House will allow me to explain briefly what the Treasury hopes to achieve by the reforms outlined in this sector.
  There were two main objectives. The first was to simplify the tax rules in this sector to provide a more straightforward and coherent regime. At present, taxpayers must grapple with, as I am discovering, many arcane mysteries: deep gain securities, deep discount securities, qualifying convertible securities, the accrued income scheme, and much, much more. When each set of rules was introduced, there was good reason for it, but the overall effect is now a mountain of complexity, full of anomalies, tax traps for the unwary, and scope for avoidance.
  With our announcement on Monday, we see the prospect of major deregulatory gains sweeping away the hundreds of pages of legislation that my hon. Friend referred to, and having a much simpler, shorter and more intelligible tax code as a result.
  The second objective is, as my hon. Friend said, to free up the financial markets for new developments. There is a clear demand, from both issuers and investors, for new types of financial investment.
  To give just one example, some people have said that they would like to see the issue of "limited price index bonds". Those are bonds where the maturity value is
  918
  indexed within a pre-set limit. They could be of value in financing large capital projects and in meeting the needs of long-term institutional investors, but at present the tax rules get in the way. My hon. Friend also put his finger on another important point—the potential for the Government to reduce the cost of their borrowing.
  Another example is an official market in gilt strips, which again my hon. Friend mentioned. I must admit that I too worried when I first came across that piece of terminology, but he provided us with an extremely good explanation of it. As he said, that is an official facility to trade separately in both the right to capital associated with a gilt, and in the rights to receive interest. Other countries, notably the United States of America and France, have introduced an official strips market with considerable success, but the United Kingdom's current tax rules get in the way of such developments.
  There is a clear demand for such innovations, and we need to allow them to take place if the UK is to stay competitive in world financial markets, but it is difficult to cater for them without having some radical tax reform.
  Under the proposals, both the Government and private companies can benefit. Companies issuing debt would receive full relief for their borrowing costs. The present obscure distinction between different types of bond will largely disappear, and income and profits received by lenders will be treated as income, with the additional benefit that any capital losses made by lenders will be relieved.
  Thus the distinction between capital and income will be removed for bonds. That distinction makes good sense for shares and for real property; it is doubtful whether it makes much sense for bond-type lending, where the likely returns are more predictable from the outset. The result will be a simpler system in which tax factors interfere much less with normal commercial decisions, and in which market innovations such as those I have mentioned can take place.
  All that is for companies as issuers and holders of such investments, but we were always clear that something much less sophisticated would be necessary for private investors, and that, for the great majority of them with relatively modest holdings, it would be sensible to continue taxing them, in general, only on interest income, much as now.
  To test reactions to the proposals in my hon. Friend's speech, the Inland Revenue and the Bank of England issued consultative papers on 25 May. In response, companies and tax practitioners strongly endorsed the reform in principle for professional investors, but two reservations came through very clearly.
  First, there were widespread calls for implementation to be deferred to give a further opportunity for consultation on matters of important detail, and to give the House full scope to examine the results. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield for his comments on that. Deferral will also allow firms and individuals to approach the start date with reasonable certainty about what they are taking on.
  Secondly, while the ideas were welcomed by business and the financial markets, concern was expressed by private investors who felt that the proposals might adversely affect them. They were particularly concerned that their investment expectations could be disrupted, as they had planned their existing portfolios against the

  919
  background of the tax rules that have applied to date. Some called for a higher threshold than the one that was mentioned in the consultation document, while others pressed the particular claims of investors in low-coupon gilts. Others urged us not to disturb the debt/equity borderline, and to leave the current taxation of shares, including zero-coupon preference shares, unchanged.
  Those concerns were carefully considered by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is now Secretary of State for Transport, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield agrees that those concerns were addressed by the Chancellor's announcement on Monday. I hope that it will be helpful to the House to set out the details of his announcement.
  There will be a generous threshold of £200,000 for private investors. That will ensure that probably no more than 4,000 private investors will fall within the scope of the changes. I shall develop that point later in answering my hon. Friend's question about why there should be a line at all above which some private investors will be included.
  Two gilts with a particularly low coupon are to be excluded altogether. Those have long been held by private investors, and assurances about their tax treatment were given by a previous Administration. There will be no change in the debt/equity border line. Therefore, there will be no change in the present treatment of zero-coupon preference shares or, indeed, any other type of share. I hope that that underlines the reassurance that my hon. Friend derived from Monday's announcement.
  The start date for all these changes has been deferred until April next year. Consultations on the details of the proposals will continue until that date, giving people more opportunity to prepare for the changes and to voice any remaining concerns. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has considerable expertise and interest in these matters, will participate in that exercise. Where valuations are needed, they will be carried out in April 1996.
  Some hon. Members have expressed concern about the impact of the changes on collective investment vehicles—in particular on the need to avoid the double taxation of gilts and bonds that are held by such vehicles. My hon. Friend spoke about that. We envisage that unit trusts that are invested predominantly in gilts and bonds will, as taxpayers, be wholly outside the new rules. They will be treated in the hands of investors as a sort of synthetic bond that is subject to the new rules, but included, in the case of private investors, in the generous threshold provisions that we propose.
  That ensures that collective schemes will continue to offer efficient access to the full range of PEP opportunities, including corporate bond PEPs which are deservedly attracting so much attention. It also gives bond funds equivalent treatment in competing with direct investment in gilts and bonds outside PEPs.
  I appreciate that there are some further concerns in the unit trust and investment trust sectors. That is one reason why we are deferring the start date until April next year. As I have said, that will allow additional consultation on the details of the proposals to continue. Given a constructive approach in future discussions, I am confident that we can find whatever further detailed adaptations may be necessary.
  920
  The end result of the Chancellor's proposals is that, essentially, there will be no change in the way in which the overwhelming majority of private investors are presently treated. I trust that the House welcomes the proposals. The outcome has been widely welcomed outside. My hon. Friend quoted from a well-known national newspaper, so I shall reciprocate by quoting from another.
  The view of the Financial Times was:
  "Most private investors have been given everything they wanted from the changes to the gilt tax proposals".
  The paper said that it was
  "a victory for private clients and common sense".
  Many professionals have welcomed the further opportunity for consultation on details and the prospects for progress—now confirmed—towards the gilt strip facility which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield have described. I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend's main concerns have been met.
  In the context of valuations, he asked whether the so-called kink test fits well with gilt strips—we must leave others to judge the terminology. The issue is of some interest to my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give a precise answer now. I am aware of some questions about the issue.
  The fate of the so-called kink test is tied up with wider questions about the handling of the transition that the Revenue will need to develop and discuss further. It is our firm priority that the transitional rules should be seen to be fair and workable. I am sure that my hon. Friend will contribute to that debate.
  He also asked about the drawing of the line, and whether any private investors should be included in the reform. As I think he understands, some 4,000 people will be above the threshold. In setting any line, there is always an element of judgment, but a high threshold has two results. It protects the Exchequer, while retaining the bare minimum of detailed provision to deter tax-driven investment strategies.
  With no threshold at all, we would face an unattractive choice between open-ended Exchequer costs and retaining or even increasing the full and sometimes ugly apparatus that we all want to get rid of. We think that the threshold that we have chosen for private investors strikes the right balance between cost and complexity and the concerns of private investors.
  My hon. Friend said that, for those above the threshold, the larger investors, there will be an additional gain, in that any capital losses that they may have incurred will be eligible for relief under the proposals. That may appeal to his friend who has a large holding.
  We have set out the basic principles. There are many matters to discuss and much detail to fill in, as the ideas are worked up into their full legislative form. Many of those ideas are outlined in the Revenue's press release that was issued at the beginning of the week, and the Revenue will approach them all in a constructive spirit.
  This is a valuable reform. It will improve the competitiveness of the City and make life simpler and easier for companies. At the same time, it must respect the concerns of private investors, and I think that our package achieves that proper balance. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to press this matter in debate, and for giving me the opportunity to put on record the current position on this important matter.

  Cannabis (Therapeutic Use)
  1.59 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: This is a matter of enormous importance because it affects the suffering of many thousands of people in Britain. By a simple decision made now by the Minister, we can today not take any path that is new or daring but go back to the position that existed in 1971. By doing so, we will decriminalise not the recreational use of cannabis but many people who use cannabis now because they regard it as essential for their needs or their family needs. Those people will stop being branded as criminals. Now they seem to be breaking the law.
  Perhaps it is best to say what we are not proposing or debating this afternoon. There is no question of any proposal to decriminalise cannabis or increase its availability as a recreational drug. Neither is there a proposal to make cannabis available as a medicine on every chemist's counter for every minor complaint such as headaches, stomach aches or whatever. We are urging the Minister and the Government today to allow cannabis to be prescribed for a certain number of identifiable conditions that are all serious. Those conditions are multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, the effects of chemotherapy, cerebral palsy, spasm and terminal illnesses.
  We know that a strong demand for decriminalisation is coming from the association that has been set up to make the point. The demand rightly comes not from politicians but from patients, from the families of patients and from the medical profession. We are debating the matter today because a meeting of the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics took place in October last year at which I believe that the Minister was present. He answered questions at the meeting and he has answered parliamentary questions on the matter.
  We want to take the issue forward from what was said at that meeting. I understand that it was a friendly meeting and people shared a great deal of common ground. An all-party group went along to the meeting. It included members of two parties and a letter of support was sent by a third party. Today I have received expressions of support from hon. Members in all parties in the House. So the matter is not party political.
  The Government agree with our main case, which is that cannabis is effective in relieving pain. There is a wealth of evidence that for certain patients afflicted by one of the illnesses that I have mentioned cannabis provides a unique palliative for the torments of pain. The measures that we advocate can be introduced without interfering with Government policy. We accept the reality of Government policy on all drugs, but we believe that our argument today chimes precisely with Government policies on drugs, Home Office policies and even the Government's policies on deregulation and choice.
  At the meeting with the alliance, the Government side accepted the therapeutic qualities of drugs. Their objections included one from the Home Office that any move to allow cannabis to be prescribed therapeutically would send a wrong signal to the rest of the country. The Government representatives also said that the Department of Health did not want to give any approval to smoking. I believe that those arguments can be answered well.
  Cannabis was prescribed until 1971. Whatever signal was given then had no apparent effect. There was not a sudden rash of cannabis taking or abuse because it was
  922
  prescribed to a small number of people, just as it would be prescribed if our plea today was accepted. There is clearly an understanding in the minds of the public and the medical profession of the distinction between cannabis for recreational use and cannabis for therapeutic use.
  No poll of any great merit has ever suggested that recreational use of cannabis is regarded by the majority of the public as desirable. However, a poll in The Independent some time ago showed that 75 per cent. of all doctors and 70 per cent. of the general public wanted to see cannabis prescribed therapeutically. So the distinction exists in people's minds. We do not have to worry about wrong signals.
  I agree entirely with Ministers about smoking. No one in the House wants to increase the number of smokers of anything—herbs, tobacco or cannabis. Smoking any substance brings the same problems of bronchitis and heart disease, even if not cancer, but that is not the point. We know that cannabis can be used in a variety of ways. A vaporiser is used in America. There are inhalers. Cannabis can be taken in the form of a food, a drink, a patch or a tincture. Those are all acceptable ways to divorce therapeutic use from the recreational use of cannabis. So smoking is not the problem.
  Distinguished scientists attended the meeting at the Department of Health. Professor Wall, a distinguished scientist at St. Thomas's, gave interesting evidence on which he has since enlarged on—I hesitate to use the word—endogenous receptors in the brain. He made the point that the arguments were not the same old arguments which were about in the 1970s and 1960s. When cannabis was withdrawn, it was not because it was thought that prescribing it sent the wrong signals but because it was used only as a sedative at that time. Various other sedatives were available, so there was no need to prescribe cannabis as a sedative.
  New knowledge about cannabis has been discovered in the past 25 years. According to the theory of endogenous receptors, our brains can produce one of the active elements in cannabis. We are all familiar with the odd moments of unexplained joy and euphoria that we have from time to time—frequently in the House, of course. Our bodies are remarkably clever machines. They can produce all kinds of chemicals, including many painkillers. So we know that there is a natural source of an element of cannabis in our bodies.
  One of the objections, strangely enough, to the derivative of cannabis that has been used—nabaline—is that, although it is a part of cannabis, it has caused more problems than natural cannabis. So there is a strong case for using cannabis in its natural state. Dr. William Northcott, who is an expert in treatment of pain and runs a pain clinic, said that he saw many patients who did not respond in any way to conventional medicine, but who obtained relief as a result of cannabis, which he could not prescribe, although he routinely prescribed much more powerful and addictive drugs, including heroine and cocaine. So the mild, non-addictive drug is banned and the more powerful addictive drugs are permitted—and used in enormous quantities.
  The Government have used the argument about willow bark, which is an interesting one. They say that cannabis is a complex substance, and it is indeed complex. There was a time when people sucked willow bark to obtain the active substance in it, which is aspirin. We can go on from there and say that we cannot delay any longer removing

  923
  the ban on cannabis. It is used today by thousands of people. It has been used since the time of the Assyrians. It has been used for at least 5,000 years. The people who built the pyramids in Egypt knew that cannabis was good for eyes. It was used for what is now known as glaucoma. It reduces the pressure in the eyes by as much as a third. The Egyptians knew that then. We lost that knowledge. It was a forgotten medicine, but we know about it now. It was used by tens of millions of people in every continent for thousands of years. There is not one case of anyone being poisoned by it or having a toxic reaction to it.
  We need more research. I am sure that the Minister will say that in his speech. We need to understand which of the substances in cannabis are psychoactive and which are analgesic. But that is no excuse for delaying allowing cannabis to be used in its natural form.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not oppose my hon. Friend's argument. Indeed, I strongly support it and I took a delegation to the Minister at the end of last year. My hon. Friend is exactly on the point. Cannabis should be available on prescription under medical supervision for the relief of pain for certain specified conditions. That is all that we ask. Even if the Government's reason for the long delay in considering that proposal is that more research is needed, it will be difficult to carry out research unless cannabis is available, as it was before 1973, for the treatment of those specific conditions. The research is conditional on the availability.
  Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend is right. There have been strict limits on availability. At the time of the meeting it was not available at all.
  It is fascinating that pain specialists have pointed out that they are well used to using drugs which have not been formally trialed or even licensed. The gentleman to whom I referred previously said that, with the majority of his patients, only single trials are conducted before a treatment is introduced. If that did not happen, the treatment that he gives in his pain clinic would be stopped in its tracks. He has to continue to use drugs such as amitriptoline, depo-medrone, sodium valproate, clobazam and flecainide which are unlicensed for use in pain relief. If that can be justified, so can the use of cannabis in its present form.
  The most persuasive evidence does not come from the great litany of experts and bodies of chemists who want this change and whom I could spend the rest of the afternoon quoting. More persuasive is the evidence of people who are criminals in the eyes of the law, who are listening to us now and whose lives have been affected by cannabis.
  One of the most moving articles that I have ever read was by Carol Howard, who is listening to me now, about the death of her daughter Sara, Sara was in her 20s and died of a rare cancer. She was nursed by her mother. She suffered chemotherapy in the final period of her life and her mother writes movingly in a searing document about her. Her mother used cannabis to help that young woman and has told me within the last hour of that fact. She says that cannabis was the only drug that provided any true or lasting relief. However, in the final phase of her illness that young person was filled with heroin and morphine in a form that has a devastating effect on people. If the choice is between morphine, which often turns people in addition to their health problems into zombies and using
  924
  a drug which allows them to continue to converse and communicate with loved ones into their final hours, why on earth can we not allow people to continue to use it?
  There is another lady who uses the drug. She is the mother of two teenage children and finds that the only relief that she can have from multiple sclerosis and its many symptoms is to use cannabis.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and congratulate him on obtaining a debate on this very important subject. It has been said that beta interferon, which people are pleading to have available on prescription in this country for sufferers from multiple sclerosis, will not be available until it has been through trials. People find that they can get relief from some of the most dangerous and soul-destroying tremors of MS by using cannabis. If the Government are determined to trial beta interferon and probably delay its use for another decade, they should hear this plea for the use of cannabis as a prescribed drug for MS.
  Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend is right. I wrote an article recently in The Independent about drugs in general. As someone who is fanatically opposed to the taking of medicinal drugs, I tried to make the point that there are only two sorts of drugs: those that we know have very nasty side-effects and those whose nasty side-effects we have yet to discover. We know that there are problems with every possible drug that we can discuss. No drug that civilisation has encountered has had the trial in practical circumstances that cannabis sativa has had. It has been used by many people over a period of years without the reactions which have occurred with thalidomide, eraldin, opren and a whole host of other drugs which have made a lot of money for the drugs trade but have poisoned and killed many people.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point. That is why I have come to hear the debate. I apologise for being a little late. Is it not true that hemp drugs such as cannabis, which are widely used in the east, especially in India, are natural drugs and that the opiates which are widely used in and China and the far east are natural substances? We tolerate alcohol and tobacco, which are acceptable drugs in our society. Is there not a big difference between such substances, which have been used for centuries and about which we know a lot, and the sort of artificial chemicals that the hon. Gentleman has described, which can devastate bodies because they are not natural?
  Mr. Flynn: The hon. Lady is right. That is precisely what happened with the derivative of cannabis that has been used as a substitute in hospitals. There have been problems with that which have never occurred with cannabis in its natural state, which comprises 64 different elements.
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: Will my hon. Friend also confirm that cannabis is non-addictive, unlike tobacco, alcohol and some of the other drugs mentioned?
  Mr. Flynn: Indeed. It is clear from a wealth of medical evidence that cannabis is not an addictive drug.
  I must mention some other cases. I find myself greatly moved by the personal circumstances of many people who have nursed relatives who are terminally ill and the beautiful stories of how radiance came back into their

  925
  faces after taking cannabis—a radiance absent when they were on conventional drugs. I see also the pain on other faces—of people who bravely say that they are taking cannabis or giving it to relatives. The law says that those people should be thrown into gaol or fined £2,500 and criminalised. There can be no sense in continuing with such nonsense in respect of a mild, benign drug. But that is the law.
  One case involved a man who was looking after his 48-year-old wife who was in the prime years of life. He was visited by Customs and Excise, although the matter was not pursued as far as a charge. Another case involved a doctor who prescribed cannabis for her seriously ill daughter. That case went to court. The law is unenforceable. There is not a judge or jury in the country who would dare act against someone behaving in a humanitarian way to their loved ones. The law is stupid and no one can defend it.
  The Minister cannot hide behind the nonsense of saying that we need more research, which is his defence. We need more research into every possible aspect of medicinal drugs. There is no drug like cannabis which has had such a trial over the centuries. As we heard from the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said, who has a background in chemistry, in its natural form it is acceptable and safe.
  We know that there are problems. Cannabis should not be given to people suffering from schizophrenia or those who are engaged in driving or other activities which might be affected by the psychoactive parts of the drug. Such circumstances must be taken into account by anyone prescribing it. However, there is overwhelming evidence from thousands of patients that for glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, spasm and muscular illnesses cannabis is the only drug that can be used.
  The case of chemotherapy has recently come up. Many people taking that terrible treatment suffer from continuous nausea. Conventional medicines do not work, but cannabis has been found to be effective in many cases. Who dares to deny those people that medicine? Many hon. Members in this House would never dream of breaking the law on anything, but any of us would recommend it if our relatives were suffering such nausea and there was no alternative. What do people do now to get the drug? They can only get it on the street or grow it themselves. One brave lady from Cardiff, who is not 100 yards away from me—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
  Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to people in the Gallery.
  Mr. Flynn: Clearly, there is no one here but the lady might be listening to me on the radio. I shall not refer to her again. However, the lady in question bought a cannabis plant. She does not have the dexterity to roll her cannabis cigarettes herself but keeps them in a lovely silver cigarette case that she has placed near a bust of Queen Victoria because Queen Victoria took cannabis every month of her adult life and lived to a great age, thus demonstrating the drug's lack of ill effects. Many other people took the drug at that time.
  The Government cannot continue to hide behind the claim that additional research is needed. Research could continue for many years and might produce a result only
  926
  in five, 10, or 20 years. The argument needs to be resolved now. The Minister is known to be a humane and compassionate man who is respected by every hon. Member. He has the possibility to do something that all politicians would love to do—he can relieve the pain of hundreds of thousands of people, stop many people being criminals and take a major step towards the provision of respite.
  Many patients cannot be treated for their terrible illnesses with the proper medicines that doctors would like to use. That charade must be stopped. On behalf of the many law-abiding people who are nevertheless breaking the law, those who are denied the best treatment, those who are in pain but cannot get relief, and those who see others in terrible pain, I appeal to the Minister to announce a minor change in the law and a return to what it was in 1971.
  2.21 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) for his eloquent summary of the arguments. I endorse the sentiments that he expressed. The Minister is known to be a compassionate man: indeed, I regard him as the acceptable face of Conservative extremism. Is there any conflict between the Department of Health and the Home Office? Is it not a fact that the real problem lies with the Home Office rather than with the Minister's Department?
  This morning I took part in a phone-in on the BBC. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and I were asked how we would tell a person suffering from multiple sclerosis and who was in a wheelchair and in great pain that cannabis was to be denied to them because it was illegal for a doctor to prescribe it. I invite the Minister to contemplate that question when he replies. I am sure that in his heart he is persuaded by our arguments. We should all be grateful to hear him say so from the Dispatch Box.
  2.22 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) for raising the issue and to hon. Members of both parties for chipping in. I am also grateful for the kind comments which I imagine have something to do with those moments of high joy and ecstasy that the human brain can experience and to which reference has been made.
  This is a serious matter which affects many people. There is a great deal of pain, but there is also a great deal of hope that cannabis may become available as a prescribed drug. I understand that, but, in the short time available, I must set out the Government's position. I shall not dwell on the recreational misuse of cannabis. On the basis of what the hon. Member for Newport, West said, I think that he and I agree about that. I shall deal with the therapeutic use of cannabis.
  We have received a number of representations claiming that cannabis is effective in treating some of the symptoms of multiple sclerosis and other conditions, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In October, I met the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), Lord Whaddon and representatives of the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics to hear the case that cannabis should be made available for medicinal use. I

  927
  agreed then to give careful consideration to the points put to me. Since then, the hon. Gentleman has written to me and acknowledged that it is not something to be rushed, although we need to move as fast as is sensible.
  The therapeutic use of cannabis is a complex issue. It may be helpful if I deal more fully with some of the important considerations related to it. Under section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, cannabis and certain other controlled drugs, such as raw opium and coca leaf, have been designated as drugs which it is in the public interest for their production, supply and possession to be either wholly unlawful or unlawful except for the purpose of research or other special purposes, or for it to be unlawful for doctors to prescribe or supply except under licence from the Home Secretary. The controls imposed by the Act conform with the international restrictions covering those drugs.
  It has of course been claimed—and it may be so—that specific medical conditions could be improved by the use of cannabis, but everyone agrees that we need to consider such a claim carefully before deciding to allow the use of cannabis as a prescribed drug. As for any other unlicensed product, the supporting data would need to be presented to the Medicines Control Agency, which in the usual way would evaluate any application made to it by a sponsor seeking a product licence. I understand, that if a product licence were issued by the MCA, the 1971 Act controls could be modified to make such a medicine available to patients. Any change in the controls would not, of course, extend to non-medical use.
  I have heard it said that cannabis was available for many centuries, and certainly for medicinal use prior to 1973, so its legal use could simply be reinstated. That is not possible. The decision to stop the medicinal use of cannabis was based on the evidence available at the time, which was that cannabis was no more effective than other available drugs and followed on from the advice of the World Health Organisation at the time. Since 1973, all drugs currently on prescription have undergone a stringent review of their safety, efficacy and quality, and it would be wrong simply to reinstate cannabis without such a review being undertaken. A company seeking a product licence would therefore have to present evidence of the drug's safety, efficacy and quality to the MCA in the usual way.
  There are side effects from the use of cannabis. There is convincing evidence that for some people cannabis gives rise to acute and transient mental disturbance and may be implicated in drug-induced serious mental—or psychotic—illness. For regular long-term users, there is some research evidence of damage to the testes, liver and lungs. It is not a matter of dispute that in the short term cannabis can make users light-headed and unable to concentrate, which can affect their ability to drive a vehicle, operate machinery or make sound decisions affecting work, leisure or daily living. The more potent version of cannabis—skunk cannabis—has a higher level of tetrahydro-cannabinol. Because THC is fat-soluble, it tends to accumulate and can damage organs.
  Most drugs have side effects, and a relevant consideration—
  Mr. Flynn rose—
  Mr. Bowis: I must press on in an attempt to deal with the points that have been made.
  A relevant consideration is whether the benefits of the drug are sufficient to outweigh the risks, which is why companies seeking to market drugs have to provide evidence of their safety, efficacy and quality.
  The form in which cannabis would need to be available for use as a medicinal product in a controlled dose is another consideration. As the hon. Member for Newport, West said, nobody wants to see reefers being prescribed. The matter of form is also in the first instance for a company seeking to market such a product.
  The representations that I have received include a wealth of anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of cannabis in treating some of the symptoms of multiple sclerosis and other conditions. In matters as important as those affecting people's health, however, scientific research-based evidence is what we need. Although the hon. Gentleman predicted that I would say that we needed more research, such a statement has to be right. As yet, conclusions of available research are not very convincing owing to the limited scope of the projects, the use of small cohort groups or the lack of suitable scientific methodology.
  It may be that further research is needed, and I understand that the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is taking positive steps to encourage trials by offering support to researchers. The main agency through which the Government sponsor medical research—the Medical Research Council—is always willing to consider scientifically sound proposals.
  It may be helpful if I also remind the hon. Gentleman that current legislation does not prevent research into the medicinal use of cannabis, provided that a Home Office licence has been obtained for that purpose. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no difference between the Home Office and the Department of Health on this matter. For the purposes of a clinical trial which involves the sale or supply of medicinal products and various other specified activities, a clinical trial certificate or a clinical trial certificate exemption would also have to be obtained from the Medicines Control Agency.
  We are aware of the distress experienced by people suffering from multiple sclerosis and other conditions and we have been carefully considering the representations that have been made. I remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that we are committed to ensuring that patients receive the drugs that they need to treat their clinical conditions. If a medicine is brought forward and approved by the MCA, the controls under the Misuse of Drugs Act—for which the Home Office is responsible—could be modified to make such a medicine available to patients. If the regulations were amended, the decision to prescribe a particular drug would depend on the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned. The trouble is that we have not yet reached either of those two stages, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall watch developments carefully and fairly.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Unsafe Products
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further representations he has had from the organisations representing consumers about improving recall procedures for unsafe products. [32115]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I have received no recent representations on this matter, but the Government have in place powers which allow enforcement authorities to remove unsafe consumer products from the market. Those powers are complemented by powers to require public warning notices if necessary.
    Obligations to comply with consumer safety legislation, as well as the adverse impact of product liability claims, also provide business with clear incentives to act quickly when issues of safety may arise, including undertaking recalls when appropriate.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware that as many as 3,700 Citroen ZXs are being driven with potentially lethal footbrakes due to a manufacturing fault? Will he speak to Vauxhall about the 330,000 cars on the road with wrongly fitted airbag sensors, or to Renault about the 1,000 Espaces which can burst into flames at any moment?
    Consumer groups are telling us that the recall procedures are shambolic and ineffective. What is the Minister going to do about that? Is it not time that he put the interests of consumers before, not after, the interests of the big companies that dominate our car industry?
    Mr. Evans: For goods in the business supply chain, there are already in place quite stern measures of enforcement of the sort the hon. Gentleman desires. The point that he is making goes beyond the business supply chain to when the goods are in the hands of consumers. As I indicated in my main answer, when any difficulty arises in relation to product safety, there is a very clear incentive for manufacturers to deal with such matters by means of proper recall procedures.
    The hon. Gentleman might be aware that the Department has been involved with the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances and the Consumers Association in creating very clear guidance to cover the sort of points to which he referred.

    Privatised Utilities (Directors' Pay)
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department intends to compile information on directors' pay and share options in the privatised utilities, with particular reference to the regional electricity companies. [32117]
    Mr. Pike: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the need for measures relating to excessive pay and share option increases by the executives of privatised utilities. [32126]
    Ms Eagle: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has to compile information on directors' pay and share options in the privatised utilities. [32127]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Remuneration in the private sector is a matter for the companies concerned and for their shareholders.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister explain why the Government chose not to use their golden share to prevent the directors of the regional electricity companies paying themselves huge salaries and topping them up with gross share options, to the disgust of consumers and the general public alike?
    Mr. Eggar: Under the terms of the golden share, it could not be used for that purpose. That was very clear when the companies were floated. The hon. Gentleman ought to do more research. He appears not to be aware that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who led for the Opposition on the Electricity Bill, never once, throughout the entire passage of that Bill, raised on the Floor of the House or in Committee the issue of share options. The hon. Gentleman ought to be asking his right hon. Friend the question.
    Mr. Pike: If the Greenbury committee does not ultimately yield proposals which act in the best interests of consumers and the public, and stop the excesses, what will the Government do to protect the interests of the public and consumers?
    Mr. Eggar: In terms of the monopoly utilities, which will, of course, shortly be exposed to the competitive market, consumers do not suffer from excessive payments to directors because, under the way in which the regulation works, any increase in pay comes off the return to shareholders. It is not added to the costs to consumers. The hon. Gentleman should understand that.
    Ms Eagle: Is not the Minister being terribly complacent when he says that that huge issue of public concern is not a matter for the Government? Has not the Prime Minister himself said that he finds the increases distasteful? Is not the real problem the fact that the Government do not want to do anything about them, yet the public out there are disgusted by the huge, excessive increases that executives are paying themselves and want action? When will the Government take action?
    Mr. Eggar: Nobody condones excessive pay increases or remuneration packages, but the hon. Lady fails to recognise the considerable contribution that the privatised utilities have made to reducing bills. For example, if the announcement that Professor Littlechild made last week is implemented, it will result in a £9 reduction in the average electricity bill for the average consumer. Moreover, there has been a 40 per cent. real decrease in industrial gas prices as a result of the introduction of competition. That is good for consumers, both domestic and industrial.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the concerns expressed by the Opposition about executive pay must be set against the real benefits that privatisation has brought to consumers? Is he aware that the customers of Seeboard have already benefited from a 20 per cent. reduction in the standing charge, and will benefit from a further 25 per cent. reduction later this year? Does that

    931
    not show that privatisation has worked to the benefit of consumers, who would not have benefited if we had listened to the siren voices of the Opposition?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right. If the industries had still been nationalised, we should be seeing rising rather than falling prices, massive overmanning and inefficiency. My hon. Friend might be aware that, as a result of the recent announcements on electricity prices, the average electricity consumer may spend about £75 less on his electricity bill in the coming year than he did last year. That represents a considerable benefit to the individual consumer.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister have a personal view about the actions of Richard Giordano at the British Gas annual general meeting, where he exercised the block vote to defend the pay and perks of his fellow executive directors? Does not that sort of behaviour make nonsense of Government claims that it is up to shareholders to restrain excesses? What changes, if any, in company law does the Minister think could be introduced to make a reality of shareholder democracy?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Opposition do not seem to recognise that such issues are the responsibility of the private sector directors and the chairmen and boards of the companies. What Mr. Giordano has said is a matter for him. Of course the Government will take account of any recommendations by the Greenbury committee when we receive them, and if appropriate we shall not hesitate to legislate.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at private sector annual general meetings, it is not only the final vote but the atmosphere in which the meeting is conducted that matters? If a meeting believes that members of the board have been given more than they are entitled to, perhaps people should reflect on the fact that for every pound that those individuals receive, 40p goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Eggar: Of course the taxpayer benefits from the contribution made by individuals who receive high wages. At the end of the day what matters to consumers is the fact that their bills come down in real terms. That has been achieved for both gas and electricity as a direct result of Government policies that the Opposition have consistently opposed.
    Mr. Wilson: I congratulate the Minister on his effrontery, if on nothing else. I am sure that he is aware of the Library's independently researched finding that the price of electricity has increased since privatisation. If he wants to argue about that let him argue with the Library, but will he cease to restate the misleading information that he has repeated over and over again today?
    Is he aware that, in the few days since an American company acquired a stake in South Western Electricity, the share options held by the four directors of the company have increased in value by £322,000? Is that what passes for enterprise in Tory Britain today? Are not share options in the privatised utilities a disreputable and discredited scam, organised by the beneficiaries in their own interests under licence from the Government? It seems as if the new President of the Board of Trade intends to do as much as the previous one to end the abuses—absolutely nothing.
    Mr. Eggar: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. There has been a real decrease in electricity
    932
    prices of 8 per cent. in the past two years, and we can look forward to further considerable decreases in electricity prices in real and perhaps nominal terms in the coming months.
    With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other point, why do the Opposition constantly peddle the politics of envy? Why do they never take into account the positive benefits that flow directly to the consumers that have resulted from the policies followed by the Conservative party?

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support is given by the Department to encourage small businesses; and if he will make a statement. [32118]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislative, administration and taxation burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate. This includes finance, specialist advice and support in a variety of areas including innovation and technology, exporting and design.
    The new business link network is revolutionising the delivery of business support services. From April 1996 it will be the normal delivery route for all DTI services.
    Mr. Hendry: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important ways in which the Department can help small firms is by helping them to finance their growth and development? Does he further agree that the loan guarantee scheme has played an important part in that process? As a number of firms cannot take advantage of the scheme, will my hon. Friend undertake to keep it under review, so that it may benefit as many firms as possible?
    Mr. Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words about the loan guarantee scheme. As he has been so generous, I shall reveal that, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls), for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), I was responsible for pushing for the introduction of such a scheme at the beginning of the 1980s. Applications for the scheme are at a record level, which is indicative of the confidence that is building throughout the UK economy. A review of the scheme is taking place so that we can focus our efforts to try to help British small businesses even more.
    Mr. Harvey: The Minister will recall that, in the Budget two years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that it was the Government's intention to bring forward measures to address the problem of the late payment of commercial debt. Given that the previous President of the Board of Trade—he has now gone to greater offices, both literally and metaphorically—always seemed to be implacably opposed to any such measures, can we anticipate that the Government will now bring forward measures to give effect to the promise made two years ago?
    Mr. Page: If statutory instruments were the magic bullet to solve the problem of late payment, I would sign up along with everyone else. I am afraid that life is more

    933
    complex than that. Surveys have suggested that the majority of late payments are due to disputes about the terms of a contract and about whether goods have been supplied. Surveys by Grant Thornton have shown that payment periods in the United Kingdom are coming down, that we are improving against the rest of the European Union and that we are doing better than most countries which have a statutory right to late payment.
    We are encouraging support for the Confederation of British Industry's code of conduct regarding practices of payment. As the Minister for Small Business—from, I believe, 11.30 this morning—I can say that the Department is working towards a British standard regarding prompt payment. I can also recommend the Department of Trade and Industry's free leaflet on making cash flow to help late payment.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In his list of measures to encourage small business, my hon. Friend rightly included the reduction of taxation. Between now and the Budget, will his Department make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggesting that small incorporated companies be exempt from corporation tax below a certain threshold, just as individuals are below a certain threshold for income tax, as small businesses are usually under-capitalised and must expand on the basis of the profits that they can retain?
    Mr. Page: I note what my hon. Friend says. He will understand if I do not give a direct answer, but I understand the reasoning behind his question. Since 1979, the Government have reduced corporation tax for smaller businesses from 42 per cent. to 25 per cent. in order to help small businesses.

    British Coal Enterprise
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many new jobs have been created by British Coal Enterprise. [32119]
    Mr. Page: British Coal Enterprise estimates that it has helped with the creation of 51,300 jobs through its business funding activity and 15,000 jobs through its workspace activities. Through its job and career change scheme, BCE has also provided help to some 57,000 ex-employees of British Coal seeking work. Of those, BCE estimates that some 50,000 found jobs, either directly or following a period of retraining.
    Mr. Bayley: Many hon. Members from mining areas might dispute those figures. Nevertheless, British Coal Enterprise has invested considerable sums of money in former coalfield communities. If that is good for the coalfields, why is it not good for the railways? What plans do the Government have to set up a British Rail Enterprise to replace the tens of thousands of railway jobs that have been lost as a result of privatisation?
    Mr. Page: I am the first to pay tribute to the work done by British Coal Enterprise in providing jobs for people in former mining communities. Providing jobs for ex-railway workers is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport. I look the hon. Gentleman straight in the eye and say that I fully accept that difficulties have arisen in his constituency as a result of the unemployment caused by the closure of a railway manufacturing company. However, in his travel-to-work area,
    934
    unemployment is only 5.7 per cent., which is way below the national average. There should, therefore, be a good chance of people finding work in his constituency.

    Crown Post Offices
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of Crown post offices. [32120]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): The location and ownership of post office outlets is a matter for the board.
    Mr. Michie: I am sure that the House and people outside are interested to know how much support the Government have from consumer organisations for the possibility of privatising and franchising Post Office Counters. People outside are saying that Crown post offices should be given freedom of access to funds so that they can once again create a service that is appreciated by the vast majority of the nation. Why are the Government prejudiced against a public enterprise that works and is appreciated?
    Mr. Lang: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is aware that 95 per cent. of all post offices are already in the private sector. What we are talking about with regard to the Crown offices is not privatisation but providing better services in a more responsive way in the interests of the public. It is clear from the success that has been established with those offices that have been transferred to agency status that the services have improved and customer satisfaction has risen.
    Mr. Gallie: First, may I commiserate with my right hon. Friend on giving up the great office of Secretary of State for Scotland? That shows great sacrifice in the interests of the Union, because I am sure that he will do remarkably well in his current national post. May I also remind him that, in recent times, there has been great concern about post offices in rural areas? May I point out that the lottery, gas companies that now offer a bill payment service through post offices, and a range of other matters linked to privatisation offer a great future for post offices in rural areas? Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind when he deals with the matter in future?
    Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. As one of my colleagues said to me, I have moved from the position of viceroy to that of president. I can live with that happily, and I hope that my hon. Friend will support me as I seek to ensure that the rest of the United Kingdom achieves the lower unemployment that we have in Scotland, the higher productivity and the greater exports per head of the population that Scotland has already achieved.
    On the post offices, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. They operate in a competitive market, and it is important that they react to the shifting pattern of retail trade. That is part of our objective.

    Brent Spar
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the most recent communications he has had concerning the disposal of Brent Spar. [32121]
    Mr. Eggar: I have had meetings and communications as appropriate with Shell on that matter.
    Mr. Banks: Is it true that the Government did not consult the Natural Environment Research Council regarding the disposal of Brent Spar, and that they took advice mainly from the Scottish Office?
    As we now know that, according to the Government's own figures, 32 oil rigs will reach the end of their useful life during the remainder of the century and that 13 of them might end up being dumped at sea, can the Minister really assure the House that environmental considerations are uppermost in his mind and that dumping something at sea is more environmentally advantageous than bringing it ashore? The rigs were made onshore; surely they should be dismantled onshore.
    Shell is worried only about its budgets, its income and its money. It is not at all concerned about the environment. It is about time that the Government shared the feeling of the great majority of people in the country that dumping at sea is unacceptable.
    Mr. Eggar: There were, of course, three years of extensive studies carried out by Shell. The major document is now in the public domain, and has been since 16 February.
    The Brent Spar is now moored in a Norwegian fjord. Shell is inviting an independent inspection entity, DNV, to inspect and analyse the allegations that have been made by Greenpeace and to report on them fully and independently.
    As for the environmental damage that the hon. Gentleman claims will be done to the deep sea and the Atlantic, I shall quote Dr. Tony Rice, an independent scientist and probably the leading independent deep sea biologist in the country, who said that the most likely impact of deep sea disposal of Brent Spar was
    "the death of a number of worms on the sea bed".
    Mr Banks indicated dissent.
    Mr. Eggar: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. The leading independent deep sea biologist said that, and that it was equivalent to the number of worms that would die on the ground during construction of a quarter of a mile of motorway. In his career in the House, the hon. Gentleman has taken up many lost causes, but taking up the cause of the Atlantic deep sea worm seems beyond even him.
    Mr. Dover: Can my right hon. Friend confirm two things—first, that whatever method of disposal is decided on will be less environmentally pleasant than the one that has been irresponsibly thrown away by Shell and, secondly, that the cost to the taxpayer will not be greater than it would otherwise have been?
    Mr. Eggar: I can confirm that Shell has informed me that the additional amount—in excess of the cost of deep sea dumping—will not fall on the taxpayer but be absorbed by the company. That is as it should be.
    Future methods of disposal will now be studied. Shell came to us with the best environmental practical option. I expect it, in any proposal that it makes to us in future, to reach the same high standards of proof on the best environmental way to proceed as it did in reaching the decision that deep sea dumping was the best way to proceed. I would not rule out the option of deep sea dumping for the Brent Spar in future.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: In view of the fact that, of the 14 reports passed by Shell to the Department of Trade and Industry, only two actually referred to onshore disposal options and, of those two, only one was referred to by Shell in its own best practical environmental option, does the Minister accept that, instead of simply leaving the matter to Shell, what we need to allay public anxiety is a properly set up independent commission to consider onshore disposal options?
    Mr. Eggar: I have already made it clear that Shell has agreed to commission a completely independent audit of the Brent Spar situation and I am sure that it will ensure that the results of that independent investigation are made public. I am also intending, subject to the necessary commercial confidentialities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] That is the way it has to be. I also intend to publish the studies that have been carried out by Shell. It is clear that more studies will have to be commissioned in future months, even years, and I shall do my best to ensure that they also are placed in the public domain. I think that that is what the House would want.
    We have a common interest in ensuring that the Brent Spar is disposed of in the best manner possible from an environmental point of view. The hysteria that has flowed from the Greenpeace campaign is not the best basis for taking serious decisions.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Minister accept that, when Shell in Germany failed to endorse the disposal of the Brent Spar in the Atlantic, it left a massive gap in the Minister's credibility? He was the only one who continued to champion the environmentally damaging option, and he is now commissioning reports that he should have received a long time ago.
    Mr. Eggar: That is absolutely typical of the hon. Gentleman. First, he misrepresents the position of Shell (Germany) and, secondly, he clearly prefers the opinion of Shell (Germany) to that of Shell (UK).
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is highly unlikely that Shell will produce a compulsive case in favour of dismantling the rig onshore on environmental or economic grounds? If, perchance, there is an acceptable case for disposing of the rig onshore—either vertically or horizontally—will my right hon. Friend ensure that the work is done in our country so that our people get the jobs?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right: there are very difficult technical issues concerning the way in which a platform storage buoy, which is designed to be vertical, can be moved to a horizontal position and then towed inshore to shallow water for disposal. That is a major environmental issue on its own.
    As to where any work would be carried out if onshore disposal proved acceptable, that is clearly a matter that Shell would have to put to the United Kingdom Government. Shell has made it clear that it will discuss any disposal option with the United Kingdom Government rather than any other Government, and we will examine the type of issues that my hon. Friend has raised.

    Manufacturing Competitiveness
    Mr. Caborn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures have been taken to improve manufacturing competitiveness. [32123]
    Mr. Lang: The Government's policies since 1979 have contributed to a transformation of the competitiveness of manufacturing industry. We have reformed the labour market and our education system, cut taxes and pursued a vigorous programme of privatisation and liberalisation. The results are clear. Since 1979, manufacturing productivity has grown faster in the UK than in any other major industrialised country—after two decades in which the UK was the slowest.
    Mr. Caborn: I thank the President of the Board of Trade for that answer. I do not know whether I am addressing my question to the right person in view of the Government's reorganisation, particularly in the area of competition, but I expect that the President will resolve the matter when he responds to my question.
    Has the President seen the 3is report, which was released last week, about investment in small and medium-sized businesses? It underlined the points made by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in its report about the competitiveness of United Kingdom manufacturing and in its second report about investment in small and medium-sized businesses, which showed clearly that we are yet again falling behind Europe in terms of investment. The 3is report confirms much of that serious evidence.
    Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that he should put pressure on the Treasury to provide some fiscal incentives in the next Budget to ensure that there is medium to long-term investment in small and medium-sized businesses rather than to opt for the short-termism that seems to be inherent in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Lang: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's point that investment is important in all businesses, large and small. It is important for the Government to encourage a stable economic environment with low inflation in which businesses can undertake such investment. I am encouraged by the fact that investment in manufacturing industry has risen by 8.3 per cent. in the past year. That is a substantial rise, which I am keen to encourage further.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one reason why competitiveness in manufacturing industry has risen is the 8.3 per cent. increase in investment in the past year, following a 6.75 per cent. increase in the previous year? Does he agree that one of the fiscal incentives that manufacturing industry would like and that was mentioned a moment ago is a reform of the capital gains tax regime to encourage longer-term rather than shorter-term investment?
    Mr. Lang: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider such points, along with all the other issues that he will consider before his Budget. My hon. Friend, and indeed the whole House, will agree that one of the most important ways in which large and small businesses can remain competitive is to keep down non-wage labour costs and resist the minimum wage and the social chapter.
    Mr. Miller: On the evening of 6 July, I placed on the board a letter to the President of the Board of Trade and faxed his office asking important questions about competitiveness in respect of the reorganisation of science in his Department. First, will the President of the Board
    938
    of Trade assure the House that in future we will receive information directly and that the press will not get it the previous day? Secondly, will he give the House an assurance that research councils that are not in the near market area will not be treated as second division organisations within his new arrangements?
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken careful note of the points that he raised in his letter. I replied to his letter today, as soon as I had announced the disposition of portfolios within the Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) is taking on the role as Minister for Science and Technology. I hope that between us we will reassure the hon. Gentleman of the importance that we attach to science and technology—alongside the other activities of the Department of Trade and Industry—in its own right and as a way of improving the competitiveness to which we are all committed.
    Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he will have the enthusiastic support of all British industry if he continues to resist vigorously—as the Government have done until now—unnecessary social charges from the continent of Europe that have done so much to ensure that Europe created fewer jobs than either Britain or the United States in the past 20 years? That is crucial to competitiveness.
    Mr. Lang: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is significant that in the past year employment in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom has risen by no fewer than 31,000 jobs. In the past two and a half years, unemployment across the economy as a whole has fallen by well over 600,000. That is in sharp contrast to many countries in the rest of Europe that are burdened with excessive social costs.
    Mr. Skinner: Can the Minister tell us why the Government do not seem to practice a great deal of competition within the Department of Trade and Industry when it comes to handing out contracts, for example, for the refurbishment of No. 1 Victoria street? Can he tell us more about the internal inquiry that is taking place? I assume that he has been informed about the letter that I set him quite recently referring to the fact that top officials at the DTI were gallivanting around the world and being handed big raffle prizes, although they had not entered a raffle, and then some very uncompetitive tenders and bids were handed out to the favoured few. Is it not time that the scandal was sorted out?
    Mr. Lang: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the new headquarters of the Department at Victoria street were built under the private finance initiative. As for his letter, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology has sent the hon. Gentleman a full and detailed reply today.

    Competitiveness
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what responses he has received to his Department's second White Paper on competitiveness; and if he will make a statement. [32124]
    Mr. Lang: The White Paper "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" has been widely welcomed by industry, including major representative bodies, such as the CBI,

    939
    the Engineering Employers Federation and the Chemical Industries Association, as well as many of our major companies.
    Mr. Jenkin: Returning to a theme raised earlier, does my right hon. Friend agree that a suitable tax regime is vital to competitiveness and that Britain currently has the most punitive capital gains tax regime among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development southern countries? Is it not welcome therefore that noises emerging from parts of the Government suggest that that regime is under review? Will he use his good offices as President of the Board of Trade to push for a sensible reform to reduce the burden of capital gains tax?
    Mr. Lang: I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of my hon. Friend's concerns on that. My hon. Friend will, of course, agree that the reduction in corporation tax for both large and small companies has been one of the driving forces behind the successful growth and expansion of the economy in recent years.
    Mr. Purchase: Given that the driving force for competitiveness is investment and the fact that investment in this country is at the same level as it was in 1989, does the President of the Board of Trade not recognise that to match the investment performance of Germany this country needs to invest another £42 billion per annum in order that we might become internationally competitive? What plans does he have to tackle that problem?
    Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my answer to an earlier question, when I pointed out that investment in manufacturing industry was up by 8.3 per cent. on a year ago. As for his comparison with earlier years, I can tell him that, since 1981, total manufacturing investment has risen by 18 per cent. What guides investment is confidence in the management of the economy. Confidence is there now that was lamentably absent when the Labour party was in power.
    Mr. Pickles: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper builds on many of the changes in the competitive nature of the British economy, one of which has been the creation of a flexible work force? Does he also agree that that can be seen writ large in the Ford Motor Company, which, this month, sees the production of the new Fiesta and which two months ago announced the new diesel plant at Dagenham? Does he further agree that Dagenham, which was once the symbol of all that was wrong with the British economy, is now the symbol of all that is right with the British economy?
    Mr. Lang: Yes, I do. My hon. Friend makes the point very well. The Ford Motor Company is going from success to success. It is good to see the United Kingdom sharing so fully in that.
    Mr. Bell: May I on behalf of Opposition Front-Bench Members congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his elevation to President of the Board of Trade? We shall miss the lion's roar from the Conservative Benches, but no doubt the steady purring will continue into the ear of the Prime Minister.
    Is it not remarkable that we are dealing with a competitiveness White Paper and the consultation documents on the day when it has been announced, by
    940
    official figures, that we have the lowest growth rate since late 1993; that our construction orders are at the lowest level since late 1992; that our housing figures, the orders in housing, are down 13 per cent. from what they were a year ago; and that private industrial development is also down? Is not it a fact that the only thing over which the previous President of the Board of Trade presided was insecurity in our industry, the length and breadth of the land? Is not that what the right hon. Gentleman should be addressing?
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, which I much appreciate. Sadly, I thereafter have to disagree with everything that he said. He has been extremely selective with his figures. He might like to know that, overall, GDP, which has been rising for the past three years, rose by 4 per cent. in 1994. I recall that, when the previous Labour Government were in power, they could not achieve growth on average of more than 1 per cent. per annum.

    Arms Sales (Licences)
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to improve the scrutiny of applications for licences for the export of armaments. [32129]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): Procedures and practices are under constant review to respond to changing circumstances. Since the late 1980s, there have been a number of important specific changes. These include: a higher staff/licence application ratio; more resources concentrated on sensitive cases; greater involvement of senior management; and wider co-ordination through use of information technology.
    Mr. Fisher: Did not the former President of the Board of Trade, in his statement to the House on BMARC, admit that 74 per cent. of export licence applications were not even checked by his Department? Was that caused by sheer inefficiency or was there a more political reason— that the Government wished to turn a blind eye to the export of arms? What are the Government going to do to avoid further shambles like BMARC in the future, which have brought such discredit not only to the Government but to the country?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should know that the previous President announced that on a sample basis 74 per cent. did not have full supporting documentation. I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that every application form states whom the applicant wishes to be the end user and ultimate consignee. Therefore, the Department of Trade and Industry was informed by every applicant of where the applicant said that it was eventually sending the goods.
    Supporting documentation is not legally required in all cases. However, since the inquiries that were conducted by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and as a result of the Scott inquiry, the performance of the export licensing department has been significantly tightened. The requirement now is for all applications to have supporting documents and, because of the new computer technology, it is not possible to process a licence unless certain key questions are asked and answered.
    Mr. John Marshall: Can my hon. Friend confirm that British Aerospace is a major exporter, that the attack on

    941
    defence exports could cost many tens of thousands of jobs in British industry, and that the Opposition do not care about manufacturing industry or the jobs in it?
    Mr. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend. British Aerospace is a fine company, doing an enormous amount for the benefit of the British economy, a considerable amount for employment and, I stress, as Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, an enormous amount for Britain's technological base. It is shameful for Opposition Members to condemn the excellence that is available in that British company.
    Mr. Wilson: At the time that the Scott inquiry was set up, the Government had been in possession for some two years of all the BMARC papers which were taken during the raid on the Astra headquarters. If those papers had been made available, the Scott inquiry would not have been just about arms for Iraq and Matrix Churchill but about arms for Iran and BMARC. Why were the papers not made available?
    Mr. Taylor: The papers to which the hon. Gentleman refers were obtained as a result of investigations into the company's financial status and have been retained for that purpose by the receiver. They have now been made available to Customs and Excise, and we are delighted that, at our invitation, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is looking into all those matters. There is no necessary connection in the Scott report between Iran and Iraq. The Select Committee's work will be of great illumination to the House in what the President admitted in his statement to the House was a chapter of incidents which we would have preferred not to have happened but which were in no way a connivance, rather the result of administrative inefficiencies.
    Mr. Hawkins: In the light of my hon. Friend's welcome statements about the contribution of British Aerospace, does he agree that the attacks on the defence industry from so many Opposition Members will be widely reviled by the thousands of my constituents whose families' livelihoods depend on their employment with companies such as British Aerospace, and they will not forget the attacks that have been made on their futures by Opposition Front-Bench Members?
    Mr. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has a considerable constituency interest in the defence sector. If Opposition Members were as assiduous as he is in defending the interests of their constituents, there would be fewer arguments against defence exporters and manufacturers. Britain's defence exports are worth more than £2 billion a year and, as I said earlier, they provide enormous prospects for jobs and Britain's technological base. We should be proud of that record. Nevertheless, we take care to which countries we export, and that is the effect of the answer that I gave a moment ago that we have tightened up significantly on the export control department's activities.

    Rural Textile Manufacturing
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further plans he has to provide assistance to textile manufacturing communities in rural areas; and
    if he will make a statement. [32130]
    Mr. Eggar: Both my Department and the Scottish
    942
    Office are working with the textiles industry to offer practical support and advice from which such rural communities can benefit.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that there have been some damaging job losses in the textile sector in my constituency recently? Is he aware that the textile sector represents nearly 88 per cent. of the manufacturing work force in the Hawick travel-to-work area? Will he give a commitment that his Department will do all that it can to develop the RETEX scheme for diversification, organised by the European Union to assist the process of diversification? Will he also see what he can do to obtain new export opportunities, particularly for small firms in the region, so that they can replace the jobs that have recently been lost?
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the importance of textiles to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I understand his concern about the recent job losses at Pringle of Scotland.
    We are currently taking a number of steps. As the hon. Gentleman knows, RETEX II should start disbursing money in September—£25 million over three years for the United Kingdom as a whole. We want to ensure that that money is spent effectively. I also recognise the need to expand market opportunities for textile manufacturers. The starting point should be an improvement in the relationship between United Kingdom retailers and manufacturers, which should become a "win-win" relationship. My Department has joined the Trade Association in an attempt to bring that about. It recently appointed Mr. Ken Watson—whom I met yesterday—to start an initiative designed to improve the relationship, and we hope that that will lead to many new orders.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that companies such as Pringle, and other woollen manufacturers in Scotland and the north of England, import about 90 per cent. of their mohair and cashmere from abroad? The finest cashmere-producing goat in Europe was developed in Scotland, but currently kids are being exported to Spain and Italy, where they receive agricultural support, because no such support is available in England. Why does my hon. Friend not look into that, along with our hon. Friend at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
    Mr. Eggar: I must confess that I was not aware of the position. I shall make it my duty to become aware of it, and undertake to discuss this important matter with my hon. Friend.

    Regional Selective Assistance
    Mr. Coe: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the processing time of applications for regional selective assistance. [32134]
    Mr. Page: Processing times vary according to the level of assistance requested. The existing targets are currently under review, and revised target times will be announced in our response to the Trade and Industry Select Committee report on regional policy.
    Mr. Coe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. He will know of the long delays that have left many south-western companies, including Cornish companies, in a frustrating no-man's-land. I welcome regional selective assistance, which has changed the industrial landscape in my constituency: it has created some 500 jobs since April,

    943
    when offers were made. I urge my hon. Friend, however, to look closely at the time taken to process applications in Cornwall and elsewhere in the south-west.
    Mr. Page: My hon. Friend has been an enthusiastic chaser of RSA applications into my office. Along with those 500 jobs, there have been 19 applications relating to his constituency since last year. I accept, however, that the position is rather like the curate's egg—good in parts and bad in parts. The average processing time is about 40 working days, but many applications have been delayed, in some cases because of the slow return of information by applicants. A review is taking place. I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to make any announcement before responding to the Select Committee, but I expect one to be made very shortly.
    Mr. Gunnell: As the Minister knows, we are normally in competition for inward investment with our European partners. Is he satisfied that our processing is at least as efficient as that of any other European country, that some of the criticism about our not always conforming to the "level playing field" arrangements are unjustified and that all our European partners are operating such arrangements?
    Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman is jumping from one part to another. The Invest in Britain Bureau has been enormously successful. Last year, we had some 434 investment programmes, which will produce some 100,000 jobs in this country. On regional selective assistance applications, the review is taking place, and, again, it would be wrong for me to bring forward those details, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, last year, we made about 1,065 offers, with a value of £158 million, and we hope to create some 25,000 jobs, so one can see that the RSA process is doing a good job for UK Ltd.

    Exports (East Midlands)
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on export figures in the east midlands for the past five years. [32135]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Anthony Nelson):Separate regional figures are not provided but nationally, in the past five years, exports have risen by 33 per cent. to £134 billion, with east midlands companies making a full contribution to that growth.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment and wish him well in the future. Does he agree that an important contribution to that export growth comes from firms, in Hinckley in my constituency and round about, such as Profilex, Nelson Burgess and Triumph Motorcycles, which is the country's second largest motor cycle company? Is it not remarkable that the May Confederation of British Industry survey found that the east midlands was leading Britain's export growth?
    Mr. Nelson: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his kind sentiments. It is nice to be released from the Treasury and I am looking forward to my new freedom as Minister for Trade. Secondly, I join him in welcoming the fact that the east midlands is in the vanguard of this country's exports growth. That is a tremendous performance for that region and his constituency; a performance that I am sure will be sustained under Conservative policies of free trade and free enterprise, unlike Labour policies of intervention and minimum wages.

    Industrial Competitiveness
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to improve the international competitiveness of British industry. [32136]
    Mr. Lang: The wide range of measures that the Government are taking to promote the competitiveness of UK industry at home and abroad is set out in the recent White Paper, "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead", which has been so well received by industry.
    Mr. Gapes: Given the international weakness of the pound and of the British economy, and the fact that this country's growth is the lowest in the G7 and the second lowest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, does the President of the Board of Trade agree that, if we were to stay out of a single European currency, massive speculation would take place against the pound, necessitating an increase in interest rates?
    Mr. Lang: I wonder whether all the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and hon. Friends agree with him in that sentiment, but I wish he and his hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches would desist from talking down the British economy, which is one of the best performing economies in the industrialised world. Since his party left office in 1979, exports have risen by over 90 per cent. thanks in large measure to the remarkable efforts of the former Minister for Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). On inward investment and mobile projects, this country has attracted more manufacturing projects than Germany and France combined.
    Mr. Batiste: Given the importance of science and technology to industrial competitiveness, and the new functions of my right hon. Friend's Department, can he confirm that the functions of the Office of Science and Technology will be ring-fenced within his Department and that it will continue its strategic overview of Government research and development conducted across the board?
    Mr. Lang: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that, by placing responsibility for these matters entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who will be the Minister with responsibility for science and technology, I am clearly signalling the specific and separate importance that I attach to science in its own right and as an adjunct to the Department of Trade and Industry, where so much benefit can be derived for industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) will be reassured when we are able to let him have more details on the future of the Office of Science and Technology, the technology foresight programme and other projects with which the Government are associated. I think that he will find that his answer is satisfactory.

    Privatised Utilities (Regulation)
    Mr. Burden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to change the mechanisms for regulating privatised public utilities. [32137]
    Mr. Eggar: The mechanisms for regulating the privatised utilities have evolved over time, in response to the practical experience of the various directors general. Independent regulation has delivered real benefits to consumers and to wider market development.
    Mr. Burden: Does not the Minister recognise the frustration among the British people who regularly see

    945
    more and more excesses in the privatised utilities? Today's news about the water industry and share options is just the latest example, but the Government say that they have nothing at all to do with them. When they were forced to listen, they set up the Greenbury committee which offers no guarantee that anything will be done. When will the Government accept that they have a responsibility to enforce decent standards in this area, and when will they establish a regulatory mechanism that puts the consumer first and does not fudge matters in the way that the Government have done?
    Mr. Eggar: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House earlier when we discussed this issue. He should ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who led for the Opposition against electricity privatisation, why he did not raise or identify the whole issue of share options at that time. The hon. Gentleman should ask his right hon. Friend why he failed to pick that up. The overall benefits of privatisation are there for all to see—reduced prices for consumers in real terms. Electricity prices are significantly down. They are sharply down for gas and there will be significant additional price reductions for electricity over the coming months.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the considerable success of the public utilities in obtaining international contracts for Britain. For instance, the water industry has obtained £2,000 million-worth of contracts for Britain in the past year alone. How does it help our public utilities to gain such business for Britain if Opposition Members are forever slinging mud at them?
    Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. British Gas is competing and winning around the world, and a number of our water utilities are doing exactly the same. Our electricity utilities, particularly the generating companies, are investing effectively, and that will bring dividends to the United Kingdom and provide significant employment in supplying companies in the UK and to individuals who are directly employed. That is a good result for Britain, and the Opposition should not drag Britain down in their approach to this important issue.
    Mr. O'Neill: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread concern about the quality of treatment received by the regional electricity companies at the hands of the regulator? Is he aware of the frustration at the lack of transparency and accountability shown by Professor Littlechild and his staff? Will he take steps to ensure a more businesslike and more commercially aware approach to regulation by Offer? Does he not realise that the companies and the consumers require a more balanced approach? At present, the regulator has neither sympathy for the consumers nor understanding of the commercial realities of the business in which he operates. Surely he can get the balance right and try to satisfy them. If he cannot, will the Minister take steps to remove him?
    Mr. Eggar: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he had accepted the case for independent regulators. It does nothing for the independence of regulation and the effective operation of the industry for
    946
    regulators to be under partisan political attack on a personal basis. That does the hon. Gentleman no credit at all.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when these recently privatised utilities were in the public sector, there was no one acting on behalf of the consumer because there were no regulators? On top of that, those utilities were highly inefficient and were able to invest in their infrastructure only when the Treasury let them do that. Does he further agree that the position is not only better in terms of the money that the public sector has to provide, but better for consumers, who get better value for money?
    Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and there is a further point. There is a great deal of transparency in the way in which the regulatory system works. The issues are put on the table for everybody to consider but they were never available for consideration in that way when those industries were nationalised and decisions were taken bilaterally in ministerial offices. The last thing that Labour took account of when it was in government was the interests of consumers. It took account the whole time of its political interests and the interests of the then Labour-run Treasury.

    Arms Sales
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of British manufacturing exports was accounted for by arms or arms related material (a) in 1979 and (b) in 1994; and if he will make a statement. [32138]
    Mr. Ian Taylor: In 1979 the value of exports of identified defence equipment accounted for 1.3 per cent. of exports of manufactured goods from the United Kingdom. In 1993 the proportion was 2 per cent. Figures for 1994 will be published by the Ministry of Defence later this month.
    Mr. Mullin: Considering that the Minister is a member of a regime which over the past 17 years has presided over the destruction of about a third of our manufacturing industry, does he consider it a disappointment that the one area in which we appear to excel is the manufacture and marketing of arms? Does he think that we should find a more honourable way of making a living? Does his Department have any plans to encourage arms manufacturers to diversify into more productive activity?
    Mr. Taylor: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman intended to pay us a compliment by calling us a regime, but judging by his other standards, he was not attempting to be friendly. As for the British manufacturing base, the efficiency and technical application of United Kingdom manufacturing has dramatically improved since 1979 and the defence industry has had a major positive influence on new management techniques and technological application. There is nothing to be questioned about whether this country should be selling manufactured goods. We have only 16 per cent. of the world market. I would like more, but our share shows that many other leading countries are also involved in arms sales. The key question is to whom we should be selling, not whether we should be selling.

Bosnia
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the House on events in Srebrenica.
Srebrenica was established as a safe area by United Nations Security Council resolution in April 1993. This was followed by an agreement on its demilitarisation between UNPROFOR, the Bosnian Government and Bosnian Serb military commanders, signed on 17 April of that year.
In June 1993, the UN suggested that up to 36,000 troops could be necessary to implement the safe areas concept. The United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands responded well, but many others did not. The total committed amounted to only 7,500—a significant shortfall. This has had substantial implications for the safe areas policy. A Dutch contingent of UNPROFOR troops was deployed to Srebrenica to replace the original Canadian contingent.
The reality is that neither side properly observed the provisions on demilitarisation. It is this that lies at the root of events over the past few days. For three months, there have been sporadic attacks by each side against the other. Some 450 Dutch troops were in Srebrenica when fighting escalated over last weekend.
During that fighting, one Dutch soldier was killed by Bosnian Government forces on 8 July, and 30 Dutch soldiers were taken by the Bosnian Serb army as they withdrew from outlying observation posts to a blocking position 1.5 km to the south of the town. On the evening of 10 July, Bosnian Serb troops launched an infantry attack against this position, the Dutch returned fire, and the attack was abandoned.
At about midday on 11 July, however, Bosnian Serb forces launched a further attack, using mortars and tanks. Srebrenica town came under fire, with shells hitting the hospital and the Dutch compound. The Dutch commander requested NATO close air support. Two missions were launched, resulting in the destruction of Bosnian Serb army tanks. Meanwhile, Dutch troops helped to evacuate the hospital and withdrew from the compound, as it was under heavy shelling and undefendable.
The Dutch blocking position was bypassed, and, at about 1800 hours, Dutch UNPROFOR troops withdrew northwards to their compound at Potocari. They took with them some 2,500 displaced persons and some 80 to 100 who are wounded. Latest reports indicate that some 30,000 displaced persons are now in the Potocari area, several thousand of them in and around the Dutch compound, and that Bosnian Serb forces now effectively control the whole of the Srebrenica enclave.
I have spoken this morning to the Dutch Foreign Minister, Mr. Van Mierlo. He confirmed that the Dutch troops remained in their compound. He has no reports of casualties. The compound is not at present under attack, but food and water supplies are running low. Dutch commmanders are in touch with General Mladic, who is now is Srebrenica, about getting relief to the displaced persons.
We are in close touch with our allies and friends about the next step, and I have instructed our chargé in Belgrade to speak to President Milosevic. Our immediate priorities
948
are to get food, water and medical help to the displaced persons in the Potocari area and to offer any help to the Dutch that they need; secondly, to safeguard the other enclaves and in particular the British forces in Gorazde; thirdly, to pursue action in the United Nations Security Council in response to this Bosnian Serb aggression. Our overall objective should remain, despite the difficulties, to restore Srebrenica as a safe area, but on the basis of a genuine implementation of the demilitarisation agreement of April 1993.
On the humanitarian situation, I spoke to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees last night. I understand that UNHCR is seeking to negotiate access to provide help to the to displaced persons and assistance to those who expressly wish to leave. We have offered technical assistance to UNHCR from Overseas Development Administration experts in the area.
On the position in the other enclaves, there is continued sporadic shelling around Zepa, which is guarded by Ukrainian forces. There are no reports of increased activity by Bosnian Serb forces around Gorazde. Hon. Members will nevertheless share my concern about the safety of British troops there.
We are in constant touch with UNPROFOR commanders on the ground about developments, and we shall take appropriate measures to safeguard the security of our troops. Part of the rapid reaction force is deployed in theatre, where it will be able to support UNPROFOR's political and humanitarian objectives.
At the United Nations we, the United States, France, Germany and Italy are co-sponsoring a draft resolution which was circulated yesterday evening. This condemns the Bosnian Serb offensive; demands that the Bosnian Serb forces withdraw immediately from the Srebrenica area, that the Bosnian Serbs immediately release all detained UNPROFOR personnel and that all parties allow unimpeded access for the High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian agencies to the safe area to alleviate the plight of the civilian population; and requests the Secretary General to use the resources available to him to restore the safe area status of Srebrenica. I look to see a resolution along these lines in New York today.
Beyond those immediate priorities, we have to consider the implication of these events for the political process and for the future of the UN forces. I am seeing Carl Bildt, the new European negotiator, immediately after this statement. He has already travelled extensively in the region, and has had three lengthy negotiating sessions with President Milosevic.
I will be discussing with him how he can use his channels to the parties to help stabilise the situation in Srebrenica, as well his broader objective of a negotiated settlement to the Bosnian conflict and mutual recognition between the republics of former Yugoslavia. Later today, Mr. Bildt will meet the contact group to discuss these developments.
On the future of UNPROFOR, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that the continuing fighting in Bosnia was putting the future presence of the United Nations forces at risk, and that the warring parties had to indicate soon that they were prepared to return to the negotiating table to reach a political solution. That remains the position.

949
There is no question about the value of UNPROFOR's work. This is the largest peacekeeping operation in the history of the United Nations. Forty thousand troops are involved, drawn from almost 40 countries. They have saved tens of thousands of lives. Casualties in the Bosnian war have fallen from 130,000 killed in 1992 to 2,500 in 1994. They have contained a conflict which threatened a wider Balkan war. They are providing support for more than 2.7 million people in Bosnia who have been affected by the war.
But to operate, they require co-operation from the parties. UNPROFOR is not configured to fight a war. We must rely on the judgment of UN commanders on the ground as to whether they remain able to carry out their mandate; so withdrawal must remain an option. The structure for a political solution is there if the parties choose to use it, but they have to recognise that negotiating time is running out.
Dr. David Clark: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to make the statement, and congratulate him on his new appointment. I wish that he were here in rather less sombre circumstances.
Clearly, we are in a serious position. The whole House will share the Foreign Secretary's condemnation of the Bosnian Serbs for the manner in which they have ignored the wishes of the civilised world and overthrown a United Nations safe area. It is an outrageous act of aggression, which places the lives of thousands of innocent people in jeopardy, and the world cannot simply sit by.
The continued presence of UNPROFOR is something with which we concur. We still believe that a worthwhile job is being done in Bosnia by British troops and our allies in UNPROFOR and, as long as our troops are there, doing a worthwhile job, we hope that we can support them.
However, our immediate concern must be for the people of Srebrenica, who are being forced out of their homes in their thousands, often for the second or third time. They are experiencing ethnic cleansing, not only once or twice but sometimes three times. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us a little more about his plans and those of the United Nations for ensuring that those unfortunate people are provided with food and shelter? What negotiations are taking place with the Bosnian Serb authorities so that we can get food to the refugees there?
Will the Foreign Secretary also tell the House what consultation he has had with the French authorities? We understand that they favour a much more robust military approach to the retaking of Srebrenica. What consultation has the Foreign Secretary had with the French authorities, and what is the Government's view of the French proposals?
What is the position of the rapid reaction force? We heard a great deal about it when it was announced five or six weeks ago. We understand from the Foreign Secretary's statement that the rapid reaction force is in the vicinity of Gorazde, but why was it not called to be sent to Srebrenica? After all, we had three days' notice of what was happening in Srebrenica. Where was the rapid reaction force? Where were the guns that would have filled the gap between air strikes and hand guns? That question must be answered.
950
What is the Government's policy towards the other safe areas, especially those in the eastern enclave? What are the Government doing to try to ensure that demilitarisation in those areas is a fact, not a myth? There is no doubt that, unless there is demilitarisation, or unless one has thousands and thousands of troops, one cannot defend the safe areas. Will the Foreign Secretary accept that no action in Srebrenica can be seen in isolation from the rest of Bosnia, especially the two safe areas in the east that I just mentioned?
Of course, the whole House is doubly concerned about Gorazde, because troops from our country are there. What is the position of British troops in Gorazde? Have they got plenty of reserves? Do they have the facilities to protect themselves? Do we have the assurance that the rapid reaction force, which the Foreign Secretary mentioned, will be there in time? It is no use arriving too late in that situation.
May I press the Foreign Secretary on the basic issue of consultation? At the end of the day, both sides agree that there is no military solution in Bosnia; there will have to be a political solution. Will he confirm that there have been no discussions between the contact group and the belligerents in Bosnia for a number of months? Will he say a little more about when such contacts will be renewed, because they are critical?
Finally, what has happened in Srebrenica came about because of a mismatch between the commitments given by the world through the United Nations, and the resources made available by the countries that make up the United Nations. Will the Foreign Secretary impress on other countries through the United Nations that it is imperative that this cannot happen again?
It is no use making pious claims unless other countries are prepared to try to ensure that there is sufficient force to ensure those aims are adhered to. What we have to do in the international councils is say what we mean and mean what we say; otherwise, it is simply not worth doing.
Mr. Rifkind: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for his personal good wishes? I certainly agree with him that, when the Security Council expresses a policy, it is necessary that those who vote for that policy and support it provide the means of implementing it. I am proud that the United Kingdom is one of those countries which has responded, both in the spirit and in the letter of what has been called for.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, to which I shall try to respond briefly. Refugees are the immediate priority. There are up to 30,000 or 40,000 refugees from Srebrenica, many of whom were in Srebrenica as refugees. The immediate requirement is their food and shelter. The UNHCR is currently engaged in providing that, and of course we shall give full support to that objective.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether we had had contact with our French allies. I did indeed speak to the French Foreign Minister last night. The French have indicated publicly their interest in a possible military response to reverse the situation in Srebrenica. We are awaiting more information from them as to the details of what they have in mind.
Clearly any military operation would be complex. Srebrenica is 170 km from central Bosnia, and therefore any forces going by land would have to continue along a

951
very long stretch of road, most of which is controlled by Serb military forces. Within Bosnia at the moment, there are no helicopters of a kind able to transport such military force. Having said that, the French have indicated an interest in a military response. We need to hear the precise details of what they have in, mind and whether that is perceived to be a militarily realistic solution to this matter.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the rapid reaction force. At the moment, some 1,100 additional British troops have arrived in Bosnia, as well as the additional French reinforcements. The 24 Airmobile Brigade has not yet been deployed, because we need to get the agreement of the Croatian Government and the Croatian authorities. Much of that work has now been done, but it has not yet been completed. If the rapid reaction force wishes to be involved in Srebrenica, it will have to traverse that route of 170 km of Serb-held territory. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman must reflect on whether that is a realistic obligation to impose upon it.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the safe areas policy as a whole. The key to the Srebrenica area is whether the Serbs can be persuaded to withdraw from Srebrenica in exchange for the demilitarisation of the town. That is not an unrealistic objective, because both sides agreed to that policy two years ago. It is unfortunate that neither side implemented what they had committed themselves to.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about consultation with the various parties. The most recent development, of course, was the appointment of Carl Bildt, who has been working very closely with Mr. Milosevic to seek a solution involving the recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the suspension of hostilities. Some considerable progress has been made, but clearly there is still a long way to go.
Mr. Tom King: Did my right hon. and learned Friend hear the comments of Dr. Boutros-Ghali on the radio this morning, in which he seemed to imply that the military response in a particular situation should depend on the individual Government to whom the troops belong—in this case, the Dutch Government? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in this very difficult and dangerous situation, it must be the responsibility of the commanders on the ground to determine the correct military response?
In connection with the serious humanitarian situation facing us, is it not clear that the only immediate prospect of help must lie in his last plea: there must be the clearest assurances on demilitarisation, lack of military activity, from within the enclave outwards? We would then be entitled to demand the withdrawal of the Bosnian Serb forces.
Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend's last observation. Clearly, one of the major causes of tension in recent weeks has been military activity from both the Bosnian Government forces in Srebrenica and the Bosnian Serb forces on the outside. That does not excuse the aggression of the past 48 hours, but we must be aware of the background. Clearly, demilitarisation would be a way in which to ensure the continuation of the enclave and the safety of those within it.
So far as Dr. Boutros-Ghali's comments are concerned, I am sure that the Secretary General recognises more than most of us the crucial requirement that any use of military force in Bosnia-Herzegovina must be based on an
952
assessment by the force commanders and their recommendation that the objectives for which it was used could be realised in that way.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does not the sad history of Srebrenica, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just related, show that to call an area a safe area, without either the political will or the military resources to keep it safe, is worthless? Is it not now time to try to re-establish the last vestiges of the authority of the United Nations in Bosnia, and would that not be accomplished by the creation and maintenance of a permanent humanitarian route into Sarajevo over Mount Igman?
Mr. Rifkind: In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's first question, clearly there are two points at issue. There is not only the unwillingness of the international community as a whole to provide the additional forces necessary, but the question of the mandate that would be needed to enforce a safe area if military activity were initiated by any of the parties against it. As for the other matters that the hon. and learned Gentleman raised, I agree with his observations.
Mr. David Howell: We all appreciate that it is the clear thinking of my right hon. and learned Friend in his new job that is needed in the present agonising situation, rather then more pious hopes and cliches. I applaud his ambition that we should somehow restore the safe area around Srebrenica, and that we should not abandon the refugees.
However, the question hangs in the air: can we really deliver on those ambitions? Can we protect the refugees, as they are not being protected around Srebrenica today? Has the time not come to reconsider, and will my right hon. and learned Friend please reconsider with his colleagues and other Foreign Ministers, the restraints that prevent the so-called Bosnian Muslims from defending themselves more effectively, as they are desperately trying to do around Sarajevo even now?
Mr. Rifkind: One recognises that there are conflicting interests that we are trying to safeguard. I assume that, in the latter part of his remarks, my right hon. Friend was referring to the arms embargo. The fundamental problem remains, as it has always been, the fact that it is not possible to reconcile the United Nations lifting the embargo with the continuing UN presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina. So far, when faced with that predicament, the Bosnian Government have always concluded that they wished the UNPROFOR presence within Bosnia-Herzegovina to continue. I believe that that is a correct judgment, and we must wait to see whether it remains their view.
Mr. Tony Benn: Looking back on that long and bitter civil war, and from the Foreign Secretary's statement, is it not clear that the most successful part of what we have done has been the humanitarian aid? Many lives have been saved, and many people who would otherwise have starved have been supplied; whereas military interventions, including air strikes, have been the least successful, as has been most recently established.
Can the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that, when we assess what can and cannot be done, the one thing that will not be abandoned is the humanitarian aid, and that what will be considered most carefully is whether it is wise to enter the war as a participant military force?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the general thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. The humanitarian achievements of the United Nations in Bosnia have been of a remarkable, perhaps an unprecedented, kind. It is probable that more lives have been saved in Bosnia as a result of UN intervention than that organisation can claim in any previous UN operation in any part of the world. Therefore, it is crucial that that huge benefit is not recklessly thrown away because of other disappointments and frustrations.
Of course, if the UN can use both its mandate and the forces available to it to achieve other benefits, so long as they do not jeopardise the humanitarian operation, that is well worth striving for, but I entirely accept that there is a limit to what one can achieve unless one is prepared to cross the rubicon and become a combatant in a war. The UN is not prepared to do that.
Mr. John Biffen: I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his appointment as Foreign Secretary.
Does he ever reflect on the wisdom that echoes down the ages in Bismarck's comment that the Balkans were not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier? In that context, is it not incumbent upon us to make the most realistic assessment of our current military commitment in that part of the world, of what it seeks to fulfil, and of how those two can be reconciled—and to determine that, ultimately, that judgment will be undertaken by a British Government answering to a British Parliament?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal good wishes. On the final point that he raised, I can confirm that any question about the future of the British forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina will be a matter for the Government and Parliament of this country, and we will not seek to transfer that obligation to any other place.
So far as the thrust of his main question is concerned, while we certainly take the view that there is no justification for the United Kingdom becoming involved as a combatant in the war that is taking place in Bosnia, we do believe that there is an obligation upon this country—as upon other countries—to do what can be done to help save lives and to reduce the nature of the conflict. We have national interests which would be seriously affected if the war were to continue indefinitely, or spread to other parts of the Balkan region.
Therefore, if there is a role for British military forces that does not involve them becoming combatants but which can help advance some of those interests, I believe that that objective should be pursued. While recognising the limits of what can be achieved, we must not ignore the very real benefits which are available.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that I have constituents with sons serving in the Royal Welch Fusiliers in Gorazde, and that the fusiliers have been placed by somebody in as exposed a position as the Dutch were at Srebrenica? Can he assure the House that added protection will be provided for the fusiliers at Gorazde? My constituents want to know where the rapid reaction force is, because their impression is that it is neither very rapid nor much of a force.
Mr. Rifkind: I know that the right hon. Gentleman met the Minister of State for the Armed Forces yesterday, and discussed various ways in which we can enhance the
954
protection available to the British troops in Gorazde. So far as the rapid reaction force is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the approval of the Croatian Government and authorities is required if 24 Airmobile Brigade is to use Ploce on the Croatian coast.
It has been suggested that the authorities will agree, but there are some final discussions which must be resolved before the force can deploy. Notwithstanding that, 1,100 British troops have arrived in Bosnia in addition to those who have been there in the past. They are taking part in the multinational brigade part of the rapid reaction force.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I wish my right hon. and learned Friend well in all he does. Does he agree that what is at stake is not just Bosnia and the poor innocent civilians who are fleeing, but the whole credibility and authority of the UN itself? Does he agree that there are occasions when it is entirely proper for the UN to take armed action against those preventing a UN mandate from being fulfilled? Does he accept that, if Karadzic's Serbs—a gang of brigands who do not represent the whole Serbian population in Bosnia—get away with cocking a snook at the international community, it will be a recipe for international anarchy?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend makes his point, and I understand his strength of feeling on the subject. But the UN can only be expected to achieve results if its member states are prepared to provide assistance to the UN. The harsh and unavoidable truth is that there are very severe limits both on the number of forces that member countries are prepared to send to Bosnia and on the mandate that they are prepared to accept should be the basis on which the forces are sent. Given that fact, some of the criticism that the UN has received in the past couple of years has been misdirected and totally unjustified.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that this has been the saddest and most humiliating blow that the UN has suffered since the organisation was set up? Does not the responsibility lie with the leading democracies, for their sheer lack of resolve in dealing with criminal aggression?
Is it not clear that the Serbian military forces were encouraged day in, day out in the past few weeks by the knowledge that there would be no military retaliation on the part of the UN? Those troops knew that they could carry out aggression such as has been committed, and they knew that they could get away with it. The failure lies with the leading democracies. It has been a shameful day for the international community, and the Foreign Secretary should recognise that.
Mr. Rifkind: It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to make bellicose noises, but unless he wishes to advocate the deployment of many tens of thousands of British and other forces to Bosnia in a war-fighting role, I am afraid that his protestations, although no doubt sincerely felt, add little to resolving the real issues before us.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that UN peacekeeping, as opposed to peace-making, can be carried out only with the support of the parties in the area, and that safe zones can be defended only by conventional warfare, which in reality—I believe rightly—the UN Security Council will not authorise? Is not the conclusion that there is a role for

955
the UN in Bosnia seeking diplomatic progress and looking after desperate humanitarian problems, but currently no role for UNPROFOR?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with part of what my hon. Friend says. Clearly, the United Nations must recognise what it is capable of achieving, and the limitations of that capability. But within that framework, UNPROFOR is continuing to provide a viable asset for the UN, which could not be resolved in its absence. The extent to which convoys have been able to deliver aid would be crucially less without military escorts in many areas. The extent to which the Croat Muslim reconciliation in central Bosnia requires to be monitored needs a military presence and that, too, could fall apart if UNPROFOR withdrew.
In those and a number of other areas, I believe that UNPROFOR continues to be of considerable significance, which implies that we need a military presence, but not at any cost. The balance of advantage and risk must be constantly monitored, and we, along with other contributing countries, are currently engaged in that.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: As the Foreign Secretary twice referred to the need to listen to the judgment of UN commanders on the ground, why has he conspicuously failed to give his full backing to General Smith's plan to relieve the siege of Sarajevo by opening the route over Mount Igman? Is not that failure to give General Smith the Government's backing a green light to the Bosnian Serbs to carry on defying the UN with impunity?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is totally misinformed. We are entirely willing to support any proposal that General Rupert Smith or the force commanders believe is capable of delivering aid to either Sarajevo or any other part of the country that requires it. The hon. Gentleman must not make claims based on a misunderstanding of Her Majesty's Government's position. I know that the force commanders have been looking at ways of using the Mount Igman route. If they conclude that that is a realistic way to deliver aid, we shall be happy to support them.
Sir Cranley Onslow: In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend said a moment ago about the French Government, is he confident that it understood in Paris that the UN forces are in Bosnia for humanitarian and peacekeeping purposes, not to get sucked into a war?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I believe that the French Government share our view about the role of the UN forces. They have made a number of clear and unequivocal statements to that effect. They have been quoted in the past 24 hours as asking whether UN forces could be used to relieve or reverse the situation in Srebrenica. Clearly, the priority now with regard to that suggestion is to see exactly what they have in mind, in what way military forces could be used, and whether there would be a prospect of success.
Miss Kate Hoey: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, when we strip away all the fine words, conferences and good intentions, the real policy of the international community over the past three years is to drip, drip, drip, and give in to the Serbs time after time?
956
Can he give one example of the Serbs keeping their word? Is it not time to lift the arms embargo and allow the Muslims to defend themselves?
Mr. Rifkind: The sad but undeniable fact is that all the parties to the Bosnian dispute have given their commitment in writing on many occasions and failed to deliver on many occasions—that phenomenon is not peculiar to one side in the conflict. One is entitled to say to the hon. Lady that the main achievement of the UN forces is that hundreds of thousands of men, women and children are alive today who would not be alive but for the UN presence.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's analysis that to withdraw now would be a policy of betrayal and despair, and that to enforce military action would be a policy of folly. I am glad that he has reacted as he has to the French proposal. But does he agree that, if we are to be effective at delivering humanitarian relief and protecting refugees, it is imperative that, when action must be taken, it is taken swiftly, decisively and with conviction, and that too often none of those qualities has been apparent?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with that observation. It is very important that the force commanders are given the support they require, so that, if they do wish certain action to be taken, they are not prevented from carrying out that action by considerations that are not appropriate or relevant.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept my congratulations on his achievement in becoming Foreign Secretary? Many of us would regard his new job as a fitting continuation of the admirable tenure of his predecessor. But does he now realise that it is absolutely essential, if he is going to prove himself in his new job, that he has to mount the resolution of the French Foreign Secretary and do something about the criminal activities of the Serbs?
Does he not realise that humanitarian protection cannot be provided without the use of military power? If our forces in Bosnia are to have any meaning or significance, they have to be used. Would it not be perhaps some strength to him to rid the western view of its pusillanimity so far—to ask our chaps in Gorazde whether they want to take action against the criminal activities of the Serbs? If the Government have not got it, those chaps have certainly got the guts and the balls to do it.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, correct to say that, in order to achieve the humanitarian objectives of the United Nations, the military has a role to play and a contribution to make. It was with that very much in mind that the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands announced the sending of substantial reinforcements to Bosnia. A significant proportion of those forces are now in theatre and will help the force commanders to protect convoys and get the aid through to those who require it.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the British contingent to UNPROFOR does not have the role, the numbers or the equipment with the surrounding contingents to carry out a war-fighting role in Bosnia?

957
Will he also confirm that it is no part of the British Government's policy that their present role should slide into a war-fighting role in that country?
Mr. Rifkind: It is crucial that the remarks made by my right hon. Friend are observed, not only in the policy that is pursued by troop-contributing countries, but in the rhetoric that their political spokesmen use. One of the great mistakes of the past three years has been for the United Nations, NATO and individual Governments to use a rhetoric that implies a capability that has never been provided.
It does no good service to the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina to create expectations that cannot be delivered. It is far better to concentrate on the real benefits that the United Nations can provide in Bosnia. Those are already significant and substantial, and I believe that that is the way in which we can properly win the trust of the people of that country at present.
Mr. John McWilliam: Will the Secretary of State accept my personal congratulations on his appointment, as an old council friend? Will he also accept that there are serious doubts, first, that the rules of engagement that are currently involved are sufficient to protect our forces in theatre, and, secondly, that the rapid reaction force, as it is being deployed, will be able to secure the safe havens? Thirdly, can he explain to the House why, when he spoke about a political solution, the name of Radovan Karadzic, who steadfastly refuses to come to the conference table, was never mentioned?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind opening remarks. Regarding the position of Mr. Karadzic, obviously any political settlement must be acceptable to the Bosnian Serbs as well as to the Bosnian Government if it is to have any prospect of being achieved. The efforts that have been made in recent weeks have involved seeking to use the influence of Mr. Milosevic, and that has been beneficial in several aspects—such as in the release of the hostages some weeks ago—so obviously we must be prepared to consider not only that route but any other that might be productive of success.
Mr. Michael Colvin: It could not be a better time to have a Foreign Secretary with so much experience in defence matters. However, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend what lessons have been learnt from the Srebrenica debacle that are applicable in Gorazde, where we have deployed 300 Royal Welch Fusiliers and many Sappers?
Following the earlier question about rules of engagement, will those rules change if those troops have to take off their blue helmets and put on brown helmets as members of NATO?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that our rapid deployment force would not get anywhere if it were not for the assistance provided by our ally the United States of America,, with its heavy lift capability? Should we not have that capability ourselves?
Mr. Rifkind: I pay tribute to the United States for providing that lift capability. We appreciate its assistance very much, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will consider the question of the United Kingdom's having the same capability.
958
As to the rules of engagement, we are in constant contact with the force commanders to assess whether the current rules of engagement are sufficient for their requirements. In the past two or three years, the rules of engagement have changed a number of times, and we are always ready to consider fresh changes should they prove necessary in order to meet our objectives in implementing the mandate.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: In addition to the other points of concern rightly expressed by hon. Members, does the Foreign Secretary recognise the impact that the situation in the former Yugoslavia is having on the adjacent newly emerging democracies, such as Romania? What discussions are going on with those countries to ensure that their progress towards democracy and a free market economy is not adversely affected by what is occurring?
Mr. Rifkind: I will, as it happens, be meeting the Romanian Foreign Minister in London tomorrow. We are conscious of the fact that, in imposing sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro, we have been required to introduce measures to ensure that there is no damage to neighbouring countries.
Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the recent incident occurred within a very short period and came as a great surprise to everyone, including those people on the ground? In those circumstances, is it not correct that all we can do is rely on our commanders on the ground to take the right decisions? Is not their room to manoeuvre seriously curtailed by the lack of a back-up force? In view of what might happen in the next two or three months, is it not a top priority to get the rapid reaction force on the ground somewhere, so that it can be deployed if necessary?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said, with one important qualification, which I am sure he will accept. It is no part of the purpose of a rapid reaction force to become a combatant in the conflict. Its purpose will be to assist the force commander in the protection of UNPROFOR, and to assist with the delivery of United Nations humanitarian supplies to those who require them.
We must not allow ourselves to believe that the rapid reaction force has either the size or the military capability to become a war-fighting machine. It does not have that capability, and we would be perpetrating a cruel deception if we implied otherwise.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: May I first congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on following his distinguished predecessor as Foreign Secretary?
Was not the entire UNPROFOR operation undermined from the outset by the uneven-handed approach of the international community? Bosnian Serb villages are put to the torch by commando raids out of places like Srebrenica, and Croatian shells land on Croatian Serb villages near Knin, but the Serbs see air strikes whenever they retaliate. Should we not regard the situation as a civil war? The United Nations has no possibility of solving anything by taking sides in a civil war.
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be unwise for the United Nations to take sides. However, I cannot agree with the tenor of his other

959
remarks. It is the judgment of Her Majesty's Government and other Governments that prime responsibility for the aggression—including the present situation facing the people of Srebrenica—lies with the Bosnian Serbs.
Mr. Robert Key: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his appointment, just as I congratulate, as ever, our troops on the ground and the staff at land headquarters in the Ministry of Defence on their professionalism.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the mission of our military personnel has a clarity of purpose that is not apparent to everyone in this country, and that the rules of engagement are shared between all of the allied forces on the ground? I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that, when the time comes to withdraw UNPROFOR troops, he will have very wide support.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. There is doubt in some quarters about the clarity of the United Nations mission, because there are calls from various quarters for the United Nations to have a different mission. As United Nations troops are constantly called upon to act as combatants without the force structure or the mandate to do so, the confusion in the minds of many observers is more the responsibility of those who call for such action than it is of the United Nations.
Mr. Frank Cook: May I assure the Secretary of State that my son has fulfilled his duties in Gorazde and is now safely back in Britain? However, that does not reduce my concern for serving men and women who do our bidding in bloody awful conditions. Anyone who has been there will know full well the complexities of their existence.
The Secretary of State has already alluded to the nub of the problem. Apart from humanitarian aid, our only success in the past 12 months has been in securing the release of the hostages who were held in custody for such an embarrassingly long time. That was achieved unquestionably with the active persistence and involvement of President Milosevic. In so doing, he downgraded Karadzic in everyone's eyes, and that man lost face considerably.
Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that the reports that Milosevic needs a relaxation of the sanctions on Serbia before he helps any further will not be heeded, and that the sanctions will become more stringent until he engages himself as energetically as he did previously?
Mr. Rifkind: Another great achievement in the past year has been further normalisation in central Bosnia, where the bulk of the British forces are found. The relationship between the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Government in that part of the country has improved radically. It is one of the benefits that we do not want thrown away by the departure of the United Nations forces.
With regard to sanctions, part of the discussions between Carl Bildt and President Milosevic concerned a possible package of measures whereby, in exchange for the recognition by Belgrade of Bosnia-Herzegovina with its present frontiers, there would be a suspension of certain of the sanctions that have been applied against President Milosevic's Government and country. That
960
would be of benefit if it could be achieved. It is too early to say whether we can look forward to the success of that initiative.
Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, a few weeks ago, I asked his distinguished predecessor to bear in mind the military maxim that may have been from Bismarck—never reinforce a failure? Has not the attempt by the United Nations to solve the appalling civil war been a total and utter failure? Is not the distinction or the dividing line between the combat activity and the humanitarian activity of our troops becoming increasingly blurred? Will he ensure that the reinforcements will be sent in only to ensure the speedy return of British troops, and the sooner the better?
Mr. Rifkind: I do not believe that it has been a total and utter failure. While there have been massive disappointments in certain aspects of the policy, there have been equally great successes. A few moments ago, I mentioned the huge progress that has been made in central Bosnia. When I first visited that area, one had to travel around in an armoured vehicle. When I was last there, one was able to walk about without a flak jacket or any protection in large parts of central Bosnia, where civil war had been raging only 12 months earlier. That continues to this day. It is a large benefit.
It is precisely for that reason that we are reluctant to see the withdrawal of the UNPROFOR forces, as that would be bad news for the enclaves and the rest of Bosnia. We are concentrating our attention today on the problems facing the enclaves, but they are five relatively small areas in a much larger country, much of which is at peace. It is important, if at all possible, that it should remain at peace, and not return to the bloody conflict of 12 months ago.
Mr. George Galloway: What does the Secretary of State, who in his previous job had quite a line in bellicosity, say to the charge on the lips of hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world this morning, that, if oil was flowing in the streets of Srebrenica rather than just blood, 29 countries would quickly have assembled a vast armada of armies and air forces to come to the rescue of a sovereign state and a member of the United Nations that is being invaded and subjected to brutal aggression?
If he does not think that that Is a fair question, let him answer this one. Precisely why has the sovereign state of Bosnia-Herzegovina not been defended in the same way as the sovereign state of Kuwait?
Mr. Rifkind: I
have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, strength of his feelings, the contribution by western countries to the UNPROFOR force is very similar to the contribution made by a number of distinguished Muslim countries, such as Malaysia, Turkey and others, which part of the UN force and work.
The reality is that there is a fundamental distinction between Bosnia and the other examples that the hon. Gentleman uses. As he well knows, those who are fighting within Bosnia are Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats or Bosnian Muslims. We have a situation which, whether or not we choose to call it a civil car, is a war between people who all have their homes in the same territory.

961
That makes it a fundamentally different situation from the invasion of a country by a foreign army, and therefore to suggest that the solution that was appropriate in Kuwait is relative in Bosnia is simply unpersuasive and does not commend itself to the British Government or any other Government of which I am aware.
Sir George Gardiner: Since it seems increasingly likely that British forces will have to be withdrawn from Bosnia, will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake—in close co-operation, of course, with his colleague the Secretary of State for Defence—total contingency planning, covering almost every detail, to ensure that no British soldiers' lives are lost in the inevitable and eventual withdrawal?
Mr. Rifkind: I can say to my hon. Friend that, over the past few months, NATO has been completing a substantial plan that would involve it being responsible for supervising the withdrawal of the UN force, if that should prove necessary. Virtually all the matters relevant to that plan have now been resolved, and therefore, if withdrawal, sadly, became necessary, I am confident that not only British but UN forces could be withdrawn in good order.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Has it occurred to the Secretary of State that things would have been very different if the United States had shown a fraction of the commitment that the Netherlands has given to the United Nations effort in Bosnia? As, I presume, the attack against Srebrenica would have been resisted had the new United Nations rapid reaction force been in place, will the Secretary of State now tell us whether that pre-emptive strike will be rewarded with success? Are we going to do anything about it?
Mr. Rifkind: The United States Government have made a major contribution, both in the air and at sea, to the policy of the United Nations. With regard to the rapid reaction force, we can make no criticism of the United States Government, who have made clear their determination, with all the power at their disposal, to provide their contribution to the financial support needed for that force, and also to provide lift facilities to transport the forces to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in a number of other ways to enhance the equipment available to the force commanders.
Mr. Bill Walker: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his new job, which he got on merit.
Will he confirm that the safe areas were never realistically able to be defended by the troops deployed there; that the rapid reaction force is not a military force capable of conducting aggressive warfare; and that it is there to defend the troops who are there on humanitarian aid? Will he also confirm that, in the event of any redeployment, of whatever kind, including withdrawal, that force will be used to ensure the safety of the troops already there? It is about time we told those who are calling for aggressive action that we have neither the numbers nor the assets to carry out any realistic aggressive action in that country.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks.
962
With regard to the safe areas policy, the United Nations made it clear, when the safe areas resolution was passed, that to be confident in enforcing the safe areas resolutions would, in their judgment, require an additional 36,000 troops. Britain, France, the Netherlands and one or two other countries responded to that additional call for extra support. I have to say that the vast majority did not, so from that moment onwards, there was no way in which one could ensure, by military means, the defence of the safe areas.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Foreign Secretary resist calls from the bombers and the "do something" brigade, and calmly consider the situation and the realities? Will he also go back to the Security Council and get it to adopt a more sensible policy in future—not calling for safe areas which are not and never can be safe, but agreeing, before adopting such resolutions in future, the resources necessary to realise them, rather than afterwards hoping that something will turn up?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, there are times when United Nations resolutions or statements can have a persuasive effect on a course of action, and therefore one recognises that the language used can sometimes be beneficial. I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety that, if specific commitments are being given by the Security Council, the United Nations or any national Government, they should be given only when there is a clear will and ability to ensure the implementation of such decisions if they should be called upon to do so. That is perhaps where the problem has been most apparent in recent times.
Mr. Barry Porter: Many years ago, during a very undistinguished academic career, I wrote a bit of a paper about international relations between the wars, with special reference to the League of Nations. All I can say is that I have a feeling of deja vu at the moment. Is not the reality that we pass these resolutions at the United Nations, the Americans are not keen, the Germans show a distinct lack of enthusiasm, and, to an extent, the whole thing is a waste of time? If we want to be an International Red Cross or a Salvation Army, fine, but that is as far as we can go, and that is the reality.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the limits of what can be achieved by the United Nations. But if one compares what has been achieved by the United Nations during the past few years with what was achieved between the wars by its predecessor, the League of Nations, one sees that the world has moved on, and that the UN has far more to its credit than the League was ever able to achieve. It may be that there are opportunities yet not fully exploited.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's response to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), but earlier he referred continually to the "warring parties". Will he now acknowledge that the legitimate multi-ethnic Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina has consistently shown its willingness to reach a negotiated settlement, whereas the Serbs have not?
Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman find it surprising that Bosnians in UN safe havens who are totally unprotected should seek to defend themselves? How many

963
of the rapid reaction force, to the deployment of which he has referred, remain in Britain and the home countries that have agreed to send them?
Mr. Rifkind: I think that the hon. Gentleman in the latter part of his question is referring to 24 Airmobile Brigade. We are ready to begin the deployment of that brigade, but we require the agreement of the Croatian authorities, because it is necessary to use the town of Ploce on the coast in order to receive them. Much progress has been made in that area, but some formalities remain to be completed; we hope that they will be completed literally during the next two or three days.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Vulnerability is not of itself a virtue, either for our troops in Gorazde or for the rapid reaction force. If my right hon. and learned Friend and his counterparts from Holland and France want to influence the situation on the ground, they may well have to use the only effective instrument that the alliance possesses, which is its air power. If it is not to be used as a mere pinprick, as a demonstration, it will have to be used in a sustained, concentrated and precise manner; otherwise, the Serbs will simply be goaded to further action. As I said, vulnerability is not a course of action that can be approved by the House.
Mr. Rifkind: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend, and I know his great expertise on the use of air power. I would add that an additional requirement if air power is ever to be used is that it must be used in a way that does not endanger the safety of the many thousands of UN forces on the ground. That is an important factor, which is bound to be relevant as long as the UN is in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Even if the UN withdrew from Bosnia, there would be substantial limits to what we could expect air power alone to achieve. In the past, it has been useful in softening up an enemy, if those in charge were then prepared to complete the process on the ground—which is what happened in Kuwait. By itself, however, it is unlikely to achieve the objectives that my hon. Friend and I share.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Have not the Bosnian Serbs realised the truth—that trading of hostage-taking against air strikes works, because the western powers give in? Is not the reality that the Bosnian Serbs are now running amok? They are running rings around us, and making us all look like fools.
Mr. Rifkind: The reality is that air power has been used within the past 48 hours. It is available whenever the force commanders recommend its use. I do not believe that, in the first instance, the hon. Gentleman or any other politicians should decide whether to use air power on a particular occasion; in the first instance, such a decision must be based on a recommendation from those with responsibility for the well-being and safety of their forces. They must make their judgment in the light of the circumstances.
Mr. David Atkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend has implied that the active good will and assistance of President Milosevic is an essential ingredient in the achievement of any political solution in Bosnia. What thought has been given to the conditions that Serbia would need to satisfy should it seek any future association with European institutions such as the Council
964
of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the European Union, from which it has rightly been excluded so far?
Mr. Rifkind: Of course we look forward to the day when such an association might be possible, but it clearly cannot be considered at a time when the international community deems it appropriate to impose sanctions against the Government in Belgrade because of their support for the aggression in Bosnia-Herzegovina. A change in that position is clearly a precondition for the normalisation of relations with President Milosevic's Government in respect of other matters.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I echo the Foreign Secretary's earlier words, and say that surely the Rubicon has been crossed? By invading the safe haven of Srebrenica, the Bosnian Serbs have declared war on the United Nations. In the event of their not meeting the various requirements that have been communicated to them, what action will be taken? Has any time span been imposed?
Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure what action the hon. Gentleman is advocating. It is easy to use expressions such as "declaring war on the United Nations", but the hon. Gentleman must reflect on whether he wants much larger numbers of forces to be sent to Bosnia-Herzegovina to become involved in combat with the Bosnian Serbs, for however long, and with whatever consequences. If that is not the hon. Gentleman's objective, he must, in all fairness, recognise the limits of what he can expect the United Nations to be able to deliver.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, if the United Nations does nothing about the fall of Srebrenica, its credibility is completely gone? All we will be able to do then is accept that we have got it wrong, take our troops out, and either bring them back in some other guise—with a proper command structure and a proper objective, perhaps under European control—or leave them at home in their barracks, where at least they will not be killed by a bunch of bandits.
Mr. Rifkind: As I said earlier, I believe that the objective over the next few days should be to bring about circumstances in which the Bosnian Serbs agree to withdraw from Srebrenica, and the Bosnian Government accept the need for the town and the enclave to be dimilitarised. That is not unreasonable; after all, in 1993 both parties agreed to implement just such a policy.
It is unfortunate that, over the past two years, neither has felt able to comply with that commitment. If they felt able to do so now, it is still possible that a solution could be achieved that would enable the enclave to continue to provide a haven for those who live within it, and enable the Bosnian Serb forces to withdraw. That is, at least, an objective that we should pursue.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the Foreign Secretary conceive of any circumstances in which air power could be used without creating a real threat to United Nations forces on the ground? Can the House of Commons have the assurance that Her Majesty's Government are advising all others, particularly the Americans, not to use further air strikes?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I believe that there are circumstances in which the use of air power could be beneficial, particularly with regard to what is called close air support,

965
where air power is used to provide added protection for UN forces that might be under attack, as we have seen in recent times. There are therefore circumstances in which it is appropriate, but clearly it must be used in a way that does not jeopardise the safety of the forces on the ground; that is why the dual key procedure has been evolved in the past three years to take account of that fact.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I ask the Foreign Secretary to reconfirm that peacekeeping operations will be successful only if they have the consent of all the warring factions involved in the dispute? Does he further accept that, if that consent, whether total or partial, is seen to be withdrawn, withdrawal of troops is not a humiliation but could well be a necessity?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that, at the very least, peacekeeping in any country, not just in Bosnia, requires a minimum degree of co-operation from the parties concerned, or the only option available is to use peace enforcement, which is a different concept, requiring different military capability and a different mandate. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: if a peacekeeping force does not receive a minimum degree of co-operation, to withdraw is in no way a humiliation; it is a recognition that those we are trying to help refuse to provide the co-operation that is essential to the UN doing its job.
Mr. Max Madden: Given the terrible inevitability of this tragedy, what excuse can be left for denying arms to Bosnian Government forces to defend their people and territory from external Serbian aggression? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm what I understood him to say today—that Her Majesty's Government will support a lifting of the arms embargo, but that that rests with the Bosnian Government formally requesting a withdrawal of the UN protection force?
Mr. Rifkind: Her Majesty's Government continue to believe that the lifting of the embargo would be foolish and is unwise, and we do not propose to support such a proposal. I was referring to the statement of fact, that the Bosnian Government have said that they would rather that the UN remained in Bosnia than that the embargo should be raised and the UN withdraw. That remains the choice that is available to them. I can see no circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the UN to remain in Bosnia if the UN was authorising the supply of weapons to one side in this war.
Mr. John Gunnell: With the benefit of seven weeks' hindsight, does the Foreign Secretary not agree that the hostage crisis and the safe areas crisis are part of a pattern of pressure from the Bosnian Serbs to bring about withdrawal? In those circumstances, are not the suggestions of withdrawal from hon. Members on both sides of the House music to the ears of Bosnian Serbs, and would not a withdrawal lose much of the benefit of which the Foreign Secretary has spoken? Would it not mean just the prolonging of life, not the saving of life, and would it not be the biggest blot on the 50-year history of the UN?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but both he and I must acknowledge that the circumstances might arise that would make withdrawal inevitable. We cannot say that the benefits are of such an order that we can justify
966
the continuation of British and other UN troops in Bosnia, regardless of the threat to them, of the loss of life that they might incur, and of other such factors, so it must be a balanced judgment. At this moment, we still conclude that the benefits of their presence outweigh the disadvantages, but that argument becomes increasingly difficult to sustain if we see developments of the sort that have arisen in recent times.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: What is the Foreign Secretary's view of the growing campaign, led by Senator Robert Dole, which seeks to end American support for the arms embargo on the Bosnian Government? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman entirely dismissive of the growing belief that a powerful Congress could force such an initiative on a President who is not known for his decisiveness?
Mr. Rifkind: It may not be irrelevant that the sort of views that Mr. Dole is reported as holding were held by many in the American Administration before they took office, but, faced with the realities of the circumstances in Bosnia, and having been required to carry out analysis as to the likely consequences of lifting the embargo, the United States Administration, including President Clinton, have come to the unequivocal view that the lifting of the embargo and the withdrawal of UNPROFOR would be an extremely foolish initiative, and should not be supported.
Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
Mr. David Tredinnick rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Tredinnick, do I understand that you heard the Secretary of State's statement but left the Chamber for some 20 minutes during questioning?
Mr. Tredinnick: That is correct, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I do not know how I can call you to ask a question, because you do not know whether your question has already been answered; therefore, to put it might be an abuse of the House's time. Does the same apply to you, Mr. Marlow?
Mr. Marlow: I was out of the Chamber for three minutes, Madam Speaker, but I was here for the whole of the rest of the statement.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I call the hon. Member to put a question to the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Marlow: Is it not the case that, as long as they are having a worthwhile effect and the risks are tolerable, Her Majesty's forces are, for several and various reasons, enthusiastic to remain in Bosnia?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I believe that to be the case. Certainly, on each of the five occasions when I have been in Bosnia and met members of our armed forces serving there, I have noted considerable enthusiasm for the work that is being done, because they can see the benefits to the people of Bosnia whom they are trying to help. Of course, occasionally, when they are in a location where they cannot help and are being prevented from distributing aid or escorting convoys, there is some frustration. But throughout Bosnia they believe, and rightly so, that the work being done is of enormous importance, and is directly contributing to the saving of life and other objectives of that kind.

Points of Order
4.40 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know what plans you have for the weekend but if you are staying in your official residence, I fear that your peace will be sorely disturbed by a rave party that is being organised and is advertised in the current edition of Time Out in county hall. Given that the House has taken a decision about illegal rave parties, could you make inquiries to ensure that the Japanese owners of county hall do not proceed with that rave party? It would be an insult to the House and it could result in severe damage to county hall. Will you please make some inquiries and get it stopped?
Madam Speaker: I shall certainly give no such commitment to the hon. Gentleman, but I can tell him that I have been disturbed before, whether by rave parties I am not certain, by the activities at county hall.
Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would appreciate your guidance on some remarks in the Chamber yesterday evening during the debate on rail privatisation. During my speech, I drew attention to the poor attendance on the Liberal Benches for the debate on a motion that the Liberal Democrats had inspired, and I mentioned their failure to seek to catch your eye in that debate. A Liberal Member intervened and said:
"in a three-hour debate such as today's, we are not entitled to more than one speech at the beginning and one at the end. We could not intervene even if we wished to do so."—[Official Report, 11 July 1995; Vol.263, c.787.]
968
I would appreciate your clarification, Madam Speaker, that while they are entitled to open and close their debate, they are perfectly free to catch your eye, as five successive Conservative Back-Bench Members did yesterday. Is not the real reason for their absence that they were just not interested in the debate, and does that not show an appalling lack of gratitude for your championing of the rights of Back-Bench Members?
Madam Speaker: All Members know that, if they wish to intervene at any time on someone else's speech, it is for the Member who has the floor to decide whether to give way. Quite a number of Members wished to speak in both the debates that were sponsored yesterday by the Liberal Democrats.
Perhaps we might get on. I have an inordinately long list of Members who wish to speak in the debate today, and I shall have to limit speeches by Back Benchers to 10 minutes.
Mr. Luff: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order for the Chair. We have enough business without petty points of order from all parts of the House. We have business to conduct

BILL PRESENTED
  FAIR EMPLOYMENT (DUTY ON NORTHERN IRELAND DEPARTMENTS)
  Mr. Michael Connarty presented a Bill to make it a duty of every Northern Ireland Department to promote equality of opportunity: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

  Youth Service
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish the Youth Service on a statutory basis.
  I seek leave to bring in the Bill in the full knowledge that hon. Members in all parts of the House have, over a long time, sought to bring in such a measure to establish the youth service in such a way. The reason seems self-evident. It is that the youth service is an extremely cost-effective way to deal with the many problems that young people face.
  That great watershed, the Education Act 1944, set in motion a train that was reinforced by a number of reports commissioned by the Government. They were the McNair report, the Jackson report and the Fletcher report. Interestingly, when we reached about 1957, the Albemarle committee was set up in response, ironically enough, to the Notting Hill riots. Its work added substance to a national consensus towards establishing the youth service on a statutory basis.
  Sadly, in recent years the youth service has shown a marked decline. I would argue that Government action has subverted its role. It is also interesting that the last time that there appeared to be a major Government interest in youth service provision was after the 1981 riots. I hope that it will not take another round of riots before we interest the Government again in the state of the youth service and the lack of resources it faces.
  The youth service most certainly faces a lack of resources. I mentioned that it was a cost-effective service. The cost works out at roughly £10 per annum per youngster who uses it. More than 5 million people use the youth service. Those 5 million young people who are actively in contact with the service are serviced by only 6,000 full-time youth workers in England, Scotland and Wales combined. They are assisted by thousands of part-timers, and more than 2 million volunteers who give of their time and energy. Those people obviously recognise the value of the work that is done, not only in the local government sector but— the vast majority—in the voluntary sector.
  If nothing else, both the voluntary and the statutory sectors recognise the community of interest they have in having the youth service placed on a statutory basis. There are now fewer full-time youth workers than in 1978. The voluntary sector has suffered in the same way in terms of Government cuts. NABC-Clubs for Young People, a charity, has reported that its funding from central Government has fallen by 40 per cent. Its funding from local government has fallen by 10 per cent.
  The reason is not too hard to divine. As the youth service is not on a statutory basis, when Government cuts are forced through in education throughout the land, it is always one of the first services to suffer. I would argue that that is untenable, given the situation our young people face today.
  970
  I remind the House that 750,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 24 are outside work, outside education, outside training, outside benefits and outside Government statistics. Those 750,000 people are our own disappeared, disengaged and alienated section of the population. If that does not trigger a response from Members of Parliament and Conservative Members in particular, they should remember that, at the last general election, 2.5 million first-time voters—the self-same young people—did not bother to exercise the franchise. That was almost 47 per cent. of the total.
  We talk about the alienation of our young people from the political process. It is not too hard to see why they are alienated, given that they are in a changing world, facing different problems from those that the vast majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House knew when they were young.
  Let us think back to our own years in that age group. The majority of people in the House were in that age group in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. In those days, there was open access to education. One could look for a job of whatever sort. They were the halcyon days of apprenticeships for huge numbers of our young people. They were days when people felt engaged. They had hopes and aspirations that were achievable.
  That has sadly changed. A whole group of people are shown in survey after survey to have no inclination towards what we would call orthodox society. They are turning their backs on it, for the simple reason that they perceive that we have turned our backs on them.
  There is one vital difference between the experiences that we all had and those of young people today. They do not have recognisable rites of passage or know that there is a flow to their lives with regular markers that they can follow, such as going into the work force as an apprentice and getting qualified, having access to education, knowing that at the end of it one can get a job or access to something as simple as benefits. Many of our young people—about 160,000 16 and 17-year-olds alone—have been taken completely out of the benefits net.
  One of the few agencies that is actively involved with engaging young people in a debate about their interests and future is the youth service. It deserves all the support and encouragement we can give it. We have to say to young people, even if it is by proxy through support for a statutory basis to the youth service, that we are concerned about delivering to them. After all, they are our future. We only steward the country for their generation and for generations to come. Our stewardship is failing them badly.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, Mr. Greg Pope, Mr. Alun Michael, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. John Heppell, Mr. David Jamieson, Ms Ann Coffey, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Tony Lloyd and Mr. Mike Hall.

  YOUTH SERVICE
  Mr. Kilfoyle accordingly presented a Bill to establish the Youth Service on a statutory basis: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

  The Economy
  [Relevant document: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on Wednesday 5th July and Thursday 6th July (House of Commons Papers Nos. 650-ii and iii.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.51 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
  That this House welcomes the publication of the Government's latest forecast, which shows growth continuing at a steady and sustainable rate, inflation remaining low, exports rising and Government borrowing falling; and recognises that this favourable outlook for the economy is a result of the Government's firm commitment to the healthy and sustainable recovery of a modern and competitive industrial economy.
  On Monday, Welsh Labour and Liberal Members failed to turn up at Welsh Question Time. I can only assume that they could not think of anything that they wished to say or ask. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has turned up this afternoon, because he can never think of anything to say that resembles an economic policy. In fact, he comes to debates only when he has to. Once a year at the Budget, and once a year for the summer economic forecast, he hears me describe the progress of the recovery and I set out the encouraging framework for the year ahead. The hon. Gentleman gets up, tells us a few jokes, gives us a few grumbles and platitudes and then he is away again.
  All the parliamentary days that the Opposition have allocated to them during the year are problems for the Labour party. It has to cast around for subjects that it wishes to raise. Never once in my time as Chancellor of the Exchequer has it asked for a debate on the British economy. This is a debating Chamber, but so far I have had two years of debating with a tartan Trappist monk.
  Why can that be? Why has the hon. Gentleman suddenly become such a diffident shadow Chancellor? The summer forecasts, which we are debating because they are statutorily produced at this time of year, show why. They show that the British economy is doing well and that it will carry on doing well. Anything that is good news for Britain is very bad news for the Labour party.
  With every quarter that goes by, this country creates more wealth and more jobs and wins more export markets. The day steadily gets nearer when most people will appreciate from their daily lives that this healthy recovery is delivering rising living standards, more secure employment and more secure family finances.
  How can the hon. Gentleman make a speech as shadow Chancellor when he cannot even say whether he agrees with me on interest rates? How can he face the House when he does not have an inflation target? How can he criticise the public finances when he will not say whether public borrowing is too high or too low? He only sets himself a borrowing target that is about as rubbery as an elastic band.
  Mr. Alan Milburn: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Clarke: It is a little early. I usually give way frequently and shall do so in due course if Mr. Deputy Speaker allows it.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: On the precise matter of the borrowing target, given that the Prime Minister said in 1988 that he would balance the Budget every year, will the Chancellor tell us the first year when he will be able to balance the Budget—is it this century or the next?
  Mr. Clarke: There is a forecast which shows that we are well on course to balance in the medium term. Recalling the Red Book, I think that we show balance in about 1998–99, or something of that kind. We are certainly on course towards balance in the medium term.
  Mr. Brown rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way again in a moment. In the two years in which the hon. Gentleman has failed to raise the subject of the British economy in the House, he has seen us cut the forecast borrowing requirement, from £50 billion when I took office, to £23.5 billion next year. We have halved it. We are reducing public borrowing and controlling public spending despite all the hon. Gentleman's votes against us. We are well on course to balance in the medium term.
  Mr. Brown: Given that the Government have broken all their promises on tax and are now breaking their promises on spending, will the Chancellor confirm that he is breaking the promise made on the balanced Budget? The Prime Minister said that the Budget would balance every year. Will the Chancellor tell us in which year the Budget will balance, and confirm that in 1998–99 there is a deficit of £5 billion in the Budget forecast and that he is wrong?
  Mr. Clarke: It is my recollection that the Government's policy—in contrast to the Opposition, who have not had one—is to move towards balance in the medium term. That is all I can recall. I do not recall the 1988 quotation and I do not rely on the hon. Gentleman's recollection of it. We have always made it clear that we believe in balancing the public finances over the medium term. It has always seemed to me obvious that public finances go into deficit in times of recession and recover at the top of the cycle. We are on course for that. Indeed, we have been controlling public borrowing very effectively for the past two years in the teeth of the votes and opposition of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East.
  Mr. Milburn: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I must press on to the summer economic forecast, which is what we are debating and which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East must have forced himself to read. No doubt he read it through tears and while concentrating ground his teeth, because the summer economic forecast shows that 1994 was an excellent year for the British economy. Output grew by around 4 per cent., which was faster than in any other major European economy; inflation had its best run since the early 1960s; exports grew by more than 8 per cent.; and unemployment fell by more than a third of a million in 1994 alone.

  973
  The combination of healthy growth, low inflation, strong exports, rising incomes and employment and a falling budget deficit is set, as the forecast shows, to continue in the years ahead. These are the best economic prospects for future growth and prosperity that I have seen in my career in politics.
  Partly due to the policy measures that I have put in place, growth has slowed to a more sustainable rate this year. That is deliberate and desirable. The British people want greater economic security and they want to be sure that this time growth will last. The Government are working hard to deliver an economic recovery on which the public can rely—[Interruption.] I shall return to the amendment signed by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and his economic policy in a moment. I was delighted to see it on the Order Paper and I shall give it its fair measure of attention when I get there.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover has far more by way of clear economic policy than members of the shadow Front Bench. The contrast between the two is interesting and enlightening. Although it was not called, I propose to speak to the hon. Gentleman's amendment if I can do so and remain in order.
  Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way to him.
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman— my hon. Friend—in a moment. Surrounded by a range of opinions on this subject, the Government are delivering a healthy economic recovery, which will not be derailed by inflation, as it so regularly has been in the past.
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend knows that the list of wonderful and desirable things he is talking about could well be affected by whether at some stage the United Kingdom joins the single currency. There was a vote last week in the Conservative party and 89 of his colleagues signified their support for a platform of no single currency. Does not that mean that there is no possibility in the near future that a Conservative Government could ever seek to put a single currency before the British people? If so, would not it be wise to advise the Europeans that there is not going to be a single currency in Britain? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Chancellor answers, the House must settle down. I remind hon. Members that interventions are supposed to be brief and to the point.
  Mr. Clarke: I shall stick to the summer economic forecast. We have come here to debate the summer economic forecast, yet those on the Opposition Front Bench have nothing to say, Opposition Back Benchers wish to put forward a very socialist programme and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) brings up one subject, regardless of what we are debating, on each and every occasion. Judgments about the single currency will be made in the interests of the British economy and in the best judgment of the House if and when the issue arises. At the moment we have a strong, steady recovery, which must be sustained.
  974
  The Treasury summer economic forecast shows that we remain on course to deliver sustainable growth. There is no need to react too strongly to the recent slowdown in activity. The reason why I am confident that this is merely a change of pace on a continuing running recovery is that the fundamentals of the economy are now in such sound shape. We expect the economy to grow by around 3 per cent. this year and by 2¾ per cent. next year. That growth will continue to be led by exports, supported by business investment. We expect the current account balance to continue to narrow from £2 billion in 1995 to £1 billion in 1996.
  One important feature of the recovery has been that inflation has stayed low as the recovery has matured. Underlying inflation has now been below 3 per cent. for the past 20 months. That is the best performance on inflation that this country has seen since 1961. We expect underlying inflation to rise temporarily to around 3 per cent. by the end of this year, as some of the effects of the recent depreciation of sterling and the worldwide increase in commodity prices feed through into the price change. We then expect inflation to fall back to 2½ per cent. by the end of 1996.
  The forecast also shows that Government borrowing is on a clear downward path. We expect the public sector borrowing requirement to have halved between 1993–94 and 1995–96 and to fall to £16 billion—just 2 per cent. of gross domestic product—in 1996–97.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Britain's budget deficit is falling faster than that of any other major European country.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I think that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was first
  Mr. Bruce: I appreciate the fact that the Chancellor wished to finish that point. Does he believe that the forecast of a public sector borrowing requirement of £16 billion for next year would be a favourable background against which to cut taxes, or that he should be continuing to fulfil the golden rule of achieving a balanced budget?
  Mr. Clarke: I have always refused to set a figure at which we would cut taxes and a figure at which we would increase them. Budget judgments are far more complex than that. However, it is absolutely essential that public sector borrowing is on course to achieve the balance over the medium term, which is the Government's clear target. Other than that, it is not as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman states, or merely a matter of saying that the PSBR is a particular figure this year and that taxes go up or down.
  Mr. Milburn: Will the Chancellor explain why the summer forecast has revised the PSBR upwards from £21 billion to £23 billion? Will he answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor: on which date does he expect there to be a balanced budget?
  Mr. Clarke: I have explained to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee why we have revised the figure up slightly. The tax take is somewhat lower than we expected for a variety of reasons, including our success with inflation. When wage inflation and other inflation is kept

  975
  down, the tax take is reduced. It is an irony that, on the margins, low inflation is bad for the PSBR. Our taxes are affected by a low level of inflation, but we set the spending budgets of the Departments in cash so that they spend up to the cash figure set on higher estimates of inflation. That is why we have changed the figure.
  Mr. Milburn: What about the target?
  Mr. Clarke: The target is to move towards balance over the medium term. I do not believe that, some time in 1988, we made a different promise. I seriously doubt that, but I shall check.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: On balancing the budget and tax cuts, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm the following statement in the Conservative party economic brief for this debate? It states:
  "The Prime Minister has announced that it is his objective to reduce capital and inheritance taxes, and if possible, abolish them altogether."
  Is it the Government's policy to abolish capital gains tax and inheritance tax at a cost of £3 billion?
  Mr. Clarke: I heard the Prime Minister last give that long-term objective in a recent speech. In the longer term, I know that the Prime Minister believes that it should be reasonable to get rid of capital gains tax and inheritance tax as well. Inheritance tax is extremely uneven in the way that it falls. Capital gains tax in this country bears quite heavily on some forms of investment, but the Prime Minister has given no sort of commitment about when we might achieve such an ambitious objective. [Interruption.] I heard the speech, unlike the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. The Prime Minister set out those objectives as a long-term aim for the Conservative party.
  Mr. Brown: It is becoming very revealing that the Prime Minister is announcing the Chancellor's decisions in advance of the Chancellor, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman further confirm that it is now the Government's policy to tax executive share options as income? Having resisted it in three separate Budget statements, but given that it is now being supported by the Tory members of the Employment Select Committee and—I understand—by the Deputy Prime Minister, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that he has been wrong and that it is now the Government's policy to tax executive share options as income and get millions of pounds into the Exchequer as a result?
  Mr. Clarke: For a shadow spokesman who has not got a tax policy and cannot even say whether he thinks that taxes are too high or too low, the hon. Gentleman really must not mess about with his press cuttings in that way, trying to find interventions to make in a debate such as this. On share options, he must wait for the Greenbury committee report. [Interruption.] It was this Government who invited the setting up of the Greenbury committee and this Government who invited it to make recommendations. At the right time, we shall respond to Greenbury. Today, we are talking about a summer economic forecast, about which, for all the reasons that I have just been setting out, the hon. Gentleman does not want to talk. He is trying to change the subject from the British economy.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: No, I am not giving way.
  Mr. Brown rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I will of course give way to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, but not for faffing about trying to get soundbites out of this morning's newspapers. I would like him eventually to address the strong and healthy economic recovery on which he has no comment and for which he has no alternative policy.
  Mr. Brown: It appears that the Government's tax policy has been handed over, not only from the Chancellor to the Prime Minister, but to the Greenbury committee. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman support the principle of taxing executive share options as income? Has he now changed his mind?
  Mr. Clarke: The Government are a low-taxation Government. We believe that the economy is more efficient as a low-taxation economy. We have already introduced the lowest corporate taxes in the world, we have a long-term aim of tackling inheritance tax and capital gains tax, we have committed ourselves to considering the Greenbury committee's response and everybody knows that we shall continue to reduce taxation as and when we can afford it and when it is in the best interests of the economy, which is in stark contrast to the total silence on the subject from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I have given way far too often. I shall be criticised shortly for having given way too much.
  Sir Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall in a moment. This debate is becoming a dialogue with a man so unwilling to give a speech on the subject before us that he is praying for 10 o'clock tonight and trying to find other things to talk about.
  I have just described an extremely healthy economy. Why are we having this debate, except for an opportunity for the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East to try to follow up his morning's reading of the newspapers? One of the curious complaints that some people make about this recovery is that it is too virtuous. They say that, because it is led by manufacturing and exports, the British people have not felt any immediate impact on their spending pattern, and they say that because it is free of inflation, people with heavy debts are not seeing their debts eroded by a fall in the value of the pound.
  All that tedious political chat about the feel-good factor at the end of last year has not made anybody believe the sort of rubbish that I have just been describing. The well-being of the people depends on wealth being created by a successful and competitive industrial economy. Secure prosperity cannot be created for families by short-term fiscal gimmicks or by letting prices and incomes rip. First, we must allow the economy to create the wealth and then the economy will distribute it. It is a virtuous recovery and virtue brings its rewards in confidence, security and prosperity for people once they are satisfied that the Government will deliver sustained performance.

  977
  The strength of the British economy at the moment has not come about by chance. We now have the potential to enjoy the elusive goal of sustained, low-inflation growth because the Government have followed a determined and purposeful path. We have pursued the long-term interests of British industry and therefore of the British people.
  The decisions that we have taken are now beginning to deliver real benefits to more and more people. Living standards are forecast to grow by £5 a week for households on average this year, and we forecast that they will rise by rather more than that the following year. Sticking to the policies that have pulled us out of recession can now ensure that living standards will rise not only this year and next year but the year after that and the year after that, and, I trust, for many years to come. That is economic security of the best kind. That is what families, pensioners, home owners, business men and everybody else in Britain today want.
  Right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity today to debate the latest Treasury forecast, and the excellent prospects for the economy and for our people, who expect to benefit from it. But of course forecasting is difficult, and the Government do not claim a monopoly of wisdom in that activity.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East used to come to the House with different forecasts of his own. Hon. Members will remember the unemployment forecast that he made in the House following the March 1963 Budget—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I mean, the 1993 Budget. The hon. Gentleman must wish that it had been so long ago, but it was only two years ago that he said:
  "I make one Budget forecast—that after the Budget, unemployment will rise this month, next month and for months afterwards."—[Official Report, 17 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 289.]
  What happened? Unemployment fell that month and the next month, and it carried on falling for months afterwards. It has fallen by more than 600,000 since the hon. Gentleman made that disastrous forecast on behalf of the shadow Treasury team.
  It is not fair to say that the hon. Gentleman is never cheerful. He used to smile a little when giving his very gloomy forecasts of disaster for the British economy. In September 1993, even more recently, he said that the balance of payments deficit would worsen over the next two years. What happened? The balance of payments improved; export growth outstripped imports.
  The shadow Chancellor can make extremely cheerful forecasts. He was most optimistic about the economic prospects for Mexico. Only last September, in a speech at the National Film Theatre—a suitable setting—he singled out Mexico as a country that had
  "pursued the right kind of economic policies".
  Only three months later the peso collapsed, the economy went into crisis and the International Monetary Fund was called in to stump up the biggest loan in its history. Perhaps the Mexicans, like the British, appreciate today's silence, the absence of forecasts and of any serious economic commentary by the hon. Gentleman.
  However, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is capable of being clear about some things. In September 1994, he entirely dismissed his political party's principles and past. He said:
  978
  "The Old Labour Language—tax, spend and borrow, nationalisation, state planning, isolation, full-time jobs for life for men while women stay at home—are equally inappropriate to the demands of the future as they were to the needs of the past".
  So much for the 1983 manifesto, on which the hon. Gentleman and the present leader of the Labour party were first elected to the House.
  New Labour language is all platitudes and gobbledegook, and it is no longer I alone who says that. On the Order Paper there is an alternative amendment, tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and 15 other Labour Members. They have set out an alternative Labour party economic policy. [Interruption.] I am sure that that amendment can be spoken to later within the rules of order. It talks about the
  "gap between rich and poor …and the damage being done …under capitalism".
  It says that we are
  "controlled by market forces which transfer power from the electors and their governments to unaccountable bankers and speculators",
  and
  "calls for … the maintenance of universal benefits"
  at a dignified level, and
  "reforms to restore the rights of local authorities and trade unionists and to liberate the people"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That amendment is not the amendment that we are to debate.
  Mr. Clarke: I accept your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that amendment has a lot more content than the one that we shall debate.
  Mr. Tony Benn rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment— [Interruption.] I usually describe Labour Members in the House as sitting in baffled silence like stuffed ducks behind the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, but now some of the ducks are quacking, and they are setting off in different directions.
  I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield; he and I are conviction politicians in our different ways. Labour Back Benchers and I agree on one thing: new Labour is a hollow sham—empty, vacuous and devoid of any principle or purpose. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want to hear no more lists of strategies and no more endogenous growth theory. They wish to know what is the economic policy of a party that wants to form a Government.
  Mr. Benn rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, with his distinctive views on the matter.
  Mr. Benn: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer reads the book that Harold Macmillan published in 1938, he will find that Macmillan called for a planned economy to deal with unemployment. It is a sign of the change in the Tory party that it should have abandoned some of those principles that drew it in with the Labour party behind the idea of full employment, a national health service and a huge house-building programme after the war. The Chancellor should look at his own past and find out how far he has moved from it.
  Mr. Clarke: I have read "The Middle Way" by Harold Macmillan, and I know that what the right hon.

  979
  Gentleman says about it is true. But between 1938 and 1995, the Conservative party has evolved its policies. At the moment, a modern industrial economy is best managed as we are managing it, producing growth, falling unemployment, rising employment and low inflation.
  The right hon. Gentleman's party has also evolved since 1938, but not in the same way. He would not espouse all the positions held by the Labour party in 1938, but at least he has a core of conviction and principle behind his policies. He saw those policies evolve all the way to the late 1980s, when suddenly they stopped. The people elected with him on the 1983 manifesto now spend their time denouncing those principles to academic audiences. The right hon. Gentleman and I agree that what is before us now is a public relations creation with absolutely no content.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I shall press on for the moment, before I am in danger of being brought back to the single European currency. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has ever expressed any views on that, either, but he may have some; there may be more hope for him there than I thought.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East knows perfectly well what my questions to him are. Are interest rates too high or too low? Is the Government's inflation target too high or too low? Is public spending too high or too low? Are public borrowing and taxation too high or too low? Those are my questions, and we cannot have a serious debate with such a formidable Opposition unless they answer them. Until the hon. Gentleman can answer any of those questions, his party has no official policy on the economy and is not fit to be regarded as an alternative Government.
  It may help the hon. Gentleman if I set out some of the basic principles behind the Government's economic policy, upon which the recovery so far has been based. First, we are the only party in the House that believes in the economic benefits of being a low-taxation economy. We also know that low taxation depends on firm control of public spending and borrowing. In my two Budgets, public spending projections have been reduced by about £45 billion, and as a result the budget deficits are on a clear downward path.
  When we can afford it and when the economic conditions are right, we shall return to our tax-cutting agenda. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has no right to criticise our tax history when he opposed all the spending reductions that I have described.
  Secondly, we believe that firm control of public borrowing is essential because public borrowing is actually taxation deferred. Under the Labour Government, the public sector borrowing requirement reached 9.4 per cent. of gross domestic product, and averaged almost 7 per cent. of GDP every year between 1974 and 1979. Since 1979, the PSBR has averaged 2.5 per cent. of GDP and, as I said, it remains back on course to move back towards balance over the medium term.
  Thirdly, low inflation is necessary for growth to be sustained. Last week, the Labour leader made a speech marking the 50th anniversary of the Attlee Government.
  980
  Today I shall make a brief reference to inflation, to mark the 20th anniversary of the time when inflation reached 26.9 per cent. under the last Labour Government.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East claims to be committed to low inflation, and says that a Labour Government would set an inflation target—he simply is not minded to say what that target is. He refuses to say whether he agrees with the Government's inflation target. I write to him—he will not speak to me—but he has still not replied to my letters of 12 May and 14 June, which asked him for his views on interest rates and inflation.
  The fact is that the hon. Gentleman has nothing to say at all on the substance of monetary policy. He has no view on inflation, so he has no view on interest rates. I cannot recall any shadow Chancellor expressing no opinion on interest rates. That is quite an important subject, but I have not heard him express an opinion upon it for at least six months.
  I am anxious to make our monetary framework and anti-inflationary policy one of the most open and transparent in the world. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that he agrees with my changes in procedure and openness. His only suggestion is to form a committee to which he will appoint all the members as, he claims, that will somehow reduce the political influence on the Bank of England. I do not quite understand that.
  As a result of my changes, the hon. Gentleman now has all the information he requires. He has the minutes of a meeting that I had a few weeks ago, at which I had a difference in judgment with the Governor of the Bank of England. It was a matter of finely balanced judgment. The Governor and I have no difference in aim, and we share a strong personal commitment to making the British economy a low-inflation economy. The Governor and I must weigh the balance between the activity data on one hand and price pressures on the other. The Governor inclined one way; I inclined another. I decided that there would be no interest rate rise that day.
  The shadow Chancellor has had weeks to study all the data that were before the Governor and me when we took that decision. He has even been able to read the minutes, see the arguments and read and consider the Governor's advice. He even has the benefit of hindsight, and he can look back now and say what his opinion might have been. Can this aspirant to high Government office say today whether he agrees or disagrees with my decision? The hon. Gentleman may be a slow decision maker, but if he is posing as a would-be Chancellor, he must show that he is capable of making a decision or having an opinion. But he is not capable. The hon. Gentleman does not have a view at all.
  Let us hear it. Interest rates—too high or too low? What about my judgment on interest rates? The hon. Gentleman is meant to shadow my decisions. He is meant to say when he agrees with me and criticise me when he does not. He is a tartan Trappist monk with nothing to say on the key features of economic policy.
  Most importantly, we believe that businesses, and not Government, create prosperity and jobs. The supply side reforms that the Government have put in place in the past 16 years have transformed the British economy for the better. All those reforms were opposed by the Labour and trade union movement when it held to its old principles.

  981
  During the 1980s, Britain moved from the bottom to the top of the international league table for growth. There are now 50 per cent. more active businesses in Britain than in Labour's last year in office. Last year and the year before that, Britain had the fastest-growing major economy in Europe, and this year we look set for a repeat performance.
  The hon. Gentleman and his party are still wedded to some old-fashioned approaches that would saddle British business with Government-imposed costs and make it more expensive to create jobs in this country. The minimum wage would cost thousands of jobs and would add billions of pounds to businesses' costs. The social chapter would destroy Britain's reputation—a reputation that matters to us—as the best place in Europe in which to invest and do business in the European single market.
  The Government have set out clear objectives for our economic policy. We have an inflation target, a public borrowing target, clear plans for public spending and a longer-term commitment to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 20 per cent. Those are clear and decisive policies that are delivering the goods, and a forecast today shows that the economy is in the best shape for decades.
  The British public want an economic recovery which lasts, which is for keeps and on which they can rely to bring rising living standards to them and their families to the end of the decade and beyond. Only modern Conservative economics can deliver that goal, and the summer forecast shows that, between now and the next general election, we can take the message of growth and hope from house to house and town to town in this country. Ours is a clear message, a Conservative message, and a message that is succeeding in making Britain an economic success story again, and I commend it to the House.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'notes not only the Government's forecasts but the recent White Paper on competitiveness showing Britain lagging behind its major competitors in its preparations for the challenges of the future; regrets that living standards are still falling for millions of people as a result of the biggest tax rises in Britain's history and the recent rise in the costs of being a home owner; deplores the levels of long-term unemployment and youth unemployment still prevalent in Britain today; calls for an end to complacency over the levels of investment in technology, employment, training and skills and a recognition of the importance of higher levels of investment in new employment opportunities and in long term sustainable growth consistent with low inflation; and calls for a fairer Britain, including immediate Government action to tackle the excesses in the boardrooms of the privatised utilities.'.
  Let me begin by welcoming the three new members of the Chancellor's Treasury team, and congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on—how should I put it— holding on to his job. He is now confirmed as the Chancellor of the Exchequer; one of the second Secretaries of State.
  The starting point of the debate is that the country needs real policy changes to prepare it for the great technological, global and financial changes that were barely mentioned in the Chancellor's speech. To bridge the investment and prosperity gap with our competitors, we need these changes.
  982
  First, we need detailed measures for new investment in the economy and for stability, including the new monetary framework that I have set out. Secondly, we need measures to ensure that there is a revolution in skills, with new policies—not just a new Department—for education, training and employment. Thirdly, we need measures to tackle long-term youth unemployment and to encourage a fiscal regime and policy with rewards and incentives that are fair and seen to be fair, and that means tackling many of the abuses in the privatised utilities.
  We are faced with those great new challenges, and we are faced also today with unacceptably low levels of investment in the economy. The Government's own competitiveness White Paper said only a few weeks ago that an enormous task was yet to be faced, and there were more reports this morning of difficulty in the housing market and the labour market, and a report that manufacturing output is down yet again.
  Given all that, the complacency of the Chancellor's speech—and, indeed, his whole attitude and approach— is breathtaking. It is remarkable that the Conservatives talk to the country about change when they are trying to occupy Labour's ground. They talk of intervention in training and education, and suggest that they will act to stem boardroom pay abuses.
  The Chancellor was incapable of bringing anything new to his speech. He did not even have scant recognition of all the implications for his economic policy of his new next-door neighbour at No. 10a Downing street.
  Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a matter to which he has referred in a number of his sound bites—investment in training and education. That will require more money. Will the hon. Gentleman now say whether that money will be raised through higher taxes or through higher borrowing? If, as is inevitable under all Labour Governments, it is through higher borrowing, in what way will the hon. Gentleman's Government differ from the experiences of every Labour Government since the war—borrowing too much, spending too much and finally collapsing into the arms of the IMF in abject surrender?
  Mr. Brown: First, I would stop talking about new initiatives for training and education while cutting the budgets of training and enterprise councils, as the Government have done, in such a way as to downgrade the importance of training. Secondly, I would say yes, we need a statutory framework for training—not the voluntaristic approach adopted by the Government—and yes, I do believe that employers will have to contribute more to the training of the work force if we are to have a successful economy in the future.
  The whole theme of the Chancellor's speech—if I heard him correctly—was that we have the best prospects that he has seen in 30 years. He said that we have "excellent prospects—the best in a generation." Tell that to the millions of home owners in the country; tell that to thousands of small business men who are worried about what is happening in the retail market; tell that to the construction industry, which reported only yesterday that it is in its worst position for three years in terms of new orders; tell that even to some members of the Conservative party, such as a well-known Tory fund-raiser who has lent the Tories thousands of pounds.

  983
  He has not said that we have the best prospects for 30 years—he has said that conditions are as tough as anything he has experienced in 26 years of business.
  If the Chancellor wants to give home owners better prospects, having forced up their bills by 20 per cent. by cutting mortgage tax relief, why does he not agree that on Monday he will withdraw the proposal that will remove help for homeowners on income support when they are unemployed?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I appreciate the brilliant speeches that we have heard, but will the hon. Gentleman give some guidance to the people of Britain who want to know whether it is the basic aim of the Government, and the Opposition as an alternative Government, to seek to rejoin fixed exchange rates? May we have a brief answer to that question from the Government and the Opposition, as it would be of immense value and help to people outside?
  Mr. Brown: We have no such proposal. The Government talk about a strong pound, but they should consider what has happened since 1979. Set against the deutschmark, the pound is now worth half what it was in 1979. The Chancellor told the Treasury Select Committee that economic conditions were bound to be reflected in what was likely to happen to the pound over time. It is a sad indictment of Government policy that the pound is now worth half what it was when the Conservative party came to office.
  The Chancellor says that we face the best outlook for 30 years and that prospects are the best for a generation. I recall another statement that he made:
  "We face the best economic outlook that most people of today's working generation have ever faced in their lifetime."—[Official Report, 20 March 1986; Vol. 94, c. 424.]
  Today he makes the same claims with the same confidence, complacency and certainty, but when he made it in 1986, it was just before the Conservative party let inflation get out of control and interest rates rise, causing the worst recession for 60 years.
  The Chancellor asks whether growth will last, and answers by telling us that this time of all times it will. Does he recall telling the Welsh Conservative party conference:
  "There is no doubt we are now enjoying quite extraordinary growth. The real question is: will it last?"
  "Yes," he said, "it can last." That was in 1988, just before the Conservatives drove the economy into recession. He praised, not the current Prime Minister but the work of Lady Thatcher, for all those achievements. Inside a year, that growth was to develop into a recession.
  We have heard all the Chancellor's predictions and statements before. They are familiar boasts. The reason why they do not make sense is that the Chancellor and his colleagues have failed to tackle the underlying weakness of the economy.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We were enjoying a strong recovery in 1986–88, of a kind that was utterly unprecedented, as it was a recovery from the Labour years. Monetary policy and inflation went wrong in the late 1980s and the whole recovery was brought to an end.
  I am now taking interest rate decisions to ensure that this recovery is combined with low inflation and that it lasts. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that monetary policy
  984
  is crucial to that? Does that therefore mean that interest rates are crucial? What are his opinions on the interest rate decisions that I have taken in recent weeks?
  Mr. Brown: It is because we think that monetary policy is important that we have made proposals for a new approach to monetary policy. Does the Chancellor support, as we do, the creation of a monetary policy committee within the Bank of England? Does he support, as we do, strengthening the Bank of England's advisory function? Does he support opening up the Bank of England to greater scrutiny of the advice that it gives, as many Conservative Members do? I see that the majority of Conservative Back Benchers present in the Chamber are supporters of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), so the Chancellor should listen.
  Does the Chancellor support, as we do, widening the scope of the group of independent advisers to the Treasury? Does he support the changes in monetary policy that would make it far more stable and consistent and end the uncertainty that occurs every time he meets the Governor of the Bank of England, which creates an unstable framework for the future of monetary policy?
  While he is answering my questions, will he say which is his inflation target: 2.5 per cent.; 3 per cent., which he said is a triumph; or 1 to 4 per cent., which he announces to the public? Or would he, as he said to Conservative Back Benchers, reach 1 to 4 per cent. only on some but not on all occasions? Which is the Government's inflation objective?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is no good the hon. Gentleman appointing a committee of his friends and cronies with the idea that that will tell him what to do about monetary policy. He says that I must make advice from the Bank of England more open. I have made it more open. The hon. Gentleman can read the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England. Were the hon. Gentleman ever Chancellor, he would have to decide whether he agreed with it. My inflation target is 2.5 per cent. or less. I set policy month by month to deliver that target until the end of this Parliament and beyond.
  What is the hon. Gentleman's inflation target? He does not have one. His list of procedural changes is vacuous rubbish to try to cover the fact that he has no policy. He has just conceded on the critical policy judgment at the end of the 1980s.
  Mr. Brown: The Chancellor has not answered my questions: what is the status of the 1 to 4 per cent. range? What is the status of the paper that he sent to Conservative Back Benchers saying that 1 to 4 per cent. was applicable most of the time but not all the time? What is the status of his statement that 3 per cent. would be a triumph? What is the Governor's advice on whether the Chancellor will meet the inflation target of 2.5 per cent.?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The target is 2.5 per cent. or less. As my speech made clear, it is not possible in the real world to hit the same figure month by month, because inevitable variations take place, so setting policy at 2.5 per cent. or less will in practice lead to inflation of between 1 and 4 per cent. The Governor and I agree on pursuing that target, which is set by the Government, and he advises me on monetary decisions that I must take to deliver it. That could not be clearer. It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to make comments based on getting hold of a central office brief, which is perfectly open, and then to

  985
  say that that somehow alters the absolutely clear text of the speech that I had made, which the document simply purports to describe.
  My inflation target is clear. What is the hon. Gentleman's? What is his current policy? How dare he come here and talk about monetary policy and interest rates when he has not a serious word to say on the subject?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall deal with interventions from both sides of the Conservative party in a moment.
  The Chancellor says that he is setting policy to reach an inflation target of 2.5 per cent. He has refused to answer my question as to what advice the Governor has given him.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman can read the Governor's advice for himself. Thanks to the changes that I have made, the Governor's opinions on this matter will appear at monthly intervals, but the hon. Gentleman will say nothing in response. He can read the minutes that I have published. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I do not have them with me, but hon. Members can read them. One can take a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. For the guidance of Opposition Members, I have published an accurate account of the Governor's advice. What does the hon. Gentleman do but come along and ask me what it is? He should go away and read it and then tell me whether he agrees with it.
  Mr. Brown: The Chancellor will not tell us what the Governor's advice, is because the Governor has said that he will not meet the Chancellor's inflation target of 2.5 per cent. The reason he will not meet his inflation target is because the Chancellor has not addressed the underlying weaknesses of the British economy.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman explain a little further his proposals for extra committees within the Bank of England? Is he really proposing that there should be some form of independence in the Bank of England, or is that just a bit of window dressing? Does he agree with the Government that, ultimately, any Government must take political responsibility for interest rates and be responsible to the House for them?
  Mr. Brown: No, I do not propose independence for the Bank of England. But the demerits of the personalised system of the Chancellor meeting the Governor, which is the basis of setting monetary policy, without strengthening the advice to both the Chancellor and the Governor, has been exposed this afternoon by the Chancellor's failure even to remember what the Governor said to him.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Let us have a little clarity and common sense. The hon. Gentleman has just said that he believes that the Governor does not think that we shall hit our target and has implied that he agrees with the Governor. That means, I take it, that he would have put interest rates up.
  Mr. Brown: What I said was that, under existing policies, the Chancellor would not meet his target. The reason that I said that he would not make his target—and the Chancellor should not try to misrepresent what I
  986
  said—is that the Government have not tackled the underlying weaknesses of the economy, which are the barrier to long-term sustainable growth.
  If the Chancellor—[Interruption.] Every time that is mentioned, the Chancellor laughs, but investment in manufacturing is 25 per cent. less than it was in 1989. Investment in the real economy is 10 per cent. less than it was in 1979. The Chancellor says that we are making an excellent recovery from the recession, but investment has increased by only 3 per cent. in the first years of what he calls a recovery, whereas it increased by 30 per cent. in the 1970s and by 20 per cent. in the 1980s.
  We have a lower increase in investment out of recession than even in the 1930s. What some countries achieve by way of investment in a recession, we cannot even achieve in this country in a recovery. The failure to tackle the underlying weakness of manufacturing and general investment in the economy is the reason why, every time we expand as an economy, we run into inflationary pressures, we have to increase the amount of imports and interest rates have to be raised; and we are reaching that point at an earlier stage of the economic cycle than previously.
  The idea, therefore, that the Government can offer the country the best prospects for 30 years based on a failure even to acknowledge the underlying weaknesses of under-investment in the economy is a myth that will be exposed cruelly as events take their course in the next few years.
  Mr. Nigel Forman rose—
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth rose—
  Mr. Brown: I give way to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), after which I shall move on.
  Mr. Forman: I seem to remember, having attended several of these debates in which the hon. Gentleman has sought to make these rather vacuous speeches, that his policy rests essentially on increasing public investment in education and training and other forms of human capital. Indeed, the Labour party waxes lyrical about that. The hon. Gentleman goes on to say—he said that last year and he said it recently—that he would finance that by increasing public borrowing. How can he possibly come to the House and claim that he would increase public borrowing without taking a risk on interest rates and the likelihood that, under Labour, interest rates would be higher?
  Mr. Brown: It is the Chancellor who has increased the amount of borrowing in his forecasts, from £21 billion to £23 billion—from £12 billion to £15 billion next year— and still tells us that he will achieve tax cuts. I want borrowing to be cut, and the first way to cut borrowing is to cut unemployment in the national economy.
  The reason that the Conservatives cannot solve those long-term problems of an economy that generates inflation as it expands and of an economy that requires higher interest rates as it moves forward is that they have not tackled those underlying weaknesses, which require an investment-led recovery. That is what the people of the country need.

  987
  Nothing has changed under the Government. Nothing has changed since the Prime Minister said that he had to have his re-election guaranteed by his party. Nothing has changed in the policies for education and training, for manufacturing, for investment and for the infrastructure of the economy. All that has changed is that we have the Prime Minister's announcement of what he calls a reconstruction of personnel in his Government.
  It is not a reshuffle. It is not the refreshing of the Cabinet that took place last year, although the two members that he brought in then—the Chief Secretary and the Conservative party chairman—have now gone. It is what he advertised as a reconstruction of his Cabinet—a reconstruction, I suspect, only in the crudest motor trade sense, an attempt to salvage one passable vehicle from the wreckage of two.
  What does that reconstruction add up to?
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am not giving way again.
  It adds up to a new Minister in charge of presentation, a new Minister in charge of information, a new Minister in charge of competitiveness—and those are only a few of the titles that the deputy Prime Minister has insisted on for himself.
  What is that new job of Deputy Prime Minister all about, and what is its connection with the economic policies that the Chancellor must now make? How will the new Deputy Prime Minister define the purpose of his job? What will be his rallying call at the Conservative party conference in October in the new slot that must be taken away from the Chancellor for the Deputy Prime Minister?
  Remember that famous conference speech that followed his ascent to the presidency, when he promised that he would intervene and intervene and intervene? When he stands up at Blackpool this year, will he echo that famous speech with a new promise of his purpose more in keeping with his new role, a new pledge to delegates of what he will personally do—interviews before breakfast on the "Today" programme, interviews before lunch on "The World at One", interviews before tea on "PM", interviews before dinner, and get up next morning and start all over again on an interview on the "Today" programme, complaining about bias against the Conservative party by the BBC? In spite of all the new titles that he has, the most important of his new responsibilities is as the Minister for keeping up appearances.
  The Deputy Prime Minister is the new man at No. 10a and, to the Chancellor, Downing street looks a bit more crowded this week. We have that great new triumvirate of neighbours in Downing street, at Nos. 10, 10a and 11; the most powerful men in the country forming the new Downing street residents association.
  There are some difficulties for the Chancellor and a distinct risk to his position in what is happening at No. 10a. Look at the remit for the work of the new man at No. 10a. He now chairs the Cabinet Ministerial Sub-Committee on Public Sector Pay—it sounds as though that should be the Chancellor's job. He chairs the Civil Service Employers Group—it sounds like the Chancellor's job. He chairs the Senior Civil Service
  988
  Group—it sounds like the Chancellor's job. When Professor Peter Hennessy said that the Deputy Prime Minister would reach for the parts that no previous deputy had managed to reach, he presumably meant encroaching on the Chancellor's job at No. 11.
  Mr. Peter Butler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am as happy as anyone else to enjoy a joke for a minute or two, but may I invite you to consider whether this has anything at all to do with the motion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a bogus point of order, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. If it had been out of order, it would have been ruled out of order.
  Mr. Brown: I am talking about the conduct of economic policy and the way in which it will be managed in future.
  I know that the Chancellor did not read works as trivial as the Maastricht treaty, but perhaps he should read the book that was written by the new Deputy Prime Minister entitled "Where There's a Will"—his clearly stated ambitions laid out as early as 1987—for the First Secretary is now doing everything that he signalled in that book.
  The new Deputy Prime Minister said in his book that his ambition was to preside over what he now calls a transgovernmental machinery, chaired, naturally, by himself. What are the tasks? The promotion of Britain's strategic wealth-creating interests—it sounds remarkably like the Chancellor's job to me. The flow of incentives— it sounds a bit like the Chancellor's job to me. In his book he then says:
  "This committee must also deal with another important issue— the tax system."
  It sounds remarkably like the Chancellor's job again. What is the Deputy Prime Minister trying to do? It sounds remarkably like the Chancellor's job to me.
  Indeed, if the book is pursued, the criticisms of what has gone wrong in the British economy are laid at one door by the Deputy Prime Minister—the door of the Treasury. He says:
  "The weakness is that there is not sufficient challenge to Treasury judgments",
  which may frustrate the strategic industrial objectives of the Government. Therefore one may expect some action in Downing street about that.
  Of the Treasury, he says:
  "What is interesting is how often the Treasury can fail to see the big defect in its conduct of affairs".
  Is that not a formula that the Prime Minister has invented for serious conflict—indeed disorder? Already this morning, we had the divergence of opinions on executive pay.
  What can we expect during the summer and the autumn? How will things settle down? What can we expect from this new Downing street residents association? Let me draw the Chancellor's attention to some of the problems that his new neighbour is likely to bring; the new hazards that threaten the once respectable residential cul-de-sac and have just been dumped on his neighbourhood.
  Is the Chancellor prepared to put up with a neighbour giving loud radio and television interviews at all hours of the day and night? Is he aware of his neighbour's

  989
  insatiable ambitions, which he is showing already, for home improvements, with a succession of new extensions at No. 10a encroaching on No. 10 and No. 11?
  How will the Chancellor feel when he looks nervously out of his back window each morning and sees yet another unannounced Portakabin, so much so that the Downing street garden is at risk of being so encroached on that there will be standing room only for the press the next time that the Prime Minister resigns as Conservative leader?
  How will the Chancellor feel when he walks out, that November day, with his Budget red box and finds his parking space blocked by the Deputy Prime Minister's Jaguar, and his own car cannot come in because the entrance is blocked by the media because the First Secretary is giving yet another interview in front of the cameras?
  It is the familiar formula for trouble on the street—the build-up of tensions, noise, pushy and aggressive behaviour, territorial disputes, the long hot summer ahead in Downing street and aggressive men with not enough to do, men whose future employment prospects are bleak, with no long-term stake in society. Even the constant police presence will not provide reassurance. Appeals from senior community leaders, such as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), Lord Archer or the chairman of the 1922 Committee, will not be able to restore calm. As the Chancellor will discover in Downing street, two's company and three's none. By the autumn, he will become a convert to Labour's new solutions for curbing persistently anti-social neighbours.
  I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister is now in post, because the former President of the Board of Trade was far less complacent and he had a far greater appreciation of what is fundamentally and structurally wrong with the economy. The Chancellor will know that, in his previous works, the Deputy Prime Minister proposed a statutory approach to training—about which I was asked this afternoon—development agencies for England, which the Conservative party brief now criticises; signing the social chapter; new monopolies and merger legislation; and an industrial policy for the country.
  The Government cannot implement those policies— even though they are right for the country—because they are so divided, from top to bottom, between right and left, about what must be done that there is paralysis at the centre of Government. They cannot adopt the industrial policy because the right oppose it; they cannot privatise the Post Office because the left oppose it; they cannot reform the City because Lord Hanson has threatened to withdraw his money; and they cannot stop the mad policy to privatise the railways because of the right wing.
  People will remember that the big case made in support of the Prime Minister only a few days ago was not that he could lead the country and prepare us for the future, but that he was the only person who could unite the Conservative party. He was the least worst option, as the Minister of State for Transport said when putting his case. The Prime Minister has not introduced any new policies except for the one revealed by the Chancellor this afternoon when he failed to answer properly the question that I put to him.
  990
  The Prime Minister issued a manifesto, in that desperate period between wobbly Monday and wobbly Tuesday when he returned from Cannes, which is simply a group of uncosted spending promises. That is what the Conservative party has been reduced to in order to encourage its members to vote for the Prime Minister. The abolition of capital gains tax—one of the Prime Minister's objectives, as stated in a fax to the Evening Standard when it carried an article listing what the Prime Minister believed in—will create £1.6 billion, rising to £3 billion. The Chancellor should know that 50 per cent. of that will go to only 2,000 people in this country. It is a straight handout from people who are poor to people who are very rich.
  Another aim of the Prime Minister is the abolition of inheritance tax. The Chancellor will know that, while there is a strong case for raising the threshold, the abolition of inheritance tax will create £1.4 billion, of which 50 per cent. will go to only 2,000 estates in the country. I can well understand that the Prime Minister is embarrassed. At the last election, he promised to do something about inheritance tax, but he never did. He broke his promises not only to the living, but also to the dead; such was the Government's failure to honour their tax promises from the election campaign.
  There are other uncosted spending promises, such as the promise of tax relief for home owners—which has been signalled today in the press—and the promise of tax relief for community care. The Conservative party made £11 billion of uncosted spending promises in 11 days— that is £1 billion a day just to secure the Prime Minister's re-election as leader of the Conservative party. That is not a failure of Government; it is a failure of opposition. As the Chancellor prepares for opposition, he will have to learn the importance of not making uncosted spending promises.
  The Prime Minister's proposals are targeted: they will target all the wealth on a privileged few. When a choice must be made about spending priorities in this country, it should not be in favour of tax cuts that are geared to the very wealthy, based on the abolition of inheritance tax and capital gains tax. If any Government are to be serious about justice and fairness, they must deal with the problems of education, health and our public services, while providing a proper tax deal for middle and lower income Britain.
  The Chancellor must also realise that the case for taxing executive share options as income—the one proposal that the Prime Minister did not mention, but which is apparently favoured by the Deputy Prime Minister— should be accepted now. When everyone else pays income tax on all their income, apart from personal allowances, how can the Chancellor justify top executives in privatised utilities having the privilege of escaping paying income tax on their earnings and simply paying capital gains tax? How can the Chancellor justify the millions of pounds that have been lost to this country through his refusal to implement our policy in the past few years?
  The Government have broken their promises on tax and on spending. They have broken all the promises that they made at the last election. The Conservatives said that they were committed to the biggest investment in transport infrastructure in our history; that promise was broken. They promised to invest in the railways, but that promise was broken. They promised to invest in housing, but that

  991
  promise was broken. They promised to invest in law and order and environmental protection, but those promises were broken.
  The Government promised substantial assistance in the area of heritage, but instead they cut 5 per cent. from the budget. They promised to invest in the railways, but they cut the railway investment budget. They are now having to subsidise the franchise companies, not to improve the rail stock, but in order to make them saleable. The Conservatives have betrayed their promises on tax and spending, and this afternoon they betrayed their promise of a balanced budget.
  Despite the Prime Minister's claim in 1988 that the Government would balance the Budget, the Chancellor cannot tell us the year in which he will do that. The Conservatives promised an economic miracle and they did not deliver it. They promised us zero inflation and they failed. They promised that the pound would replace the deutschmark, but that did not happen. They have broken promises everywhere.
  The debate puts on record the fact that all the Chancellor's central economic promises have been broken, and the electorate will draw their own conclusions. The Conservatives can talk all they want about what the Prime Minister calls "reconstruction", but the trust that has been thrown away with 16 years of broken promises can never be reconstructed. People will never trust the Conservative party again. After 16 years of broken promises, while other countries move ahead and prepare for the future, the Chancellor must recognise that, along with the devaluation of our currency, we have seen a devaluation of the office of Chancellor and the integrity of the Government. The only way to ensure that there are no more broken promises is for the Government to go, and to go soon.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a limit of 10 minutes on all speeches by Back Benchers during the debate.
  5.57 pm
  Sir Peter Lloyd: The speech by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) contained some very good jokes, but the content was extraordinarily thin. At one stage, it seemed that he was about to relaunch Harold Wilson's white-hot technological revolution, but even that went rather cold.
  Time is short and many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I shall confine myself to making only one major point. Many of my hon. Friends and some distinguished commentators have urged the Chancellor to make dramatic cuts in the Budget this autumn. They argue that it is essential to provide an extra stimulus to the economy, which, after a period of impressive growth, has recently begun to show some signs of sluggishness. They also believe that the policy would prove popular with electors, who need to be reminded that the Conservatives are on the electors' side when it comes to their take-home pay.
  I do not know how much room for manoeuvre the Chancellor will have in November—I do not suppose that he is sure himself yet. However, I hope that he will view the advice about the sure-fire economic and political
  992
  efficacy of tax cutting with the same shrewd scepticism that he displayed some months ago in response to Mr. Eddie George's recommendations that interest rates should rise.
  I hope that the Chancellor will find that he can safely reduce some taxes and, if he does, I hope that he will use the opportunity judiciously, and remove impediments to economic growth and job creation. I hope also that he will remedy particular unfairnesses in the system, rather than spread largesse thinly and promiscuously across the board in an attempt to please everyone. But it does not appear that he will have very much scope for tax reductions in the autumn, unless he finds a way of reducing public spending much more thoroughly and speedily than any of his predecessors ever managed to do.
  Public sector borrowing is still too high; what is more, it is higher than my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor forecast last year. Some of my hon. Friends might point out that that is because tax and other receipts are lower than forecast. Some of that may be due to lower inflation, but clearly there is an argument that economic activity is less than expected and needs some stimulus.
  We have, however, had three years of tax increases, and it is easy to under-estimate the novel and tonic effect on the public of not being hit over the head with another round of tax increases. Unemployment continues to fall, and wage increases are in the pipeline. There are also some building society flotation windfalls that will add to consumer purchasing power.
  It seems to me that the chief impediment to consumers actually spending more remains a lack of confidence in the future, and I do not believe that that will be alleviated by tax cuts this year. It will certainly not be by tax cuts trumpeted loudly as a spectacular break with the past three years. With the overshoot in public borrowing last year, this year and next year, I fear that any tax cut, large enough for the Chancellor to boast about it, would rightly undermine confidence in the City and abroad in his consistency and good housekeeping, and would leave taxpayers thoroughly unimpressed to boot.
  The latter would no doubt willingly put the money in their pockets; they might even spend some of it, but they would certainly assume that it was a tacit admission that the Government had got it wrong again when they raised taxes last year. They would note that the election was getting closer, and they would ask whether it would not have been easier all round not to have hiked up taxes last year just to lower them this year. They would conclude simply that the Government did not know their own mind.
  I believe that that conclusion would be confirmed when interest rates had to go up, as they surely would. Higher interest rates would not be good for investment, and the historically low rate of investment is probably our most persistent economic problem and the greatest threat to economic growth in the longer term.
  Higher interest rates would not be good for consumer confidence, which has to be fortified if recovery is to continue. Keeping interest rates as low as possible is the one major piece of assistance that the Chancellor can give home owners who are caught in negative equity and first-time buyers who are keen to take advantage of comparatively low house prices. Avoiding higher interest rates is far more use to them than any of the expensive,

  993
  ineffectual schemes that are being pressed upon the Treasury. Ill-timed and unjustified tax reductions will do them no service.
  The Chancellor is an entertaining and interesting man, but I hope, that when he presents his Budget in November, he will have the courage to be boring. I also hope that his colleagues in government have the nerve and wisdom to support him in that. If he presents a Budget that is consistent with what he said last year and the year before and that is quite clearly not constructed with the next general election in mind, he will do much to sustain the healthy, export-led, low-inflation growth of the economy that we have managed to secure since we were liberated from the ERM. He will also have begun to restore in the public mind the Government's tattered reputation for good economic management, which they will need to recover if they are to win their next election.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The last time that the Chancellor debated economic matters before the House was 13 December 1994. It is quite disgraceful that we have just two economic debates a year. [Interruption.] It is no use the Chancellor protesting that it is up to the Opposition. We used to have debates on the Budget and the Queen's Speech, the expenditure debate, the Finance Bill debate and the regulator, as well as the summer forecast. All those debates were in Government time, and it is a scandal that we no longer have them.
  Not only can we not question the Chancellor and find out his thinking, but we do not have the benefit of understanding what hon. Members have in mind and their views on economic matters. Many newer Members of Parliament have never made a proper economic speech. It is a major scandal, and it has to be put right by next year.
  I start with our obsession with the one-club approach. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) is not here. He used to advocate the need for having rather more weapons at our disposal than the one club that is now a standard feature of economic policy. In the 1960s, we had the one club of the exchange rate. In the 1970s, we had the one club of sterling M3. Now we have the one club of interest rates. It is peculiar that so many of the cleverest people in the Government and the City have tunnel vision, and seem able to concentrate only on one variable at any one time.
  In practice, the Chancellor has to balance many claims. Growth, unemployment, the balance of payments, inflation and investment are all important factors. The Bank of England can afford the simplicity of concentrating on one variable, whereas politicians cannot. If the Governor of the Bank of England is proved wrong, he can always say that the position is not yet known. He can say that the jury is out, and that next month will prove him right, or that we will have to wait a few months or even until next year. The jury can stay out until the patient dies, but any Chancellor of the Exchequer has to make a proper decision.
  The prime consideration of economic policy cannot be just inflation, inflation, inflation; the prime consideration of any Chancellor of the Exchequer must be growth and the long-term improvement in living standards. Everything else involves the means of bringing that about.
  994
  Any Chancellor is right in asserting his vision of the requirements of economic policy. In any standoff with the Bank of England, he needs to assert the concern for the accountability of Government, in which we all have an interest.
  It is a pity that the Chancellor's meetings with the Bank of England are not copied in meetings with industry. Why does he give such priority to the Bank of England and the view of bankers, without being able to compensate for that view with those of the people who are actually producing the goods and the real wealth of our economy?
  Our prime economic task is to rebuild our industrial capital and our manufacturing industry, so much of which was shamefully destroyed in the first dogma-driven years of the Thatcher Administration. The most important means to long-term growth are investment in manufacturing, education and training, which has been put out repeatedly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
  There are differing time lags involved. Investment in plant and machinery is necessary to improve the efficiency and capacity of our industry. That can be encouraged within the lifetime of a Parliament. Training can be achieved on a similar time scale if the will is there. Education, however, is for the longer term.
  The need for training and vocational education has been urgent for a long time. We have been down that road repeatedly from the last century, when the skills gap was discerned, to the third tier of the Education Act 1944 and the technical schools that were devised by Rab Butler, to more recent developments. Our weakness is well documented. The education establishment does not like it, and by a long process of inactivity it has repeatedly hijacked proposals to produce technical and engineering skills that other countries regard as normal. So long as we were wealthy, we were able to tolerate that bias against industry. We cannot under-estimate it now.
  I note the merger of the Department for Education and the Department of Employment. I very much regret the Government's declining interest in unemployment. We have to do something about that. Meanwhile, in other areas, there is now an opportunity to bring about a coalescence of education and training, where 150 years of effort have produced one of the greatest failures of Government over that long period.
  There needs to be a seamless transition from academic to vocational education to training. Vocational training does not mean the nonsense thought up by those who are trying to recreate in technical education the academic theories, which have only a limited role to play.
  I am surprised at the decision to have two permanent secretaries as the joint heads of the new Department. Sir Tim Lankester at the Department for Education and Michael Bichard at the Department of Employment are two civil servants who have much impressed the Public Accounts Committee, but we need to take seriously the concern of Sir Geoffrey Holland, a recently retired, most distinguished, public servant who calls for the new Department to be properly integrated.
  That is a task that must be undertaken. A Department with two heads will not produce the integration between education and training for which we have waited too long. Having taken the decision, it is essential to get it right.

  995
  The involvement of Government in industry has similarly been disappointing. From the Department of Economic Affairs under George Brown to the efforts of Denis Healey, we have been faced with failure after failure. Faced with those failures to understand industry rather than the City, Denis Healey appointed within the Treasury Alan Lord, a very able second permanent secretary. He had it in mind to give greater prominence to industrial matters.
  Alan Lord left the Treasury somewhat saddened. The ethos of the Treasury was against such involvement. The control of public expenditure is the one area of expertise where the Treasury is, understandably, dominant. Other considerations fall well behind that.
  We must have a stronger involvement with industry. The City of London is valuable, but it does not properly represent industry, on which we all ultimately depend. The high profile that is given to discussion with the Governor is not mirrored by discussions with industry, which should have even greater prominence. We cannot solve these matters just by dealing with the Governor on a monthly basis. There are much wider issues than that.
  We need to recall what the Labour Government did about investment incentives. I had been a strong supporter of investment grants for plant and machinery, which were introduced later in 1966. I believe that they were a major encouragement to investment. The time may have passed when such measures could be reintroduced, but I am a firm believer in a high level of investment allowances.
  At 25 per cent., investment allowances are, in many cases, a disincentive. Plant and machinery is rarely worth 75 per cent. at the end of the first year. As far as the loss to the Revenue is concerned, it is a question only of delayed payment of corporation tax. If we are serious about investment, about replacing the capital stock in our industry, about capacity constraints, clearly some sensible investment incentives need to be introduced.
  I look forward to resource accounting, which I strongly support. The PAC has examined progress, and work is proceeding on the expectation that, at the end of the century, it will be in place. Our declining infrastructure is concealed by the failure to take note of the capital depreciation in our national accounts.
  It is possible to ignore the deterioration of our roads, our housing stock and part of the railway network by ignoring the depreciation of these fundamental parts of the economy. For the past 50 years and more, we have been living off so much of our capital. These decisions should have been recorded and quantified, and open to everybody to criticise.
  On economic and monetary union, I note the vital precondition of convergence of real economic performance of the entire European Community. My own view is that a satisfactory convergence between such disparate countries is unlikely to happen. Countries do have differing customs and different traditions. Attitudes do vary.
  I have known politicians who have pointed to the way in which those attitudes should be changed. If someone asked me how I can change attitudes, I would hold up my hands. If one said that billions of pounds are required, then there are certain conditions that might be acceptable. Changing attitudes will be more difficult.
  996
  If the Chancellor of the Exchequer really wants to make an impact on the future of our economy, he must turn to investment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
  6.15 pm
  Sir Peter Hordern: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who, if I may say so, made a much better speech than his colleague on the Front Bench.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) referred to the underlying weakness of the economy, but there was a certain underlying weakness in his speech, too—notably his absolute failure to pronounce on anything to do with the economy and what he would do about it in respect of interest rates, spending or anything else.
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman was not listening.
  Sir Peter Hordern: I did listen, and I was greatly entertained by the amusing parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Now perhaps the hon. Lady might listen.
  I wish to say a word or two about investment, since it plays such a large part in the Opposition's terminology. What the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said about the importance of training and education is, of course, absolutely right, but, in parentheses, it is astonishing that, in the United States, where there is no federal system of training, more money is spent on training by individual companies than any of the Organisation for Economic Development countries, so far as I am aware, and without any form of Government investment or attraction.
  There is one important question to which the Opposition will have to address themselves, and I believe that it underlines the weakness of successive Labour administrations over many years: the double meaning that is given to the word "investment". There is, of course, investment in the sense of a rapid return, but there is also long-term investment, to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring, in education and training. The difficulty lies in the fact that that investment must be paid for.
  The Opposition believe in public investment. They are talking here not about private sector investment, but about education and training and public sector involvement in it. The difficulty they have to face—just as they always have to—is that the money has to be raised, either through taxation, and they are reluctant to say how that money should be raised, or through borrowing. The further difficulty they have is that they are notorious borrowers.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor referred to the previous Labour Government's record on borrowing. I think that I am right in saying that, in 1976, the share of gross domestic product occupied by the public sector borrowing requirement was 9.5 per cent. It has never been higher under a Conservative Government than it was three years ago, when it was 7 per cent., and that, I have to say, was far too high. It was, however, the 9.5 per cent. that brought in the International Monetary Fund.
  Whatever the Opposition say about the merits of training and education, they have to say how it will be paid for. It is no use thinking that the markets, people in

  997
  this country or electors will be satisfied with the general appreciation of the word "investment". They will want to know, rightly, how it will be paid for.
  We shall go on asking how that money is to be raised. I believe that the Opposition have a duty to say how it will be raised. It is no use their talking about the merits of investment, as though there has been no public investment in training in this country: the record on higher education is excellent, with more young people going into it. They must now come clean on how they propose to pay for the investment, which no doubt is worthy.
  There is one thing of which I am quite certain: the position today is very different, so far as the capital markets are concerned, than it was when the Labour party was last in office. Everybody in the House knows the speed at which money goes across the exchanges. There is no question about it: if the Labour party was ever in government and pursued a large investment programme without spelling out how it was going to be paid for, there would be a run on the pound, as has always happened.
  Mr. Benn indicated assent.
  Sir Peter Hordern: The right hon. Gentleman nods in agreement. There would be a run on the pound, and it would have to be met by higher interest rates. That is the problem that the Opposition face.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me, because I want to complete my brief speech.
  All I would say is that there is another aspect to investment, and that is the aspect that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and the Government are pursuing—attracting foreign investment into this country. They are able to do so because we have low tax rates. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to investment incentives, but I recollect a corporation tax of 52 per cent. under a Labour Government. It is very much lower now. That is what brings in investment: not only particular incentives but the fact that we are a low-tax country, with no difficulties about labour costs.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, in perhaps an unguarded moment, said of training that he would make companies pay by means of a statutory training scheme. If one adds to that the cost of the social contract, the training levy and the minimum wage, will Britain be such an attractive country to invest in for overseas countries? I have to say that I do not think that it will be.
  That again will reverse an important factor in the success of the economy to which my right hon. and learned Friend rightly alluded—the attraction of substantial funds from abroad. We shall obtain improvements by attracting investment and the further progress of the technological revolution which has occurred in the United States and many other countries, not least Britain.
  The Opposition talk about large public sector investment. One has only to consider the motor industry and its export record now to see what a transformation has come about because of the attraction of investment into Britain. That is the right way to go about the matter. Any suggestion that there will be massive public sector
  998
  spending for any reason, no matter how worthy, will cause great difficulties in the capital markets. If the Opposition were ever to win an election and come into government, they would shortly find that difficulty spelled out for them.
  I simply add that it is essential to have a low public sector borrowing requirement. That is what dictates low interest rates. It is interesting how some people say that the great thing is to have the sovereign right to manage one's own currency. Yes, I regard it as a sovereign right to devalue. They say that that is what helps manufacturing industry. If that were so, we would be the richest country in the world, because we have tried if often enough.
  Look at the Germans. When I first entered the House, there were DM12 to the pound. Now there are two point something or other. What is the basis of German wealth if it is not manufacturing industry? Why have the engineering companies not suffered from the depreciating deutschmark? They have managed because of the quality of their investment, and that quality is there because of low long-term interest rates. They can borrow easily for 10 or 20 years ahead. Contrast that with Britain's oscillating interest rates and the difficulty of ever making any long-term investment.
  I remain an optimist. I am sure that, if my right hon. and learned Friend pursues his policies, we shall have the benefit of extra capital investment in Britain and the fruits of that investment which we so thoroughly deserve.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am a little disappointed that the Liberal Democrats, who are allowed only one contribution to this major debate on the economy, should be confined to just 10 minutes, especially as, unlike Her Majesty's official Opposition, we have a distinctive economic policy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Liberal Democrats are not limited to 10 minutes.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had not been advised of that fact. I should have appreciated it if I had been so advised. Nevertheless, I shall not detain the House unduly.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has an opportunity to decide whether he will be a consistent, coherent, disciplined Chancellor who sets out a policy and follows it through, or whether, as seems to be becoming apparent, he has to trim it according to the pressures of political expediency and the requirements of his party to have something to offer the electorate in times of desperation. That is how he will be judged, not just by his colleagues but by outside commentators over time.
  The salient point of this year's summer forecast is that every economic indicator projected from last November has turned out to be less favourable. Inflation and public borrowing have been revised up, growth has been revised down and the investment growth estimate has had to be more than halved. In just six months, the Government's forecasts have moved in the wrong direction.
  I share with the Chancellor a genuine welcome for the better economic news that we have had in the past 18 months. I agree that low inflation is necessary and needs to be sustained in the long term if it is to create the long-term investment climate that Britain needs. The

  999
  upturn or recovery in the economy is welcome, as is the rise in exports and the decline in unemployment, despite the fact that it is from a high base and that there is a question mark about the quality of the jobs being created compared with those that have been lost.
  Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman has just said that he welcomes the Government's determined approach to controlling inflation and keeping it low. If that is so, how does he defend the important phrase in the Liberal Democrat amendment, which has not been selected? That amendment
  "deplores the recent moves by the Government to relax its fiscal and monetary disciplines".
  That can only be taken as a plea for a tightening of policy.
  Mr. Bruce: As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman is correct. We have criticised the Chancellor, as he is aware, for having two inflation targets rather than one inflation band and for creating confusion by insisting on the one hand that his policy is to keep inflation below 2.5 per cent. while on the other hand implying that it might rise above 4 per cent. The Liberal Democrats' policy is to have one inflation target of between 0 and 3 per cent., agreeing with the Chancellor that variation must be accommodated, but suggesting a simple and clear target without the element of confusion which creeps in when there are two targets.
  There is common ground here. There is recognition of the need to be disciplined and to stick to the broad policy. My question, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, is whether the Chancellor will have the courage of his convictions as political expediency beckons.
  It is also interesting—the circumstances of the Chancellor's elevation to his present post will not be lost on him—that the success over which he has presided has been a direct result of the failure of the Government's previous policies. The boost to our exports, to which reference has just been made, has come as a result of the devaluation of sterling following our ejection from the exchange rate mechanism. There has also been a suppression of domestic demand and a need for record tax rises. That has kept growth under control and helped to keep the Chancellor's inflationary objectives under control.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: The hon. Gentleman spoke of tax rises—I do not find any answer to this point in the Liberal Democrats' amendment—but does he stand by the remarks that he made only on 3 July in a speech, I believe, to Liberal Democrats in the City, when he spoke approvingly of a 50 per cent. higher income tax rate?
  Mr. Bruce: As is our party's policy, I made it clear in that speech that, in the interests of fairness and justice, we believe that people earning more than £100,000 a year should pay a 50 per cent. tax rate. I also said that the yield on that money should be used immediately to take 500,000 people at the opposite end of the scale out of the tax bracket. I know that Conservative central office will conveniently edit that reply to include the first half but not the second half, because, objectively, fairness, justice and balance are not a distinguishing feature of the scriptwriters at Conservative central office. However, the answer is on the record.
  We cannot claim that what has happened in the past few years, or the recovery that we are seeing, is the economic miracle that some members of the Government
  1000
  seem to wish to adduce from it. Last year's improvement in the balance of trade was based mostly on a one-off surge in oil exports and net property income from abroad. Manufacturing investment is up—a little—but it has only just passed the peak of five years ago, and the figure is not much higher than it was 21 years ago when Denis Healey was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Manufacturing investment as a percentage of gross domestic product is currently at an all-time low.
  There is no room for talk of an economic miracle. There is a basis for improvement on which success can be built, if the current position can be sustained, but we have not reached that stage yet. Even after an active life in politics, I am still astonished that we can now find politically acceptable unemployment levels twice as high as the rates that would have brought down Governments 15 or 20 years ago.
  We are currently enjoying a temporarily benign set of economic circumstances, brought about by the failure of the Government's own policies. The Chancellor has recognised that fact and has told the Treasury Select Committee and others that according to his advisers the sustainable growth rate of the British economy is only about 2 to 2.5 per cent. After 16 years of economic experimentation, 16 years of putting British industry through the mangle, the Conservative Government cannot hold out the hope of sustainable growth at a rate of more than 2.5 per cent.—exactly the rate which obtained before they came to power.
  Those of us who have dealt with other economies know that in some of the developing economies—which are no longer backward or primitive, but quite mature—there is talk of a recession when the growth rate falls to 8 or 10 per cent. Slow recovery from a long recession is not an economic miracle. To deliver long-term success, we need sustained investment—and the only way to deliver that is to ensure that we invest in education and yield the goods to ensure that we can maintain the health and public services that people want. Any economic commentator would say that that was necessary, but no British Government—Labour or Conservative—have managed to achieve it.
  One aspect of the Chancellor's policy is right. My disagreement with him lies in the fact that he seems to think that only a low inflation rate is required to deliver economic success. He is entirely right to accept that long-term, sustainable low inflation is a precondition of success, but he is wrong to assume that it is the only precondition. The problem is this: is the Chancellor sticking to that objective, which is the only basis for his entire policy? Will he be prudent and resist unjustifiable tax cuts? Then will he listen to the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England, who clearly feels that interest rates need to rise now if the Chancellor's inflation target is to be met?
  The Chancellor is currently relying on the short-term view that the markets appear to have taken it calmly, but he knows that today's decisions will affect the inflation rate in 18 months' or two years' time. Short-term factors are irrelevant.
  The Chancellor has changed his inflation target. At any rate, whatever his arguments to the contrary, most commentators believe that he has relaxed that target. He is becoming a little more difficult to pin down on his

  1001
  borrowing targets than he was even a year ago. I will remind him of one or two of his statements. In his 1994 Budget, he said:
  "My objective remains the same: to balance the Budget over the medium term. We remain on course to eliminate Government borrowing entirely by the end of the decade."—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1082.]
  At the same time, he stated in the Red Book:
  "The objective is to bring the PSBR back to balance over the medium term."
  What does the Chancellor say now? I could not find it in the main report, but in the Treasury summary the following words are now used:
  "the objective is to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term."
  "To" and "towards" are rather different words, as the Chancellor well understands and, no doubt, as the Treasury draftsmen understand. That is a clear indication of a much less rigorous and disciplined approach to borrowing control than the Chancellor's public utterances would suggest.
  The PSBR, however, is a fairly crude measure. The general Government financial deficit is, for instance, the measure for convergence for the purposes of economic and monetary union—the benchmark for the 3 per cent. ceiling—because it excludes privatisation receipts. What is the Government's estimate of that? It is fully £21.4 billion for 1996–97, and that is just the Government's current forecast—they have already had to revise their forecasts in the wrong direction over the past six months.
  That estimate has been made at what many regard as the peak of the economic cycle, when the Government's estimate of their net investment is £11.3 billion. That means—according to the logic that the Chancellor has expounded during his term of office, and against a discipline that is gaining wider acceptance across the parties—that the Government will be at least £10 billion away from being able to make any responsible tax cuts while maintaining their stance of fiscal prudence and responsibility.
  The test is whether the Chancellor has the nerve to do the job of economic policy management, or whether he will succumb to the pressures of political expediency. So far, the Chancellor has ignored the Bank of England's advice that interest rates need to rise. At the Mansion house, he moved the goal posts on inflation; he has left the position more unclear and uncertain than it was before. I speak as one who has admired the stance taken by the Chancellor when his own party has tried to push him off course, as it so often has. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, we suggested a range of 0 per cent. to 3 per cent. No doubt the Labour party will take a view at some point, but thus far it seems reluctant to express one.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. Would he care to state, on behalf of his party, whether he thinks that we should raise interest rates now, or whether we should have done so a month ago?
  Mr. Bruce: I think that the Chancellor will understand my reply. We believe that the Government should set the targets, but that the Bank of England—or the central bank—should implement them. The answer is simple: if the Government believe, or the Bank of England believes,
  1002
  that the inflation target that the Government say should be adhered to requires an increase in interest rates, the Bank should make the decision. We in the House do not know who is right, and we shall not know for 18 months. I do not think that the Chancellor should be smug in the short term. Our position is clear: the Bank should have been allowed to make the decisions that it considered necessary to implement policies set out by Government.
  Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it must always be the Chancellor's duty to decide how quickly the inflation target should be met? He must take into account wider social and economic considerations than the Bank can ever take into account.
  Mr. Bruce: That is an argument in favour of political intervention, but too often Chancellors cannot be relied on to take such objective measures, and their decisions have been made for short-term political reasons which cut across the economic requirements of the time. I believe that the fact that the German economy has built itself on the basis of an operationally independent central bank is one reason for the success of Germany's economic policy.
  It must be understood that we are not talking about the Bank of England setting policies. The Government set policies and the Bank implements them. The decisions, however, are removed from the political arena. It has been argued that such action would lead to a lower overall level of interest rates, because it would remove the factor of political uncertainty, leading to a cut of between 1, and 2 per cent. on the prevailing rate of interest.
  An item that I have raised in the past week has not been addressed by the Government, or even picked up by the commentators: the moves, following the merger of a number of building societies, to offer substantial bonuses to their members, which will feed into the economy over the next 12 to 18 months. According to the press reports that I have read, they could amount to between £5 billion and £8 billion. The Chancellor—and, indeed, the financial authorities—must keep a close eye on that.
  It seems extraordinary that we can debate whether tax cuts of £5 billion are justified in terms of keeping economic policy on course, when building societies over which the Government have no control can suddenly inject between £5 billion and £8 billion into the economy, completely altering the Government's inflation forecast. I do not know what the answer is, but the Government should give some indication of how they intend to respond to that issue.
  We need a responsible fiscal policy, not just short-term tax cuts, which, as people know from bitter experience after the last election, would have to be reversed immediately after an election. We need a sensible target for inflation and a reformed central bank given operational independence to enable it to pursue those targets free from short-term political interference.
  We need a European policy crafted in the country's and not the Tory party's interests, and we need a macro-economy which recognises the importance of investment to create a climate which can sustain public services, at a reasonable taxation level and at a reasonable share of gross domestic product.
  The Liberal Democrats have made it clear that education is the single most important investment that this country needs for the long-term success of our economy. Unlike other parties, we have said not only that we will

  1003
  spend more on education, but where we will get the money from. The Labour party has tabled an amendment which continues to say nothing about how it intends to deliver anything. It contains blandishments, statements of good intent and a rosy glow of change, but no substance.
  It is necessary to have credibility in economic debate, to be prepared to put some facts on one's proposals, to put some costings to one's commitments and to give some indication as to how one would create the mechanism which would deliver the results that one regards as desirable. The Liberal Democrats have done and are doing that. We shall continue to challenge both the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he has the resolve to stick to his commitments, and the Labour party to demonstrate whether it can put forward a coherent programme that will not finish up putting it in exactly the same position as the Government, who are split from top to bottom.
  6.41 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: I will say this for the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce): unlike the official Opposition, he has just a smidgen of policy but, alas, I fear that it will be purely hypothetical and academic in the extreme.
  The prime economic task of any Government must be to control inflation without wrecking the industrial base. We have heard a great deal about investment, especially from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The trouble is that the international market believes that in this country, under our political system and in the way in which we conduct ourselves, the will to control inflation is weak. That is why there is what is called short-termism compared with Germany and Japan.
  Investors, usually international ones, suspect that political parties, and particularly Labour, will take a short-term political view, so those investors take a short-term financial view: it is as simple as that. The trouble is that with Labour in power the result would be not short-termism but minuscule-termism. It is to the Government's credit that they have maintained low inflation better than their predecessors.
  An encouraging and seldom noticed trend among banks is the tendency to move to fixed-term lending rather than the overdraft system. In that sense, an encouraging sign exists that we are moving more towards the European or German system. That will give us more long-term investment, which industry requires.
  The battle against inflation, however, is a continuing one. It is affected by matters entirely outside local control, such as commodity prices. Handling inflation in a modern economy is like sailing a giant tanker: it goes on for about five miles after being put into reverse, by which time the other hazards of recession have swamped the decks. Cool pragmatic judgment rather than obsessional dogma is therefore needed.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is right to resist perhaps the more orthodox Bank of England view on interest rates. I hope that he will continue to take that pragmatic view as what industry and the economy want more than anything else is some degree of stability. I am glad that he has given stability on the interest rate front so that people can plan for the future.
  The other thing that we need is export-led growth. As I have said before, after the 1967 devaluation by the Labour party, on becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord
  1004
  Jenkins of Hillhead—now a member of the party of the hon. Member for Gordon—said, "We must have export-led growth. That is the solution." Unfortunately, he never achieved it, but he was right and my right hon. and learned Friend the present Chancellor has achieved it.
  When considering future interest rate policy, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind two vital sectors: the housing market and construction industry, and the small firms sector. In the 1980s, reliance exclusively on interest rates to curb inflation was catastrophic for both home owners and small firms. I agree with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, about that. That reliance was the cause of the anxiety, the lack of confidence and the absence of the feel-good factor that everyone is seeking.
  Added to that, there was the fear of unemployment and the uncertainty about future employment, which happily is now easing. When considering his Budget, however, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will have special regard for that especially unfortunate and burdened sector. In addition, I hope that the wise proposals in the Latham report on the construction industry will be attractive to the Government.
  The future does not lie with vast companies or supermarket fat cats. A healthy and flourishing small firms sector is the vital undergrowth for survival in the economic jungle. Bit by bit, much has been done to help small firms, but there is an awful lot more to be done.
  I want lower taxation. Decades ago, I advocated a shift from direct to indirect taxation because one is a tax on work and the other is a tax on spending. I am glad that that trend has taken place, but taxes can be reduced only if public expenditure is curbed. The only way in which public expenditure can be substantially curbed is by reducing unemployment. I am delighted at the way in which that is going. Otherwise, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, the solution is a hike in interest rates, which is the last thing that industry, and especially small industry, wants.
  We are a parliamentary democracy and we and the public are entitled to know what is the policy of Her Majesty's official loyal Opposition. We shall ask them that again and again and again. What is their policy? As the hon. Member for Gordon said, their amendment is clearly a mass of platitudes. Would they increase or reduce taxation and, if so, by how much and which taxes? Would they increase public expenditure, as their spokesmen nearly always imply, or reduce it? Would they raise or lower interest rates? Or do they really believe, as I do, that the Chancellor has got it about right?
  I used to be fond of the previous Leader of the Opposition. I thought that anyone who was keen on rugger could not be all that bad, but I am not sure about the present one. At least one knows where the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) stands, even if one disagrees with him. We are not allowed to refer to an amendment which has not been selected, and its non-selection must be a great relief to the official Opposition as it contains two fairly dirty and obscene words which may send a shudder down their spine. It refers to "socialist policies". The terror that that must have struck in the Opposition's hearts is awful to consider.

  1005
  I will say this about the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition: he has a nice smile—but I question what lies behind it and what policies, if any, lie behind it. He reminds me very much of the Cheshire cat in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". Poor little Alice was rather like the electorate. Lewis Carroll wrote:
  "she was a little startled by seeing the Cheshire Cat sitting on a bough of a tree.
  The Cat only grinned when it saw Alice. It looked good-natured, she thought: still it had very long claws and a great many teeth,"—
  that is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and his friends—
  "so she felt that it ought to be treated with respect.
  'Cheshire Puss,' she began … 'Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'
  'That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat.
  'I don't much care where—' said Alice.
  'Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat.
  '—so long as I get somewhere,' Alice added.
  'Oh, you're sure to do that,' said the Cat, 'if you only walk long enough.'
  Alice said 'I wish you wouldn't keep appearing and vanishing so suddenly: you make one quite giddy.'
  'All right,' said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone.
  'Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin,' thought Alice; 'but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!"'
  In 30 years in Parliament, I have sometimes seen a policy without a grin, but a grin without a policy is the most curious thing that I have ever seen. To end with the immortal words of Private Eye, which I hope will get a response from the Opposition, "I think we should be told."
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I and some of my hon. Friends have tabled an amendment which, in a way, acquits the Chancellor of the main responsibility for what has happened because it says that the problems confronting this country are inherent in a system that puts profit above people. If I distributed the Chancellor's speech to my constituents, they would not believe that he lives in the same world as they do.
  There is mass unemployment in Chesterfield because the pits were deliberately closed. Unemployed people come to my surgery and say, "What about a job?" Other hon. Members must have the same experience every week. People say, "My daughter is getting married. What about a house?" Another constituent will say, "My son wants to go to college. What about a grant?" I am told, "My auntie cannot get a hip operation. Granddad cannot live on the pension."
  Anyone who thinks that the Chancellor's speech, in which he scored debating points about quotations—an absolute waste of time—will carry any weight, is making a grave mistake. Conservatives boast that the number of days lost in industrial disputes has dropped, but 2.5 million days are lost, every day because of unemployment. Unemployment is the policy. It lowers wages, undermines the unions and boosts profits. Homelessness does the
  1006
  same. Someone who sees a person in a cardboard box on the embankment will say to himself, "If I had a row with my employer and cannot keep my job and am dispossessed of my house, I will be in a cardboard box on the embankment." The Government have not an economic policy but a political strategy to put a handful of rich people at the top and the rest in fear.
  Has anyone ever asked how many home owners have mortgages? There are a great many home buyers, but not a great number of home owners who have paid off their mortgages. Another term in use nowadays is "customers" and those who have no money are not "customers". They have found a word that dehumanises and depersonalises the poor so that they do not have to think about them. People in cardboard boxes are not on the electoral register. How can anyone say, "Put me down on the register as being in the cardboard box behind Marks and Spencer"? Those people do not vote, and that is part of the political strategy.
  The Government should not think that anxiety has not spread up to the middle classes because many professional people are on short-term contracts and many people are on low pay. If the Chancellor ever has a discussion about why there has been a shift in political opinion in this country, he will find that it is because the anxiety of the capitalist society has spread to layers of people who thought themselves exempt. Of course the policy is based on fear.
  We hear much about how marvellous is the German economy, but there are 20 million unemployed in the European Union. Does not anybody relate that to what happened before the war? I am old enough to remember Hitler coming to power. I bought "Mein Kampf" when I was 12 years old and I still have my copy. The 6 million unemployed in Germany produced Hitler, and when there is unemployment, people turn on each other. Sir Paul Condon, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, has issued one of the most disgraceful statements that has ever been made. He is building up the feeling that, if there is a crime problem, it is due to blacks. When people are unemployed, they turn on others.
  The breakdown of the social fabric is much more important than the feel-good factor. I do not know who feels good or why, but if we break down the social fabric and turn people one against the other, we will pay a much higher political price than we would in dealing with the problem that is before the House or the aspirations in my amendment. The second world war was the cost of monetary policies, which are the same as those that are now being pursued. It cost us 50 million lives and God knows how many billions of dollars.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) says that, if Labour gets in, there will be a run on the pound. What he told us is what the left has been saying for years—that this House does not decide anything. Decisions are made by international gamblers. Every night, I listen to the world economic news on the BBC and there is mention of the Dow Jones industrial average. I have never met Mr. Dow Jones, but by God I have to give him credit for keeping at it. Night after night, when we are all in bed, he is working on his bloody averages, and they decide what happens.
  Sometimes, we are told that sterling has dropped three points of decimals against a basket of European currencies. I have never had such a basket of currencies, but I would not mind taking one on holiday. As a result,

  1007
  the Health Secretary closes three hospitals and the pound rises again because all policies are now determined by international capital demands. That is why my amendment is a little more fundamental. I should like to make fun of the Chancellor's earlier speeches but that would be difficult because I confess that I have not read them. Let us try to face the reality, which is that Parliaments and Governments do not control anything any more.
  There was an article in the Financial Times recently by the BBC's economic correspondent in the World Service saying:
  "In Africa it would be better if the countries were run as commercial enterprises rather than Governments."
  Later, in order to answer a question that might be asked, he said:
  "What room does that leave for democracy? That question can be asked everywhere in a world where bond markets dominate much of the decision-making process in the world. Democracy is in a sense on the way out."
  Without trying to provoke individual responses, I am trying to say that we must face the fact that the globalisation of world markets has destroyed the value of the ballot box as a link to political and economic power. That will happen to an incoming Labour Government, although I will not go into that. Everybody knows that that will happen. It happened to Healey in 1976. He has now decently written a book saying that he made a mistake about the IMF, but that does not matter.
  Wherever we look, the triumph of capitalism is being celebrated, but if it is so triumphant, perhaps we should look at some of the figures. One fifth of the world's population of 5.6 billion live in extreme poverty. The richest fifth in the world have incomes that are 30 times higher than those of the poorest people. Poverty-related diseases claim the lives of 35,000 children every day, and 500,000 women die each year from causes related to pregnancy and inadequate health care. Some 1.3 billion people have no clean water. That is the result of the capitalism that has triumphed. Communism has gone and the capitalist world is not stable: it is inherently unstable.
  It is democracy that is being attacked, not socialist ideology. They do not want the common people without the cash to use the vote to buy collectively what they cannot afford individually. The huge achievement of the chartists and the suffragettes was to get some grip on economic policy through the ballot box.
  I am not the first person to quote Harold Macmillan. I did so when I intervened on the Chancellor and perhaps I may read the quote to him again. In his book, "The Middle Way", published in 1938, Harold Macmillan said:
  "We have lived so long at the mercy of uncontrolled economic forces we have become sceptical regarding any plan for human emancipation. Such a rational and deliberate reorganisation of our economic life would enable us out of the increased wealth production to establish an irreducible minimum which might progressively be raised to one of comfort and security."
  The Labour manifesto of 1945 did not attack the Conservative party because in those days we did not have abuse, we had argument. That manifesto stated:
  "The great inter-war slumps were not acts of God or blind forces: they were the sure and certain result of the concentration of too much economic power in the hands of too few men."
  1008
  Gaitskell, one of our more moderate members, when he spoke in the House on 5 December 1945 after Churchill had moved the first motion of censure on the Labour Government, said:
  "We believe … that the present capitalist system is inefficient, that it produces insecurity and that it is unjust. Can anyone deny those things?"— [Official Report, 5 December 1945; Vol. 416, c. 2364.]
  Therefore, no one should think that my amendment, which, alas, has not been called but which may be studied, contains new ideas. They are rooted in human aspiration and no one can tell me that they cannot be implemented. If there can be full employment in wartime, it can be had in peacetime. If every youngster of 17 could be put in uniform to kill Germans, surely young people could be recruited to build homes or to become nurses or teachers or to clean up the environment or look after old people. Of course that could be done, but it is not profitable, and that is why it is not done.
  Until this society—in that I include my Front-Bench colleagues—addresses the question of whether to put profitability above people or people above profitability, these problems will not be resolved. Do not think that the Chancellor, with his triumphalism, is convincing anyone. More and more people are learning what is happening. If they cannot express themselves through the ballot box, do not be surprised if we have the riots. That is not the right way to do it, but a disfranchised nation will not accept the injustice forced on it by a policy of the kind that we have had.
  6.59 pm
  Sir Thomas Arnold: The current monetary framework has been in place for three years. The inflation rate during that time bears healthy testimony to the wisdom of the policy that the Government have chosen to follow. I support what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said in announcing the new inflation target one month ago. He said in answer to a written question:
  "Beyond this Parliament I propose that our aim will be to continue to achieve underlying inflation—measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments—of 2½ per cent. or less. Monetary policy will be set consistently to achieve this target. This should ensure that inflation will remain in the range 1 to 4 per cent."— [Official Report, 14 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 517.]
  That statement showed confidence in the future and confidence in the present policy.
  It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the goalposts have been moved or that policy has become more discretionary or relaxed. On the contrary, the Government have repeated what policy has been for some time now. That has done wonders for confidence. It shows exactly what the Government intend to do in respect of monetary policy.
  The monetary framework that the Government put in place three years ago consists of three components: the inflation target, to which I have referred, the inflation report published by the Bank of England and the published minutes of the monthly monetary meeting. I should like to deal with the two latter items in turn.
  The great advantage of the inflation report is the transparency that it confers on the decision making within the Bank of England. It shows carefully and clearly the intellectual influences at work. It makes absolutely no attempt to hide any of the forces which are taken into

  1009
  consideration. I was particularly impressed in that regard by the evidence given to the Treasury Select Committee recently by Mr. Mervyn King, the chief economist at the Bank of England. He described in some detail what was taking place in the labour market. The facts and figures are there for all to see in the inflation report.
  Mr. King referred to what he called the tale of two cities. Most of us can see what he meant when we consider what is taking place in our constituencies. The sectors directed towards the export or net trade sector are growing rapidly. In those sectors, one can see evidence of capacity constraints. The sectors directed primarily towards domestic retail spending are weak. In housing and construction they are extremely weak. There is no sign of any capacity constraints.
  So we are seeing a recovery the pattern of which is very different from anything that we have seen for a long time. Net trade, although volatile, is the main driving force behind the recover. My view is that there is still plenty of capacity in the economy and that we should take account of that fact in deciding whether to raise interest rates. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has been right to take a robust stand on interest rates and to make a fine judgment which so far has won the backing of the markets. That brings me to the published minutes of the monthly monetary meeting.
  The meeting represents a considerable step forward, once again, in the transparency with which economic policy is now made. I hope that the Labour party sees fit to applaud the publication of the minutes, which means that, for the first time ever, it is perfectly obvious to everyone what specific arguments are put forward by the Governor of the Bank of England and by the Chancellor. There can be no doubt whatever how the decision not to raise interest rates at the celebrated meeting on 5 May was reached.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made it perfectly clear that there were conflicting pressures which had to be accommodated and conflicting arguments that had to be addressed. There were clearly cost pressures arising from increased commodity prices and a weakening exchange rate. On the other side, there was clear evidence that demand pressures within the economy as a whole were not so great as to warrant an increase in interest rates. My right hon. and learned Friend took the decision not to increase interest rates. I applaud him for that decision. I applaud the transparent way in which he showed to the world his internal thought processes, how he reached his decision and why on that occasion he did not accept the advice given to him by the Bank of England.
  The transparency of policy within the new monetary framework is serving both the Government and the country well. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will persist in his policy and keep his nerve.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Terry Davis: There is no question but that the most important problem that Britain faces today is unemployment. It is important not only because of the direct effect on families whose members are unemployed, with the effects of poverty and everything else that goes with unemployment, but because
  1010
  it represents a waste of resources. Even within the Government's narrow vision, unemployment should be seen as important, because it represents a cost to the Treasury.
  My greatest condemnation of the speeches of Government Members this afternoon is that they paid so little attention to the importance of unemployment. All my right hon. and hon. Friends have drawn attention to unemployment and rightly argued that the immediate and urgent priority is to increase investment and training. Of course, the two go hand in hand. They are essential.
  To be fair to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), he referred to training. He drew attention to the fact that, in the United States of America, more was spent on training than in Britain. He said that the money was spent not by the federal Government but by private companies. He could have added that more is spent on training in many other European countries than in Britain. I suspect that much of that money is spent by private companies. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not face the logic of his statement. The fact is that, in Britain, private companies are not spending money on the essential training that we need, so it is a job that the Government must undertake.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham asked how training would be paid for. The answer is that we certainly cannot pay for it if we take the earliest possible opportunity to reduce taxes. We could provide for investment, through either investment allowances, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) suggested, or some system of investment grants, which I personally prefer—we can discuss the details, but the important thing is to boost investment. We could provide training. Yet we cannot do those things at the same time as reducing taxes. We did not get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer any consideration of those points.
  Instead, we had a speech which consisted mainly of a series of jokes. The biggest joke was when he described himself as a conviction politician. I wondered whether I heard him right. It seems to me that what we had this afternoon was a complacent politician. His speech had throughout it a thread of complacency about the economy. We have a reduced forecast for growth, a higher forecast for inflation and a lower forecast for investment. If he had given us a forecast for unemployment, which he refused to do, he would have given us in the medium term a higher one than was previously forecast. Yet, against that background, he described the slowdown as a change of pace. I suspect that, when the economy goes into its next recession, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he is still the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will say that we have simply gone into reverse gear. He does not understand the effects of the present economic policies and his forecasts.
  The Chancellor says that the economy is doing well. He says that it is on course for steady recovery, which will continue in years ahead. He says that living standards will rise this year, in 1996 and in 1997—that sounds to me like a significant year—in the year after that and, the Chancellor trusts, in the years after that, too. However, if he had been more open, if he had given us some of that openness of which he boasted, he would have told us the undisclosed truth, which is that he expects the recovery to

  1011
  come to a stop in 1998 or 1999. It will probably be then, because the effect on employment and living standards always lags behind the rest of the economy.
  Indeed, the Chancellor gave it away when he told us that the Budget will be balanced at the top of a cycle, which suggests that the economy will next go into recession. That is the problem in this country: recovery followed by recession followed by recovery followed by recession. It is the business cycle. The Government simply do not want to change that sequence.
  Increasingly, people are conscious that recoveries are going to be followed by recessions. That is one of the causes of the insecurity that people feel. They do not expect recovery to last. They know that the economy is going to the top of the cycle and then, as it goes down, unemployment will go up.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davis: I have not got time. There should not be interventions when speeches are limited to 10 minutes.
  At the end of each recovery, unemployment is left higher than it was at the end of the previous recovery. Every time that we go into recession, we start with a higher level of unemployment than we had at the start of the previous recession.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the tax take, as he calls it, was lower than forecast. He blamed that on lower inflation. The fact is that the tax take is lower than expected because unemployment is high. It is employment—people having jobs and paying income tax—that affects the tax take. The Chancellor left that out of his speech.
  The Government are concerned about reducing taxes in the next 18 months. They have not even pretended this afternoon that they are using some theory of trickle-down economics. They do not suggest that tax reductions will reduce unemployment. They will reduce taxes to spread the message. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave it away when he said that they would spread the message of rising living standards and falling unemployment between now and the general election. The issue is what will happen after the general election. We know what will happen: the economy will go into another recession.
  The Government should use the money that they will use to reduce taxes for investment, training and creating jobs. That does not mean creating work. There is no need. The need for work is everywhere to be seen around us in our constituencies. It is a matter not of creating work but of employing people to undertake the work in front of our eyes: the housing shortage, the terrible provision of care in the community, social services. They are all labour-intensive. That is what we should use the money for if we are serious about reducing unemployment.
  People who are employed pay taxes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave no forecast or target for unemployment. He told us that he had a target for income tax—20p in the pound; he told us that he had targets for capital gains tax and for inheritance tax—zero. What is the target for unemployment? A Government worth their salt who justified the confidence of the country would face the fact that it is unemployment that people care about most. The economy is not good enough. We have to a find a better economy. We have to find an economic system that will deal with the problem of unemployment.
  1012
  The biggest condemnation of the Government's complacency is that they do not understand the need for a new economy.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. John Townend: Ever since Mr. Soros blew us out of the exchange rate mechanism, our economic situation has got better and better. In retrospect, even most members of the Government would admit that he did us a good turn. To their credit, the Government have taken full advantage of that opportunity. Despite the fact that the value of the pound has dropped by nearly 15 per cent. and that everyone forecast that that would feed through into inflation, the Government have kept inflation consistently down. We should congratulate the Government on the skill with which they have operated monetary policy and which has made that possible.
  Despite the gloom of the Opposition, the economy has been growing for three years. What has been so pleasing is that it is the first export-led recovery in my lifetime. I believe that the prospects for non-inflationary sustainable growth are very good. Because of the success of our exports, the balance of payments deficit has dropped dramatically. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) talked about unemployment. That has also dropped dramatically—in the last fiscal year by no less than 372,000. That is a pretty good record. The budget deficit is also falling.
  Why then is there a feeling among much of the public that things are not getting better? I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) put his finger on the main problem. It is that we have almost got two separate economies: the successful manufacturing export industry, which is doing very well indeed, and what could be classed as the home-based industries. The housing market in many places is still drifting downwards. The construction industry is flat. Consumer spending is weaker than we expected. The leisure, hospitality and drink industries are not doing well. I speak from some experience of those industries. The figures in June were generally very poor. The retail trade has undoubtedly been affected by the enormous amounts of money being spent on the national lottery and the fact that the draw is held on a Saturday night.
  In many areas, business confidence is falling. After a very buoyant last quarter in 1994, in the first quarter of this year growth slowed. I expect that, in the second quarter, as a result of the Budget, it will slow down further. Inflationary pressures are almost all imported due to high raw material prices. There has been no upward pressure on wages during this recovery. Indeed, I believe that at long last we are moving slowly into a low-inflation culture. While increased raw material prices have forced up manufacturers' costs, manufacturers have not been able to pass those costs on to wholesalers and retailers. When retailers have tried to pass them on, the public have refused to buy, and discounting and sales have followed.
  Manufacturers have undoubtedly been much helped by our supply-side reforms and increased productivity and efficiency. In the private sector, strikes are virtually unknown. I think that the large increases in raw material prices will now ease off. Indeed, in the past few weeks there has been a significant drop in the price of coffee.

  1013
  Investment has been somewhat disappointing overall, but if we consider the figures carefully, we see that investment in buoyant manufacturing industry is quite good. All the factors that have caused pain and lack of confidence in the non-exporting sector have a bright side, in that they make the necessity or likelihood of raising interest rates much less, especially taking into account the lead of the United States, which has recently reduced interest rates. It was followed by France, and I think that other countries will follow. It seems likely that the United Kingdom is near the top of the interest rate cycle.
  I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on not putting up interest rates last month. He had the right feel. A further rise now would be bad for the Government, the housing market and the internal economy. I would like to see the second and third quarter figures before any change was made.
  There is one factor which, more than anything else, has prevented the Government from getting the feel-good factor from that outstanding economic performance. Increases in taxation are, without doubt, the Government's Achilles' heel. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he wanted to lead his party from the centre-right and reduce taxes as soon as possible. In the spirit of reconciliation and unity that is sweeping our party, which was illustrated by the Cabinet reshuffle, it behoves us all on the Back Benches to help the Prime Minister achieve his aim to reduce taxes and fulfil his election commitments.
  The task before us is very demanding. Since the previous election—we cannot deny it, it is in the Red Book—the tax burden has risen enormously, almost to the level that it reached under the last Labour Government. The Chancellor told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that his tax increases were equivalent to roughly 7p on the standard rate. Under the present plans in the Red Book, we can cut taxes only if one or more of three things happen. First, the economy could grow faster than planned in the Red Book. This year's forecast for growth was 3.25 per cent. and has already been downgraded to 2 per cent., so that is not likely.
  Secondly, we could slow down our budget deficit reduction programme, which the summer book shows will be £16 billion in 1996–97. I would personally not be prepared to cut taxes by increasing the level of borrowing. I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would want to either, because it would cause the pound to come under pressure and be likely to force us to increase interest rates.
  We are therefore left with the final option, which is to cut public spending. We should aim to cut the control total this year by some £10 billion. If we manage to cut it by only £7 billion, we can reduce by half the burden that we have imposed on the taxpayer since 1979.
  Anyone who has to make cuts in industry and has done so in a recession knows that, to make cuts, one has to be tough and courageous, have the will power to force through one's cost reduction programme and pay attention to detail. One rarely achieves the objective with a few big cuts in a few areas; what is needed are thousands of small reductions in every area. I hope that events prove me
  1014
  wrong, but I sometimes—only sometimes—doubt whether the Government have the will power to take the action required.
  I could talk for an hour about ways to cut public expenditure, but I know that you would not let me, Madam Speaker. However, I shall run through a few ideas. According to the Red Book, we are aiming to increase—not cut—real expenditure next year by 0.5 per cent. If we said that there would be no real growth, we would save £1.3 billion. I have mentioned the reduction in unemployment. That would save us around £800 million and, in addition, the extra people in work would be paying tax and national insurance contributions. We could cut half a billion pounds off the overseas aid budget. We have the sixth largest overseas aid budget in the world, but we are certainly not one of the six wealthiest countries.
  We could cut £200 million from the heritage fund, as the lottery is pouring more money into sport and the arts. We should declare war on waste in the public sector— wherever we look, there is waste and overmanning. There should be a recruitment freeze on all staff except police, teachers, nurses, doctors and the armed forces. To be fair, some Departments have made savings, but in the past, any savings have not gone back to the Treasury but have immediately been re-spent by the Departments in question. Those savings should be used to cut taxes.
  We should remove the cap on local authority spending, but cap the funds provided by national Government and go back to the old definition of public spending. We should put the squeeze on local authorities and force them to address the problems of waste and overmanning. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has a very good suggestion: we should penalise local authorities that do not collect council tax and rent arrears. Some local authorities have millions of pounds outstanding. We should reduce those councils' grant by a certain percentage, which they could make up by being more efficient.
  If inflation comes down faster than forecast, instead of the Departments being allowed to spend the money saved, it should be clawed back. We should abolish the national health service's stores department, apart from the buying office, and thus save £50 million. We should also cut down on consultancy expenditure, advertising and glossy brochures. Personally, I do not think that we are achieving anything in Bosnia—we should bring the troops home.
  The cost of illegal immigration is very high—45,000 immigrants are costing us £210 million a year. There should be quicker repatriation, so that people who have no right to be here are not able to string out the procedures and draw social security while they are here. We should make further savings in the social security budget, and I am pleased that the Government are making moves in that direction.
  One of the most disturbing results of our generosity with social security is the fact that the number of young girls—not widows or divorcees—who have just left school and caught on to the idea of gaining benefits by having a baby, although they are without a proper relationship or a husband, has increased threefold.
  I could go on—
  Madam Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman could go on for a long time, but his 10 minutes are up.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I was somewhat relieved when the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) embarked on his usual diatribe and called for public expenditure cuts, because until then I had agreed with some of his analysis of the British economy, especially his comments about the two economies. I am surprised, however, that, given his analysis, he does not draw the obvious conclusion, which is that the two economies—the export-led economy and the domestic economy—are clearly products of the one policy that the Government have pursued since September 1992— devaluation.
  The reason why the export economy is relatively successful is that it has benefited from something like a 20 per cent. cut in the value of the pound since September 1992. There is no evidence that any of that benefit has fed through into the domestic economy. That is precisely what the hon. Gentleman was describing and precisely why I suspect that Opposition Members will agree with such an analysis.
  Any assessment of the Government's abject economic performance shows clearly how they have failed to tackle the central weakness of the Conservative-controlled British economy. We have low growth combined with high unemployment. Since 1979, Britain has had the lowest growth rate of any European Union or G7 country. The Conservatives' record means that we are firmly in last place in the growth table. That is the longer-term perspective but, even in the short term, there is precious little sign of improvement.
  The Treasury's summer forecast for growth, inflation, borrowing and investment reveals that the outlook for the economy has worsened since the November Budget. The forecast implies that the average growth for 1988–98 would be no higher than 1.7 per cent., which is the average growth rate in the United Kingdom since 1979. It is the slowest rate among all EU and G7 countries combined.
  The forecast for underlying inflation has been revised upwards from 2.5 per cent. at the end of 1995 in the Budget to 3 per cent. in the summer forecast. The Treasury hopes that inflation will fall to 2.5 per cent. by the end of 1996, but the City and the Bank of England anticipate underlying inflation in the range of 2.5 per cent. to 4 per cent. The public sector borrowing requirement is forecast to be £2 billion higher, at £23.5 billion for 1995–96.
  In the Budget, the Treasury forecast that business investment would increase by 10.7 per cent. in 1995, but that forecast has now been halved to 4.75 per cent. It is a doubly depressing picture—a significant reduction in the level of investment combined with some pretty poor forecasting. If we cannot rely on Treasury assessments of the performance that we can expect in the economy, it is difficult to rely on other Government statements.
  The deteriorating position of the British economy requires action that only a Labour Government can offer. We have repeatedly heard Conservative Members complain that Labour has no economic policy, but we have debated the fundamental principles of our economic policy in public. It is not often that the new clause IV has been quoted since we had our debate to change Labour's constitution, but we set it out for all to see. It states that we believe in
  1016
  "a dynamic economy, serving the public interest, in which the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition are joined with the forces of partnership and cooperation to produce the wealth the nation needs and the opportunities for all to work and prosper."
  [Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members are scoffing at principle. One needs principles to start with, and principles are precisely what the Government's economic policy lacks. We have no idea where it is going because the Government simply switch from one principle to another as the need arises.
  In my opening remarks, I mentioned the devaluation that has occurred since September 1992. Before then, we were told that the Government's economic policy was based entirely on maintaining our position within the exchange rate mechanism. Miraculously, since September 1992, Ministers have been boasting about the success of their economic policies, success achieved only because the Government were forced out of the ERM. There was no principle involved, so to accuse Labour of lacking policy is to miss the point. We have principles, and it is on those principles that we have built an economic programme aimed at high investment, high growth, high skills and high productivity in order to rebuild our economy, raise living standards and promote the creation of a fair and just society. That is our objective, and I have outlined the starting points.
  Labour is committed to the goal of the 1944 White Paper, which stated:
  "The Government accept as one of their primary aims and responsibilities the maintenance of a high and stable level of employment".
  Is that one of the present Government's primary aims? Is it something that they see as one of the important features of their economic policy? If so, why have they so singularly failed to achieve it over such a long period?
  We have specific policies aimed at tackling the problem of unemployment which, as my colleagues have rightly said, is crucial to the success of our economy. Our first priority will be to tackle the problem of job creation. To increase the number of jobs in the short term, we have talked about the phased release of capital receipts, so that local authorities can build homes. We have proposals for public-private partnerships, at national and local level, to boost infrastructure investment and create jobs. We have called for environmental initiatives to create jobs through a nationwide programme of energy efficiency, to provide better insulation and improve household energy conservation standards. All those proposals would create employment. We have also talked about an expansion scheme for small businesses, to enable them to invest and meet the needs of a modern economy.
  Alongside those proposals, we believe that central to the task of promoting employment in the last part of this century will be our determination to invest in the skills of our people. We are committed to a programme of lifelong learning for all. We can achieve that only by raising standards in our schools and by improving access to colleges and universities. We want every young person to be encouraged to remain in mainstream education and training. We want to develop a system of training and education for 16 to 19-year-olds, which will combine academic and vocational qualifications.
  We have talked about specific training schemes for women and the ethnic minorities. We have talked about introducing a national skills audit, to identify skill shortages and to target resources to provide training,

  1017
  which will lead to employment. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are scoffing, but they should not simply rely on their Conservative central office briefs telling them that Labour has no policy. The things that I mentioned are Labour's policies. They have been set out and debated in public. Conservative Members should consider them before they simply repeat the chorus that central office wants them to repeat in such a debate.
  We want to establish a university of industry. We shall provide new opportunities for retraining, to ensure that the skills that companies already have are improved to meet the challenges of the modern economy. Those are published policies that Conservative Members can read instead of relying on the material supplied to them by central office.
  The strategy that I have outlined is crucial, because the Bank of England's February inflation report pointed to Britain's lack of capacity and the slow response of investment in the recovery as a threat to that recovery's sustainability. There is not any significant evidence— again, this is pretty much what the hon. Member for Bridlington was saying in his analysis of Britain's economy—that the recovery is being sustained. We shall sustain that recovery only if we recognise that the Government have an important role to play in encouraging higher levels of investment.
  Government cannot second-guess commercial judgments of investors and managers, but we can change the system of corporate governance to give greater incentives to longer-term finance and opportunities for business to secure start-up capital. We must look at the ways in which we can adjust the corporate tax and financial system to encourage that longer-term investment.
  We have talked about encouraging the capital gains tax system to promote that longer-term investment. What has been the Government's response to that? The Prime Minister announces that he wants not only to abolish inheritance tax but to eliminate capital gains tax. No Conservative Member has offered an explanation of how that would be achieved; or where the £3 billion—the cost of such abolition—would come from. If any Labour Member made such a commitment, there would be hysterical outrage on the Conservative Benches about where the money was to come from. We need a Minister to answer that question. Where will the £3 billion cost of the abolition of inheritance tax and capital gains tax, which the Prime Minister announced, come from?
  In stark contrast to the Government's laid-back, laissez faire policy, we have a specific series of policies designed to meet the needs of the British economy in the last part of the 20th century. We believe that, by investing in our future and by investing in the skills, training and talents of all our members of society, this country can face up to the difficulties of an increasingly competitive global economy, to ensure that Britain and its people can prosper in the next century.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Barry Legg: We have just heard an audacious speech from new Labour, by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). The audacity of his speech takes some believing. He had the gall to
  1018
  mention the exchange rate mechanism and Britain's exit from it. His Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), will not even answer a question on whether he believes in fixed exchange rates.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield also had the audacity to mention the European Union. As a socialist—I use that term very loosely—he failed to mention that there are more than 20 million unemployed people in the European Union. He then went on to talk about spending capital receipts. He was really talking about increasing spending and increasing borrowing, and we have been down that route before—under old Labour. What we have heard from the hon. Member for Ashfield is not a prescription for a successful economy.
  In recent weeks, we have had quite a lively debate about the merits of tax cuts, especially on the Conservative Benches. I do not intend to spend much time talking about tax cuts and where they should be focused. We face more immediate economic issues, particularly in the areas of monetary policy and public expenditure. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) commented on the new timetable for debates on economic affairs that has arisen since the unified Budget was introduced. We tend to have rather long gaps between economic debates now, but that can be helpful if it enables us to take a longer perspective on our economic affairs.
  On reading the summer economic forecast produced by the Treasury, we find that some quite significant changes have taken place since the Budget in November. The estimated tax revenues for the current year are forecast to rise by around 11 per cent. compared with the financial year that ended in April. Since the last Budget, we have also had two increases in interest rates. They have risen by 1 per cent. and there has been a consequent tightening of monetary policy.
  The effect of those changes is shown in the economic projections in the summer forecast. The economy is starting to slow down fairly significantly in certain areas. First, the forecast of the growth in domestic demand for the current year has dropped since the Budget, from 2.75 per cent. to 2 per cent. The forecast for manufacturing output has been reduced from 4.25 per cent. to 3 per cent. Indeed, the figures for manufacturing output announced yesterday showed a fall of 0.1 per cent. for May and of 0.4 per cent. since April. We are seeing a marked slowing down in manufacturing output.
  Growth in consumer expenditure is also forecast to be at 2 per cent.—not 2.5 per cent. as in the Budget forecast. The forecast for fixed investment has been reduced from 5.75 per cent. to 3 per cent. At the same time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) remarked, retail sales have been flat over the past 12 months. There is clear evidence of a marked slowdown in the UK economy. I think that in 1995 we shall see a growth pause.
  I have no doubt that the Chancellor's decision on 5 May not to increase interest rates was correct. Many hon. Members have remarked on that decision in the debate. I consider that we may now have reached the peak of the interest rates cycle. The next move in interest rates is likely to be down, and that could be more significant for the UK economy than adjustments in taxation levels in the November Budget.

  1019
  The prospects for the world economy as a whole have also somewhat diminished in comparison with what we were considering six months ago. The prospects for growth in Germany, the United States and Japan are not as great. The international inflation risks have also been reduced. There can—I think—be no case for higher interest rates in the UK economy in 1995.
  The other interesting changes in the summer economic forecast are those of the projections for the public sector borrowing requirement. The projected figures for the next two years have worsened by some £6 billion, which is mainly due to a fall in income tax receipts in the current year of some £1 billion, and a fall in VAT receipts from that projected at the time of the Budget of some £3 billion. Receipts from taxes are falling and that is also a sign that the economy is slowing down. Monetary policy should not be tightened further.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has set a new target for inflation for the coming years and beyond the end of this Parliament. He is right to have medium-term targets for inflation and he is right to aim for inflation in the region of 2.5 per cent. My only criticism of the Chancellor is that he suggested that inflation might go over 4 per cent. due to events beyond our control and he referred to commodity prices.
  I thought that we had learnt the lesson of the 1970s: it is not commodity prices that cause inflation, but Governments who cause inflation. If we looked at what happened with commodity prices in the 1970s, we would remember the hike in oil prices. That did not cause inflation. We have only to look at the comparative performance of the UK and German economies at that time.
  In 1975, German inflation increased by 5.9 per cent. In the United Kingdom, it increased by 26 per cent. The following year, United Kingdom inflation went up by 16 per cent., whereas German inflation increased by only 4 per cent. Commodity prices cannot affect inflation unless Governments produce monetary policies that accommodate increases in commodity prices. I offer a word of caution to the Chancellor if he still believes that commodity prices can throw his inflation controls out of the window. It is essential for a responsible Government to have a firm monetary framework and for there to be an intelligent analysis of that framework.
  My other area of concern in monetary policy is that the Governor of the Bank of England seems over-concerned about the level of sterling. At his meeting with the Chancellor on 5 May, one of his main reasons for wanting interest rates increased was his belief that sterling had weakened significantly, which could cause inflationary pressures.
  I do not think that that is so, and I feel that what the Governor said in his previous meeting with the Chancellor on 5 April better describes the implications:
  "The fall in the exchange rate"—
  that is, the fall in sterling—
  "was a side effect of the international exchange rate turbulence— the weakness of the dollar, or related to non-economic domestic factors".
  To take too much notice of movements in sterling against a basket of currencies or against particular currencies at present would not be a sensible way in which to decide monetary policy. It is essential that we have a flexible
  1020
  exchange rate, because British business is trading across the world and needs the right exchange rate with all its international trading partners, not just with one or two.
  What the Chancellor does on monetary policy will be vital for our economic success. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) set out an agenda for public expenditure reductions, and I hope that the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury will prove a ruthless cost cutter and deliver the savings in public expenditure that are required over the coming three or four months, so that we can reduce the level of taxation. I am sure that in that endeavour, the Chief Secretary will have the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister.
  In his November Budget, the Chancellor will have an opportunity to set out a programme of tax reform, and that will help to reinvigorate the Conservative party and to show that our policies are continuing to move forward. Capital gains tax is certainly one area in which reform must take place—indeed, an area in which reform could even achieve higher levels of tax revenue. But I would be more cautious about inheritance tax. We must also consider changes in reliefs, thresholds and personal allowances, so that those on whom tax increases have borne too heavily in recent years will have the prospect of some reduction in what they pay.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: I envied the speech by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) for its certainties. He certainly fashioned some alibis for his Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech of genial ruthlessness, but he had nothing to say, so he attacked his shadow. In contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor, spoke for the people of our country. I am glad that he called for investment in our industries and for the rescue of our social services.
  There is a daunting agenda. First, 180,000 young people aged 16 and 17 are currently not in work, training or education. About 2.5 million of our fellow citizens are out of work, with little prospect of further meaningful work in their lives. At least 800,000 of our fellow citizens are classed as long-term unemployed. We have also seen the disappearance of apprenticeships.
  Hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens live in homes blighted by negative equity, and there are at least several hundred thousand council homes in desperate need of modernisation—the basic civilised essentials of modern windows and new doors—to make them at least warm and draught-proof. That is a blight on our society.
  The Conservative Governments who have held office since 1979 have enjoyed the realisation of about £78 billion-worth of assets from privatisation—a colossal sum. They have also received about £120 billion-worth of North sea oil revenues. I cannot be the only person who finds it incredible to set all that treasure and wealth that Conservative Governments have received, those staggering sums, against the colossal scale of the problems in our society. Those problems are so colossal that we know that, even if there were a change of Government, they could not be righted in the new Government's first term.

  1021
  A worse feature of the analysis is that about 2.5 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1979. Real well-paid manufacturing jobs have been lost to our nation. We must acknowledge that Mrs. Thatcher, Sir Geoffrey Howe and Sir Keith Joseph decided on an industrial policy that allowed all those manufacturing jobs to go to the wall. We now know that our nation lacks the capacity of a truly broadly based set of manufacturing industries. That is a wounding reality, and it bodes ill for the next century. I do not think that we can criticise that troika of crazed ideologues too much for what they did to our manufacturing base.
  My own priorities remain with aerospace and steel, and here I think I can claim the backing of the whole House. I shall speak in detail about one aerospace project—the airbus. More than 25,000 British people go to work on an airbus every day, and more than 300 British businesses are involved in the airbus project. There are 1,250 airbus airliners in service with 120 airlines throughout the world. Further orders, if they are realised, will be worth up to $52 billion. Furthermore, more than £1 billion a year is contributed by the airbus project, through British Aerospace plc, to the United Kingdom's balance of trade. That must be good.
  I am proud of the fact that 2,300 of my constituents make the wings of the airbus—of every airbus—in my constituency. The Government must as a matter of urgency give British Aerospace grants for technological research, specifically for research and development in wing technology. I worry because, in Hamburg, there is now a factory assembling nothing but a variant marque of the airbus. It is clear to me that the Germans covet our wing technology expertise. They want to make wings, so it would help if the British Government gave British Aerospace those grants, by way of reward.
  My other local industry is steel, and I acknowledge the work that the Government are doing to try to eliminate the cheating that goes on in some continental steel-producing countries. At the moment, British Steel plc is going great guns, and its profits are high. But everyone who knows steel knows that the day will come—sooner rather than later—when the cyclical trade in steel will dip, and dip horribly. Our British steel industry will then be hit, because our competitors on the continent are cheating by means of illegal subsidies for their steel companies.
  We in Britain, in Wales and in my constituency have made enormous sacrifices, with de-manning and with the closure of steel mills. Having created what is arguably one of the world's finest steel industries—with brilliant production and quality—we should not have to suffer that kind of competition from the continent. I ask the Government to look carefully at the matter.
  Time is short tonight, and I conclude by saying that I do not think that the Government have any strategic sense with regard to economic policy. It all seems to be tactical, short-term and hand-to-mouth, and that is not good enough for a nation facing major challenges. The Government never exhibit any sense of urgency in their plans related to large-scale unemployment, but such large-scale unemployment in the long term destroys the fabric of our society.
  1022
  Nor do I see any convincing plans from the Cabinet or the Government for investing in our manufacturing industry in any meaningful way. There are no coherent plans to rescue the national health service from the problems it faces. There are no realistic plans to help our school services or to tackle homelessness. All the people of this country can do is hope that they will be able to vote urgently in a general election.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), who made a very technical speech. I would also like to congratulate my hon. Friends who are now assuming their Front-Bench duties for the first time. I wish them the very best.
  When the country voted at the last general election, the Conservative party received the largest number of votes it or any other party had received in the history of British politics. When the country voted that day, we were in the midst of the worst recession in Europe, but still the country voted for us. It was not a mere act of faith, but an act of certainty in the ability of the Conservative party—and the Conservative party alone—to turn the country around. That expectation is now being met. The Government have delivered.
  In 1992, when those votes were cast, the growth in the GDP was minus 0.5 per cent. Today it is 3.9 per cent., and rising. In 1992, when those votes were cast, interest rates were at 10.2 per cent. Today, they are at 6.7 per cent., and are steady. In 1992, when those votes were cast, inflation was at 4 per cent. Today, it is 3.5 per cent., and is below the European Union average.
  In 1992, when those votes were cast, 660,000 people were out of work. Today, there are 660,000 more people in work and supporting their families. In each of the past 22 months, unemployment has fallen. In my constituency alone, unemployment has fallen by 100 per cent. compared with the same period last year. In 1992, when those votes were cast, industrial production was growing at minus 0.1 per cent. Today, it is growing at a phenomenal 5 per cent. a year. In 1992, when those votes were cast, the balance of payments was £10 billion in red. Today, we are beginning to achieve something that has not been achieved since 1984—a balance of payments surplus.
  No wonder the Labour party is in a panic, and is hiding behind its leader's sanguine smile. Labour Members are collectively paddling half under the water to stay afloat. The Labour party must acknowledge that it has tried to borrow the Government's policies as its own. I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and no one— least of all the Labour party—can deny that the party is imitating the Conservative party in all aspects bar one or two, such as its belief in the social chapter and the minimum wage.
  Why is the Labour party attempting to steal our clothes if they are ill-suited to the country? Why is the Labour leader discovering every day a new Labour policy which is, in truth, an old Conservative policy? We are flattered by the imitation, and heartened by the confidence that the Labour party has placed in our policies.

  1023
  We must look at the Government's record to understand the enormity of their success in turning the country around since the general election. No wonder the Labour party is trying to imitate us. Imitate us, by all means—but the more it imitates us, the more it flatters us, and the more it flatters us, the more the country will understand that it will be better to vote for the tutor at the next election rather than the new student. We are old hands at managing the economy well.
  Labour's record of economic mismanagement during its entire history has been utterly disastrous, and it has been disastrous because one cannot teach an old dog new tricks. One can try, but in the end it reverts to its own traditions. Each party has an imbued culture, an underlying foundation, and its own ethos and values—in the case of the Labour party, it is pervasive socialism which, try as it might, will never go away.
  Along with that all-pervasive socialism comes the desire to intervene, which is a polite word for meddle. The Labour party wants to meddle in people's lives, in how they spend their money, in how they should run their business, in how they educate their children, and in how they support their families. That old desire to meddle and the belief that the Labour party "knows what is good for you" comes from the party's socialist roots. That is why the Labour party is socialist.
  Without that need to meddle, and without its socialist roots, the party will be left without a philosophy. Without a philosophy, it will be nothing as a party. It will believe in nothing and will stand for nothing, other than to get power. It will then become nothing—the ultimate nihilistic experience. The party will implode upon itself, smiling sanguinely and with a stiff upper lip to the last behind its languid leader.
  Original thinking, like original sin, is unbecoming in the modern Labour party, as the party's modernity is entirely based on its unoriginality. The modern Labour party does not think, it copies. The modern Labour party does not innovate or develop, it merely reflects—like a large cracked mirror—our policies. That is a sad state of affairs.
  Perhaps I am being a trifle unfair. The shadow Chancellor, who I notice has left the Chamber, is an original thinker. Last year, in a moment of weakness, the hon. Gentleman thought of something original, which, like a golden egg, dropped on his entire unthinking party. He developed a new economic theory, and called it the endogenous growth theory of the economy. His theory was particularly concerned with investment, a subject about which the hon. Gentleman spoke this afternoon.
  In a number of pronouncements, the shadow Chancellor has made his suspicions of the work of business operating in a free economy quite clear. He has said:
  "The British free market without effective intervention, has proved to be a static, brittle and second rate model of economic development because people do not have the tools to plan and invest for the future … To summarise, crude free market dogma has failed because it does not encourage long term relations and commitments and therefore gives no incentive for people to invest for the future".
  As a result, the shadow Chancellor has stated:
  "without co-ordinated action we cannot expect to see the kind of investment in industry and in skills and in infrastructure that we need".
  Instead of trusting businesses to invest, Labour's version of the endogenous growth theory makes the state the key player in undertaking investment decisions,
  1024
  camouflaging nice-sounding, well-meaning rhetoric on the mechanics of how the Government should intervene directly in the investment process. Yet without the appropriate knowledge of commercial discipline, that cannot be meaningful. Alienated from justifiable economic stimuli, it will serve only to produce less investment, and lower-quality investment.
  A specific method of economic and industrial control has been unveiled, involving widespread Government oversight of the economic process. Let us take some of the specific proposals with which the Labour party has threatened us, such as on companies' relationships with other companies.
  The Labour party says that a beneficial influence is to be exerted in terms of industrial companies allocating decisions. It says that the state is to influence from whom companies buy, to whom they sell and how they relate to each other over the long term. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, heard of anything so preposterous? The state will tell companies and their boards who to buy from, who to sell to and how to market their products.
  On the allocation of companies' investment funds, the Labour party says that the state is to be involved in the type of investment undertaken. Regardless of the needs of the individual business, the Government are to involve themselves in whether a company invests in plant, machinery, advertising, marketing or research.
  If the Labour party were elected, which I do not think it will be, we could look forward to a period in which the state—the shadow Chancellor and his team—informed company boards that growth would be better stimulated if they took their £100,000 and invested it in new plant or machinery rather than spending it on an advertising or marketing campaign, or even on a new carpet.
  The Labour party says that the state should be directly involved in how firms handle and invest in their employees. On training—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up. I call Mr. Jim Cunningham.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), as he is the only Conservative Member who has tried to be honest about the economy. The Treasury has admitted what everyone already knows—that the recovery is slowing down, and that Britain is at the back of the class of industrialised countries on competitiveness. It is now known that, during the period 1979–94, the economy grew at an average rate of 1.7 per cent. per annum. That is the slowest period of growth in this country since 1945.
  More shocking still, wages and salaries have been reduced to their lowest share of GDP since the second world war. They went down from 66 per cent. of GDP in the second quarter of 1979 to 62.7 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1994. Manufacturing output has also received a hammering. In 1993, it was less than 1 per cent. higher than it was in 1973. But what really gives the lie to the Conservative "economic miracle" is that, of all the G7 countries, the UK had the lowest average export growth, at 2.9 per cent. Together with Germany, the UK has the

  1025
  highest imports among the G7 states, at 26.3 per cent. All those statistics are indictments of the Conservative party's record.
  To really appreciate the effect of current policies, one must look at how my constituency has been devastated. Rolls-Royce and GPT have shed about 18,000 jobs in the past 10 years, which shows the magnitude of what has happened in my constituency and other parts of Coventry. The region suffers from poor transport links, which will only be exacerbated by rail privatisation and inadequate plans for the west coast rail link. Large manufacturers have been shedding jobs, causing Coventry's dole queues to rise above the regional average.
  People should not forget when they make comparisons that, at one time, Coventry was known as a boom city. The decimation of the manufacturing industry has hit Coventry particularly harshly. One in three of the region's work force are in manufacturing, compared with one in five nationally. The subsequent job losses have created more long-term unemployed people in Coventry than even in Warwickshire.
  It is not just the manufacturing sector that has been hurt. The service sector is expected to lose more jobs later this decade. The virtual end of the British coal industry has affected many people in Coventry and north Warwickshire. It is widely recognised that, due in no small measure to the recession and the slow faltering of the so-called recovery, investment in town centres has been slow.
  The Government have shifted their excuses for the catastrophic fumbling of the economy, while the dole queues have lengthened and unemployment has more than doubled from just over 1 million in 1979. The labour force survey report shows that 734,000 people are working part-time as they cannot find a full-time job. That should be seen against a background of more than 1 million people earning less than £2.50 an hour. Women have been especially hit by the economic climate. Some 670,000 women earn less than £2.50 an hour.
  The "Summer Economic Forecast" that has been laid before us does not show that things will change. On the contrary, the document acknowledges that the rut has been created for us by the Conservative party. Manufacturing industry has borne the brunt of two Tory recessions, as can be vividly witnessed in Coventry. Investment in industry, infrastructure and people are the keys to re-establishing a fragile economy. While extolling the virtues of investment, the "Summer Economic Forecast", however, reports that 1995 will not see as large a rise in business investment as expected.
  The Treasury has also declared that total fixed investment is likely to be less than business investment. With growing under-investment, it should not be surprising that Britain has suffered. In May, excluding oil and erratic items for non-EC trade, Britain's volume of exports fell by 2 per cent., while imports rose by 5.5 per cent. The Central Statistical Office has even suggested that the non-EC visible trade deficit is widening. There has been a domino effect as money flows abroad. The net external assets of this country have been diminished, from £17.7 billion at the end of 1994 to £8.2 billion in the first quarter of this year.
  1026
  Labour has imaginatively put forward an exciting strategy of investment and partnership with industry, and has recognised changing work practices in the run-up to the 21st century. It has also acknowledged the inventiveness and talent of the British people, and has been discussing its proposals with the trade unions and businesses. The Tories, through their shenanigans in a split ribbon leadership race, wiped £10 billion off share prices, which sums up Conservative economic mismanagement.
  The Government should listen to the Labour party's proposals. Instead, we have seen clashes between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England. Labour would make the Bank of England more accountable to Parliament via a statutory framework, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) outlined today.
  The rules governing private sector participation in the affairs of the state are in dire need of an overhaul. They need to be amended so that companies would not necessarily recoup all their costs at the point of use. The rules should consider not just cost-effectiveness but social benefits to the community.
  The Treasury is also confused in its handling of leases. For example, a 20-year lease costing £200 million but repaid at £10 million a year would be counted against the external financing limit of the £200 million in the lease's first year. Clearly, it should be viewed as £10 million against the external financing limit in the lease's first year.
  Most fundamentally, Labour will institute a decade of investment, as compared with a decade of negligence. One way to encourage investment in industry would be to establish an investment in industry unit at the Department of Trade and Industry. In an impact statement, each Government Department should declare how each of its policies would affect industry. The small loans guarantee scheme should be extended. Other measures could include a moratorium law for the courts to attempt to save companies from bankruptcy—not dissimilar to what happens in America.
  Those and other proposals are being considered by the Labour party. All we hear from the Government is the tired old statement that has wrecked our economy—the iceberg of blind ideology.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Matthew Carrington: I apologise to the House for missing most of the earlier part of the debate because I was stuck upstairs in a statutory instruments Committee that went on longer than most of us who were on the Committee expected.
  It is sad that I missed the first half of the debate, because I understand that the opening speeches were worth hearing, and especially that the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one to treasure. He laid bare and exposed the policies of the Labour party most effectively, and I am sure that that approach will be carried forward for the next 18 months to two years and will become stronger and stronger.
  I welcome to the Treasury Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight), and congratulate her on her appointment, which delights us and all her friends on the Conservative Benches. We look forward to great things from her.

  1027
  I am especially pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the debate, because the summer economic forecast shows an economy that is in extremely good shape. It is in rather better shape than the country's economy has been, perhaps, since the end of the second world war.
  The economy is doing very well indeed in a great many sectors. Unquestionably, there are problems in the economy, but even the apparent problems are in reality strengths. We are witnessing a decline in economic growth, but it is a decline from 4 per cent., which is historically in our economy a very high level, to a much more sustainable level of about 3 per cent. That is to be greatly welcomed, because it means that our recovery from the recession can be continued in a way that will allow the recovery to strengthen, broaden and deepen throughout the economy.
  The continuing low retail sales are in many ways a serious problem for our economy. Many parts of industry suffer badly as a result—those that rely heavily on domestic sales. Low retail sales are a serious problem, but they have the advantage of avoiding what has always killed our economy in the past when recovering from recessions—an import boom, a massive sucking in of imports, which has destroyed the balance of payments in the past and caused us so many difficulties. A cautious return of growth in retail sales is therefore to be welcomed.
  We should not be overly worried about depressed house prices; they will cure themselves with time, as they already are. The great problem of house prices increasing far too rapidly has beset us in the past and blown our economy right off course, most notably in the boom of 1986 and 1987, when the growth in house prices was largely responsible for the crash that came afterwards. We should therefore all greatly welcome the continuing low growth in house prices.
  One of our great strengths is exports. As was said earlier, the increase in export volumes that has taken place—and there is every sign that that increase will continue to be sustained at high growth rates—is something that we have not previously witnessed in this country when coming out of recession. That is extremely positive, and it allows us to hope that this time, our recovery will be sustainable. It offers the opportunity for the next downturn in the economy, when it comes—in economic cycles there is inevitably a downturn—to be mitigated by the strength of our exports and our external market, which is extremely healthy.
  Perhaps the biggest problem is inflation. Although inflation is low, it is projected to increase. It is increasing, admittedly, from a low base, which is encouraging, but inflation is the danger in our economy, and that is what we must watch.
  I was very pleased to notice in the economic forecast that, after having increased, inflation is projected to decline sharply to an underlying rate of about 2.5 per cent. Inevitably, in the forecast there is no indication of the way in which that decline will be achieved, because the Government, wisely and rightly, give no estimates as to future movements in interest rates.
  I hope that it will be possible to avoid a sharp increase in interest rates to control inflation, but in my opinion it is more important to maintain a low inflation rate than to worry about maintaining a low interest rate. We need to take whatever measures are necessary to get the inflation
  1028
  rate under control and to achieve the target of getting back down closer to 2.5 per cent. to 2 per cent. That should be a major objective in economic policy.
  However, hope remains that it will not be necessary to increase interest rates to do that. There are signs that the inflationary pressures in the economy are not great and that, in the external economy, if anything, interest rate movements in the United States and Japan will allow us to weather the current inflationary storm. I rather agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) that, by watching the economic figures during the summer, and certainly through the second and perhaps the third quarter, before doing anything precipitate on interest rates, it may be possible to avoid any increase in interest rates.
  One problem will need to be tackled; as things stand, we need to boost the domestic economy. We need to find some way of spreading that recovery from the recession so that it benefits more people. We have heard in many speeches this afternoon about the difficulties that confront the domestic industries in our country. Those industries need to benefit eventually from the recovery, and the sooner the better. To do so, we need to put more money into people's pockets in the right way, and slowly.
  There is a strong case to be made for gently encouraging the domestic market to recover. The best way of doing that is by increasing people's disposable earnings. The most effective way of doing that is by reducing taxation, and by reducing direct taxation. I wish to encourage my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to consider seriously ways in which direct taxation may be reduced in the next Budget.
  However, it is obvious from the economic forecast that, on the face of it, there is no scope for reducing taxation. Indeed we are witnessing, in the projections of public sector borrowing, a slight increase in the anticipated amount of borrowing this year and an increase in the anticipated amount of borrowing next year, neither of which shows any flexibility to allow for a reduction in taxation. Therefore reductions in taxation must come from a serious review of the public expenditure.
  I wish to encourage a rigorous look at public expenditure, because there must be scope for finding substantial reductions in public expenditure, which can then be translated into returning money to people's pockets to spend as they choose, to encourage domestic industries to grow and expand. That is a desirable objective socially and economically, and it must be done sooner rather than later.
  The question also arises whether that is best done in income tax cuts or in changes to capital taxes. There is a strong case to be made for changing capital tax, whether it be capital gains tax or inheritance tax, to encourage savings in the economy.
  The summer economic forecast reveals that the savings ratio is decreasing and industrial investment, although it is projected to increase quite sharply in this forecast, is showing a marked decline on what was anticipated in the Budget forecast in the Red Book. There is therefore a strong case to be made for encouraging savings, and, in addition to some reduction in income tax, I should like steps to be taken towards reforming the taxation of capital, especially capital gains tax.

  1029
  We have a strong economy that is going in the right direction and we need to ensure that that progress continues. As a Government, we must not—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time has expired.
  8.19 pm
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is a very distinguished and experienced parliamentarian, made one of the most perceptive remarks to be heard in tonight's debate. He drew attention to the importance of economic debates and the significance that the country attaches to them, while also drawing attention to the paucity of such debates in this Chamber.
  That caused me to reflect, as a much less experienced Member of Parliament, on the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an opportunity to come to the House today and give a reasoned and detailed explanation of the Treasury summer forecast. He missed that opportunity, and all we got was bluster and theatricality. That does not serve the House or the nation well. We expect better from someone who holds one of the highest offices in the land.
  The Chancellor had an opportunity today to tell us why the Treasury summer forecast differs so markedly from last year's Budget. He had an opportunity to explain why the Treasury has revised down its forecast of overall growth in the economy. Gross domestic product in 1995 is estimated to fall from the Budget forecast of 3.25 per cent. to 3 per cent. in the summer forecast. The people of this country are concerned about economic growth; it is an integral part of their lives.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) pointed out that, in the period from 1979 to 1993, this country has had the slowest rate of economic growth of the 18 countries of the European Community and the G7 nations. A number of Conservative Members referred to an increase in forecast inflation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) pointed to the significantly higher estimates of public sector borrowing requirement.
  We are elected, Opposition and Government Members alike, as custodians of this country, its legislative framework and its economic performance. That is key to our future and it is why we, as politicians, have a very low standing in the community. The Government have not fostered an environment in which investment can improve. They are selling out our future.
  The low levels of investment in both the public and private sectors—I do not turn repeatedly to the public sector as a panacea for all ills—are selling out this country's future. I do not spend a lot of time playing with a fancy electronic organiser that will tell me what the next day is or when I can expect my husband to take me to dinner. I do not mark down dates in my diary and 1 January 2000 does not mean all that much to me—except I suspect that it will be a rather more alcoholic Hogmanay than usual.
  On that subject, I hope that by then we will have a Labour Chancellor who recognises that one cannot take policy decisions based on pique. The whisky industry in my constituency has suffered directly as a consequence of
  1030
  the Conservatives' pique. When they were defeated on the issue of value added tax on fuel, the duty on whisky was increased. As a consequence, we have seen a reduction in revenue to the Exchequer from that industry as well as a reduction in the industry's prospects.
  Levels of investment are critical. Inward investment is important to my area. For many years, Scotland has depended on high levels of inward investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East referred to the opportunities that come from the globalisation of the economy and from increasing technological advances. We have an opportunity to attract companies that are mobile and can invest in this or any other country. Yet we often lose that opportunity, just as we are losing other opportunities that we should seize.
  Let us consider, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you and I are economic strategists for a multinational company which could choose to establish a business in any country in the world. Would it choose to come to Britain when it does not know what is the Government's policy on the exchange rate and when it does not know whether there are one or two Conservative parties on the issue of a single currency? How can businesses plan for the future and view this country as a potential site for industrial investment if the Government are not confident about where they are going and about their long-term future?
  The Government have repeatedly been thrown off course. They are committed to short-termism and the Chancellor and his colleagues on the Back Benches have already begun to consider, with some anxiety, their prospects at the next election and the way in which they can use and abuse the economy to secure their re-election. I do not believe that the people are foolish enough to fall for that.
  My constituents would have been interested to learn today why 734,000 more people are working part time and cannot find full-time work. Why has the number of temporary employees in industry increased by 30 per cent? Why has the number of those in employment fallen by 14,000 in the first quarter of this year? My constituents and those of every hon. Member in the House—there are more than 650 of us—want to know why they feel insecure at work. The Chancellor's speech has not prompted us to explain to our constituents that the Government are in control and have the country's long-term interests at heart.
  My speaking time is short. Most hon. Members have been fairly restrained in their remarks and I will try to do the same. I am very interested in the future of small firms in my constituency. More than 90 per cent. of people in the country work for small firms; it is a fallacy to believe that everyone works for the ICIs and the Marks and Spencers. It is the small firms sector that is most troubled about the future. Some 40 per cent. of those involved in small firms who were polled in a recent Daily Telegraph survey said that they did not believe that the country had come out of recession. People in small firms are at the sharp end.
  I commend those Conservative Members who referred to what is happening in the retail industry. My constituency used to comprise market towns. When I walk down South Bridge street, the main street in the major town in my constituency where as a child I was taken to buy my Sunday outfit, all I find now are discount stores and empty shops. People have lost confidence in the Government. I do not seek to make a partisan point when

  1031
  I say that the people are entitled to turn to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and expect answers, not bluster. What we had tonight was bluster and also complacency from a number of Conservative Members.
  We cannot be complacent about the country's economic performance and economic future. We have a responsibility to take these debates extremely seriously and to show that we are committed to ensuring the country's future economic growth. We must make sure that the Government are considering some of the existing fundamental problems in the economy.
  I do not believe that every economic problem is caused by the Government. However, some honesty and some rational argument on the part of the Chancellor about the nature of the problems that we face would allow people to go forward in partnership. Confidence among our business sector would increase, as would the hope and confidence of those people who fear unemployment. Some 65 per cent. of people fear unemployment and feel insecure in their jobs. Given the events of the past couple of weeks, I would have thought that there was one man who, more than any other, would understand how it feels to be insecure in one's job: the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) represents a considerable strand of the Labour party. She is fluent, she has an attractive way of addressing problems, she has confidence and vigour, and she plainly addresses herself to that great body of those in the private sector who are temporarily disenchanted with the Government.
  They look at the policies of new Labour and they say to themselves, "This is splendid. It is a new, reinvigorated Labour party and we can vote for it and have all the advantages of a new form of Conservative Government." They say to themselves, "Here is a smart, young public school boy with his attractive and very successful wife at the Bar. He is just the sort of person that we in Hampstead or Tettenhall feel most comfortable with." They then say, "While we respond to those arguments, what are the principles and the policies of the Government?"
  It is true that, after 16 years, there have been some changes. It is instructive for all those outside the Chamber who believe that they can have a Labour Government without substantial changes to read the debate. It is important to examine not just the principles and the policies, but the prejudices of the two great parties. Those prejudices have been eloquently demonstrated in today's debate.
  Conservative Members have, by and large, expressed support for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We believe that economic policy is now settled and successful. We have had some discussions about the minutiae of monetary policy, but the persistent theme is the need to cut public expenditure. We admit that it is jolly difficult to cut public expenditure, even when the prejudices of our party are in favour of it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), as always and rightly, put the need for specific cuts in public expenditure in the first paragraph of his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) supported the way in which economic policy
  1032
  is proceeding at present, but he too was looking for cuts in public expenditure. That is a proper expression of Tory prejudice. Yet, in spite of those prejudices, it is extremely difficult to contain public expenditure, and our public expenditure has risen too much.
  New Labour, however, offers all the attractive features of Conservative economic policy, but people should listen to the speeches by Labour Members this afternoon. Every time a speech makes recommendations on how the economy could be improved, massive amounts of public expenditure are involved. The public school boys leading the Labour party will say, "Oh no, that is only old Labour. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is completely out of touch with everything that is happening, but we have younger, smarter, cleverer people and we don't want massive amounts of public expenditure." But we have only to look at the speeches made this afternoon.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) produced a massive catalogue of suggestions for increases in public expenditure. He is an important figure on the Labour Front Bench who is thought to be modern, new, intelligent and well educated Labour, well away from the trade unions, but he gave us a massive catalogue of expensive promises.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) is solid, decent and moderate. What was his prescription for improving the economy? It was spend, spend, spend. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is not one of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield's wild men with roving eyes and a mad look, but another decent, sound man who might be in middle management anywhere, but yet again he makes further suggestions for increasing public expenditure. Those solid citizens that would support a Labour Administration would ask for more public expenditure.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) is here. I gave him notice that I would mention him. I have watched him and his colleague the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) these past 10 years as they have been councillors in Wolverhampton and then Members of Parliament. Every time there is a suggestion for closing a hospital or moving facilities elsewhere, they ask for more public expenditure. They want more public expenditure for general practitioners and they are extremely good at supporting middle-class claims for extra public expenditure. When the lawyers complain, they want more money for legal aid. Whenever there is a suggestion for more public expenditure, along come those solid citizens representing new Labour—the soft, decent face of a Labour party that can give the country Conservatism under a different name.
  The prejudices of our parties are quite different. The Conservative party wishes to reduce the size of the state; we want to reduce public expenditure, because that is the only safe way to reduce taxation and the only way to keep interest rates down.
  The Labour party should realise that it cannot reintroduce exchange controls or any form of capital control. It will have to borrow money from the global pool of capital. If it comes to power, those solid citizens will put pressure on the fresh-faced public school boy and we shall be back to the old story of an enormous public sector borrowing requirement, higher taxes and higher interest rates, and there will be no difference whatsoever

  1033
  in substance between the fresh-faced public school boy and all the old chaps who are in favour of old Labour and the nostrums of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Alan Milburn: We have heard in the debate a tale of two Britains. We have heard the official version from the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier today, who described a Britain on the up—a Britain where everything is improving dramatically and insecurity and unemployment are about to become things of the past. At one point, I thought that the Chancellor was about to follow his predecessor by using a gardening metaphor. Hon. Members will remember those famous green shoots of recovery. I thought that the present Chancellor was about to talk about everything coming up roses.
  Like the previous Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will quickly find that the public simply do not believe that message of optimism because it jars against the other Britain—the real Britain, where, unfortunately, confidence is low, pessimism is high and insecurity in the job and housing market is the order of the day. It is the Britain where middle and low-income families face record tax bills and ordinary families are paying more for less— more tax for fewer services. It is a Britain where millions of home owners have lived through more than five years of crisis in recession, debt and repossession. As the debate takes place, more than 1 million home owners remain trapped in negative equity.
  A Government committed to the home owner would seek to create the conditions in which the insecurities, doubts and lack of confidence in the private housing market were removed. The Government's approach is clearly driven by an understandable fear of a lurch back into the bad old boom-bust cycles, for which they were largely responsible and which they wish to avoid again. I understand that fear. They are right to be fearful but are wrong not to recognise the fact that the economic circumstances of the 1990s are very different from those of the 1980s. The danger in the present situation is not that a recovery in the housing market will inevitably set up a damaging inflationary spiral but rather that a lack of recovery in the housing market will dampen prospects for the economy as a whole.
  The Government have a responsibility to carry out the promises and pledges that they made to home owners. They can do that quite simply tonight. The new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, when he winds up in an hour or so, can tell the House that he will recommend to the Secretary of State for Social Security that he drop the proposal to remove benefits from unemployed home owners. The Chief Secretary can say that he will review the additional tax burdens that ordinary home owners face, as a result of the fact that, between January of last year and October of this year, repayment costs on an average home have risen by more than £800, because of interest rate rises, two cuts in mortgage interest relief at source—MIRAS—and the cost of private mortgage insurance.
  I recognise that the insecurity in the housing market springs from something deeper than mistrust of the Conservative party. It springs from a growing insecurity in the jobs market and growing economic insecurity in
  1034
  general. In essence, insecurity will remain as long as doubts remain about the prospects for long-term growth in the British economy. Here, as the summer forecast itself bears out, the prospects are rather less rosy. Economic growth, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) said a moment ago, has been cut from 3.25 to 3 per cent.
  Nor are the prospects for future sustainable growth any more favourable. Labour Members have consistently argued that the economy requires higher levels of investment for sustainable growth to avoid the boom and the bust, as growth is inevitably derailed by accelerating inflation. Yet in the summer forecast, business investment has been halved from 10.75 per cent., as it was in the Budget just a few months ago, to 4.75 per cent.
  Many hon. Members will have read the Bank of England's inflation report and will have noted in the February edition the warning, which I hope that we will all take seriously, that, already,
  "Capacity constraints are becoming widespread in industry … This will increase inflationary risks unless productive capacity increases."
  Already, the fragile economic recovery that we are seeing is running into all the old problems of capacity constraints, investment gaps and skills shortages—skills shortages when more than 2 million people are officially unemployed. The low capacity of our economy is the main reason why unemployment remains so high and our trade deficit is so large, and is the root cause of rising taxes and high unemployment.
  Unless those underlying weaknesses in the British economy are tackled, Britain's relative economic decline will continue through the latter part of this century and into the next. That failure to invest in capacity, whether it is physical or human, lies at the heart of Britain's inflation and its slow growth problems. The result is that, unfortunately, Britain has a sluggish rather than a dynamic market economy. That reflects a failed model of Government: the deregulation dogma, cuts in investment in skills and infrastructure.
  Cuts have been made in investment in training at the very time when so many people are out of work and are crying out for an opportunity to gain entry to the labour market. That reflects the failure to see that it is necessary to develop long-term partnerships to improve economic performance. Partnership—between Government and the private sector, and between companies, shareholders and workers—is the model for progress.
  Investment is the key to future economic success. Without investment, Britain will not only remain in the slow lane of the global economy, but will remain a country divided. Again, there is a tale of two Britains: prosperity for the few, insecurity for the many, and unemployment and low pay scarring the prospects for all. Britain is locked in a vicious cycle of poverty, rising inequality and economic failure.
  It used to be said in the 1980s, when we heard much of the economic miracle, that trickle-down economics would provide the basis for sustainable growth, that they would work, and that cuts in the top rate of tax would mean that those at the bottom would find gainful employment. There has been no economic miracle. There has been an economic disaster. Just a week or so ago, the former Welsh Secretary coined the phrase, "No change, no chance." He was right in more ways than one, because

  1035
  the summer forecast and all that the Chancellor had to say this afternoon represented no change—no change in policy, no change in direction.
  We could be rubbing our hands with glee at the prospects—or rather the lack of them—that arise for the Conservative party from that lack of change in direction, but what worries me is not the life chances of Conservative Members of Parliament but the life chances of the people of this country. The real lesson to take from the economic forecast is that, without a change in Government, life chances will not improve for the majority of people.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) on his appointment as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and wish him well in the future as he considers the budgets of the great Departments of State.
  I have always believed that we would win the next general election. I have listened to speeches from Opposition Members this evening and am more convinced of that than ever before. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) referred to the speech made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) and to the huge shopping list. The realisation of the bills that will have to be met by an incoming Labour Government will, I believe, frighten voters. Secondly, there will be a recognition that the Conservative Government have moved the country from recession to recovery, and that they have done so at a time of the deepest worldwide recession since the 1920s.
  I was struck yesterday, when listening to Opposition Members posing questions on education and employment, by what an uphill struggle the Opposition will have because of the way in which the statistics are changing. How difficult it is for one to mount an effective attack when the statistics are against one.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) focused his speech tonight on unemployment and said that it was a key factor. Yet all the statistics relating to unemployment and the creation of jobs, are moving in favour of the Government. Unemployment has fallen by nearly 700,000 since its peak in December 1992, and the number of people joining the unemployment register in May was the lowest for five years.
  It is hard to attack the Government when the number of people in employment has risen by more than 400,000 to about 25.5 million since the recovery began; and it is hard to attack the Government when redundancies are down to half the level that they were a year ago. It is also hard to attack the Government when, over the three months to May, the number of people out of work for a year or more fell by 40,000 and the number of people employed in manufacturing industry is on the rise.
  When I listen to some Opposition Members, I really think that we are living in different worlds. [Interruption.] We have heard the theme of the tale of two cities from the Opposition this evening, but with such improvements in the economy, it is hardly surprising that the Opposition made so little headway yesterday.
  It is in part due to the success of our economic policies that the Conservative party is now recovering in the polls. [Interruption.] The most recent polls show us recovering, but Opposition Members do not like to hear that. The
  1036
  recovery is also due to the Opposition's failure to present credible costed policies. That was the problem faced this evening by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). They are not helped when the Leader of the Opposition appears to have begun to distance himself from one of their key policies, the minimum wage, saying that he wants to leave it to the unions to negotiate rather than coming up with a figure.
  Perhaps that is why the stock market has surged recently. That is further evidence of economic recovery, although, judging by the speech made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham), he may not have noticed it. However, the key factor in boosting the stock market, which is an illustration of people's confidence, is the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been re-elected with a greater majority than the leader of the Labour party achieved in his election. [Interruption.] Hon. Members do not like to hear it, but it is true.
  I welcome the summer economic forecast. I quite understand why growth has to come down slightly if we are to keep inflation within a figure which will enable us to compete internationally. I welcome the target of 2 per cent. of GDP for the PSBR for 1996–97 and the need to keep tight control. Growth is what we need and will get. Some Opposition Members may give us credit for the fact that unemployment in France is twice that per capita in Britain, and France has yet to begin to reconstruct some of its state industries.
  I come now to the area that I represent—the middle of England, the east midlands. Manufacturing in the east midlands has performed strongly in recent years and its share of regional GDP at 29 per cent. is higher than anywhere else in the country. Output is up 32 per cent. over the past decade. If we have a problem, it is that not enough inward investment into Britain is going to the east midlands. That is something which I hope that the Government will address.
  That the east midlands is doing so well is in part due to Toyota's huge new plant near Derby. When I was parliamentary private secretary to the Minister of State, Welsh Office, I visited that plant, on behalf of the Welsh Office, on its opening. It is a wonderful plant, which has had a large impact on the east midlands, in particular stimulating the trend towards exports.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) referred to the fact that this is the first time that he has seen an export-led recovery. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) talked about the importance of the export-led recovery possibly shielding us against a downturn in the future. We listened to the shopping list of the hon. Member for Ashfield, but I was surprised to hear him say that the export-led economy is not helping the domestic economy. If that is the case, he certainly has not visited my constituency. The success of specialised companies there and in other parts of Leicestershire has played an important part in rejuvenating the local economy.
  For example, Nelson Burgess in Hinckley, which makes massive industrial exhaust systems, has doubled its work force on the basis of export orders. Intertech has received a £31 million order from Nigeria for radio equipment. Another company which is well known to everybody, Caterpillar (UK) at Desford, has just received the Queen's award for industry for exports. That is why unemployment in my constituency is down from 4.1 per

  1037
  cent. to 3.8 per cent. I am very surprised that the hon. Member for Ashfield can say that exports have no bearing on the domestic economy.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East referred to the importance of training. He suggested that we were taking no notice of training, whereas my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Ministers have a firm policy on training. That has been an excellent area of growth in my constituency in recent months. At an award ceremony in my constituency, 12 firms received the training for excellence award.
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury should not be put off by what is said by Opposition Members. Our policies are working. It is much more important to get right the fundamentals in the economy so that we can compete internationally in order to generate the revenue that we can spend on training rather than going to the IMF and borrowing the money, which would mean putting up interest rates and return us to the old vicious cycle.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said that this is the best country in the European Union in which to invest, and it is, and that is because of my right hon. and learned Friend's policies. As my right hon. and learned Friend approaches his next Budget, he should address three issues. I accept that we have problems with the housing market. In Leicestershire, the problems are to be found in the middle range rather than at the bottom or the top of the market. We also need to consider the problems of the married couples' allowance. Finally, if it is a matter of income tax or interest rate reductions, I would urge my right hon. and learned Friend to reduce interest rates first.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Opposition Members are relieved this week to get away from the irrelevant leadership escapism of the rabble on the Conservative Benches and face up to the reality that confronts our constituents—the growing inequality and insecurity that we debated on Monday, and the economic failure that underlies that which we are debating today. Even this week, I cannot give too many marks to the Chancellor for facing up to reality, because what he displayed today was a mixture of hypocrisy, brass neck and election babble, which will deceive no one in the country and possibly not even himself.
  I start with the four indicators that the Government chose to highlight in the motion of which they are so proud—growth, exports, inflation and borrowing. It takes brass neck for them to boast about growth with the all-time low record of 1.7 per cent. since 1979, below that in the other G7 countries. Of course, the figure sometimes has to creep up to compensate for the recessions that the Government create, but even this year they will struggle to manage growth of 3 per cent. The manufacturing output figures released this week put that in question, as does the total failure of investment to take off in the economy.
  The Government are, perhaps, proudest of exports. Again, what a nerve they have. Their record of export growth is the lowest in the European Union. The export growth that they achieved last year resulted, in fact, from the failure of their economic policy: it happened only
  1038
  because of devaluation. That 8 per cent. figure was just in line with the world average, as an 8 per cent. expansion of world trade took place last year. Other countries that devalued their currencies enjoyed greater export growth; the figure was 9 per cent. in Italy and 17 per cent. in Sweden.
  What about borrowing? Well, if it reaches £50 billion, of course it must come down; but the significant aspect of the summer forecast is that it is revised upwards. At no point in the current economic cycle will the Government conform with the golden rule, and most commentators are now saying that there is no economic argument for tax cuts in view of that. The Chancellor, however, has said that he wants to cut taxes in time—and to him that means in time for the next election.
  The Government boast about inflation. Again, most commentators question whether they will meet their inflation target. They are very proud of having lowered inflation, but again we should look at the international picture. The Government are very much in line with other countries and there are disinflationary forces in the international economy; in fact, our inflation rate is now higher than those of France, Germany, the United States and Japan. Last year, our inflation rate was 113 per cent. of the OECD average, only slightly less than the figure that obtained at the end of Labour's time in office: the figure was 122 per cent. in 1978. I do not think that the Government have too much to boast about, even in regard to inflation.
  Those, of course, are the Government's chosen indicators. They ignore more worrying indicators, which have far gloomier implications for the country. The key indicator is investment, in which we come 22nd out of 24 OECD countries. The figure fell last year for the fifth successive year, and it is falling further this year. It is on that key factor that Labour's economic policy is concentrating; our analysis is based on the failure of investment, and all our prescriptions are directed primarily towards dealing with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) spoke of capacity shortages, as has the Bank of England, and others have issued the same warning. That is the problem with which we are keenest to deal when we come to power.
  There are many policies that I have no time to describe, but I should like to say a little about dividends, which we are examining in our corporate tax review. The enormous increase in dividends has, however, already been highlighted by a previous Financial Secretary to the Treasury, by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and by the Institute of Fiscal Studies. They have increased from 1.5 per cent. of gross domestic product when the Government took office to 5.4 per cent. now. That almost mirrors the decline in investment from 21 per cent. in 1979 to 17 per cent. now. More of companies' profits must be used for investment rather than dividends.
  The Government chose to ignore many other indicators—for instance, the growing inequality in society. There is no trade-off between equality and economic efficiency, as many Conservative Members often argue; in fact, there is much evidence that countries where there is more equality have better economic records than "unequal" countries such as ours. Our constituents perceive that as the reality of the present Government. The Chancellor merely referred to the growing wage inequality in his usual dismissive way in trying to put down our minimum-wage policy. On Monday, the

  1039
  Secretary of State for Social Security said that we should conduct a pilot study for the minimum wage; but every country in Europe is "piloting" it, and many academic studies show that the Government are lying when they say that a minimum wage set at the correct rate will cause job losses.
  Can the Government really justify circumstances in which a utility boss earns in one month what someone on £2.50 an hour will earn in four and a half years? What will they do about that? We know what they will do: they are introducing the jobseeker's allowance to drive low wages even lower. The problem is not just wage inequality; it is the whole regressive tax system in which the top 1 per cent. have been paid the equivalent of £300,000 in the Government's lifetime, while the bottom fifth pay tax at 39 per cent. rather than at the 31 per cent. rate that they paid in 1979.
  The other great factor behind inequality—almost unmentioned by the Chancellor—is unemployment. The Government boast that the figures are falling, but we note that in the first three months of the year, employment fell too. Many people with jobs work part time. Some want to, but others do not: we are told that three quarters of a million people have part-time jobs that they do not want, which clearly increases the insecurity that many are experiencing. At some point in the past five years, 10 million people have been unemployed. That is why it is not just the poorest in society who feel a grievance against the Government.
  Insecurity feeds through the whole of the middle areas of society and, of course, those sections of society are feeling the full brunt of the great tax increases—the greatest tax hike in British history. That is affecting those middle-income groups, just as it is affecting low-income groups. That is why there is today a great coalition of forces between middle-income, low-income and no-income people. That coalition took to us power 50 years ago this month, and it will take us to power as soon as the Government have the courage to call a general election. It cannot come too soon.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I add my personal warm words of welcome to my right hon. Friend the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I welcome him to his important duties in the Front-Bench team and extend those words to all my other right hon. and hon. Friends who are new to their Treasury responsibilities.
  In dealing with their responsibilities, my right hon. and hon. Friends, like other members of Governments throughout the European Union and the advanced world, face two awkward realities when trying to steer the economy, a phrase that may be a misnomer these days in the world of global markets. As has been made clear in the debate tonight by many hon. Members, one reality is that we have not one homogeneous economy any more, but several. The second point is that no national authority, whether it is a central bank or a national Government, has any longer a monopoly of control or influence over economic conditions—if it ever had.
  There are three main levers of economic policy— monetary, fiscal and supply side. Of those, the greatest room for manoeuvre available to national Government probably exists in the supply side. That should be a lesson for my right hon. Friends when taking policy forward.
  1040
  In the past few years, Treasury Ministers have been steering the economy, as I rather quaintly put it, effectively. I shall give just a few figures. The corporate sector financial position has improved from deficits of about 4 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1989 and 1990 to a surplus of about 2 per cent. of GDP last year and, I think, a slightly larger surplus this year. In the personal sector, it is the same story of a healthy turnround from a deficit of 4 per cent. of disposable income in 1987–88 to a surplus of 4 per cent. in 1994.
  In the public sector, I am glad to say that we are again moving in the right direction. The financial position is improving, but is still vulnerable to the triple risks of slower growth which, as everyone knows, affects tax revenues, the lack of buoyancy in revenues at all stages of the recent economic cycle, and the inevitable public spending pressures in the run-up to a general election, which I am sure thatn my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will be well able to cope with. He must, however, be robust in dealing with those pressures because otherwise dangers will flow and we intend to inherit the consequences of our decisions.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) said in his interesting speech, the Bank of England, in testimony to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, of which I am proud, with him, to be a member, referred to the "tale of two cities" in our economy, a phrase frequently used in this debate. It is right for our constituents to understand, even though it may be disagreeable for them, that whereas in recent years the internationally traded goods and services sector has been buoyant and highly successful, the rest of the economy has not.
  No doubt exists that we must hope that the gap between those two sectors will converge, not only from the point of view of Conservative Members, because voters' subjective assessment of how the economy is going will improve if that convergence takes place. That is possible, first, because the figures on real personal disposable incomes are pointing in the right direction in relation to our constituents—this year, it is set to rise by a little over 1 per cent. and next year by more than 2 per cent.—and, secondly, because it would be economically and politically appropriate to have some judicious tax cuts in the forthcoming Budget.
  It is not just a dual economy of two cities because there is a third city that one might almost call a shanty town outside the gates of the other two. It is the informal or black economy. So far it has not been mentioned in the debate, but it is important to take account of it in considering what is happening in our society. Nobody knows the precise size of that informal economy, but it is probably between 7 per cent. of GDP—that is the cautious Inland Revenue estimate—and 14 per cent. of GDP, which is an example of some of the academic estimates.
  Let us take a middle figure of 10 per cent. of GDP as fair and possibly accurate. That represents £70 billion of economic activity in today's money, and it is largely outside all the formal mechanisms, the information gathering systems and, most of all, the tax system. Therefore, it becomes increasingly important for the Treasury to consider carefully the best and most intelligent ways in which any Chancellor can capture a proportion of that turnover for good public expenditure causes and other necessary Government expenses.

  1041
  Against that background, any tax policy must not only be internationally competitive because of competition between fiscal jurisdictions—a point that I have made in previous debates—but also aim at the broadest possible tax base and the lowest possible rates, particularly on income, so as to maximise the revenue available. At the same time it must gradually shift more of the burden to taxes on expenditure and less to taxes on income and capital, as the Government have sought to do since 1979. Those broad principles should be borne in mind.
  I should like to make two or three headline Budget recommendations. Because of the vagaries of the Budget timetable, this debate in July is one of the few opportunities for politicians to place such recommendations on the record. I should like to see several proposals in this year's Budget, but I do not expect the Minister to comment on them, simply to take note of them. First, we should cut the income tax burden on the large number of those who pay it, especially those on average and below average incomes. That is the priority.
  Not long ago, I put down a parliamentary question which clearly shows that to make the 20p band of income tax the highest marginal rate for half of all taxpayers would cost about £4.3 billion in today's money, which is just over 0.5 per cent. of GDP. That is not an excessive sum, and it is well within the bounds of what could be prudently afforded by the Chancellor in November.
  Secondly, on the expenditure side it is important especially to target any improvements that we can afford on the elderly, on those on the state pension who need help most. The way to do that would be to focus it on those born before a set date. I am trying to direct help to those who are over, say, the age of 75 and who, according to all the indicators, have some of the greatest social and personal needs.
  Few of those who were born before 28 November 1920 have occupational pensions. Help would lift some of them out of income support, and that would be a countervailing saving on the other side of the account. By definition, that form of help would be a declining public expenditure commitment. I do not need to spell out why that is so, because it is fairly obvious. A deserving cause could be targeted and it would not take public expenditure out of control.
  In the interests of brevity, I shall come to my third and final recommendation. The time has come to introduce a comprehensive tax incentive for personal savings. Many of my colleagues have been advocating such ideas from various quarters. Let us call it PIP—short for personal investment plan. It should be self-certified and there should be stiff penalties to deter potential abuse. It should be available to be offset against all forms of personal savings and investment up to a figure of let us say £10,000 per year per person. So it should be more generous than the existing structure of PEPs, but for the very good reason that it would cover all forms of savings instruments.
  It would have great advantages for the investment problem, which has been one of the main themes of the debate. If we could achieve an increase in aggregate investment, it would be a great triumph for this country.
  1042
  It could also be used by people to invest in their own future: in their education and training, their professional updating, refreshment of their skills, and so on.
  That would all be to the good and would meet both a social and an economic need. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will bear those points in mind as they move towards this year's Budget.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Stephen Timms: I have only a few minutes and I want to make only one point, picking up from where the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) left off. We face a crisis of inadequate investment in Britain, which the Government have failed to resolve. That has been the Government's central economic failure in the past 16 years.
  We are a long way from seeing the investment-led recovery that will lead to sustainable growth in Britain. We face a crisis of investment and, therefore, a desperate lack of the underpinning that we need to transform our economy for the new century. In the years since 1979— some hon. Members have referred to this already—the average level of investment as a share of gross domestic product in this country has been 17 per cent. That has put us 22nd out of the 24 nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We have the worst level of investment of the countries in the European Union and the G7. It is no surprise, therefore, that over the same period we have had the worst economic performance. Our economy has grown at an average of 1.6 per cent. since 1979—the worst of the G7 countries.
  Recent evidence shows that our economy is still in a bad state. The Government told us in the Budget that investment would grow by 10.75 per cent. in 1995. Now we are told that it will be 4.75 per cent. In the first quarter of this year the level of investment fell. In March, the Confederation of British Industry told that its survey of investment intentions revealed that companies were increasingly cutting their investment plans in the face of inflationary pressures and the fears of higher interest rates.
  The truth is that sustainable growth remains as elusive as ever. Inflationary problems are recurring, while in my constituency 21.7 per cent. of men in the labour market are out of work and there is no confidence anywhere that the position will get better. Nations such as ours that fail to invest have poor economic performance. Until we can tackle that problem and the investment gap, Britain will continue to slide out of the economic and social first division.
  I wanted to say a little more about two areas of failure that say a great deal about the problems in our economy. I do not have the time to do that, but I shall just mention them in passing. The first is our lamentable record in research and development. A desperately small percentage of our GDP is spent on that, and the Government have done nothing to put it right. That augurs ill for the future.
  The second area is very different, but says a great deal about the Government's failure to manage the economy in recent years. It is the saga of the channel tunnel rail link, in which I have a constituency interest. Eight years after work began on it, even this morning fundamental questions were being raised about whether the funding for it can ever be achieved. That saga poses searching questions about the Government's management of the

  1043
  economy and the abject failure to deliver key investment projects that should be central to our economic development and which we need if we are to be a successful economy in the new millennium. There is no sign of those projects being put together successfully.
  I want to quote a short point made in the recent Rowntree report, which described the problems of inequality in Britain. We should remember that a broad cross-section of people contributed to that report and worked on the team that put it together. It concluded:
  "Addressing growing inequality will require investment of resources which could otherwise go into current consumption."
  The resources may come
  "from taxation, reductions elsewhere in public spending, greater spending by companies on training and investment, or by greater individual payments … But if we fail to make this investment, the costs we shall have to face and consumption we shall have to forgo in the future will be greater."
  That is a stern warning and one that the Government must heed. If this Government do not, the next Labour Government most certainly will.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and his Front-Bench colleagues to their new positions. If I understand rightly from the place in which she is sitting, congratulations are also due to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on being appointed as a parliamentary private secretary. I hope that I have not just appointed her to that position. I see that I have not.
  I am sure that the Chief Secretary is well aware that he takes over at a time when the downward revision of economic prospects that we have heard so much about in this debate, taken with the pre-election pressures for huge tax cuts and the Prime Minister's new £11 billion spending pledges, will make his job especially difficult.
  We heard today a good example of what the right hon. Gentleman is up against. It is clear from the debate that there is a huge split between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor over the Prime Minister's commitment to abolish capital gains tax and inheritance tax—something which the Chancellor told us earlier was too ambitious. I challenge the Chief Secretary to tell us when he winds up whether it is Government policy to abolish capital gains tax and inheritance tax. There are big spending implications in that, which were added to by other aspirations expressed by Conservative Members—not least by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who must have spent several billion pounds more in the few minutes he had to speak.
  The new Chief Secretary will have to square the Chancellor's stated aspiration, to drive public spending below 40 per cent. of GDP, with his own previous speeches, which suggested that the Government would find it difficult to get it any lower. As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he told the Institute of Directors:
  "The advocates of a return to pre-Modern minimalist Government are whistling in the wind. In any modern democracy, the government is always going to direct"—
  "direct" was the word he used—
  "around 40 per cent. of the national wealth."
  The debate has been interesting, if somewhat staccato with the number of contributions. I have a number of questions that arise from the debate to which I shall come
  1044
  later and which I specifically want to address to the Chief Secretary. First, I want to underline the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) and others, by saying how worrying it is that nearly all the key changes in the summer forecast compared with the autumn Red Book and Budget statement have been changes for the worse.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) said, no explanation is provided. We should be given one tonight. We know that forecasting is a precarious business—all those uncertainties multiplied together and all those small differences between large numbers. We must expect some variation. In so far as we have heard a Government explanation today, this is all there is to it: we should not worry about the summer forecast—things are pretty much all right, with only a few small differences here and there; the economy is basically on a sound footing.
  For the sake of the country and for my party if we win the general election, I would like to think that the economy is on a sound footing. However, when one examines the story, judged against the evidence, one sees that it is far too complacent and self-serving. It presents a flawed analysis of what is going on in the country and reveals a poverty of ambition for what Britain can and must accomplish.
  For the key indicators—investment, growth, inflation and the state of the public finances—to look so much worse than just last autumn should disturb the Conservatives every bit as much as it disturbs us. Indeed, one or two Conservative Back Benchers—the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), for example—came close to recognising that.
  The Government cannot escape the fact that the arithmetically small differences to which they point are proportionally very large. The summer forecast shows growth in the current year now expected to be down by nearly a tenth as compared with the Budget forecast; inflation to be higher by nearly 20 per cent. proportionately; the PSBR to be higher by 10 per cent.; and business investment to increase by less than half as much as the Government were expecting just eight months ago.
  They are not the statistics of a successful economic policy. They are, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, another episode in the Government's persistent failure to modernise the economy in such a way that we achieve genuinely sustainable non-inflationary growth. That is clear from the summer forecast figures. Whereas last autumn they were predicting growth higher than inflation, they are now pointing to fourth quarter inflation higher than the volume level of growth.
  Despite welcome falls in the unemployment claimant count, the summer forecast concedes that the rise in employment has been very much less. It puts that down to the expansion of further and higher education and increases in early retirement and in the number of people claiming invalidity and sickness benefits. On page 25, the forecast states:
  "Unemployment therefore seems unlikely to go on falling faster than employment is rising."
  That begs the crucial question whether the Government believe that the gap will be narrowed in future by unemployment falling more slowly or by employment rising more quickly.

  1045
  The first specific question that I direct to the Chief Secretary is, given the assertion in the summer forecast, does he now expect unemployment to fall more slowly or employment to increase more rapidly? We need to know, because it makes an awful lot of difference to the unemployed and to the social and economic cost to our whole community of that unemployment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) spoke with passion about the unemployed in his constituency, as did other hon. Friends about unemployment in theirs. For this country still to have 836,000 people trapped in long-term unemployment and 619,000 young people without jobs is an obscenity that demands the urgent programme for jobs for which Labour has called, measures to stimulate the recruitment of the long-term unemployed and action to make it easier for people to move from welfare to work.
  Equally worrying is Britain's position on investment, especially coming on top of the Government's poor historic record. Total investment in 1994 was still 10 per cent. below the level in 1989, before the recession, and investment as a proportion of GDP fell six years in a row, from 23 per cent. in 1989 to 17 per cent. last year. Given that record, to have to revise downwards, as the summer forecast does, predicted investment growth by more than a half—from 10.75 per cent. to 4.75 per cent., is an indictment not only of the Government's forecasting ability but of what they are doing to the real economy.
  Of course, business investment has always proved to be one of the most difficult things to forecast. It is all very well to suppose that the fall in manufacturing investment that we witnessed in the first quarter of this year was, as the summer forecast put it, "erratic", but the forecast does not explain that deteriorating investment outlook. The country deserves an explanation. The second key question that I would like to direct to the Chief Secretary is this: will he tell the House why investment prospects are now so much worse than the Government claimed at the time of the Budget?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) made a passionate case for investment in manufacturing on behalf of the steel and aircraft industries in his constituency. It is clearer than ever before that Britain needs the strategy for investment that Labour has set out—
  Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: In a moment.
  Britain needs greater incentives for long-term finance, more opportunities for small business to access capital and incentives for investment in skills, infrastructure and transferable technology. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) said, we need to get research and development moving in this country if we are to confront the global competitive challenges.
  Mr. Budgen: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) did not just talk about investment in manufacturing, but made a specific request for grants for the aerospace industry. Is the Labour party in favour of that?
  Mr. Smith: We are in favour of an industrial policy that rebuilds the strength of industries undermined by the
  1046
  Government's persistent mismanagement of this country's economy. We are in favour of getting industry moving through a partnership between Government and people and through training to raise the level of skills in our work force, to give people, like my hon. Friend's constituents, the opportunities which they have been denied under this Government and which they know that they can never expect from this Government.
  The Government's record on investment is particularly serious given the evidence of high-capacity utilisation— at least in manufacturing industry—to the point where it is generally agreed that the output gap has significantly narrowed, which the summer forecast recognised. Indeed, some analysts believe that the gap may have disappeared altogether. That can only lend further weight to the point made by the Bank of England in its May inflation report, which was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). It said:
  "capacity utilisation in manufacturing"—
  in the first quarter of 1995—
  "was at its highest level for almost six years, at about 18 percentage points above its long-run average".
  That underlined the warning in the February report:
  "Capacity constraints are becoming more widespread in industry … This will increase inflationary risks unless productive capacity increases".
  That bears out Labour's argument, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, that the shortage of capacity—the failure to invest in plant, skills and infrastructure—limits Britain's growth and causes inflationary pressures to emerge even when there are more than 2 million people unemployed, consumer confidence and demand are very flat and, as some Conservative Members have pointed out, the construction industry has yet to struggle out of recession.
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) referred to the difficulties facing the construction industry and drew attention to the benefits of implementation of the Latham report. He should ask his right hon. and hon. Friends in government when they will find the time to implement the legislative provisions of that report.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was characteristically wise when he drew the attention of the House to the danger of failing to take account of acting on the depreciation and degeneration of our public capital. People will ask why, given the state of Britain's infrastructure, with its rundown housing and transport systems, the Government are now proposing to cut public investment even further.
  My third specific question for the Chief Secretary, if he will listen for a moment, is this: why, according to the summer forecast, is public investment in 1996 set to fall by 8; per cent.—nearly twice the 4.5 per cent. cut that the Government put forward in the Red Book in the autumn?
  Mr. Legg: If, as the hon. Gentleman believes, public investment should increase—that is the case that he and his hon. Friends are putting forward—how high is he prepared to see the public sector borrowing requirement go?
  Mr. Smith: We want to cut the PSBR by getting people back to work. That is the way to cut borrowing in this country.

  1047
  When we survey the state of the economy, we see that the Chancellor is in a difficult dilemma of his own making. Because of the underlying limits to productive capacity, he faces growth high enough to generate inflationary pressures above his target level but not high enough to lessen insecurity at work, to generate sufficient extra employment, or even to bring in tax revenues or to make people better off.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman's response to the dilemma is to go for greater short-term flexibility by loosening the targets that he has set himself on inflation and the public finances. In that way, he hopes to gain extra room for manoeuvre on both the monetary and the fiscal sides in the run-up to the general election.
  The Chancellor now says that inflation will be between 1 and 4 per cent. most of the time, when previously— [Interruption.] I have here a letter signed by the Chancellor and addressed to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), the Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which says:
  "But setting interest rates consistently at the level judged necessary to achieve the inflation target of 2½ per cent. or less should ensure that inflation remains in the range 1–4 per cent. most of the time."
  It is no good the Chancellor saying that he did not say "most of the time", because he signed the letter.
  Not only has the right hon. and learned Gentleman loosened his words there, but he now talks about bringing the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance, whereas he used to say that it was his goal to achieve balance. In effect, he is admitting that his policy may be loosened in the pre-election period.
  This is my fourth specific question to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—
  Mr. Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No.
  If the Chancellor is not loosening his policy, why is he loosening his language? The public finances, another critical area in which the Government—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's textual analysis is utterly ludicrous. The inflation target is 2.5 per cent. or lower. I said that we were moving towards balance in the medium term in the 1993 Red Book. It is absurd textual analysis to use a difference of one word between that and the 1994 Red Book. There has been a totally consistent policy. What is Labour's policy on public sector borrowing? What is Labour's policy on inflation targets? We have listened for another half an hour and still we have not heard a word of serious economic policy.
  Mr. Smith: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is obviously in a serious difficulty that he cannot get out of. He could not tell my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) earlier which of his various targets he was following in practice—whether it was the 2.5 per cent. that he told the Governor about, the 3 per cent. that he said in an interview would be a triumph, the 1 per cent. to 4 per cent. range that he tells the public about, or the "most of the time, but we might go over 4 per cent." to which he put his name when he signed that letter. The Government's policy is in chaos.
  1048
  Not only is the PSBR now projected to be higher than the Government expected at the time of the Budget, but their own panel of independent forecasters has said that it will be 25 per cent. higher than they admit even now. That prompts my fifth question to the Chief Secretary. Does he regard the £16.1 billion in the summer forecast for 1996–97 as an acceptable level for the PSBR? Is it now a target for that year?
  Sir Peter Hordern rose—
  Mr. Smith: No, I am running out of time.
  When does the Chief Secretary expect the public finances to reach balance? Let us have a date. The Chancellor would not give us one earlier.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) invited us earlier to consider what had happened to business taxation. I have news for Conservative Members about that. Not only have the Government clobbered individuals by breaking all their promises on tax and banging on that extra £800 a year from which people are suffering even now, but they have taken more tax from companies as well.
  Figures from the Library show that the average share of company income taken by the Conservative Government during their years in office, in corporation tax and other taxes, is 15 per cent., compared with 11 per cent. for the years of the previous Labour Government. In 1994, the Government took 13 per cent. of company income, compared with 11 per cent. in Labour's last year in office.
  We were invited by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) to contrast the values and policies of the Conservative and Labour parties. I can tell the House that the choice before the country and the House is clear. The Conservative party breaks its promises on tax cutting and living standards, fails to invest for the future and leaves our productive capacity too small to generate the welfare that people need. The Government have divided the country, trapped millions in poverty and hit middle and lower-income Britain while they have failed to act to end excesses in the privatised utilities. The Government have surrendered their responsibilities to an unregulated market.
  The Labour party stands for investment in people, industry and infrastructure, and wants to open up opportunities to enable everyone to make the most of their potential. We say that fairness is crucial to enable people to get on and to get the people of Britain pulling together for economic success. I remind Conservative Members of something that the country will not forget—that it was Labour who defeated the Government over the increase of VAT on fuel, while it was the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Conservative party who wanted to force through that unfair tax, just as they will extend VAT again if they have the chance.
  The choice is between the parties, but which one can the public trust? The public can never trust the Conservatives again. Government Members have said, "No change is no chance." Labour will bring change and a new future for Britain, and I commend our amendment to the House.
  9.41 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): These economic debates are very different from debates on agriculture. They are much more fun, I

  1049
  have to say. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will not find it offensive if I say that I found certain similarities between his speech and that of his shadow, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). They are both substantial figures who delivered speeches full of jokes. The only difference was that my right hon. and learned Friend had some substance between his jokes, while the hon. Gentleman just had jokes. They were good jokes, but there was no substance in his speech at all.
  We did learn one or two things. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that he would have liked interest rates to be higher, and that was helpful. I think that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East really wanted interest rates to be higher, too. He shifted around a bit, but the tenor of what he was saying in his debate with my right hon. and learned Friend about the Governor of the Bank of England suggested that the hon. Gentleman would have put interest rates up.
  There was also an announcement from the hon. Member for Dunfirmline, East of at least one new tax on business, for training. That is very admirable, and it is better that the hon. Gentleman should put that new tax forward firmly. It may be a good thing if he puts it forward and votes for it.
  The problem for the Opposition today is a problem that I remember the late, great Keith Joseph explaining to me a long time ago when we were in opposition. He said that it was a miserable business being in opposition when the news is good—not that the news ever was good between 1974 and 1979—and added, "You have to emphasise as much as you can everything that is wrong."
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) played some wonderful games with percentages, and stated that a revision from 3.25 per cent. down to 3 per cent. was a great disaster. My goodness, Labour would have been pleased with figures such as those when they had inflation of nearly 27 per cent. It reminds me of Oxford city council, which is run by the partisans of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo). It wanted to put up a barrier to stop shoppers crossing a road because the number of road accidents had doubled. I asked how many casualties there had been and was told two—there had been one the year before. One can do things like that with percentages, and the hon. Member for Oxford, East was doing it, but it was not very effective.
  Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall give way just once, as the hon. Member for Oxford, East did not keep to the agreement on time.
  Mr. Stephen: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. When he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) took almost 22 minutes to wind up the debate, in the course of which he made one carping criticism after another of the Government, regaled us with figures of which we are all well aware and, apart from a few generalisations to which we can all say amen, gave no sign whatever of Labour's
  1050
  policy. Is the government of this country to be entrusted to a party whose economic policies are so incredible that it will not even state publicly what they are?
  Mr. Waldegrave: In coming to these debates, I have learnt that there is no hope from Opposition speeches or papers on their position. One always hopes that an Opposition will give ideas that one can pinch and claim as one's own, and then say what admirable new ideas one has had. There is no chance of that from the Labour party. Alternatively, one can look at their ideas and rebut them because they are wrong. There is no chance of that either, because no ideas are forthcoming. It is inconvenient of them and I do not think that they are earning their pay on this matter.
  The hon. Members for Dunfermline, East and for Oxford, East raised one important matter. They tried to manufacture confusion about our inflation target. There is no confusion about our inflation target, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) said, and he understood it very well.
  Surprisingly, the hon. Member for Gordon tried to contribute to that confusion. He of all people should know that there is no confusion, because he put a question to the Governor of the Bank of England when the Governor came to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. He asked the Governor whether the Government had relaxed their inflation target and the Governor said, "No, I think that that is absolute rubbish." So it seems odd that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the answer, and neither did the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.
  Let me give an example of what my right hon. and learned Friend means. Let us say that the last Labour Government had inflation moving between 7 per cent. and 27 per cent. If their target had been consistent with that, they would have said, "We shall set a target at 17 per cent. or downwards" and that is exactly what they would have achieved—an average of 16 per cent. inflation in that period. So the arithmetic is really quite simple.
  In an eloquent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) made the fundamental point that a long-term commitment to low inflation is what produces investment, rather than clever tricks or, Lord help us, state direction. A long-term commitment to low inflation changes the culture of investment and produces long-term investments. Sustained, healthy economic growth at a strong rate, which is what we have now—stronger than any other European country—will become a permanent feature of the landscape only if we keep inflation down and achieve those long-term investments.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the fact that the recovery has been led by exports. That is surely to be welcomed. Every Government since the second world war have sought to achieve that, but this is genuinely the first time that a recovery has been export led. Exports have risen by more than 9 per cent. compared with a year ago. My hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) made that point eloquently.
  Although manufacturing investment has risen in the past year, obviously we want it to increase further. The framework for that seems to be in place because investment is ultimately caused by profitability. The Opposition, even new Labour, are pretty uncomfortable

  1051
  with profits in private sector companies. They do not really like them. They nearly always describe profits as excessive and conduct a sort of vendetta against companies that make large profits. The fact that profitability has now returned to its highest since 1988 and is higher than at any time in the 1970s is a good indicator that we shall get that investment in the future.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) made an uncharacteristically unfair point about inward investment. She complained that we were not obtaining enough inward investment.
  I do not know what figures the hon. Lady can have been reading. We have about a third of all inward investment into the European Union and 40 per cent. of the United States and Japanese investment into the European Union, and a recent Confederation of British Industry survey showed us as being the second favourite destination of mobile investment in the world, after the United States.
  Therefore, it was a little unfair of the hon. Lady to make that criticism, and she well knows that Scotland has rightly been a great beneficiary of that inward investment, with a good work force and plenty of good opportunities for investment. That leads to the creation of jobs, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom.
  As many Opposition Members and all Conservative Members who spoke have said, we are talking about the creation of long-term stable jobs in the only way possible—660,000 new jobs in the past two and a half years and, on either measure, unemployment has decreased during that time. Let us hope that that continues.
  Living standards are now increasing after inflation and tax. Real personal disposal income is expected to increase by about 1.5 per cent. this year, and that should mean an extra £5 a week for households on average. We expect to keep that going next year and beyond.
  Unjustifiably, several Opposition Members accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of complacency. One person, the hon. Member for Oxford, East, accused him of loose language. My right hon. and learned Friend could never be accused of any manner of loose language, and he certainly could not be accused of complacency.
  If we are to be accused of complacency, let us stand, not on our forecast, which we believe, but on the forecasts of outside organisations. The hon. Member for Oxford, East, who is learned in those matters, will have studied those forecasts and he will know that our forecast lies about in the middle of the range of forecasts by outside organisations. Therefore, by saying that that pattern is likely to come about in the next year and the next year or two we are not being complacent; we are simply predicting what is the best advice that can be given to us from inside and from outside.
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, for example, expects the United Kingdom economy to grow faster than any other major European country again this year. That is not complacency; it is a fact of which we should be proud, and which we should take the necessary steps to maintain in future.
  Many of my hon. Friends mentioned the subject that dominates my mind, and will dominate my mind while I hold this job, which I am delighted to hold—public spending.
  1052
  As I take on what is a crucial job in Government, described to me by Leon Brittan as the most fascinating job in Government, it is legitimate for my hon. Friends to ask me, in the phraseology of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), what my prejudice or instinct is.
  I have sometimes been described as a one-nation Tory or, if one wants to be offensive, a wet Tory—the type of person who admires Rab Butler and people of that kind. I do admire Rab Butler; I plead guilty to admiring Rab Butler.
  Let me remind the House what Rab Butler did when he was one of the most distinguished holders of my right hon. and learned Friend's office—he was also Deputy Prime Minister—and in that great office he reduced Government spending from 37.75 per cent. of gross domestic product to 33.5 per cent. of GDP between 1952 and 1955. If that is being a Tory wet, I could probably bring my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) with me. My hon. Friend would put up with wetness of that type, I believe, if we reduced public spending to 33.5 per cent. of GDP.
  I do not believe that I shall be able to do that, but I believe that I shall have to work, and shall work, extremely hard to continue the Government's commitment to bringing down the proportion of public spending in GDP. That will be the principal target of my efforts and of the efforts of the Treasury in the next spending round.
  I believe that that is something that unites all Conservative Members. It is one of the things that fundamentally divide us from the Labour party. The Labour party will not give us targets and so on. It is uncomfortable with that because, as we decrease the percentage of GDP that is spent by the public sector, it will find it more and more difficult not to give an answer. Labour Members will make the debating points that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has made—"You just put it up." Yes, it did go up in the recession, but we shall bring it down to the point where the hon. Gentleman must, in the end, be smoked out into agreeing with us, or he will be shown to believe in nothing.
  The two most eloquent speeches today were made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield raised the tone of the debate by offering a real and philosophically coherent alternative. The conventions of the House do not permit me to refer to an amendment that was not chosen, but the right hon. Member's speech reminds us that, although Labour Members tease us about the divisions in our party, the divisions in the Labour party are much deeper, because they are based on a complete difference in philosophy.
  The amendment appearing in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield contains a reference to the philosophy of Her Majesty's Government—a belief in markets and so on. I think that that is what used to be called code; he was really referring to Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. It must hurt the right hon. Gentleman that the Labour Front Bench now professes a commitment to market economics which must be anathema to him and to his colleagues who signed the amendment.

  1053
  Are they trying to tell us something? Are we to assume that Labour Members have become pink Conservatives after all? My right hon. Friend—I beg his pardon: he should be right hon.—the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that we should not allow the country to be fooled by that. [Interruption.] My colleagues on the Front Bench are saying, "Steady on." My hon. Friend made his point very eloquently.
  What are the gut feelings of Labour Members about those matters? I do not believe that they have become pink Conservatives; I believe that they have listened to the PR men and the pollsters, and they do not think that they will be elected if they allow their true colours to show. I believe fundamentally—it is obvious from every debate in this place and in our constituencies and from the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Corston), who is a redoubtable fighter for socialism but who is very quiet nowadays—that Labour Members believe in higher spending and higher taxing. If they do not believe in that, they do not believe in anything.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Chief Secretary tell the House whether it is Government policy to abolish capital gains tax and inheritance tax?
  Mr. Waldegrave: That is a nice easy question to answer: yes. When we can afford to do it, we shall do it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West should be interested in my next point. Labour Members' commitment to a belief in market economics does not go as far as believing in rewarding the winners in a market system. We believe that the abolition of those taxes will make capital markets work better so that everyone will be better off. Labour Members cannot stomach that, so they fall off the train. At that stage, they do the populist bit and say, "It's going to make some people richer, so we're against it."
  That is also their reaction to privatisation. We did not hear anything about the fact that the privatised industries now contribute £55 million a week to the Exchequer, when they cost £50 million a week when they were left to us by Labour. We hear only persistent attacks on a few individuals whom Labour Members allege are overpaid. They go for the cheap populist vote in order to disguise the fact that they have no belief in privatisation.
  My hon. Friend's point was eloquently reinforced by a number of Labour Members, a few of whom referred to more spending. They have been house trained to the point where they do not state any figures; they have been told to disguise the fact that their spending pledges are real. That is what so offends the honest socialists on the Opposition Benches who want to spend money and who believe in spending money. That is what so offended the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He recently wrote in The Guardian newspaper that Labour now has a clear choice: it can be either the party of high taxation and proud of it, or the party of higher taxes which it is ashamed to describe.
  The Labour party has now become the party that is ashamed to mention its own name—the party that dare not speak its name. It is really the party of high spending and high taxation, but it will not be brave enough to say so.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 300.

  Division No. 203]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Fisher, Mark

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Flynn, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Fraser, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fyfe, Maria

  Austin-Walker, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, John

  Barnes, Harry

  George, Bruce

  Barron, Kevin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Battle, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bell, Stuart

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Graham, Thomas

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Berry, Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Betts, Clive

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blunkett, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Gunnel, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hain, Peter

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hall, Mike

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

  Hanson, David

  Burden, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  Byers, Stephen

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Caborn, Richard

  Henderson, Doug

  Callaghan, Jim

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cann, Jamie

  Hoey, Kate

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Church, Judith

  Home Robertson, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corston, Jean

  Jamieson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Keen, Alan

  Dafis, Cynog

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Darling, Alistair

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davidson, Ian

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Denham, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McFall, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Etherington, Bill

  McLeish, Henry

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fatchett, Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Madden, Max

  1055

  Mahon, Alice

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Marek, Dr John

  Rogers, Allan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Rooney, Terry

  Martlew, Eric

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Maxton, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Meacher, Michael

  Salmond, Alex

  Meale, Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Michael, Alun

  Sheerman, Barry

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Milburn, Alan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Simpson, Alan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morley, Ellitot

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

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

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Snape, Peter

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mudie, George

  Spellar, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Oakes Rt Hon Geogery

  Straw, Jack

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Touhig, Don

  O'Neill, Martin

  Vaz, Keith

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Parry, Robert

  Walley, Joan

  Pearson, Ian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pickthall, Colin

  Watson, Mike

  Pike, Peter L

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wilson, Brian

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Winnick, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wise, Audrey

  Purchase, Ken

  Worthington, Tony

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wray, Jimmy

  Radice, Giles

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Randall, Stuart

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Reid, Dr John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bowis, John

  Amess, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Ancram, Michael

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ashby, David

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Burns, Simon

  Baldry, Tony

  Burt, Alistair

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butcher, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butler, Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carttiss, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Chapman, Sydney

  Booth, Hartley

  Churchill, Mr

  Boswell, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  1056

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hicks, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Congdon, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Conway, Derek

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

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

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Elletson, Harold

  Knapman, Roger

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  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

  Reld, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Legg, Barry

  Forman, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forth, Eric

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lidington, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lightbown, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hague, William

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, Iain

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Harris, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hawkins, Nick

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  1057

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Steen, Anthony

  Norris, Steve

  Stephen, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Stern, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stewart, Allan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Page, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Paice, James

  Sweeney, Walter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Sykes, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Ian (Ester)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Thomason, Roy

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Portilto, Rt Hon Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thumham, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Richards, Rod

  Tredinnick, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Trend, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Robathan, Andrew

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Walden, George

  Rumbdd, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Walker, Bin (N Tayside)

  Sackville, Tom

  Waller, Gary

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Ward, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Watts, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Whittingdale, John

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sims, Roger

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wilkinson, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Spring, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sproat, Iain

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. David Willetts.

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put: —
  The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 251.

  Division No. 204]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alexander, Richard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Amess, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Ancram, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Booth, Hartley

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Boswell, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  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

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Bates, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  1058

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Hague, William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Butcher, John

  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

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hawkins, Nick

  Churchill, Mr

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heald, Giver

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Congdon, David

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

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

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan-Smilh, Iain

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Elletson, Harold

  Knapman, Roger

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  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, Fit 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)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forth, Eric

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lidington, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lightbown, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorrnan, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marlow, Tony

  1059

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Merchant Piers

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mills, Iain

  Spring, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sproat, Iain

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Steen, Anthony

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stephen, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stern, Michael

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Stewart, Allan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thomason, Roy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Page, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Paice, James

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Thurnham, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Pawsey, James

  Tracey, Richard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tredinnick, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Trend, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Walden, George

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Richards, Rod

  Waller, Gary

  Riddick, Graham

  Ward, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Watts, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wells, Bowen

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Whitney, Ray

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Whittingdale, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sackville, Tom

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Wilkinson, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Yeo, Tim

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. David Willetts.

  Smith, Tim (Beaoonsfield)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Roger

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Betts, Clive

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Blunkett, David

  Austin-Walker, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Battle, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burden, Richard

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Byers, Stephen

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Caborn, Richard

  Bell, Stuart

  Callaghan, Jim

  1060

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hoey, Kate

  Cann, Jamie

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Home Robertson, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Church, Judith

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hutton, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Illsley, Eric

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corbett Robin

  Jamieson, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Janner, Greville

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Keen, Alan

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Khabra, Piara S

  Darling, Alistair

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davidson, Ian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Terry

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

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Denham, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dixon, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dobson, Frank

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAllion, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Etherington, Bill

  Macdonald, Calum

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McFall, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fatchett, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Faulds, Andrew

  Maclennan, Robert

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fisher, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Madden, Max

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Maddock, Diana

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mahon, Alice

  Fraser, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Garrett, John

  Martlew, Eric

  George, Bruce

  Maxton, John

  Garrard, Neil

  Meacher, Michael

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Meale, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Michael, Alun

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Milburn, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Miller, Andrew

  Graham, Thomas

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morley, Elliot

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hain, Peter

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hall, Mike

  Mudie, George

  Hanson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Hardy, Peter

  Murphy, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Heppell, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  1061

  Olner, Bill

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  O'Neill, Martin

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

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Parry, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pearson, Ian

  Spellar, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stevenson, George

  Pike, Peter L

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Pope, Greg

  Straw, Jack

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Purchase, Ken

  Timms, Stephen

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Touhig, Don

  Radice, Giles

  Tyler, Paul

  Randall, Stuart

  Vaz, Keith

  Raynsford, Nick

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Reid, Dr John

  Wallace, James

  Rendel, David

  Walley, Joan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Watson, Mike

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wilson, Brian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Winnick, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wise, Audrey

  Salmond, Alex

  Worthington, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Short, Clare

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simpson, Alan

  Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the publication of the Government's latest forecast, which shows growth continuing at a steady and sustainable rate, inflation remaining low, exports rising and Government borrowing falling; and recognises that this favourable outlook for the economy is a result of the Government's firm commitment to the healthy and sustainable recovery of a modern and competitive industrial economy.

  Immigration Service (Hackney Council)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Wells.]
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Hackney has had its share of troubles in the past, but in recent years it has become a well-managed council, which attracts large amounts of Government money. It has more than 11,000 employees, the overwhelming majority of whom are loyal and hard-working public servants.
  When there is fraud, Hackney tries to root it out seriously. Since 1990, 110 council staff have been sacked or have left when disciplinary action loomed. The council has helped the police successfully to prosecute 24 of those. The council's approach to combating fraud has been praised by the district auditor for four years, and by the police, with whom the council has an excellent relationship. It co-operated with outside bodies, but only within the rule of law. That is where the trouble starts— operations outside the rule of law.
  The council was shocked to discover that, earlier this year, a Ms Jill Arnfield of the immigration and nationality department of the immigration service had in her possession a list of 600 Hackney council employees. The information was not supplied by Hackney council but was removed without authorisation from the council's payroll records. Ms Arnfield used the stolen list to run systematic checks on people of whom there was no suspicion of wrongdoing. She then passed the list to a Ms Jenny Gray of the Benefits Agency to run further blanket checks.
  When Ms Arnfield handed over the list, she said, according to Jenny Gray, that she had got it officially from Hackney council. That was a lie. She asked Jenny Gray not to tell her line manager that she had the list. However, Jenny Gray told a David Carroll, her line manager, who reported the matter to Hackney council.
  The list contained 600 African names, and gave their payroll numbers and their start and leaving dates. It is clear as clear can be from the list—I have here one of the pages from that list—that it has come off a computer, and that its use was in breach of the Data Protection Act 1984. It is my belief that the IND has colluded in a criminal act and has been an accessory after the fact of a crime, which in itself is a crime.
  It is clear that whoever supplied the information to the IND did so with the sole aim of encouraging it to investigate all of Hackney council's African employees. That is a gross and despicable violation of the civil liberties of the individuals concerned. They should be investigated only where the IND has grounds for reasonable suspicion against them as individuals, and not because their name appears on a general list. It is a nasty form of racism, which has caused deep offence in Hackney council.
  One remembers that, in Germany in the inter-war years, the secret police checked up on Jews merely by virtue of the fact that they were Jews. In Hackney in 1995, a secret police has been checking up on Africans who work for Hackney council merely by virtue of the fact that they are of African descent.

  1063
  On 10 March, Robert Barr, the assistant chief finance officer, met members of the Immigration and Nationality Department to complain. His confidential minute of the same date records:
  "Following the revelation of the list of names the IND officers appeared to be very uncomfortable."
  The meeting came to an abrupt end. Now, two Government Departments are refusing to co-operate in an inquiry into crime and one of them—bizarrely—is the Home Office, which is responsible for law and order.
  On 11 May 1995, David Wilson, a Home Office official from the IND, wrote to Hackney council:
  "On balance we feel that it would be inappropriate for Ms Arnfield to be drawn into your enquiry and that she should not be directly interviewed as part of your investigation. However, should you wish to direct any written enquiries to me at the above address, we will do our best to provide you with answers."
  That is a slippery way out of a difficult situation.
  On 2 June 1995, P. Gisbey from the Benefits Agency wrote to Hackney council saying:
  "In your letter you asked to the Agency's agreement for our officer, … Jenny Gray, to be interviewed by you concerning this matter. I have sought advice from our Personnel Command concerning this, and they inform me that it would be inappropriate for this to happen unless it were part of court proceedings and a subpoena issued."
  I am a barrister, but perhaps the Minister can tell me and the House how there can be court proceedings and a subpoena issued when the chief witness in the case will not make a statement to the people inquiring into the case—wrap your mind around that, Minister.
  I seek three assurances from the Minister. First, will he assure me that Ms Arnfield will co-operate with the inquiry that has now been set up by the Data Protection Registrar, Elizabeth France; secondly, that Ms Arnfield will, with the Home Office's permission, co-operate with any police inquiry; and thirdly, that there will be no issue of public immunity certificates or other devices to protect the staff of the IND?
  Moreover, we are not dealing with only one list—there have been others. I have here a copy of a letter dated 17 February 1995 and signed by a Mr. Barrett, assistant director of the IND of the immigration service. It states:
  "It is not possible at this stage for my staff to recall which member of Hackney Council's Tenancy Audit Team asked for the checks to be carried out about 18 months ago and I understand that none of the lists"—
  in the plural—
  "were retained after the checks were completed."
  Perhaps the Minister will tell us about the other lists of people being investigated.
  Shortly before the story broke in The Observer, a journalist went to see Hackney's disgraced and sacked director of housing, Mr. Bernard Crofton, because it was his tenancy audit team and he who had released the information. Mr. Crofton admitted to the journalist that he personally had supplied a list of 300 Hackney council employees to the IND.
  He then made the following bizarre suggestion about the list of the 600 African names: he said that Robert Barr, the assistant chief finance officer, had made available to the Benefits Agency details of all 11,000 of Hackney council's employees, that the Benefits Agency had passed them to the IND, and that the IND had then extracted the 600 African names and passed the list back to the Benefits Agency. It is a wonderful story, but it is wholly untrue.
  1064
  The House will remember that it was Mr. Robert Barr who, on 10 March, went to the Home Office to complain about the original list, but he is now being accused of being the person who provided it. Thanks to me, it is being made known to Mr. Barr what Mr. Crofton has said. If Mr. Crofton makes a statement in public, he will receive a libel writ. However, Mr. Crofton seems to have dropped this particular potty story and gone in another direction.
  We have been able to catch Mr. Crofton out in this particular case because he could not have known that I would be told by the journalist exactly what he said. I can hear daft mutterings from above me even as I speak.
  A couple of weeks ago, I was going through a long list of documents, and suddenly I was gobsmacked. I found that the suspended director of housing had had a meeting with the Immigration and Nationality Department on 31 October 1994. I wondered why. The Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to this debate, said in answer to my question:
  "Following the suspension of Mr. Crofton from his post of director of housing at Hackney council, Mr. Ostler"—
  the head of the tenancy audit team—
  "sought a meeting."— [Official Report, 3 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 27. ]
  I can tell the Minister that his answer is not true. How can I be certain that his answer is not true? It is because I have a letter from Mr. Barrett, the assistant director of the IND, written to the chief executive of Hackney council, dated 20 December 1994, which says:
  "Turning to the meeting on the 31 October at Becket House, I understand"—
  presumably referring to the civil servant who briefed the Minister on his untrue answer—
  "that this was arranged at Mr. Crofton's request and was purely a general discussion, with no record of the meeting having taken place."
  We have to give accurate answers to parliamentary questions, yet the Home Office civil servant tells me in this letter that we have been given an inaccurate answer. No doubt the Minister will wish to make a statement on that tomorrow.
  The plot thickens, because Mr. Crofton has a third account of this meeting. He issued a press release, or a press release was issued on his behalf, last week, which said:
  "However, the facts are that the Home Office requested the meeting because of its concerns about publicity following Mr. Crofton's suspension by Hackney council."
  First Mr. Ostler was supposed to have sought a meeting, then Mr. Crofton, and then the Home Office.
  I discovered over the weekend that, when Mr. Crofton was questioned about the matter, he said that he was telephoned by the immigration service at his home—when he was suspended—and told about the meeting. What a wonderful intimate relationship! The suspended director of housing on Hackney council was telephoned at his home for a meeting of which no minute was taken.
  Mr. Crofton goes on:
  "The meeting was informal but not secret or unauthorised. Mr. Crofton informed former Chief Executive, Jerry White, of the meeting, and also submitted correspondence to a Council committee confirming the discussion which took place at the meeting."
  That is fine—a perfectly rational explanation. Mr. Crofton is in the clear. The only problem is that, when one cross-checks the document and talks to the witnesses, one discovers a web, a tissue, of lies. Every statement that I have just read out is a blatant and deliberate lie.

  1065
  The chief executive that we are talking about is now a local government ombudsman—not somebody that one can slag off with impunity. He has confirmed to me that he knew nothing about this meeting, it was totally unauthorised, and he found out about it three weeks later via a third person who refused to attend the meeting precisely because Mr. Crofton was unauthorised and should not have attended the meeting. As for that nonsense about Mr. Crofton reporting it to a committee, Mr. Crofton simply had to report it to the disciplinary panel that was hearing his case. This is the close and intimate friend of the Home Office who is trampling on the civil rights of Hackney's workers.
  Then, as if that is not enough for the Minister to answer, the Immigration and Nationality Department has run a dirty tricks campaign, leaking information and misinformation to various journalists supplied by—guess who? First, there is the case of Tim Kelsey of The Independent. He leaked some stuff which was given to him by the IND, and there was a row over whether he should say that the investigation was understood to be based on evidence produced by Bernard Crofton. But Mr. Kelsey stuck to his guns and put it in the paper, and that upset Mr. Crofton.
  Then, there was a most recent case. One journalist was given the names of two teachers by the IND and told that they were going to be picked up and deported before their interview with the asylum section on 31 May 1995. There are people in this country who believe that it is not natural justice for the IND to announce that somebody is going to be deported before they have even had their hearing. That does not sound right to me, as a barrister.
  The journalist insists that the story, which appeared in the Daily Mail, came from the Home Office. The Home Office does not want to comment on it. The Minister gave me some facts in a parliamentary answer, but I read about them in The Guardian the day before the Minister gave them to me. They had been leaked by the Immigration and Nationality Department.
  I could name case after case in which, for whatever reason, the department has sought to destroy the reputation of Hackney council in a disgraceful fashion. Why did someone in Hackney housing department appear to be an arm of the Immigration and Nationality Department? I shall tell you why, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  There have been two small groups that constitute two little secret police forces. One—the tenancy audit team, led by Mr. Crofton—comes from Hackney council. Those people have gone potty. If I were to sum up Mr. Crofton, I should say that he is a highly sophisticated liar, that he is deluded, and that, using words in their ordinary and natural meaning, he is a racist. Secondly, for whatever reason, a small group of people in the IND have been using Mr. Crofton.
  Mr. Crofton has constructed a world in which "west African" equals "illegal immigrant" equals "fraudster". That equation has buzzed around in his mind until he has blown it, because the equation is not true, and he has not been able to make it stack up. Now, hardly any decent people I know support him—apart from a poisonous little fat boy called Keith Vaness, who is out of his depth, and a few oddballs who have backed Mr. Crofton down the years. [Interruption.]
  1066
  I hear the derisive cheers from the anti-civil libertarians on the Government Benches, but I tell the Minister that the whole business has constituted a disgraceful and shameful act. Hackney council should dissociate itself from the IND immediately, and re-establish a completely new line.
  10.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has been most persistent in his attempts to suggest to the House that there is something sinister or improper in the way in which the Immigration and Nationality Department has conducted its affairs with the London borough of Hackney. He has now tabled eight parliamentary questions and three notices of motions.
  The hon. Gentleman has also levelled accusations against officials from the Immigration and Nationality Department that are absurd and have absolutely no basis in fact—in fact, I challenge the hon. Gentleman to repeat some of what he has said this evening outside the House—so I especially welcome the opportunity to reject the accusations and to put the record straight.
  I am also pleased to have the opportunity to set out serious concerns about three factors. The first is the recruitment policies of Hackney council; the second is the lack of proper checks, which has led to an unsatisfactory situation in which a high number of immigration offenders are thought to be employed by the council; and the third is the lack of co-operation by the council with the immigration service in dealing with apparent abuse of the immigration laws.
  The hon. Gentleman has accused the Home Office of a witch hunt. There is none; nor has there ever been a witch hunt by Home Office officials against employees of Hackney council. But where there are apparent abuses of the immigration laws, the immigration service has a duty to investigate them. Eight employees of Hackney council have already been identified as immigration offenders, and served either with papers as illegal entrants or with notices of intention to deport.
  The hon. Gentleman accuses Home Office officials of complicity in the theft of a computer disk. I say clearly that the Home Office is not, and never has been, in possession of a computer disk containing details of employees of Hackney council.
  He accuses the Home Office of collusion in unlawful and criminal acts. There has been no such collusion. If the council's security procedures have been breached, it is for council officials to pursue the matter with the police, and with the Data Protection Registrar, if appropriate.
  The evidence I shall lay before the House tonight will show conclusively that the immigration service has acted properly and with considerable restraint. It has operated in an open manner, offering to co-operate with the council to resolve the matters—an offer which the council has not accepted.
  The hon. Gentleman must surely realise that all is not well in the "House of Hackney", and that the lawful activities of the immigration service cannot be used by Hackney council as a smokescreen to cover its own internal difficulties. It is time for the council to stop name-calling—and time for the hon. Gentleman to do the same—and to wake up to its responsibilities. These wild

  1067
  allegations can only serve to lessen the electorate's view of local government in London, and reflect poorly on the Labour party.
  For some time now, the immigration service has received a stream of allegations from different sources alleging that illegal entrants were being employed by Hackney council. Not all the allegations were researched, but only those where there was evidence to suggest that the information was accurate.
  The immigration service enforcement directorate is required to investigate allegations and information from whatever source about persons who may be working and/or residing in this country illegally. Such inquiries are not limited to cases of people of African origin or who are black. They are carried out irrespective of the nationality or race of the person concerned, and are based only on the question whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that offences under the immigration laws are being committed.
  I have said that a number of immigration offenders working for the council have already been identified. Allow me to give some examples of the lax procedures of the council which enabled these offenders to obtain employment. The hon. Gentleman may then care to reflect on whether he wishes to see the law enforced or not.
  On 2 September 1994, the immigration service detained a 35-year-old female who was employed by the London borough of Hackney as a cook. She had overstayed her leave to enter the United Kingdom since 23 October 1992. She had no permission to live or work in this country.
  On 1 December 1994, a 33-year-old male was detained by the immigration service for working in breach of his conditions of entry. He had been employed on a full-time basis by the London borough of Hackney since June 1990, most recently as an estate manager for the housing department. [Interruption.] I can tell the hon. Gentleman that all his hon. Friends are leaving him, and he is becoming increasingly isolated.
  In February 1995, a 36-year-old male was served with a notice of illegal entry. He had entered the United Kingdom using a false British passport. He was employed by the London borough of Hackney as a full-time personnel officer in the chief executive's office. He had been using a false identity, that of a teenage girl. He had been employed using the girl's national insurance number, which gave her true date of birth. He gave a different date of birth to the council, and used the girl's name to obtain employment. These discrepancies went unnoticed. He was removed from the United Kingdom on 20 February this year.
  On 26 February 1995, a 24-year-old female was served with a notice of illegal entry. She had entered the United Kingdom on 27 November 1992. She had claimed to be coming for a visit of three days. She concealed the existence of her husband, who was already in the United Kingdom, and obtained employment with the London borough of Hackney as a full-time finance officer.
  The list goes on, but I shall abbreviate it. All those cases give clear cause for concern and raise serious questions about the procedures employed by Hackney council in the recruitment of its staff. There are other cases.
  The immigration service wrote to the chief executive of Hackney council on 25 January asking for a check to be made on two employees. The chief executive admitted in his reply, dated 13 February 1995, that the two
  1068
  employees had not confirmed in their application forms that they required a work permit to work in the United Kingdom, or that they were prohibited from taking employment by the conditions of their stay here. The two individuals were dismissed before the immigration service was given the opportunity to establish their status in this country, and as yet they have not been found.
  The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a list of 600 employees, which he believes was obtained by the immigration service unlawfully. The immigration service received two manuscript lists containing what appeared to be details of persons employed by Hackney council. They were unsolicited. One was received in December 1994, the other in February 1995.
  They were not extracts from a computer payroll record, and contained no sign that they had originated from within the council. The immigration service cannot be held responsible for the fact that they contained names almost exclusively of African origin; nor is it for me to comment on the motives of the person or persons who supplied the lists.
  The hon. Gentleman has accused the Home Office of refusing to co-operate fully in an investigation to establish whether the Data Protection Act 1988 had been breached. He has also suggested that the information was unlawfully provided to the Home Office by the supporters of Mr. Bernard Crofton, the housing director of Hackney council, who is currently under suspension.
  He notes that the associates of Mr. Crofton have now shown themselves in their true colours. In the motion dated 22 June 1995 the hon. Gentleman says that they have shown themselves
  "to be barmy, racist and criminal in character".
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am very short of time. I have many points that I wish to put to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, and I am sorry that, on this occasion, I cannot give way as I would normally like to do.
  I understand that the data protection registrar has been asked to conduct an inquiry into possible breaches of the Data Protection Act. It would therefore be wrong for me to comment in further detail, but the Home Office will, of course, co-operate fully with any such inquiry. What I shall say is that all information alleging breaches of the immigration laws is thoroughly researched, both within the Department and with other agencies, where an abuse of public funds is suspected.
  The Government are committed to firm but fair immigration control, and will continue to welcome genuine visitors to our shores. But when overseas nationals abuse the immigration laws, they must expect to be dealt with firmly and returned to their own countries. Those who flout the immigration laws cannot expect to evade investigation simply by the status of their employer or the nature of their employment.
  The immigration service receives denunciatory information from many sources. It would be inappropriate to reveal publicly the source of the information. The London borough of Hackney requested an interview with the immigration officer involved in many of the

  1069
  investigations that I have outlined today, in order—the hon. Gentleman will confirm this—to ask her from whom or where her information was coming.
  The general question of such disclosure is a matter for the Home Office, not for individual immigration officers. For that reason, the Home Office offered to respond to any written inquiries but not to allow individual immigration officers to be interviewed about matters that go beyond their responsibilities. The council has not taken up that offer of co-operation.
  The Home Office has never received information from Mr. Crofton. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in 1993, Mr. Crofton established his tenancy audit team, consisting of members recruited from outside the authority, to investigate allegations of widespread corruption in the housing department of Hackney council. The council's own appointed team found evidence that many council properties were inhabited by people who had no right to live in them and who in some cases had no right to be in the United Kingdom.
  The team asked the immigration service to co-operate with its investigation into the misuse of council property, which has led to the apprehension of a number of immigration offenders and the return of several properties to the council—properties that it was then able to reallocate to genuine applicants. The immigration service will continue to investigate any breaches of the immigration laws if asked to do so by the tenancy team.
  The immigration service has sought the council's co-operation to try to resolve this matter sensibly. It has pointed out the judgment in the Court of Appeal case of the Queen v. the Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte London borough of Tower Hamlets, which
  1070
  concerned the duties of local housing authorities under the homelessness provisions. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to that case.
  That judgment confirmed that not only was there no bar to local authorities telling the Immigration and Nationality Department if they came across a suspected immigration offender; rather, it was their duty to do so.
  Guidance following the judgment issued by the Department of the Environment in February 1994 recommended that local authorities should register a point of contact with the Immigration and Nationality Department for the handling of all inquiries by an authority. Although Hackney council has registered its benefit staff for the purposes of exchanging information on persons claiming housing benefit or council tax benefit, it has yet to register a contact point in accordance with that guidance.
  The immigration service has also met council officials to discuss improvements in its recruitment procedures. It can surely only be to the benefit of people who are legally here that those who are not should be readily identifiable if they seek work.
  The evidence that I have laid before the House tonight should give the hon. Gentleman cause to cease his bluff and think again. I urge him to retract his baseless allegations. I am satisfied that the immigration service has acted reasonably and with considerable restraint in its dealings with the London borough of Hackney. The council does not appear to have acted in a spirit of true co-operation—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o 'clock.

HEALTH

  Administration Costs
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of administration in the NHS within(a) trusts, (b) district health authorities, regional health authorities and family health service authorities and (c) in total, in real terms and as a percentage of total NHS expenditure in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1990–91. [30434]

  Mr. Malone
  The figures for administrative support in hospital departments, in trusts and at other levels, are regarded as operational expenditure and are not separately identifiable.

  Changes over the years in the roles and responsibilities of FPCs, which became family health services authorities, in 1990, and RHAs and DHAs which started to transfer provider functions to NHS trusts in 1991–92, and together with changes in accounting policies, particularly the inclusion of capital charges in health authorities' administration and purchasing expenditure, mean that the following figures are not comparable. Additionally, there were differences in management practices, geographical size and the numbers of DHAs, FPCs/FHSAs within regions.

  In 1990–91, the cost of administration in district health authorities, regional health authorities, and family practitioner committees, was £854,571,000, equivalent to £973,284,000 adjusted to 1993–94 prices; in 1993–94 the figure was £1,045,084,000. For an explanation of these figures, I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 16 December 1994, columns 833–34. In 1990–91, revenue expenditure for the national health service was £19,826,937,000 equivalent to £22,581,196,000 adjusted to 1993–94 prices; in 1993–94, the figure was £27,627,018,000. In 1990–91, administration accounted for 4.31 per cent. of revenue expenditure and in 1993–94, 3.78 per cent.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to produce a seamless service between health authorities and social service departments in respect of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; if he will help set up a working party to(a) advise on best practice in working relationships between (i) community health councils, (ii) district health authorities and (iii) social services departments,(b) consider the benefits of introducing a unified purchaser organisation fully accountable to the public and (c) examine how the statutory remit of community health councils can be extended to enable them to monitor care in the community services provided by local authorities, and if he will make a statement. [32995]
  550
  Mr. Bowis
  Local authority and health authority collaboration is crucial for the implementation of the community care arrangements. Local authorities have been required to reach agreements with health authorities on their respective responsibilities for long-term care and procedures for hospital discharge.

  A multi-disciplinary working group looking at joint commissioning between local authorities and health authorities published two documents recently, "An introduction to joint commissioning" and "Practical guidance on joint commissioning for project leaders", copies of which are available in the Library.

  We have no plans to establish a working party on collaboration between community health councils, district health authorities and social services departments.

  Single integrated health authorities are being introduced from 1 April 1996. Codes of conduct and accountability were published last year and are mandatory for all NHS boards. Compliance is a condition of appointment for all board members, both executive and non-executive.

  We have no plans to extend the role of CHCs to monitor mental health care in the community services provided by local authorities.

  Guidance issued in January 1994, EL(94)4, acknowledged that the community care arrangements would require health and local authorities to work closely together in the planning and delivery of care services. As such, the guidance pointed out that CHCs may find it useful to discuss with local authority social services departments the role that they play in joint health and social services arrangements.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will withdraw his Department's publication in respect of guidance on NHS continuing care and issue a revised publication consistent with the principles of a comprehensive national health service free at the point of delivery and available on the basis of clinical need; and if he will make a statement. [33035]

  Mr. Bowis
  No. Once implemented, this guidance should lead to a substantial improvement in the provision of a full range of continuing health care services. As well as continuing in-patient care for people who need it, this includes specialist national health service support for people to meet their medical, nursing or other clinical needs, no matter where they live.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of restoring free eye tests to pensioners. [33142]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 19 January at column 638.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will guarantee the rights of rural general practitioners to dispense prescriptions irrespective of the opening of pharmacies in their locality. [33660]
  551
  Mr. Malone
  The conditions which govern the rights of general practitioners to dispense medicines and appliances are contained in the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Leg Ulcers
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration his Department has given to making available on prescription the four-layer bandage system for the treatment of leg ulcers. [33076]

  Mr. Sackville
  No applications have been received for the prescribing of a product which incorporates the four types of item used within this system. The community health service may purchase any of the dressings, which can be used as individual components of the system, as well as a combined pack of four particular items.

  Cardiologists
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the number of specialist cardiologists in post in the NHS in England; and if he will list the numbers for each of the previous five years. [33325]

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

  Year

  Consultant

  1988

  117.4

  1989

  127.3

  1990

  135.6

  1991

  147.8

  1992

  162.1

  1993

  180.3

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of standard spending assessment is earmarked to assist local authorities to implement the Children Act 1989; [33062]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the funding to councils to implement the Children Act 1989. [33063]

  Mr. Bowis
  Standard spending assessments are not earmarked for particular Acts. It is for local authorities to decide how to divide the overall resources at their disposal between individual services. Between 1990–91—the last full year before implementation of the Act—and 1992–93—the first full year after implementation—the standard spending assessment for children's services grew by 15 per cent. in real terms.

  Residual Estate
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has happened to properties and assets not vested by NHS trusts. [33935]

  Mr. Sackville
  Property and other assets not transferred to national health service trusts remain in the ownership of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  NHS Appointees
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations his Department or the NHS executive has undertaken into conflicts of interest involving either trust board or health authority members. [33938]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Under the codes of conduct and accountability, chairmen and directors of national health service authorities and trusts are required to declare any private interests that are potentially material and relevant to NHS business and to have those interests recorded in board minutes and entered into a register.

  Information Division
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the budget for staff and running costs, excluding expenditure on publicity, in the information division in his Department in each of the last 10 years. [33694]

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information, which excludes expenditure on publicity campaigns, is shown in the table. The information division now includes a public inquiry office and a central print unit which provides the Department with services for print and paper procurement and storage and distribution. The figures are therefore not comparable over the years.

  Year

  Manpower and running costs £ million

  1989–90

  0.890

  1990–91

  1.250

  1991–92

  1.491

  1992–93

  1.749

  1993–94

  1.897

  1994–95

  2.018

  1995–961

  2.714

  Information for the years 1986–87 to 1988–89 is not available in form requested.

  1 budgets

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the numbers and salaries of persons employed in the private offices of each of the Ministers, including the Secretary of State, in his Department. [33695]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of staff employed in the private offices of Ministers of the Department of Health, including the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is 27.

  The analysis of their salaries is:

  Number of staff

  Salary band £

  12

  10,000–14,999

  10

  15,000–19,999

  3

  20,000–24,999

  2

  40,000–49,999

  27

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments have been temporarily closed in each of the last 24 months for(a) blue light admissions and (b) walking wounded cases; and if he will make a statement on (i) staff shortages and (ii) other causes of these incidents. [33696]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 105, if he will list for each NHS trust, the expenditure on the purchase of health care from non-NHS bodies, in each of the past four years. [33709]

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available figures are for the financial year 1993–94. Figures for 1991–92, 1992–93, and 1993–94 will be placed in the Library.

  Leaving Care
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has carried out into the types of accommodation which young people go into on leaving care; [33834]

  (2) what research his Department has carried out into the value and availability of leaving care grants. [33835]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department commissioned a four-year study by Leeds university leaving care research team into schemes available to young people leaving care. This study was published on the 30 June 1995. Copies of the study will be placed in the Library.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its agencies over the last five years; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33886]

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

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33874]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The daily rates charged by firms of consultants would vary according to the number of consultants assigned to individual projects.

  Clinical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 340, if he will provide such information as is available on clinical negligence claims by trust. [33939]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about clinical negligence claims by trust is not available centrally.

  Patient Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will institute an inquiry into the death of the patient from Slough who received cardiac surgery at the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff on Friday 7 July, into the shortage of intensive care beds allied with open heart surgery facilities and into the lack of a hospital to hospital information on bed availability. [33837]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have no plans to institute such an inquiry.

  A study commissioned by the Department of Health from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has shown that demand for intensive care beds can very and in some instances, beds are being used inappropriately.

  The need for guidelines on admission to, and discharge from, intensive care is being considered by the Department of Health, together with representatives of the medical profession.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33868]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  For the period 1 July 1994 to 30 June 1995, certain key elements of work completed under six external consultancy contracts were paid for at a daily rate exceeding £1,000.

  The firms in question are:

  Binder, Hamlyn and Fry

  Ernst and Young

  Kinsley Lord

  KPMG

  Office of Public Management

  Price Waterhouse

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much his Department and its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33865]

  Mr. Taylor
  The chief executives of the Land Registry and the Public Records Office will respond on behalf of their agencies. The chief executives of the Public Trust Office and Court Service will also respond on behalf of their agencies for expenditure from 1 July 1994 and 3 April 1995 respectively. Expenditure on computer consultancy for the remainder of the Department for the 1994–95 financial year was £387,574—see footnote. The information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Future expenditure on computer consultancy will be considered as the need arises.
  555
  Letter from Elizabeth Hallam Smith to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 12 July 1995:

  EXPENDITURE ON COMPUTER CONSULTANCY

  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary, in the absence on leave of the Chief Executive of the Public Record Office, to reply to your question about expenditure on computer consultancy.

  The Public Record Office has spent the following sums on computer consultancy over the last five years:

  1990–91: £45,743

  1991–92: £150,861

  1992–93: £442,151

  1993–94: £240,703

  1994–95: £63,325

  Expected expenditure over the next five years is approximately £828,000.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 12 July 1995:

  COMPUTER CONSULTANCY

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question concerning the cost of computer consultancy.

  I should first explain that the Court Service became an Executive Agency on 3 April this year. Information about the amount spent in the last financial year will therefore be provided by the Parliamentary Secretary. I understand that figures for previous years are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The anticipated cost of computer consultancy for the Court Service in the current and following three financial years is as follows:

  1995–96: £707,544

  1996–97: £1,363,900

  1997–98: £1,264,900

  1998–99: £1,133,100

  The requirements beyond these financial years are not yet known.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 12 July 1995:

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question. listed on 7 July 1995, regarding the spending on computer consultancy in the last five years and the expected expenditure over the next five years.

  The Public Trust Office has spent no money on computer consultancy in the last five years. This year, however, we intend carrying out an Information System Strategy Study with the aid of consultants although it is not possible to forecast expenditure on this study at this stage.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 12 July 1995:

  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to reply to your recent question about the amount spent by this Agency on computer consultancy in the last five years, and the expected expenditure over the next five years. The details are as follows:-

  1990–91: £11,403

  1991–92: £40,803

  1992–93: £33,547

  1993–94: £29,023

  1994–95: £45,261

  556
  Expected Expenditure:

  1995–96: £151,000

  1996–97: £147,000

  1997–98: £150,000

  1998–99: £115,000

  1999–2000: £115,000

  The increase in planned expenditure over previous years is due to three major new initiatives. These are the proposed outsourcing of the management of data communications for our Direct Access Service, the development of a business application for a National Land Information Service, and the development of a computer mapping system.

  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary, but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its agencies over the last five years; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33897]

  Mr. Taylor
  The chief executives of the Land Registry and the Public Records Office will respond on behalf of their agencies. The chief executive of the Public Trust Office will also respond as appropriate on behalf of this agency for expenditure from 1 July 1994.

  The firms which have been awarded computer consultancy contracts from the remainder of my Department during the 1994–95 financial year are shown on the table—see footnote.

  Information for earlier financial year could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Name

  Number of contracts

  Act Business Systems

  1

  Admiral Computing

  3

  AMTEC Consulting

  1

  W. S. Atkins Technology

  1

  Bull Information Systems

  1

  Class

  1

  CSS. Trident

  1

  Digital Equipment Co

  1

  Grasshopper Computers

  1

  Helistar

  1

  Hewlett Packard

  1

  Insight Computing

  1

  LBMS

  1

  MBA Consultants

  2

  Metron

  1

  Myriad Computer Services

  9

  Oracle Corporation

  2

  Parity

  1

  Parity Solutions

  1

  PC Associates

  1

  Property Logistics

  1

  Public Sector Software

  1

  Scoll

  1

  Includes the Court Service and, until 30 June 1994, the PTO.
  557
  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 12 July 1995:

  COMPUTER CONSULTANCY CONTRACTS

  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to reply to your recent question about the firms which have won computer consultancy contracts from this Agency over the last five years, and the number of contracts per firm. The names of the firms or organisations awarded contracts during this period are given in alphabetical order, as follows:-

  Belvedere Associates

  CCTA

  Dynamic Communications

  IBM

  Intergraph

  Lasercom

  Secure Information Systems Limited

  Sun Accounts

  Each of the firms listed was awarded one contract except for Dynamic Communications which was awarded two contracts of a total value of £3,031.

  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary, but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 12 July 1995:

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 7 July 1995, regarding the firms which have won computer consultancy contracts over the last five years.

  The Public Trust Office has not awarded any computer consultancy contracts over the last five years.

  Clwyd

  Year

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal/Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Independent

  Not known

  Total

  1989

  11

  7

  4

  3

  0

  0

  25

  1990

  5

  9

  5

  2

  2

  0

  23

  1991

  4

  8

  0

  2

  3

  0

  17

  1992

  18

  10

  9

  1

  1

  0

  39

  1993

  11

  6

  7

  0

  0

  0

  24

  1994

  9

  6

  5

  1

  0

  0

  21

  19951

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 No appointments yet made in 1995.

  Dyfed

  Year

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal/Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Independent

  Not known

  Total

  1989

  6

  1

  3

  1

  1

  0

  12

  1990

  3

  3

  4

  0

  0

  3

  13

  1991

  5

  6

  3

  3

  2

  0

  19

  1992

  6

  2

  3

  0

  5

  0

  16

  1993

  4

  7

  5

  3

  5

  0

  24

  1994

  1

  4

  2

  1

  4

  0

  12

  19951

  1

  0

  2

  4

  2

  0

  9

  1 Additional appointments are expected in 1995.

  Mid Glamorgan

  Year

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal/Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Independent

  Not known

  Total

  1989

  3

  7

  2

  0

  2

  0

  14

  1990

  6

  11

  0

  1

  0

  1

  19

  1991

  6

  13

  0

  0

  6

  0

  25

  558
  Letter from Elizabeth Hallam Smith to Mr. Alan Milburn dated 12 July 1995:

  COMPUTER CONSULTANCY CONTRACTS

  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary, in the absence on leave of the Chief Executive of the Public Record Office, to reply to your question about computer consultancy contracts.

  The following firms have won computer consultancy contracts from the Public Record Office over the last five years. The number of contracts won by each is stated in the second column:

  Number

  AXSIS

  1

  Cray (formerly Aims)

  2

  CIMTECH

  1

  Data Sciences

  1

  EFD

  2

  EOSYS

  1

  Ernst & Young

  2

  HEDRA

  2

  Portlock Communications

  1

  ROYBOT Ltd

  2

  SISL

  2

  Touche Ross

  1

  WS Atkins

  1

  Magistrates (Wales)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the perceived political loyalty of magistrates in each county in Wales appointed in each of the past seven years. [32103]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 5 July 1995]: The stated political affiliation of magistrates in each county in Wales appointed in each of the past seven years is as follows:
  559

  Mid Glamorgan

  Year

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal/Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Independent

  Not Known

  Total

  1992

  3

  11

  1

  1

  0

  0

  16

  1993

  4

  5

  4

  1

  0

  0

  14

  1994

  3

  7

  2

  1

  3

  0

  16

  1995

  2

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  7

  South Glamorgan

  Year

  Conservatie

  Labour

  Liberal/Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Independent

  Not known

  Total

  1989

  7

  1

  5

  0

  3

  0

  16

  1990

  7

  6

  6

  1

  3

  0

  23

  1991

  7

  2

  3

  2

  3

  0

  17

  1992

  9

  6

  6

  1

  0

  3

  25

  1993

  10

  9

  3

  1

  3

  0

  26

  1994

  6

  8

  2

  0

  5

  0

  21

  19951

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 No appointments yet made in 1995.

  West Glamorgan

  Year

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal/Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Independent

  Not known

  Total

  1989

  12

  12

  3

  0

  1

  0

  28

  1990

  9

  8

  4

  0

  2

  0

  23

  1991

  8

  6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  15

  1992

  8

  12

  5

  0

  0

  0

  25

  1993

  8

  5

  2

  1

  4

  0

  20

  1994

  1

  13

  7

  1

  1

  0

  23

  1995

  0

  9

  0

  0

  2

  0

  11

  Gwent

  Year

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal/Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Independent

  Not known

  Total

  1989

  4

  5

  3

  0

  1

  0

  13

  1990

  6

  3

  0

  0

  3

  0

  12

  1991

  6

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  13

  1992

  2

  6

  2

  0

  0

  0

  10

  1993

  5

  5

  1

  0

  1

  0

  12

  1994

  3

  12

  1

  0

  2

  0

  18

  1995

  3

  5

  0

  0

  2

  0

  10

  Gwynedd

  Year

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal/Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Independent

  Not known

  Total

  1989

  4

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  8

  1990

  5

  4

  1

  3

  4

  0

  17

  1991

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1992

  3

  2

  6

  3

  0

  0

  14

  1993

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  1994

  1

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  5

  19951

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 No appointments yet made in 1995.

  Powys

  Year

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal/Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Independent

  Not known

  Total

  1989

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1990

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1991

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1992

  2

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  6

  1993

  2

  2

  3

  1

  1

  1

  10

  1994

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  19951

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 No appointments yet made in 1995.

  560 561

  Mental Incapacity
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who is serving upon the Lord Chancellor's interdepartmental working party which is working on the Government's response to the Law Commission report on mental incapacity; which Departments they represent; and if he will list those court decisions which have found advance directives legally binding and which form the basis of policy in this area. [33976]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The working group is made up of officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of Health, the Home Office, the Department of Social Security, the Welsh Office and the Treasury.

  Certain forms of advance directive already have full legal effect at common law. The dicta in Re T (Adult Refusal of Treatment) [1993] Fam 95 together with those in Airedale Trust v. Bland [1993] AC 789 in both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords indicate that an advance refusal which is "clearly established" and "applicable in the circumstances" may be as effective as the decision of a capable adult. The case of Re C (Adult Refusal of Treatment) [1994] 1 WLR 290 clarified the position.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what is the practice of the Lord Chancellor's Department in respect of the number of names provided to the Prime Minister in respect of each senior judicial appointment; [32862]

  (2) how many names were offered to the Prime Minister in respect of the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice in 1992. [32863]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Monday 3 July,Official Report, column 18. It is not the practice to disclose information about communications between Ministers.

  Small Claims Limit
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to raise the small claims limit; what is the proposed time scale; and what plans he has for a consultation period. [32706]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The small claims limit fell within the scope of the first stage of Lord Woolf's review of access to justice. During this review, Lord Woolf himself conducted an extensive consultation exercise including a programme of public seminars. A list of the individuals and organisations who contributed to the inquiry is annexed to the interim report, which was published last month. In view of that wide-ranging consultation, the Lord Chancellor does not intend to undertake further public consultation on the question of whether he should implement Lord Woolf's recommendation that the limit for small claims, other than those for personal injury, should be raised to £3,000. The power to make the necessary amendments rests with the 562
  county court rules committee which, as part of its consideration of the matter, will consult interested parties. No timetable has yet been set for the laying of a statutory instrument before the House.

  Statutes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give the numbers and percentages of statutes from(a) 1990 and earlier, (b) 1985 and earlier and (c) 1980 and earlier whose provisions are not fully in force. [32942]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Of some 3,300 public general Acts which were enacted before the end of 1990, and remain on the statute book, approximately 100–3 per cent.—have not been brought fully into force. The figures for 1985 and 1980 are respectively 60 and 2 per cent. and 40 and 1 per cent.

PRIME MINISTER

  Questions of Procedure for Ministers
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister how many members of the parliamentary Conservative party, including parliamentary private secretaries, unpaid Whips and others, were subject to collective responsibilityas defined in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" on 4 July. [33651]

  The Prime Minister
  The 108 Members of the Conservative party who hold ministerial office.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 6 July,Official Report, columns 512–13, concerning the introduction of nursery education for all four year-olds, (1) by how many he expects the number of attendances of children of this age group to increase for each year commencing September 1996 up to 2000 due to (a) a reduction in the proportion of four year-old receiving full-time nursery education and (b) a reduction in the proportion of the three year-olds receiving full-time nursery education; [33979]

  (2) what is the increase in the number of nursery school places he expects to be available for this age group for each year commencing September 1996 up to 2000 arising from (a) an increase in the number of qualified nursery school teachers and (b) places made available by a reduction in the proportion of attendances by three year-olds, full or part-time. [33980]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 6 July,Official Report, columns 517–19. The number and type of places which become available will depend on parental demand and providers' response to it. The proposed funding method will allow local education authorities and other providers to continue to supply as many full-time places and places for three-year-olds as they do now.

TREASURY

  Voluntary Organisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [31302]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  None.

  Beverage Containers (Disposal)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the treatment of beverage containers confiscated by HM Customs and Excise conform with the Government's waste management strategy of reuse and recovery rather than disposal. [33221]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs and Excise is committed to support the Government's sustainable development strategy and this is reflected in the action that it has taken on the disposal of beverage containers.

  Following a consultants' report on the best environmental options for the disposal of seized goods Customs intends to let a contract, or contracts, which will cover the disposal of beverage containers. It will seek the optimum recovery of liquor and packaging—glass, aluminium, cardboard and plastics—from these contracts.

  Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [33420]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Labour Statistics (Coventry)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list separately, by each office of his

  Registrations and deregistrations by calendar year Registrations

  Collection

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Northern Ireland

  4,074

  4,226

  3,607

  3,674

  4,034

  3,652

  Central England

  24,888

  22,257

  18,239

  18,983

  17,735

  16,161

  Anglia

  20,286

  17,436

  15,347

  14,087

  14,350

  13,083

  South East England

  17,498

  16,122

  13,562

  12,403

  12,689

  11,522

  South England

  23,440

  18,813

  15,544

  13,934

  14,295

  13,056

  Thames Valley

  26,878

  25,524

  21,723

  20,478

  20,956

  19,999

  London Central

  17,978

  15,840

  13,907

  14,194

  13,705

  12,468

  London South and Thames

  10,795

  9,303

  8,018

  7,519

  11,176

  10,171

  East England

  26,153

  22,923

  19,599

  17,559

  18,280

  16,665

  North West England

  22,384

  20,574

  18,645

  17,326

  16,412

  15,174

  North England

  21,696

  19,180

  16,362

  15,374

  15,331

  14,081

  Scotland

  16,525

  15,350

  13,395

  12,792

  12,966

  11,985

  Wales West and Borders

  29,138

  25,381

  21,578

  20,066

  20,030

  18,621

  564
  Department, the numbers and grades of casuals, fixed appointments and vacancies in the Coventry travel-to-work area. [33777]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury has no offices in the Coventry travel-to-work area.

  Pensioners (Tax)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners pay tax at 40 per cent. [32523]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: Based on the latest estimates, only 1.5 per cent.—about 150,000 of the 10 million people aged 65 or over—are expected to pay income tax at 40 per cent. in 1995–96.

  Income Tax Allowances
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of raising the personal income tax allowance by £500; and how many people would be removed from the tax net as a result. [32532]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 July 1995]: The direct revenue cost would be about £3.2 billion in a full year at 1995–96 income levels and about a million taxpayers would be removed from tax.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) VAT registrations and (b) VAT deregistrations have taken place in each county area in each (i) financial year since 1989–90- and (ii) calendar year since 1989. [32985]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: Customs and Excise holds registration and deregistration information by local offices and groups these offices to form collections. The following tables, which contain the information sought, reflect changes to the VAT registration and deregistration thresholds, particularly for the significant increase of 1991 and, to a lesser extent, that of December 1993.

  The tables also represent any changes to collection boundaries over the years.
  565

  Deregistrations

  Collection

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Northern Ireland

  3,224

  3,113

  3,783

  3,595

  3,176

  3,495

  Central England

  17,077

  16,799

  22,540

  22,082

  20,822

  17,979

  Anglia

  12,413

  13,851

  21,972

  19,977

  17,511

  16,303

  South East England

  10,928

  11,648

  19,650

  18,342

  15,906

  14,317

  South England

  12,868

  14,782

  21,828

  20,813

  19,457

  16,422

  Thames Valley

  16,528

  17,943

  24,925

  25,509

  23,518

  21,162

  London Central

  12,624

  12,666

  15,779

  17,109

  14,818

  11,905

  London South and Thames

  7,002

  7,531

  9,247

  8,989

  10,546

  9,604

  East England

  17,845

  18,483

  24,212

  22,424

  21,145

  18,729

  North West England

  16,731

  16,015

  21,486

  21,420

  20,752

  18,600

  North England

  15,404

  16,154

  20,649

  18,904

  17,427

  16,955

  Scotland

  12,321

  12,619

  15,399

  13,790

  14,206

  12,877

  Wales West and Borders

  20,193

  20,773

  27,797

  25,691

  25,236

  23,346

  Registrations and deregistrations by financial year Registrations

  Collection

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Northern Ireland

  4,053

  4195

  3,600

  3,759

  4,000

  3,666

  Central England

  25,309

  20,639

  17,968

  17,593

  16,685

  16,469

  Anglia

  20,014

  16,166

  12,695

  14,104

  14,230

  13,470

  South East England

  17,920

  14,067

  10,682

  12,439

  12,405

  11,339

  South England

  23,646

  17,621

  14,956

  13,853

  13,984

  12,979

  Thames Valley

  28,722

  24,028

  21,201

  20,108

  20,899

  20,325

  London Central

  17,995

  15,197

  12,564

  13,946

  13,472

  12,456

  London South and Thames

  11,553

  8,349

  8,043

  8,328

  10,857

  9,588

  East England

  28,761

  21,492

  18,677

  17,919

  17,402

  17,028

  North West England

  22,889

  20,752

  18,091

  17,003

  15,876

  15,064

  North England

  21,813

  18,350

  15,777

  15,382

  14,817

  13,795

  Scotland

  16,670

  15,020

  12,799

  12,891

  12,682

  12,103

  Wales West and Borders

  29,729

  23,605

  23,531

  19,993

  19,621

  17,771

  Deregistrations

  Collection

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Northern Ireland

  3,442

  3.128

  3,934

  3,303

  3,417

  3,280

  Central England

  16,848

  17,007

  23,887

  21,698

  20,607

  17,593

  Anglia

  12,624

  14,443

  20,244

  19,332

  17,924

  15,283

  South East England

  11,266

  11,544

  17,115

  17,600

  16,121

  13,193

  South England

  15,729

  15,185

  22,852

  20,675

  18,065

  16,687

  Thames Valley

  16,899

  18,641

  26,612

  24,822

  23,514

  20,130

  London Central

  13,014

  12,848

  15,905

  16,197

  14,222

  11,558

  London South and Thames

  7,472

  7,680

  9,610

  6,999

  11,151

  8,696

  East England

  18,390

  18,839

  25,010

  21,822

  21,197

  18,851

  North West England

  16,806

  15,971

  23,017

  20,868

  21,104

  17,304

  North England

  14,407

  16,470

  21,289

  18,708

  17,030

  16,665

  Scotland

  12,424

  12,852

  15,777

  13,368

  14,458

  12,316

  Wales West and Borders

  20,156

  21,516

  29,357

  25,971

  25,396

  21,996

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number and percentage of standard rate and higher ate taxpayers in(a) each county, (b) each region and nation and (c) the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [33146]

  Basic and higher rate taxpayers, 1992–93

  Taxpayer liable at basic rate but not higher rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  United Kingdom2

  19,500

  76.0

  1,720

  6.7

  England

  16,400

  76.2

  1,510

  7.0

  North

  967

  76.1

  56

  4.4

  Cleveland

  171

  81.4

  10

  4.9

  Cumbria

  182

  75.4

  10

  4.0

  566
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: The table provides estimates for 1992–93, the latest available year for which information can be provided below the United Kingdom level.
  567

  Basic and higher rate taxpayers, 1992–93

  Taxpayer liable at basic rate but not higher rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  Durham

  188

  75.8

  8

  3.2

  Northumberland

  97

  73.6

  10

  7.5

  Tyne and Wear

  330

  74.8

  18

  4.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,590

  76.2

  100

  4.8

  Humberside

  281

  71.9

  17

  4.4

  North Yorkshire

  246

  76.7

  25

  7.6

  South Yorkshire

  376

  75.0

  15

  3.0

  West Yorkshire

  683

  78.7

  43

  5.0

  North West

  2,020

  76.2

  120

  4.5

  Cheshire

  323

  74.2

  32

  7.4

  Greater Manchester

  825

  80.0

  41

  4.0

  Lancashire

  428

  72.3

  27

  4.6

  Merseyside

  442

  75.1

  19

  3.3

  East Midlands

  1,320

  75.6

  92

  5.3

  Derbyshire

  308

  75.7

  19

  4.7

  Leicestershire

  308

  75.7

  19

  4.7

  Lincolnshire

  305

  80.9

  19

  5.0

  Northamptonshire

  204

  77.1

  15

  5.5

  Nottinghamshire

  295

  71.4

  23

  5.6

  West Midlands

  1,780

  78.6

  119

  5.3

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  262

  79.1

  24

  7.1

  Shropshire

  126

  75.8

  7

  4.4

  Staffordshire

  357

  79.1

  20

  4.5

  Warwickshire

  183

  77.4

  21

  9.1

  West Midlands

  848

  79.1

  46

  4.3

  East Anglia

  735

  77.7

  56

  5.9

  Cambridgeshire

  231

  79.5

  21

  7.3

  Norfolk

  260

  76.9

  19

  5.7

  Suffolk

  244

  77.2

  15

  4.8

  South east

  6,380

  75.6

  835

  9.9

  Bedfordshire

  189

  79.2

  20

  8.2

  Berkshire

  300

  73.7

  46

  11.2

  Buckinghamshire

  237

  73.0

  44

  13.6

  East Sussex

  239

  77.6

  21

  6.9

  Essex

  575

  77.6

  65

  8.8

  Greater London

  2,410

  75.6

  338

  10.6

  Hampshire

  593

  77.3

  55

  7.2

  Hertfordshire

  373

  75.8

  58

  11.7

  Kent

  514

  75.1

  51

  7.5

  Oxfordshire

  194

  73.0

  27

  10.2

  Surrey

  433

  73.2

  79

  13.3

  West Sussex

  273

  75.6

  27

  7.4

  Isle of Wight

  39

  71.8

  4

  7.1

  South west

  1,630

  75.9

  129

  6.0

  Avon

  375

  76.3

  28

  5.8

  Cornwall

  136

  71.2

  9

  4.6

  Devon

  343

  75.6

  24

  5.3

  Dorset

  230

  77.0

  25

  8.3

  Gloucestershire

  187

  78.3

  15

  6.2

  Somerset

  157

  75.2

  9

  4.2

  Wiltshire

  200

  76.1

  20

  7.5

  Wales

  854

  76.3

  48

  4.3

  Clwyd

  135

  77.1

  8

  4.4

  Dyfed

  108

  77.9

  5

  3.8

  Gwent

  122

  76.3

  8

  5.0

  Gwynedd

  77

  71.4

  3

  2.7

  Mid Glamorgan

  164

  77.9

  7

  3.4

  Powys

  42

  74.2

  1

  2.3

  South Glamorgan

  95

  81.3

  8

  7.0

  West Glamorgan

  112

  72.9

  8

  5.2

  Scotland

  1,700

  74.9

  126

  5.5

  Borders

  32

  68.7

  2

  5.0

  Central

  66

  73.6

  4

  5.0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  46

  71.7

  4

  6.3

  568 569

  Basic and higher rate taxpayers, 1992–93

  Taxpayer liable at basic rate but not higher rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  Fife

  112

  83.8

  9

  6.9

  Grampian

  193

  73.5

  20

  7.6

  Highlands

  80

  75.7

  5

  4.8

  Lothian

  285

  76.3

  21

  5.5

  Strathclyde

  741

  75.1

  42

  4.3

  Tayside

  127

  72.1

  14

  8.1

  Island authorities

  12

  47.6

  1

  5.3

  Northern Ireland

  420

  72.7

  22

  3.9

  1 Of total numbers of taxpayers including those liable to only the lower rate of tax.

  2 Includes members of Her Majesty's Forces, the Merchant Navy, Civil Servants serving overseas and non-residents liable to United Kingdom tax who cannot be allocated to regions or counties.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the difference in money terms and what has been the percentage change between the PSBR forecast at the time of the 1994 autumn Budget and the 1995 summer economic forecast estimates; and what are the main reasons for the difference. [33116]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: The summer economic forecast for the PSBR in 1995–96 is £23½ billion. This is £2 billion higher than forecast at the time of the last Budget. As a proportion of GDP, the PSBR is now forecast at 3¼ per cent., ¼ percentage point higher than in the Budget.

  The main reason for this increase is the assumption that lower than expected tax receipts seen in 1994–95 will be reflected in the level of receipts in 1995–96. Control total expenditure is assumed to be the same as in the plans announced in the last Budget. The Cabinet has recently confirmed that it is the Government's intention that spending will be no higher than in the plans announced in the Budget, reinforcing the Government's commitment to sound public finances.

  Tower Hamlets Residents
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the economic position for members of each ethnic group in Tower Hamlets by enumeration district. [33653]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested has been taken from the 1991 census of population for England and Wales small area statistics and will be placed in the Library. The full ethnic breakdown of 10 categories is not available at enumeration district level.

TRANSPORT

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, columns 117–18, on bull bars, what percentage of the population this answer covers; and what factor should be used to multiply the figure in order to calculate the total figure for the United Kingdom. [33502]
  570
  Mr. Norris
  The police forces which noted injury accidents involving bull bars during 1994 covered an area with a population of 29 million people. This figure represents 53 per cent. of the population of England, Scotland and Wales. These police forces covered 50 per cent. of all reported injury accidents, 57 per cent. of all fatal accidents and 53 per cent. of all serious-injury accidents. In principle, therefore, the figures for accidents involving vehicles fitted with bull bars should be approximately doubled to give an estimate for the United Kingdom; but such extrapolation should be treated with caution in view of the possibility both of under-reporting and of regional variation.

  It should be noted that the number of casualties involving vehicles fitted with bull bars is not the same as the number of casualties due to bull bars, which can be determined only be analysis of the police reports of the accidents.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which police forces submitted figures on accidents involving bull bars in 1994 for his Department's study and which did not. [33832]

  Mr. Norris
  The two lists show those police forces which took part in the special study and those which did not.

  Contributing forces

  England

  Avon and Somerset

  Cambridgeshire

  Cumbria

  Cheshire

  Derbyshire

  Essex

  Greater Manchester

  Hampshire

  Hertfordshire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  North Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Northamptonshire

  South Yorkshire

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  571

  Surrey

  Sussex

  West Midlands

  West Mercia

  Wiltshire

  Wales

  South Wales

  Scotland

  Central

  Fife

  Grampian

  Northern

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Non-contributing forces

  England

  Bedfordshire

  Cleveland

  Devon and Cornwall

  Dorset

  Durham

  Gloucestershire

  Humberside

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Merseyside

  Metropolitan

  Northumbria

  Thames valley

  Warwickshire

  West Yorkshire

  Wales

  Dyfed-Powys

  Gwent

  North Wales

  Scotland

  Lothian and Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33927]

  Mr. Norris
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, the Department does not reveal information about the fees paid to individual consultants.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department or its agencies has spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33928]

  Mr. Norris
  Expenditure for the last five years is as follows:

  1990–91: £760,000

  1991–92: £452,000

  1992–93: £1,019,000

  572

  1993–94: £1,005,000

  1994–95: £2,548,000

  Estimated expenditure and commissioned work is available only for two forward years.

  1995–96: £3,111,000

  1996–97: £2,469,000

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the total number of journeys made each year by heavy goods vehicles. [33707]

  Mr. Norris
  In total, there are about 560 million journeys made each year by goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes gross weight.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 58, how many heavy goods vehicles were weighed by the Vehicle Inspectorate in the most recent year; and how many were found to be overweight. [33708]

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

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. John Denham, dated 12 July 1995:

  WEIGHING HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) weighed and the number found to be overweight.

  In 1994–95, 120,297 HGVs were weighed and 4,545 were prohibited.

  Highway Engineering
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport following the formation of the Highways Agency, what means are being employed to ensure highway engineering remains integrated within his Department's overall work on road safety. [33848]

  Mr. Watts
  The framework document which establishes the Highways Agency has an objective of contributing to the target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000 compared with the annual average from 1981 to 1985. The agency's road users' charter sets out its commitment to contributing to the above target through a programme of implementing road safety schemes, providing better lighting and safety barriers between carriageways, encouraging safer driving at roadworks and developing winter maintenance practice. The enhancement of road safety is also a key objective of the programme of road improvements. The agency's performance is monitored against its business plan targets.

  Travelcard
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has held with London Transport and British Rail on the future of the travelcard and the consideration of unit pricing of tickets in London. [33830]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government are committed to the continuation of the existing London travelcard and has taken the necessary steps to ensure its future. My
  573
  Department discusses a variety of issues, including developments in ticketing, with London Transport and the rail operators as required.

  Refuse (Transport)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the proposed transport of refuse by road from Westminster rather than by the use of the Thames. [33804]

  Mr. Norris
  I have received one representation concerning Westminster's decision to transfer its waste by road rather than by river. I understand that my ministerial colleagues in the Department of the Environment have received a further two.

  A1 (Air Quality)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what monitoring is done by his Department of air quality on the A1, Archway road, in Haringey and Islington. [33813]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has not conducted any monitoring of air quality on the A1 Archway road, in the London borough of Haringey or the London borough of Islington. We do not routinely monitor air quality beside existing trunk roads.

  The overall responsibility for the control of air quality rest with the Department of the Environment, which in January 1995 published the Government's strategic policies for air quality management "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge". Under this strategy, the initial responsibility for air quality would rest with local authorities, which already have considerable responsibilities. They will liaise with bodies such as the Highways Agency, when drawing up their air quality management plans.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when it first became apparent to him that the timetable he set in March 1994 for concluding the development agreement with the successful bidder for the construction of the channel tunnel rail link was likely to slip beyond mid-1995. [33534]

  Mr. Watts
  The then Secretary of State announced on 31 August 1994 that he hoped to conclude the process of evaluation and negotiation by mid to late 1995.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what transport benefits he took into account when selecting the successful first stage bidders for the channel tunnel rail link construction contract. [33532]

  Mr. Watts
  As the Secretary of State announced on 3 July—Official Report, columns 61–62, the ranking of bids in the first stage of the competition was based mainly on an evaluation of the level and timing of the Government contribution and the approach taken by the bidders to risk, together with a qualitative assessment of their financial proposals. Transport benefits were also taken into account, particularly non-financial benefits to international and domestic passengers on the rail link and existing network.

  White Hart Roundabout, Northolt
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take measures to ensure the early completion of phased traffic lights at the White Hart roundabout, Northolt; and if he will make a statement. [33301]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for the London borough of Ealing.

  Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [33419]

  Mr. Norris
  (a) In accordance with the service-wide rules, the Department's staff handbook requires staff to declare any financial interests in matters they may be called upon to deal with in the course of their official duties. In the majority of cases, such conflicts of interest are reported to, and resolved immediately by, line management. The Department does not maintain a central record of all declared shareholdings and, for this reason, it is not possible to provide the detail of information requested without a special exercise incurring disproportionate cost.

  (b) There have been no cases in the last five years where staff have been formally advised to dispose of shareholdings.

  Vehicle Owner Records (Disclosures)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many disclosures from vehicle owner records at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency were made to bailiffs in the last 12 months. [33351]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not recorded separately.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what circumstances he will authorise the release of records from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in connection with offences unrelated to the actual vehicle concerned. [33353]

  Mr. Norris
  Information may be released in circumstances where "reasonable cause" has been demonstrated.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his definition of "good cause" in relation to the disclosure of records from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to a firm of bailiffs. [33352]

  Mr. Norris
  Regulations permit the release of information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's vehicle record in circumstances where "reasonable cause" has been demonstrated. "Reasonable cause" is not defined and each case is dealt with on its merits.

  Information may also be released to local authorities for any purpose connected with the investigation of an offence or criminalised parking contravention.
  575
  Most inquiries from bailiffs are made on behalf of local authorities and the courts as a result of distress warrants and for non-payments of fines, rates and so on. Inquiries are also made in cases of outstanding debts where sight of a court judgment is required before confirmation of keeper details is provided.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much extra resources have been provided to the Vehicle Inspectorate in the current financial year; how many additional traffic examiners and vehicle examiners will be employed as a result; and if the extra money will be provided annually. [33590]

  Mr. Norris
  An additional £350,000 in funding has been made available to VI for additional enforcement activities. We will be looking to sustain continued high levels of enforcement in future years. The number of additional traffic examiners and vehicle examiners to be employed as a result of extra resources is an operational matter for the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Ms Joan Walley, dated 12 July 1995:

  As Chief Executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate, I have been asked by the Secretary of State to reply to your question on how many additional traffic examiners and vehicle examiners will be employed as a result of extra resources provided to VI.

  The number of additional posts being created as a result of the extra funding is 11.5 traffic examiners and 2.5 vehicle examiners.

ENVIRONMENT

  Hybrid Wolves
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what advice his Department issues to local authorities about the seizure of hybrid wolves which are owned or kept as domestic pets; [33101]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the application of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 to the ownership or keeping of second or subsequent generation hybrid wolves. [33109]

  Mr. Clappison
  Keeping a wolf or any hybrid wolf requires a licence issued by the local authority under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Local authorities may attach to any licence conditions covering accommodation or other issues. They are also empowered to seize any hybrid wolf for which a licence has not been issued or if a condition on a licence is breached. It is for the local authority to decide whether seizure is appropriate in a particular case.

  EDS
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the contracts his Department has with the computer company EDS. [33170]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None currently.

  Waste Spreading
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received regarding problems caused by the spreading of waste paper sludge at Thieveley Pike, Cliviger, Burnley; [33620]

  (2) if he will ensure that funds are made available immediately to repair the damage caused to ecologically sensitive areas by inappropriate schemes for waste spreading; [33619]

  (3) what steps he has taken to ensure waste spreading on agricultural land is done in conformity with EEC directive 91/692; [33617]

  (4) what steps he proposes to take to ensure waste spreading on agricultural land complies with environmental protection requirements; [33615]

  (5) if he will make it his policy to ensure that the spreading of waste on water catchment areas for rivers and reservoirs and on ecologically sensitive areas is halted immediately; [33618]

  (6) how many incidents have been reported of waste spreading on agricultural land being carried out using methods harmful to the environment; and if he will make a statement. [33616]

  Mr. Clappison
  On 1 May 1994, the Government brought into force the waste management licensing provisions of part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994—S.I. 1994 No. 1056. The new licensing system is the main means by which the Government have transposed into national legislation the requirements of the amended EC Framework Directive on waste—Council Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by 91/156/EEC and 91/692/EEC.

  It is an offence under section 33(1)(a) or (b) of the 1990 Act to deposit, recover or dispose of controlled waste without a waste management licence or contrary to the conditions of a licence exemption. It is also an offence under section 33(1)(c) of the 1990 Act to carry out these activities in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.

  Article 4 of the framework directive has been transposed in paragraph 4(1)(a) of schedule 4 to the 1994 regulations. This provision makes it a relevant objective to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment and in particular without:

  (a) risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals; or

  (b) causing nuisance through noise or odours; or

  (c) adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

  Exemptions from waste management licensing have been provided in regulation 17 of and schedule 3 to the 1994 regulations. Regulation 17(4) provides that the exemptions are valid only if the type and quantity of waste, and the method of disposal or recovery, are consistent with the need to attain the objectives set out in paragraph 4(1)(a) of schedule 4 to the 1994 regulations.

  577
  A person who purports to be carrying out an exempt activity but fails to comply with the terms and conditions of an exemption may be prosecuted under section 33(1)(a) or (b) of 1990 Act for carrying out a licensable activity without a licence; or, if appropriate, under 33(1)(c) of the 1990 Act.

  Responsibility for the enforcement of waste management controls rests with waste regulation authorities and there is no requirement for incidents of the kind referred to by the hon. Member to be reported to the Department. The cost of repairing any damage arising from the inappropriate spreading of waste is a matter for the parties concerned.

  In relation to the incident at Thieveley Pike, the Department has received representations from the secretary to Save The Moors From Open Cast and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what pay increase has been offered to the staff of the Audit Commission. [33349]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There has been no offer of an increase in basic pay to staff of the Audit Commission for 1995–96. However, individuals will be eligible for increases in pay of between 0 and 3.5 per cent., depending on their performance against set targets.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration led him to agree that the commissioners of the Audit Commission should receive a pay increase of 2.5 per cent. [33350]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  On 9 February,Official Report, column 347, the Prime Minister announced the Government's decisions on the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Board, which was that the chairmen and members of public boards whose salaries are treated as SSRB consequentials may be paid an increase of 2.5 per cent. The Secretary of State decided to award a pay increase of 2.5 per cent. to the chairman and members of the board of the Audit Commission on this basis.

  Education SSA (Devon)
  Mr. Allison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage change in real terms of the education standard spending assessment for Devon since 1989–90. [33493]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Standard spending assessments were not introduced until 1 April 1990. Between 1990–91 and 1995–96, Devon county council's education standard spending assessment decreased in real terms by 0.4 per cent.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region the total amount of(a) useable and (b) set-aside capital receipts held by each local authority in England at 31 March. [33473]
  578
  Sir Paul Beresford
  A list by region of the amounts of accumulated usable capital receipts and the amounts set aside as provision for credit liabilities for each English local authority at 31 March 1994 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The regional totals for these amounts are:

  Amounts held as at 31 March 1994 (£ million)

  Region

  Usable receipts

  PCL set aside

  South East

  1,184

  2,837

  South West

  162

  629

  East Anglia

  93

  323

  West Midlands

  117

  437

  East Midlands

  123

  508

  North West

  142

  489

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  79

  460

  Northern

  65

  225

  The provision for credit liabilities includes amounts set aside from both capital receipts and revenue. Separate figures are not available.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average percentage change in the rateable values list between 1990 and 1995(a) for each region in England, (b) for Cornwall and (c) for Cornwall and Devon. [33630]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The latest information shows the following average changes in rateable value between the 1990 and 1995 rating lists:

  Per cent.

  (a)

  Northern region

  +26

  North west

  +32

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  +28

  East Midlands

  +22

  West Midlands

  +36

  East Anglia

  +14

  South west

  +13

  South east

  +2

  Outer London

  +6

  Inner London

  -41

  (b)

  Cornwall +9 per cent.

  —

  (c)

  Cornwall and Devon +14 per cent.

  —

  Water Industry
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on competition regulation in the water industry. [32132]

  Mr. Clappison
  We are keen to encourage direct competition where it is appropriate. The Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992 introduced a number of measures to facilitate it in the case of water.

  On 4 July the Director General of Water Services published a paper entitled "Competition in the water industry: inset appointments and their regulation", in response to an increasing number of inquiries into the introduction of competition into the water industry.

  Emergency Hostels
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many 16 and 17-year-olds are staying in emergency hostels, and what plans he has to reduce the number. [33061]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information requested is not available in my Department.

  The Children Act 1989 requires social services departments to provide accommodation for a child in need who has reached the age of 16 and whose welfare is likely to be seriously prejudiced if they do not provide him with accommodation. Social services departments also have power to provide accommodation for any child in their area if they consider that this would safeguard and promote the child's welfare.

  Young people who are homeless can approach the local housing authority for assistance under part II of the Housing Act 1985. Housing authorities and social services departments are expected to co-operate in discharging their respective duties.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has made to increase the Housing Corporation's annual development programme; [33064]

  (2) what plans he has to extend the Housing Corporation's housing for rent programme. [33065]

  Mr. Clappison
  The budget for the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1995–96, including housing for rent, was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration on 15 December 1994 Official Report, column 734. Details were placed in the Library of the House.

  The budget for the approved development programme for 1996–97 and later years is being considered as part of the Government's annual review of public expenditure.

  Housing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the terms of reference of the intended review of the Housing Act 1985. [33066]

  Mr. Clappison
  We set out our housing policies in the White Paper, "Our Future Homes", Cm 2901, which was published on 27 June 1995. The White Paper indicated that the Government were consulting on a number of proposals and described the consultation arrangements.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers he plans to grant to local authorities to ensure decent facilities in low-rent private accommodation. [33067]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities have a range of statutory powers to secure improvements to properties they consider to be unfit, including privately rented accommodation. We propose to strengthen their powers to deal with houses in multiple occupation to improve the safety and amenity of this type of accommodation.
  580
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has in respect of privately rented accommodation for poor people. [33068]

  Mr. Clappison
  We propose to:legislate to make it easier for landlords to let their property to build on progress made since 1988 on increasing the supply of good quality privately rented accommodation;
  make it easier for people on low incomes to obtain accommodation by placing a statutory duty on local housing authorities to secure suitable advisory services, including advice on affordable private rented housing;
  introduce pre-tenancy determinations to enable prospective tenants and their landlords to find out how much rent will be covered by housing benefit, before signing a tenancy agreement.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will review the effectiveness of the business expansion scheme for privately rented accommodation. [33069]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department reviewed the effectiveness of the business expansion scheme in 1991–92. We concluded that the scheme was successful as a temporary measure to pump-prime investment, adding some 80,000 rental units to the private rented sector. We also concluded that the boost to the sector was likely to be shortlived and that the scheme was relatively expensive. The concession therefore ended, as planned, in 1993.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has evaluated on landlords attitudes to unemployed people and those on housing benefit as tenants; and what proposals he has. [33070]

  Mr. Clappison
  Recent research for my Department found that landlords' attitudes to prospective tenants varied—some landlords were cautious about taking on tenants in receipt of housing benefit, others were content to do so.

  Unemployed people and those on housing benefit will find it easier to obtain accommodation if landlords are confident that the rent will be paid. We have made it easier for local authorities to offer landlords rent guarantees, helping people who cannot raise a rent deposit. We propose to introduce pre-tenancy determinations to remove the uncertainty about how much rent will be covered by housing benefit, before the tenancy agreement is signed.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Social Security and local authorities to encourage people to take housing benefit or unemployed tenants by speeding up the housing benefit application process. [33071]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department and the Department of Social Security work together closely with local authorities on issues affecting the operation of the housing benefit system. In 1994, nearly 80 per cent. of all housing benefit claims were paid within the statutory 15 days. About 70 per cent. of authorities achieved or exceeded this target. The introduction of pre-tenancy determinations in January should allow local authorities to improve their response times further.
  581
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the slump in the housing market has encouraged an increase in privately rented accommodation. [33072]

  Mr. Clappison
  The number of households living in privately rented property has increased by 300,000 since 1988. The increased availability of this type of accommodation reflects a number of factors, particularly the deregulation of lettings since 1989. The current state of the housing market is, of course, another such factor.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress the Secretary of State has made in encouraging(a) the authorised housing investment trusts and (b) other bodies to invest in privately rented accommodation. [33073]

  Mr. Clappison
  We announced in the housing White Paper our proposal to legislate to allow housing investment trusts to be formed. The removal of rent controls in 1988 for new lettings allows landlords to make a more realistic return on their investment. Since 1988, the number of privately rented households has increased from 1.7 million to 2 million.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to address the concerns of the financial institutions in respect of the risks of investment in privately rented accommodation. [33047]

  Mr. Clappison
  We propose to allow housing investment trusts to be formed so that financial institutions will be able to invest in privately rented housing without managing the properties directly and on a scale which will enable them to diversify risks. Trusts will benefit from exemption on capital gains within the trust, and a reduced rate of corporation tax.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of grants to companies to invest in privately rented accommodation; and what is his policy in respect of such grants. [33075]

  Mr. Clappison
  We propose to allow private sector landlords to bid for funds to building housing at below market levels for social renting, but do not propose to offer grants for housing at market rents.

  Opencast Mining
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the oral answer of 17 May to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane),Official Report, column 316, when his Department will publish the findings of the research that it is currently undertaking into the problems of dust, blasting and transport caused by opencast mining. [33501]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  These projects are concerned with all mineral workings, not simply opencast coal. The findings on dust and blasting will be published at the end of this year and in early 1996 respectively. The results of the transport research will be available in late summer 1996.

  Director General of Water Services
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current salary of the Director General of Water Services; and what has been the salary for this post since 1990. [33552]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) by my right hon. Friend the former Minister for the Environment and Countryside on 3 July 1995,Official Report, column 17.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the criteria used to determine the salary of the Director General of Water Services. [33553]

  Mr. Clappison
  Mr. Byatt's salary is based on that of a grade 2 civil servant, and has been increased in line with increases awarded to senior civil servants in the light of the Government's decisions on the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its agencies over the last five years; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33891]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is available centrally only for some of the consultancy contracts. The available information for the period April 1990 to April 1995 is as follows:

  Company name

  Number of contracts awarded

  Touche Ross

  3

  Infologistics

  3

  BIS Applied Systems

  5

  Logica

  9

  Comshare

  2

  Computer People

  8

  Peter Peregrinus Ltd.

  1

  ISMa Consultants

  1

  Coopers and Lybrand

  11

  PA Consulting

  1

  Mindworks

  1

  World Systems

  6

  Hanlon Computer Services

  2

  W. S. Atkins

  7

  Yale Data Management

  11

  Softlab

  1

  Sapphire Software Services

  2

  Kermon Management Consultants

  1

  Abraxas Computer Systems

  4

  Mouncey and Partners

  7

  FI Group plc

  3

  Ernst and Young

  9

  Trident Project Services

  1

  Hoskyns Group plc

  1

  Elan Computing

  2

  CSL

  2

  Ron Streeter Methods Ltd.

  1

  Amtec Consulting

  3

  CTEC

  1

  Hunterskil

  3

  Logical Communication Systems

  1

  Park Place Training

  1

  Frost Berkeley Associates

  6

  Chajnsielem Heritage Systems

  1

  Thomas Consultancy

  1

  583

  Company name

  Number of contracts awarded

  Isles Technology Resources

  4

  Almondhall Computer Staff

  6

  AMP Computer Recruitment

  1

  CSS Trident

  2

  Nobleprospect Ltd.

  1

  Myriad Computer Services

  5

  Intertech Computer Consultants

  1

  Systeme Evolutif

  2

  Database Solutions

  1

  Modulo 4

  1

  Consultancy Corporation

  1

  Sue Sheppard Staff Bureau

  1

  KPG Computer Support Services

  1

  Thorogood Associates

  1

  Admiral Management Services

  5

  VNG Nationwide

  1

  Methods Application

  2

  Lorien Technical Services

  2

  Brooklands Information Services

  1

  Prolog Systems

  1

  Gmap Ltd.

  1

  Task Force

  2

  Mind Consultancy

  1

  Arrow Corps

  1

  David Warrilow Associates

  3

  International Training Services

  1

  Easams Ltd.

  2

  Express Computer Consultants

  1

  Basis Ltd.

  2

  Axsis Consultants

  1

  ABC Ltd.

  1

  PWA Professional Personnel

  1

  Total number of contracts

  180

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last five years have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33879]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department and its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33860]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information is available centrally only for some of the expenditure on computer consultancies. The available total cost for each of the last five years is as follows:

  1990–91: £1,427,230

  1991–92: £4,029,342

  1992–93: £2,742,459

  1993–94: £1,794,048

  1994–95: £316,045

  In respect of the next five years, it is not possible centrally to disaggregate bids for computer consultancy from bids for other forms of consultancy assistance. This information is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total value of quangos undertaking local government responsibilities in London, their total income and income per organisation and the names of all their members. [33940]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend has responsibility for the following non-departmental public bodies which exercise in London functions, some of which are the same as those exercisable by local authorities.

  LONDON RESIDUARY BODY

  Membership

  Sir Godfrey Taylor, DL (Chairman)

  Mr. Wallace Mackenzie, OBE

  Mr. Michael Roberts, FCA

  Mr. Jack Wolkind, CBE

  At 31 March 1995—latest available annual accounts—the value of net assets was £22.5 million and total revenue income in 1994–95 was £0.4 million.

  LONDON PENSIONS FUND AUTHORITY

  Membership

  Mr. Cholmeley Messer (Chairman)

  Mr. Michael Roberts, FCA (Deputy Chairman)

  Sir Nigel Althaus

  Councillor Dennis Barkway

  Councillor Stephen Bullock

  Miss Caroline Burton

  Councillor Judith Jorsling

  Councillor Serge Lourie

  At 31 March 1994—Latest available annual accounts—the value of the authority's superannuation fund was £2 billion and the value of the LPFA's other net assets was some £33 million. The total income in 1993–94 on the authority's management revenue account, net of recoverable payments, was around £30 million.

  LONDON DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  Membership

  Mr. Michael Pickard (Chairman)

  Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe (Deputy Chairman)

  Viscountess Cobham

  Sir Christopher Foster

  Sir Brian Hill

  Mr. William Jack

  Councillor Rajan Jalal

  Councillor Conor McAuley

  Councillor John McTernan

  Mr. Peter Mead

  Mr. Eric Sorensen

  Mr. Neil Spence

  Mr. Ronald Spinney

  At 31 March 1994—latest available annual accounts—the value of the corporation's net assets was £623 million and the total income on the consolidated income and expenditure account was £94 million.

  Radioactive Waste Management
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to his White Paper reviewing radioactive waste management policy, Cm. 2919. [33641]
  585
  Mr. Clappison
  None; the White Paper already takes account of responses received to the preliminary conclusions of the review, which were published in a consultation document last August.

  Protection of Species and Habitats
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the United Kingdom Government propose to take to protect species and habitats within its national jurisdiction but beyond territorial limits; and what is the timetable for such action. [33849]

  Mr. Clappison
  The UK Government will contribute fully to the international action and timetables agreed in the ministerial declaration of the fourth North sea conference in respect of the protection of species and habitats. The 1995 joint meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions held on 26 to 30 June agreed to consider questions on the protection of species and habitats raised by the declaration at working group level in October.

  County Hall
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what planning matters in relation to county hall, London SE1, have been considered by his Department. [33829]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In recent years, the Secretary of State for the Environment has determined a number of appeals on county hall planning and listed building consent applications.

  The Secretary of State dismissed appeals on 20 October 1987 for change of use of the county hall complex to hotel and residential use, but allowed a change to offices.

  On 5 September 1991, the Secretary of State allowed a second set of appeals and consents to demolish all the buildings within the complex and for their replacement by new office buildings, apart from the listed riverside building. Consent was given for the riverside building to be refurbished and altered to provide hotel and conference facilities and some 300 residential flats.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give up-to-date details on the response he has received to each of the six packaging schemes listed in his consultation paper on packaging and packaging waste; [33692]

  (2) how many (a) written and (b) oral representations his Department has received to the consultation paper on the shared producers responsibility scheme (i) from industry and (ii) from trade associations and companies; [33689]

  (3) how many (a) written and (b) oral representations his Department has received on the suggested V-WRAG scheme on shared producers responsibility for packaging waste scheme (i) in favour of the V-WRAG scheme and (ii) against the scheme; [33690]

  (4) if he will consider including the V-WRAG suggested scheme as an addition in his consultation paper, "Shared Producers Responsibility for Packaging Waste Scheme"; and if he will make a statement. [33691]
  586
  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: The Department has received approximately 200 letters from businesses and trade associations, largely in the food and drink and packaging manufacturing sectors, in support of a document entitled "Shared Producer Responsibility for Packaging Waste" which was submitted to Government by the VALPAK—Working Representative Advisory Group (V—WRAG) on 13 June. There have also been a number of oral expressions of support.

  The previous Minister for the Environment and Countryside wrote to the chairman of V-WRAG explaining that, in their present form, these proposals fall well short of meeting the criteria for an effective legal obligation to support the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. These criteria were published by the Government on 2 February, Official Report, column 763–64. I have placed copies of the correspondence in the library.

  The Government published their consultation paper on "Producer Responsibility for Packaging Waste" on 25 May, copies of which are in the library. Consultation closes on 18 August. The paper sets out six options for legislation on the recovery and recycling of packaging waste, all of which have been worked up by representatives of businesses in the packaging industry or who manufacture or supply packaged goods. At this stage, very few responses on the relative merits of the various options have been received.

  Leasehold Exchange Scheme
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish an analysis of the leasehold exchange scheme, indicating the cash sum received by a local authority and the net effect on a local authority's(a) capital receipts and (b) total borrowing and the new mortgage required by the leaseholder utilising the leasehold exchange scheme if the original leasehold property were (i) valued at £30,000 and sold with full discount in 1986 and (ii) valued at £20,000 and sold with full discount in 1982, and the new leasehold property is currently (1) a flat valued at £40,000 and (2) a house valued at £50,000, on the same assumptions as (i) if the original property now has a nil market value. [30789]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: An illustrative analysis based on the examples would be as follows:

  Example (i)

  £

  £

  Surrendered flat:

  Value of flat when purchased in 1986:

  30,000

  Maximum discount (60 per cent.):

  18,000

  Right to buy purchase price:

  12,000

  Exchange property:

  example (1)

  example (2)

  Flat valued at 40,000

  House valued at 50,000

  Discount1 (flat 40 per cent., house 30 per cent.):

  16,000

  15,000

  Total consideration:

  24,000

  35,000

  587

  Example (i)

  £

  £

  Credit for surrendered flat:

  12,000

  12,000

  Cash sum received by local authority:

  12,000

  23,000

  Effect on local authority's capital receipts:

  Notional receipt:

  12,000

  12,000

  (in each case, the RTB price paid)

  (24,000–12,000)

  (35,000–23,000)

  Set-aside, 75 per cent, of (in this case, total consideration minus credit for surrendered flat):

  9,000

  17,250

  Effect on local authority's total borrowing:

  This would depend on the authority's policy with regard to the use of amount set aside

  Effect on new mortgage required by leaseholder:

  The additional amount required (whether by a new loan or otherwise) in each case would be:

  12,000

  23,000

  1 The percentage defined by paragraph A3.3A(b)(ii) of the General Consent for the Disposal of Part II Dwelling-Houses 1994.

  Example (ii)

  £

  £

  Surrendered flat:

  Value of flat when purchased in 1982:

  20,000

  Maximum discount (60 per cent.):

  12,000

  Right to buy purchase price:

  8,000

  Exchange property:

  Example (1)

  Example (2)

  Flat valued at 40,000

  House valued at 50,000

  Discount1 (flat 40 per cent, house 30 per cent:

  16,000

  15,000

  Total consideration:

  24,000

  35,000

  Credit for surrendered flat:

  8,000

  8,000

  Cash sum received by local authority:

  16,000

  27,000

  Effect on local authority's capital receipts:

  Notional receipt:

  8,000

  8,000

  (in each case, the RTB price paid)

  (24,000–16,000)

  (35,000–27,000)

  Set-aside, 75 per cent. of (in this case, total consideration minus credit for surrendered flat):

  12,000

  20,250

  Effect on local authority's total borrowing:

  This would depend on the authority's policy with regard to the use of amount set aside

  588

  Example (ii)

  £

  £

  Effect on new mortgage required by leaseholder:

  The additional amount required (whether by a new loan or otherwise) in each case would be:

  16,000

  27,000

  As in your Question, no account is taken of administrative coasts, which would also be deductible from the capital receipt before set-aside is calculated.

  1 The percentage defined by paragraph A3.3A(b)(ii) of the General Consent for the Disposal of Part II Dwelling-Houses 1994.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33871]

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General how much his Department and its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33851]

  The Attorney-General
  The expenditure over the past five years for the Departments for which I am responsible is given in the following table:

  Expenditure in £000

  Year

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Serious Fraud Office

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  1990–91

  not known

  not known

  114.5

  0

  1991–92

  22

  428

  87.8

  0

  1992–93

  62

  487

  99.9

  0

  1993–94

  14.2

  449

  153.1

  0

  1994–95

  6.4

  369

  1213.7

  0

  1 Unaudited.

  Approximate expected expenditure for the next five years, at current prices, is as follows:

  Expenditure in £000

  Year

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Serious Fraud Office

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  1995–96

  40

  204

  193.5

  0

  1996–971

  30

  2200

  2 200

  0

  1 and each subsequent year

  2 not more than

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its agencies over the last five years; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33898]

  The Attorney-General
  The Departments for which I am responsible have entered into computer consultancy contracts with the following companies over the last five years —1990–91 to 1994–95. The figures in brackets give the number of contracts awarded to each company.
  589

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Axsis Consultants Ltd. (2)

  CCTA (6)

  Exact Profiles Ltd (1)

  Telecom Capita (1)

  Triad Special Systems Ltd. (2)

  Brian D Yates (1)

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Amtec Consulting (1)

  The Art of Management Ltd. (1)

  Axsis Consultants Ltd. (3)

  Bull Information Systems Ltd. (1)

  Comshare Ltd. (1)

  Harvard Associates Ltd. (2)

  Hoskyns Group plc (1)

  Hunterskil Ltd. (2)

  Infact Ltd. (4)

  Integrated Project Support (2)

  ISIS Computer Services (1)

  Mouncey and Partners (1)

  Olivetti UK Ltd. (1)

  Oracle Corporation UK Ltd. (1)

  Quadratron Systems UK Ltd. (1)

  Relational Designers Ltd. (1)

  SCOLL (1)

  Sema Group Systems Ltd. (1)

  Sequelogic Ltd. (4)

  Simdell Office Systems Ltd. (1)

  Verity (1)

  VNG Nationwide Ltd. (1)

  Yale Consulting (2)

  Serious Fraud Office

  (ACT) Network SI Group Ltd. (2)

  Admiral Management Services Ltd. (1)

  Amtec Consulting (2)

  Digitus Ltd. (1)

  Ernst and Young (1)

  Hedra Ltd (2)

  Hoskyns Group plc (2)

  Insight Consulting (2)

  LogicaUK Ltd. (l)

  Oracle Corporation UK Ltd. (1)

  Rand Information Systems Ltd. (1)

  Secure Information Systems Ltd. (1)

  SHL Systemhouse Inc (2)

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  None.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years. [33570]
  590
  Mr. Hanley
  There are three categories of consultants as defined by the Cabinet Office Efficiency Scrutiny. These are:"Investigating problems; providing analysis or advice; and assisting with the development of new systems, new structures or new capabilities within the organisation."

  For the year 1994–95, the diplomatic wing had 13 contracts with management consultants at a total cost of £76,887; 523 contracts for estate and building works consultants at a cost of £8,625,000 and 187 contracts for information technology consultants at a cost of £4,984,000.

  The aid wing had 15 contracts with management consultants at a total cost of £847,545 and 1,060 contracts with consultants involved in the aid programme overseas at a total cost of £199,221,375.

  Similar information for the periods 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from his Departments by(a) number of contracts and (b) monetary value in the last five years for which figures are available. [33439]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information required could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33459]

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the ODA, since 1980 is £326,890.94.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33881]

  Mr. Hanley
  The following management consultants employed by the diplomatic wing have been paid more than £1,000 per day in the last year:Psychometric Research Development
  Kinsley Lord

  Other consultancies within the diplomatic wing and ODA are not necessarily charged on a daily basis and such figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Department and agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopers and Lybrand and its subsidiaries, (b) Peat Marwick and its subsidiaries, (c) Ernst and Young and its subsidiaries, (d) Arthur Andersen and its subsidiaries, (e) Price Waterhouse and its subsidiaries, (f) Grant Thornton and its subsidiaries, (g) Stoy Hayward and its subsidiaries, (h) Robson Rhodes and its subsidiaries and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster and its subsidiaries for privatisation, market testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33916]
  591
  Mr. Hanley
  The table sets out the number of contracts and the total costs paid to the firms mentioned.

  The figures cover both the diplomatic wing and the ODA and include contracts let under the aid programme.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1. DIPLOMATIC WING

  (a) Coopers and Lybrand

  Total number of contracts

  3

  3

  Total costs

  £133,000

  £385,000

  (c) Ernst and Young

  Total number of contracts

  2

  1

  Total costs

  £23,000

  £4,000

  (g) Stay Hayward

  Total number of contracts

  2

  1

  Total costs

  £164,000

  £59,000

  (i) Pannell Kerr Forster

  Total number of contracts

  —

  2

  Total costs

  —

  £26,000

  2. AID WING

  (i) UK Running Costs

  (b) Peat Marwick (KPMG)

  Total number of contracts

  —

  2

  Total costs

  —

  £234,500

  (ii) Aid programme

  (a) Coopers and Lybrand

  Total number of contracts

  9

  13

  Total costs

  £1,406,342

  £1,462,955

  (b) Peat Marwick (KPMG)

  Total number of contracts

  9

  11

  Total costs

  £475,977

  £1,325,504

  (c) Ernst and Young

  Total number of contracts

  6

  —

  Total costs

  £2,382,040

  —

  (d) Arthur Andersen

  Total number of contracts

  1

  1

  Total costs

  £46,000

  £1,330,000

  (e) Price Waterhouse

  Total number of contracts

  12

  3

  Total costs

  £1,280,657

  £5,307,209

  (i) Pannell Kerr Forster

  Total number of contracts

  1

  —

  Total costs

  £197,250

  —

  Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [33416]

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Sex Tourism
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the last date that the subject of British sex tourists was raised with the Government of Cambodia; and what were the results of that discussion. [33706]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have not raised the subject of sex tourism with the Cambodian Government. However, the British embassy in Phnom Penh monitors this question closely and maintains contacts with NGOs in Cambodia, which are involved in tackling child prostitution.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with fellow members of the European Union as to a joint policy banning the selling of landmines; and if he will make a statement. [33488]

  Mr. David Davis
  On 12 May 1995, the Foreign Affairs Council adopted a European Union joint action on anti-personnel landmines. This comprises a European Union-wide moratorium on the export of anti-personnel landmines, identical in scope to our own national moratorium; joint efforts to strengthen the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention at a review conference due to take place in September; and support for demining.

  Kurdish People
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings and discussions have been held with representatives of the Kurdish people of(a) Iraq, (b) Iran and (c) Turkey; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of Kurdish demands. [33800]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are in frequent contact with representatives of the Iraqi Kurdish people. We have no contact with representatives of the Iranian Kurdish people. In Turkey, we maintain a broad range of contacts with people of Kurdish origin in public life, including those arguing for Kurdish autonomy.

  We frequently make clear to the Turkish Government our view that the conflict in the south-east of Turkey must be settled within the rule of law and with due respect for human rights; we encourage Turkey to seek a political rather than a military solution.

  The Iraqi Kurds are aware of the Government's support for the territorial integrity of Iraq.

  We support Iraqi Kurdish demands that Iraq cease repression of its people as required by UN Security Council resolution 688.

  Myanmar
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions representatives of Her Majesty's Government have held with representatives of political parties in Myanmar; and if he will make a statement. [33801]

  Mr. Hanley
  The British embassy in Rangoon has consistently maintained contact with representatives of the Burmese pro-democracy groups. The British chargé d'affaires, in company with other diplomats, took part in a meeting with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and members of the National League for Democracy on 11 July.

  We warmly welcome the SLORC's decision to lift the restrictions from Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. We hope that, as she said in her statement on 11 July, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the State Law and Order Restoration Council will be able to work together in the spirit of reconciliation and co-operation to achieve a prosperous and democratic Burma.

  Ireland
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what indications he has received from the Irish Government as to when the Irish Parliament will ratify the appropriate convention to receive sentenced prisoners in the Irish Republic; and if he will make a statement. [33945]

  Mr. Rifkind
  I understand that a Bill to ratify the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons completed its passage through the Irish Parliament on 7 July and should shortly come into effect.

  China
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Government of China concerning human rights and the use of child labour. [33831]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) gave on 23 February 1995,Official Report, column 279.

  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), discussed human rights in China with Chinese Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen in New York on 18 April.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of his ministerial colleagues is responsible for consular matters relating to the Indian sub-continent; which ministerial colleague will be responsible for the migration and visa correspondence unit; and if he will make a statement. [33973]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have the honour to be the Minister responsible for consular matters in the Indian sub-continent and for the migration and visa correspondence unit.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help his Department intends to give to Nigeria in drawing up a new electoral register. [33037]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have received no request from the Nigerian authorities for such assistance.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he received a copy of the report of the national constitutional conference in Nigeria and if he will make a statement explaining his policy in regard to steps which might be taken to encourage its implementation. [33038]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have not yet received a copy of the report, despite repeated requests. As my right hon. Friend the the Foreign Secretary made clear in a statement on 28 June, it is in Nigeria's own interests that there should be an accelerated and credible timetable for a transition to civilian democratic rule.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways his policy on Kenya has changed and developed over the past year. [33797]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: There has been no change in our approach. Kenya remains an important partner for Britain and we have continued to develop closer relations. As part of that process, we have given encouragement and support to the Government of Kenya to promote economic reform, good government and the development of a pluralist democracy.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorist Prisoners
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the contribution to the Irish peace process that could be made by a phased release from Her Majesty's prisons of those convicted of terrorist-related crimes; and if he will make a statement. [33941]

  Mr. Howard
  I have received a small number of representations from Members of the House, members of the public and others arguing for and against the early release of terrorist prisoners. The Government's position is clear. There will be no amnesty for prisoners convicted of terrorist offences. They should expect to serve their sentences in accordance with the law.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects to release prisoners convicted of terrorist-related crimes from her Majesty's prisons; when he expects such prisoners to be told of their release dates; and if he will make a statement; [33942]

  (2) how many republican prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons, who have served sentences of more than 20 years, have not yet been informed of their release date; and when he intends to tell these prisoners when they can expect to be released. [33943]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The release of prisoners, irrespective of their offence, is considered in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and its associated procedures. I have no knowledge of the release date of any prisoner until, in each individual case, the proper procedures have been completed.

  Two prisoners convicted of terrorist offences have served sentences of more than 20 years. A further three such prisoners will have been detained for more than 20 years by the end of July 1995. All five are discretionary life sentence prisoners and they have each been told that the period to be served for retribution and deterrence is 20 years. Their release will be a matter for a discretionary lifer panel of the Parole Board.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its
  595
  agencies over the last five years; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33895]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department has let 595 contracts for computer consultancy to 164 companies, over the five years from 1990–91 to 1994–95, as follows:

  Firms which have won computer consultancy contracts

  Number of contracts

  ACT Business Systems

  1

  Admiral

  14

  AEA Technology

  1

  Aims Systems

  1

  AMTEC Consulting

  1

  APD-s.-Com

  2

  AT & T Professional Services

  2

  AXSIS Consultants

  11

  Bell Software

  2

  BIS

  1

  Bransom

  1

  Brian Whitworth

  1

  Bristol Transputer Centre

  1

  Bull Information Systems

  4

  Bureau Veritas Quality

  2

  California Institute of Technology

  1

  Capita Management

  1

  CCTA

  16

  Charles Douglas Organisation

  5

  Civil Service College

  1

  CMG Information Services

  4

  Communications Planning

  1

  Computer Capacity Management Services

  2

  Computer People North

  5

  Concorde Services

  1

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  10

  Compass Ltd.

  1

  Computer Application Services

  1

  Cornwell Affiliates

  1

  Cray Systems

  8

  CSC

  7

  CSS Trident

  18

  Data Sciences

  2

  DataEase International

  1

  Daton Systems

  2

  Daymount Computing

  2

  Dart Resourcing Group

  1

  DBI Associates

  14

  DEC

  4

  Devron

  1

  Doric Computer Systems

  1

  Easams

  1

  Ealing Electro Optics

  2

  Edinburgh Parallel Comp.

  4

  EDS Defence

  2

  Electronic Facilities Des.

  1

  ENE

  1

  ERA Technology

  5

  Ernst and Young

  4

  ESRI(UK)

  1

  Eurolink Group PLC

  1

  Eurosource

  1

  Ewbank Preece

  1

  Express Computer Consultants

  3

  Forvus

  1

  Gartner Group UK

  1

  Genesis Computer Res.

  1

  Glossa

  2

  Grafton

  8

  Hans Grefte

  2

  R Grundy Associates

  1

  GST

  1

  Harvey Consultants

  2

  HDX

  1

  Hedra

  4

  596

  Firms which have won computer consultancy contracts

  Number of contracts

  Hoskyns Group

  50

  Human Applications

  1

  IBIS

  1

  ICL

  5

  IHSM Consultants

  1

  Image Science

  1

  Intac

  1

  Interskil Consulting

  1

  Information Partnership

  1

  Insight Consulting

  3

  ITA

  1

  Kermon

  26

  Kingston & Associates

  1

  LA International

  1

  LBMS

  7

  Leatherhead Food Research

  1

  Liverpool Polytechnic Services

  1

  Logica

  16

  Logical Systems International

  1

  Lorien Group

  3

  Lucas Management Systems

  1

  Mackenzie Tribbeck

  1

  Mancos Computers

  1

  Marketing Generics

  1

  Metier

  2

  Method Application

  3

  MFT

  3

  Microprism (UK)

  1

  MIS

  1

  MMT Computing

  1

  Model Systems

  1

  Modus International

  2

  MSG Business Systems

  1

  Myriad Computer Services

  3

  National Computing Centre

  1

  National Transputer Supp.

  2

  Nostradamus Computing

  1

  Nucleus Networking Systems

  3

  Office

  5

  Oracle Corporation

  14

  Origin IQ

  1

  PA Consulting

  31

  Pace Consultancy

  1

  Paradis Consultants

  6

  Parity PLC

  2

  P-E International

  4

  Peter Lomax

  1

  Picdar

  1

  Pink Elephant

  1

  Portsmouth Building Society

  1

  Premier Data Services

  2

  Price Waterhouse

  6

  QA Research

  1

  Quanta Learning Systems

  2

  Radius

  3

  Recognition Research

  4

  Rede Group

  1

  Resources International

  1

  Robin Verney Associates

  3

  RW Comms

  1

  SAA Consultants

  1

  Scoll

  1

  S-Com

  1

  SD Scicon

  1

  Search International

  2

  Sema Group

  12

  Siemens Nixdorf

  15

  Sitpro

  1

  Skytronics

  1

  Smith Systems Engineering

  6

  Software AG

  6

  Software Quality Assurance

  3

  Software Sciences

  1

  597

  Firms which have won computer consultancy contracts

  Number of contracts

  Span Contracts

  3

  SSADM College

  3

  St. George's Hospital

  1

  Strand information

  1

  Strategy & Vision Research

  2

  System Concepts

  2

  TABS

  1

  Taymar Consultants

  1

  Teesside Polytechnic

  1

  Theodore Goddard

  5

  Thorcom

  1

  TIS

  1

  Touche Ross

  5

  Touchstone Consultancy

  2

  Unisys

  1

  University of Aberdeen

  6

  University of Dundee

  1

  Unicorn Business Solutions

  2

  VNG Nationwide

  14

  White Waghorn

  3

  Winstead

  1

  Winway Systems

  8

  World Quality Systems

  8

  WS Atkins

  2

  Yale Data

  2

  Zentech

  1

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33882]

  Mr. Howard
  A number of consultancy contracts would include some rates at more than £1,000 per day, but typically the average rates charged would be less than £1,000. An exhaustive list of all commissions where the daily rate might exceed £1,000 per day could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department and its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33852]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department has spent in each of the last five years the following amounts:

  1990–91: £4,820,000

  1991–92: £6,000,000

  1992–93: £4,210,000

  1993–94: £3,500,000

  1994–95: £2,730,000

  Expenditure in future years will depend on need and affordability within overall financial provision, but is likely to be of the order of £4 million to £5 million per year.

  Teenage Prisoners
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average time a teenager is held in prison awaiting trial. [33809]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison 598
  Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 12 july 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the current average time a teenage is held in prison awaiting trial.

  The latest available provisional information is for time spent in custody before conviction and time spent in custody after conviction before sentence in 1994. It is given in the attached table.

  Estimated average time spent in custody for untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners, aged 15–19, in Prison Service establishments in 19941

  Type of custody

  Receptions in 1994

  Estimated average number of days in custody4

  Untried2

  13,056

  44

  Convicted

  unsentenced3

  8,052

  33

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Time spent in custody before conviction.

  3 Time spent in custody after conviction before sentence.

  4 Estimated from the number of receptions and population in 1994, as measured by population on 30 June.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost to public funds of keeping a 15 or 16-year-old in prison for each day they await trial. [33814]

  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 12 July 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the daily 'cost of keeping a 15 or 16 year old in prison while awaiting trial.

  In 1993–94 the average daily cost of holding a prisoner in a young offender remand establishment was £55.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to phase out the use of prison custody for teenagers. [33808]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We are committed to ending the remanding of 15 and 16-year-olds boys to Prison Service establishments as soon as there are sufficient secure local authority places to accommodate them. A building programme of 170 new secure places in under way. We expect the majority of these places to be finished in 1996. Prison Service accommodation is not used for other remanded juveniles. We have no plans to phase out the use of Prison Service accommodation for sentenced juveniles.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths of 15 and 16-year-olds awaiting trial in prison have occurred in the last 10 years, in which prisons and on what dates. [33810]

  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.
  599
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 12 July 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about suicides among fifteen and sixteen year olds in prison during the last ten years.

  Between June 1985 and June 1995 there was one self-inflicted death of a fifteen or sixteen year old at a Prison Service establishment who was awaiting trial. This occurred on 13 July 1990 at Swansea prison.

  Mrs Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which adult prisons 15 and 16-year-olds are currently held; and how many are held in each prison. [33812]

  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 12 July 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking in which adult prisons 15 to 16 year olds are currently held; and how many are held in each prison.

  The information requested is given in the attached table.

  Population of 15 and 16 year olds in adult Prison Service establishments on 31 May 19951

  Prison Service establishment

  Number

  Askham Grange

  2

  Cardiff

  7

  Doncaster

  21

  Exeter

  1

  Holloway

  5

  Hull

  13

  Low Newton

  2

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1

  Total

  52

  1 Provisional figures.

  Charitable Funds
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rules or guidance his Department has issued about how trusts or health authorities can invest moneys held in trust. [33936]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Charity Commission, which is responsible for providing advice to health service bodies on the administration of their charitable funds, has produced a guide for them which includes guidance on their duties towards the selection of investments for, and management of, these funds. The guide has been sent to all regional, district and special health authorities, Special trustees, NHS trusts and trustees appointed for NHS trusts in England and Wales which hold charitable funds.

  Immigration (Removal Procedures)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home department what further action has taken place since the issue of the report of the joint Home Office and police review of removal procedures in immigration cases involving the police; and if he will make a statement. [34427]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Following detailed discussions between officials in the immigration department and 600
  senior police officers, a Home Office circular has been issued. This follows up the recommendations of the review, which were accepted by my right hon. and learned Friend. A copy of the circular is being placed in the Library.

  Sex Tourism
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department is he will make a statement about his plans for dealing with the problem of sex tourism [34513]

  Mr Howard
  The Government share the abhorrence felt by the vast majority of people about the sexual exploitation abroad of young children. The introduction, by Lord Hylton of his Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill has done much to highlight the issue and we have listened very carefully to all that has been said both inside Parliament and more generally We are anxious that effective action should be taken to deal with this problem. That must involve action by the foreign governments concerned, but that alone is not enough. We must also do all that we can.

  Despite its admirable aim, Lord Hylton's Bill is, in the Government's view, seriously flawed and does not provide a workable or effective solution to the problems posed by sex tourism. The Government cannot therefore support it.

  We are, however, urgently examining the scope of the law in each of the United Kingdom jurisdictions to see what steps could be taken to deal with those who in this country conspire or incite others to commit offences abroad. This would enable us to deal with those who organise sex tours or encourage others to travel abroad for the purpose of sexually exploiting children.

  Any legislation which might be brought forward to achieve this aim would need careful thought to ensure that it would be effective. We would hope to have proposals for legislation ready as soon as the details can be satisfactorily resolved.

  Car Crime
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by police force the budgets allocated for preventing car crime for each of the last five years. [33578]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally. The allocation of available resources within each force area is a matter for the chief officer of police.

  Prisoners (HIV)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the breakdown of his Department's budget for use in the treatment of prison inmates suffering from the HIV virus and the AIDS infection; and if he will make a statement. [33485]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison
  601
  Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 12 July 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the budget treatment of inmates suffering from the HIV virus and AIDS infection.

  The Prison Service budget for health care is not broken down into treatment costs for individuals or for particular diseases. The policy on treatment of prison inmates generally is that the Prison Service pays for or provides treatment which is carried out within the prison setting and the National Health Service provides for the treatment of inmates who go to outside hospitals to receive specialist care or in-patient treatment.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's response to each of the 11 recommendations of the Animal Procedures Committee report to the Home Secretary on regulatory toxicity of March 1994; what has been the reason for the delay in responding; what action he now proposes to take which will reduce unnecessary animal experiments; and how many fewer such experiments he estimates will now occur. [33525]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The report was published in July 1994 as a basis for public consultation. We are now preparing, in discussion with colleagues, a response to the committee, taking into account the comments we have received. This should be available shortly and I will send the hon. Member a copy.

  National Lottery
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many poverty-related projects have been submitted for consideration for proceeds arising from the national lottery; how many have been approved; and what was the total value of funds approved. [33658]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The National Lottery Charities Board began accepting applications for its first round of grants on 15 May 1995. It is accepting applications up to 1 August, and it is too early to specify the numbers and types of applications received. The board hopes to announce details of its first grants in October. Decisions on individual applications are a matter for the board.

  Asylum Seekers (Kenya)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from Kenya have sought refugee status in each of the past five years and in each month of this year. [33039]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on asylum applications from Kenyan nationals for the years 1990 to 1994 is published in table 2.1 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994", issue 15/95. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Information on applications during January to May 1995 is given in the table.
  602

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom from Kenyan nationals, excluding dependents, January to May 1995

  1995

  Number of principal applicants

  January

  60

  February

  80

  March

  40

  April

  70

  May

  110

  Total

  360

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will list(a) details of all overseas trips made by him, or ministerial colleagues in his Department, paid for wholly or partly from public funds and (b) the purpose, destination and duration of such overseas trips, which officials accompanied him and the total cost in each case, including that of officials, to public funds for each year since 1992. [32264]

  Mr. Howard
  The information below reflects that which is available centrally. Precise details of officials who travelled with Ministers are not available, but generally, Ministers will have been accompanied by a private secretary and an official.

  1–9 January 1992: Right hon. Kenneth Baker; India and Pakistan on immigration matters

  21–22 January 1992: Right hon. Dame Angela Rumbold; Luxembourg

  22–23 January 1992: Right hon. Dame Angela Rumbold; The Netherlands

  3–4 March 1992: Right hon. Kenneth Baker; Lisbon for meeting with Minister of the Interior

  10–11 June 1992: Right hon. Kenneth Clarke; Lisbon for TREVI Council

  8–11 June 1992: Mr. Jack; European Ministers of Justice meeting in Cyprus

  6–15 September 1992: Right hon. Kenneth Clarke; South America

  17–18 September 1992: Right hon. Kenneth Clarke; Justice and Home Affairs Council, Brussels

  14–29 September 1992: Mr. Wardle; India on immigration matters

  16–18 October 1992: Right hon. Sir Peter Lloyd; USA

  23–24 November 1992: Right hon. Kenneth Clarke; Committee on Civil Liberties, Brussels

  14–16 February 1993: Right hon. Kenneth, Clarke; Conference in Budapest

  5–6 May 1993: Right hon. Kenneth Clarke; Report on International Organised Crime, Denmark

  27–28 May 1993: Right hon. Sir Peter Lloyd; Italy

  1–3 June 1993: Mr. Wardle; Belgium and Holland

  28–29 September 1993: Right hon. David Maclean; European Ministers of Justice meeting in Brussels

  21–22 October 1993: Right hon. David Maclean; 3rd European Ministerial Conference on Equality between Men and Women in Rome

  18–19 November 1993: Mr. Wardle; Greece

  28–30 November 1993: Mr. Wardle; Justice and Home Affairs Council, Brussels

  1–8 January 1994: Home Secretary; visit to USA

  11 March 1994: Home Secretary; meeting with French Minister of Justice, Paris

  603

  22 March 1994: Home Secretary; Justice and Home Affairs Council, Brussels

  5–7 May 1994: Mr. Wardle; Thessalonika

  13–15 June 1994: Right hon. David Maclean; 19th Conference of European Ministers of Justice, Malta

  19–20 June 1994: Mr. Wardle; Justice and Home Affairs Council, Luxembourg

  20 August-3 September 1994: Home Secretary; visit to South America

  7 September 1994: Right hon. Michael Forsyth; Justice and Home Affairs Council, Berlin

  7–8 September 1994: Home Secretary; Justice and Home Affairs Council, Berlin

  20–23 November 1994: Right hon. David Maclean; UN Conference on Organised Crime in Naples

  30 November 1994: Home Secretary; Justice and Home Affairs Council, Brussels

  1 December 1994: Mr. Baker; Justice and Home Affairs Council, Brussels

  8 December 1994: The Right hon. The Baroness Blatch; Internal Market Council, Brussels

  18–20 December 1994: Right hon.David Maclean; visit to Bosnia

  21 December 1994: Mr. Baker; Coquelles (immigration trip)

  4–5 January 1995: The Right hon. The Baroness Blatch; Stockholm, meeting Swedish Minister of Justice

  11–12 January 1995: The Right hon. The Baroness Blatch; Copenhagen/The Hague for meetings with the Danish Minister of Justice and the Dutch Minister for European Affairs

  13 January 1995: Home Secretary; meeting French Ministers of the Interior, Paris

  16–17 January 1995: Right hon. Michael Forsyth; Data Protection meeting in Vienna and Rome

  19–20 January 1995: The Right hon. The Baroness Blatch; Helsinki/Bonn to attend meetings with the Finnish and German Ministers of Justice

  25–26 January 1995: Right hon. Michael Forsyth; Justice and Home Affairs Council, Paris

  30 January 1995: The Right hon. The Baroness Blatch; Madrid to meet Spanish Minister for Europe

  6 February 1995: The Right hon. The Baroness Blatch; Foreign Affairs Council, Brussels

  10 February 1995: Right hon. David Maclean; Council of Europe Conference on Equality and Democracy, Strasbourg

  21–23 February 1995: Right hon. David Maclean; South Africa on export promotion

  9–10 March 1995: Right hon. Michael Forsyth; Justice and Home Affairs Council, Brussels

  19 April 1995: Right hon. Michael Forsyth; Justice and Home Affairs Council, Paris

  24–27 April 1995: Right hon. Michael Forsyth; visit high security prisons in the USA

  30 April-2 May 1995: Right hon. David Maclean; visit to Bosnia

  12 June 1995:Home Secretary; meeting new French Minister of the Interior in Paris

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Duration

  Officials attending

  Cost to public funds

  28–29 April 1992

  Brussels/Luxembourg

  EC Research Council

  2 days

  Five

  1—

  29–30 July 1992

  Paris

  Carnegie Group

  2 days

  None

  1—

  8–9 September 1992

  Rome/Bonn

  Science Visit

  2 days

  Two

  1—i

  11–12 October 1992

  Luxembourg

  EC Research Council

  2 days

  Five

  1—

  604
  20–21 June 1995 Home Secretary; Justice and Home Affairs Council, Luxembourg.

  For 1993–94 the cost of ministerial visits, excluding private secretaries and other accompanying officials, was £39,891. On the same basis the cost for 1994–95 was £40,440 and £13,191 for the same period April to June 1995.

  The only figures available for 1992–93 relate to visits by Ministers and senior officials. The costs of these amounted to £131,792. The figures cannot be compared with those for later years since they are on a different basis.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the First Secretary of State if he will list his responsibilities upon which he is prepared to answer written parliamentary questions, and the arrangements for right hon. and hon. Members to ask him oral parliamentary question on a regular basis at other times than when he is deputising for the Prime Minister. [33974]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I propose to answer questions on my responsibilities for all Office of Public Service matters. I will be assisted on all business by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to whom questions on Duchy matters should be addressed. Further announcements will be made in due course on the rota for answering oral parliamentary questions.

  Deputy Prime Minister
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the First Secretary of State where his office is located; how many staff are directly responsible to him; what is the total number of staff he expects will be responsible to him; if he has a separate departmental budget; and if he will make a statement about the role of his office. [33975]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 11 July 1995 Official Report, columns 496–97.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list(a) details of all overseas trips made by him, or ministerial colleagues in his Department, paid for wholly or partly from public funds and (b) the purpose, destination and duration of such overseas trips, which officials accompanied him and the total cost in each case, including that of officials to public funds for each year since 1992. [32259]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table:
  605

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Duration

  Officials attending

  Cost to public funds

  10 November 1992

  Madrid

  Science Visit

  1 day

  Two

  1—

  8–9 December 1992

  Brussels

  EC Research Council

  2 days

  Five

  1—

  21–24 May 1993

  Toronto

  Carnegie Group

  4 days

  None

  £2,239

  30 June 1993

  Luxembourg

  EC Research Council

  1 day

  Five

  £1,995

  0–13 September 1993

  Geneva

  Visit to CERN

  4 days

  Four

  £1,604

  23–30 September 1993

  Japan

  Science Visit

  8 days

  Three

  £28,216

  17–18 October 1993

  Washington

  Science and Public Service Visit

  2 days

  Two

  £12,641

  3–6 December 1993

  Bonn/Brussels

  Carnegie Group

  4 days

  None

  £506

  21 March 1994

  Brussels

  EC Research Council

  1 day

  One

  £1,397

  9–13 June 1994

  Japan

  Carnegie Group

  5 days

  None

  £4,986

  17–18 July 1994

  Germany

  EC Research Council

  2 days

  Five

  £1,176

  29 September 1994 to 9

  Israel/Jordan/Occupied

  Science and in the Occupied

  11 days

  Two

  £4,787

  October 1994

  Territories

  Territories Public Services Visit

  8 February 1994

  Paris

  Meeting with the French Minister for Science

  1 day

  Two

  £683

  23–28 February 1995

  Mauritius/South Africa

  Speech in Mauritius on Public Sector Reform; Science

  6 days

  Five

  £22,001

  Mission to South Africa (including signature of agreement)

  7–8 March 1995

  Geneva

  Visit to CERN

  2 days

  Four

  £1,995

  11–18 May 1995

  Washington/Ottawa

  Carnegie Group; Discussions on Machinery of Government; Public Service Reform and Science

  8 days

  Six

  £31,509

  27 May 1995 to 6 June 1995

  Mexico/Brazil

  Building Links on Science and Technology and Public Sector Reform

  11 days

  Four

  £27,048

  Note:

  1 Figures for financial year 1992/93 could only be provided at disproportionate costs.

  Parliamentary Secretary

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Duration

  Officials attending

  Cost to public funds

  Summer 1992

  Milan/Rome

  Joint Research Centre/meeting with Italian Minister for Public Service

  Not known

  One

  1—

  September 1992

  Brussels/Budapest

  EC Research Council/Academic Europa

  Not known

  One

  1—

  11 October 1993

  Luxembourg

  EC Research Council

  1 day

  Three

  £2,076

  4 March 1994

  Brussels

  EC Research Council

  1 day

  Three

  £1,574

  23–30 September 1994

  Brussels/Geneva/Glenoble

  EC Research Council/visit to CERN/Inauguration Ceremony for the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility

  2 days

  Five

  £3,803

  1–2 December 1994

  Brussels

  EC Research Council

  2 days

  Three

  £1,941

  16 February 1995

  Nancy, France

  Meeting of European Public Service Ministers

  1 day

  Two

  £1,136

  9 June 1995

  Luxembourg

  EC Research Council

  1 day

  Three

  £1,728

  Note:

  1 Figures for financial year 1992–93 could only be provided at disproportionate costs.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the assistance given by the United Nations Population Fund in helping China organise censuses and demographic surveys; and if the data acquired from such activities have been or can be used for targeting areas for population control. [32020]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA, assisted with China's 1980 and 1990 censuses, providing equipment, technical advice on data tabulation 606
  and analysis and training abroad at places such as the United States Bureau of Census. Census data in China, as in all other countries, are used as the basis for the Government's development plans. UNFPA's assistance is a basis for encouraging the development of humane population policies in China. It is not provided with the intention of supporting or sanctioning any particular aspect of current Chinese population policy, or its interpretation.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when delegations from Her Majesty's Government have investigated Chinese population policies since 1979; and what conclusions were reached. [32015]
  607
  Mr. Hanley
  Lord Howe led an official delegation to China in December 1992 to look at human rights issues. The mission noted the growing attention paid by the Chinese authorities to international concerns about human rights and welcomed their willingness to continue the dialogue on human rights issues with any subsequent missions.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of individual associations within the Chinese family planning association; and what figures exist for the number of household links established by the CFPA. [32011]

  Mr. Hanley
  We understand from the International Planned Parenthood Federation that the China Family Planning Association, CFPA, consists of about 915,000 individual associations. We do not have reliable information on the number of household links established by the CFPA.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the date at which it first became obligatory under Chinese law to have intrauterine devices inserted after a first child; and what estimates he has on the number of IUD insertions since that date. [32019]

  Mr. Hanley
  We understand that there is no Chinese national law making it obligatory to insert IUDs after a first child. Information provided by the United Nations Population Fund suggests that approximately 40 per cent. of all female contraceptive acceptors are using the IUD.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the system of birth permits in China; how the system operates; whether he interprets it as coercive; and what statement regarding birth permits have been made by the IPPF and the UNFPA. [32013]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are aware that local authorities in China have attempted to influence fertility rates by approving which women may give birth in a given community in any year. Both the United Nations Population Fund, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, have repeatedly made it clear that women and men should be able to choose freely the number and spacing of their children and have expressed their abhorrence of coercion in any form. The Chinese Government are aware that the UNFPA will fund activities that take place in provinces only where systems of birth permits, quotas and targets do not exist.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of UNFPA employees based in China since

  Name

  Rank

  Date training commenced

  Date training completed

  1990–91

  Scholarships

  Mr. Yusnar Arsyad

  Lieutenant Colonel

  16 August 1990

  15th December 1990

  Mr. Adjie Rustarn Ramdja

  Major

  16 August 1990

  15th December 1990

  Mr. Deddy S.K.

  Lieutenant Colonel

  16 August 1990

  15th December 1990

  Mr. Medhy Chumadi

  Lieutenant

  16 August 1990

  15th December 1990

  608
  1979; and how many have been seconded to, attached to or worked in association with the Chinese State Family Planning Commission. [32021]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nations Population Fund's staffing in China has varied depending on the size of its programme. In mid-1994, there were eight international staff, 10 full-time Chinese staff and two part-time Chinese staff. There has always been one country director co-ordinating the work of UNFPA. The present one is its sixth since 1979. At no time has any UNFPA staff member been assigned to work for the State Family Planning Commission.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the links between the Chinese State Family Planning Commission and the Chinese Family Planning Association with the Chinese national family planning journal and Chinese provincial family planning reports; if his Department receives copies of the journal and reports; and what information he has on the prevalence of recommendations for coercive methods of population control in both sources since 1990. [32009]

  Mr. Hanley
  We do not receive copies of these publications, and cannot comment on their content or links with the Chinese State Family Planning Commission and the China Family Planning Association.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many current or former Indonesian police officers who received any form of training paid for by his Department served with the riot police, Sabhara unit of the Indonesian national police(a) before such training, (b) during such training and (c) after such training; if he will give the name of each such officer, the dates of his training and the dates of his service with the riot police. [31757]

  Mr. Hanley
  According to the Indonesian national police, no officer who has received training support under the police project has served with the Sabhara unit.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 727, if he will name the Indonesian police officers who have been trained, for whatever length of time, under the police management training project since it began, in each case specifying the officer's rank and the date of commencement and of completion of the training. [31705]

  Mr. Hanley
  Since the national police management training project began in June 1990 we have provided UK training for the following:
  609

  Name

  Rank

  Date training commenced

  Date training completed

  Study tours

  Mr. C.H.M. Waskito

  Colonel

  July 1990

  July 1990

  Mr. F. Sumampow

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1990

  July 1990

  Mr. H. Rasyid

  Colonel

  July 1990

  July 1990

  Mr. Soebariliyono

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1990

  July 1990

  Mr. Suryaningprang

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1990

  July 1990

  Mr. Y.Y. Laoli

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1990

  July 1990

  Mr. D. Rustadi

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1990

  July 1990

  Mr. M. Thonyib

  Captain

  July 1990

  July 1990

  Mr. N. Eko

  Captain

  July 1990

  July 1990

  Mr. Lihawa

  Brigadier General

  July 1990

  July 1990

  1991–92

  Scholarships

  Mrs. Minton Mariaty Simanjuntak

  Major

  13 September 1991

  12th December 1991

  Mr. Soekamid

  Major

  1 October 1991

  30th September 1992

  Mr Yadi Ermlady

  Captain

  1 October 1991

  30th September 1992

  Study tours

  Mr. G. Sumampow

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1991

  July 1991

  Mr. H. Rasyid

  Colonel

  July 1991

  July 1991

  Mr. Soebarilyono

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1991

  July 1991

  Mr. M. Suryaningprang

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1991

  July 1991

  Mr. Y.Y. Laoli

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1991

  July 1991

  Mr. D. Rustadi

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1991

  July 1991

  Mr. M. Thoyib

  Captain

  July 1991

  July 1991

  Mr. N. Eko

  Captain

  July 1991

  July 1991

  1991–92

  Study tours

  Mr. Soekamid

  Major

  July 1991

  July 1991

  Mr. Y. Ermlady

  Captain

  July 1991

  July 1991

  1992–93

  Scholarships

  Mr. Soekamid

  Major

  1 October 1992

  30th September 1993

  Mr. Yadi Ermlady

  Captain

  1 October 1992

  30th September 1994

  Ms Pengasihan Gaut

  Major

  1 August 1992

  30th November 1992

  Mr. Adjie Rustam Ramdja

  Major

  8 December 1992

  7th April 1993

  Mr. Pepe Tjhjana

  Lieutenant Colonel

  8 December 1992

  7th April 1993

  Study tours

  Mr. C.H.M Waskito

  Colonel

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Mr. F. Sumampow

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Mr. H. Rasyid

  Colonel

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Mr. Soebariliyono

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Mr. Suryaningprang

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Mr. Y.Y. Laoli

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Mr. D. Rustadi

  Lieutenant Colonel

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Ms Hemawati

  Major

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Ms M. Simanjuntak

  Major

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Ms R.P. Gaut

  Major

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Mr. M. Thoyib

  Captain

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Mr. N. Eko

  Captain

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Mr. M.B. Hutagalung

  Major General

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Mr. R. Lihawa

  Brigadier General

  July 1992

  July 1992

  Mr. Karyoso

  Brigadier General

  July 1992

  July 1992

  1993–94

  Scholarships

  Mr. Herman Rasyid

  Colonel

  21 May 1993

  20th June 1993

  1994–95

  Scholarships

  Mr. Wakin

  Major

  1 July 1994

  30th October 1994

  Mr. Nicholas Eko

  Captain

  1 August 1994

  Mr. James Sitorus

  Lieutenant Colonel

  1 August 1994

  Mr. Fred Sumampow

  Lieutenant Colonel

  13 April 1995

  12th June 1995

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 727, if he will name the Indonesian police officers who have undergone study
  610
  tours, for whatever length of time, to the United Kingdom since 1985, in each case specifying the officer's rank and the date of commencement and completion of the study tour. [21758]
  611
  Mr. Hanley
  [holding reply 30 June 1995]: No study tours—visits of less than one month duration—took place between 1985 and 1990. Details of training since 1990 were given in my answer to the hon. Lady's further

  Name

  Rank

  Date training commenced

  Date training completed

  1985–86

  Mr. Isnawan

  Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. Baruno

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. Yusar H.

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. Kresno Sukamso

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. Heru Tjipto Harsono

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. A. H. Sitorus

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. S. A. Supardi

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. Hamami Nata

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. Sebastian Koto

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. Astika

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. Ledwijk

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. Herman Hidayat

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. Adna Isa

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. J. D. Sitorus

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. Fred Sumampow

  Lieutenant Colonel

  30 July 1985

  18 December 1985

  Mr. Chaerudin

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Dates not known

  Date not known

  1986–87

  Mr. Djumjatni G

  Colonel

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. Murni Tukiman

  Colonel

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. I. N. Yudana

  Colonel

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. Iksan

  Colonel

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. Asikin Nadikusumah

  Colonel

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. Soemitro

  Colonel

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. Dasuki

  Colonel

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. Pepe Tjahjana

  Lieutenant Colonel

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. Dadang Garnida

  Lieutenant Colonel

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. Deddy S K

  Lieutenant Colonel

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. Tjoek Sugiarso

  Major

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. Basjir A. Barmawai

  Major

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. Riswadi Herry S

  Major

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  1986–87

  Scholarships

  Mr. M. Nian Sjafudin

  Major

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. Moch Saudi

  Major

  6 October 1986

  6 December 1986

  Mr. Rachmat

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Date not known

  Date not known

  Mr. M. Hindarto

  Colonel

  April 1986

  September 1986

  1998–99

  Mr. Ronny Lihawa

  Colonel

  October 1988

  September 1989

  Mr. Isnawan

  Colonel

  October 1988

  September 1989

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 802, what were the "relevant quarters" from which advice was sought on the police management training project in Indonesia; what advice was given on the issue of human rights; and at what Departmental level the project was approved. [33033]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 30 June. Official advice to Ministers is given in confidence.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, column 381, if he will make a statement on the term "appropriate appraisals"; if he will define the term "full appraisal" in the letter of the Minister for Overseas Development of 20 January; and what is the difference between the two forms of appraisal. [33032]
  612
  question concerning this project—No. 31705. The following longer-term training was undertaken during the period 1985–90.

  Mr. Hanley
  In a statement made on 17 June 1993 by the Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the House was informed of the future of the aid and trade provision, ATP, following a review of the programme. This included specific measures to improve the effectiveness of ATP. Appraisal procedures were brought into line with those applied to other bilateral aid projects to provide the same level of assurance concerning their soundness and sustainability.

  The new procedures came into effect on 17 June 1993.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to monitor the post-training careers of Indonesian police officers who have received any form of training paid for by his Department for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the training in improving the officers respect for human rights. [31759]
  613
  Mr. Hanley
  [holding reply 30 June 1995]: The project, including training, is monitored on an annual basis.

  Burma
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the current restrictions on non-governmental organisation funding in Burma to allow a greater availability of funding for long-term community development projects implemented by NGOs. [32429]

  Mr. Hanley
  United Kingdom assistance to Burma is currently available only for funding of humanitarian projects by NGOs. The policy is kept under review.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the continuation of the work of the United Nations Development Programme in Burma, implementing a programme based on direct assistance to communities, when the governing council reviews the agency's mandate. [32428]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have supported the UNDP's approach so far and will consider maintaining this position when the Burma country programme is next reviewed in the UNDP executive board.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the level of international assistance currently devoted to aid projects helping Burmese communities; and if he will make a statement on future United Kingdom aid plans for Burma. [32430]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have not undertaken an assessment of the level of international assistance currently devoted to aid projects helping Burmese communities. Other than funding of certain humanitarian projects by

  Joint funding scheme contracts issued in 1994–95

  Asia region 48 projects

  Africa region 78 projects

  America region 21 projects

  Oceania region 2 projects

  Various regions 1 project

  Bangladesh 3

  Africa 1

  Belize 1

  Fiji 1

  Various 1

  Cambodia 5

  Cameroon 1

  Bolivia 1

  Papua New Guinea 1

  India 20

  Chad 2

  Brazil 2

  Indonesia 1

  Ethiopia 8

  Caribbean 1

  Lebanon 1

  Gambia 2

  Chile 1

  Nepal 2

  Ghana 3

  Costa Rica 1

  Occupied Territories 2

  Kenya 8

  Ecuador 1

  Pakistan 2

  Malawi 4

  El Salvador 2

  Philippines 4

  Mali 3

  Guatemala 1

  Sri Lanka 5

  Mozambique 1

  Honduras 1

  Thailand 1

  Sierra Leone 3

  Nicaragua 6

  Vietnam 1

  South Africa 3

  Peru 3

  West Bank 1

  Southern Africa 1

  Sudan 2

  Swaziland 2

  Tanzania 6

  Togo 2

  Uganda 17

  Zaire 1

  Zambia 2

  Zimbabwe 6

  614
  non-governmental organisations, there are no plans to provide official development aid to Burma at present. This policy has been agreed with our EU partners.

  Joint Funding Scheme
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of joint funding scheme contracts issued by country and region in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of the numbers of joint funding scheme contracts issued by country and region in 1993–94 and 1994–95 are shown in the tables.

  Joint funding scheme contracts issued in 1993–94

  Asia region 44 projects

  Africa region 49 projects

  Americas region 12 projects

  Oceania region 3 projects

  Asia Gen 1

  Africa Gen 4

  Bolivia 1

  Fiji 2

  Bangladesh 8

  Angola 1

  Brazil 2

  Vanuatu 1

  Bhutan 1

  Botswana 1

  Chile 1

  Cambodia 6

  Cameroon 1

  El Salvador 2

  India 17

  Egypt 1

  Guatemala 1

  Laos 2

  Ethiopia 3

  Nicaragua 2

  Nepal 1

  Gambia 1

  Peru 3

  Pakistan 1

  Ghana 2

  Philippines 2

  Kenya 8

  Lebanon 1

  Lesotho 2

  Sri Lanka 4

  Mozambique 1

  Namibia 2

  Niger 2

  Sierra Leone 4

  South Africa 2

  Swaziland 1

  Tanzania 2

  Togo 1

  Uganda 6

  Zambia 1

  Zimbabwe 3

  615
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the size of the joint funding scheme budget in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, and (c) 1995–96. [33264]

  Mr. Hanley
  The joint funding scheme budget was £29 million in 1993–94 and £33 million in 1994–95. The budget for 1995–96 has risen to £34.85 million.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications were made to the joint funding scheme in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and how many were successful. [33263]

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 241 applications were made to the joint funding scheme for funding in 1993–94, 108 of which were successful; 291 applications were made for funding in 1994–95, 150 of which were successful.

  Central Africa
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the impact of the International Monetary Fund-sponsored good government initiative, on the economies of central Africa, with particular reference to the impact of the initiative on training and development and on the indigenous co-operative movements in central Africa. [32428]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are not aware of any such initiative.

  EI Salvador
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the activities of the Commonwealth Development Corporation in El Salvador. [33267]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Commonwealth Development Corporation, CDC, received approval to operate in El Salvador from my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development in September 1994. As yet, the CDC has made no investments or commitments there, but it is currently looking at opportunities in tourism, manufacturing and industry.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will be leading the British team at the donors' meeting with the Government of Kenya on 24 July; what undertakings the British Government will be seeking from the Government of Kenya; which human rights issues he will be raising with the Government of Kenya; and if he will raise the trial of Koigi Wa Wamwere and other issues related to the conduct of justice in Kenya. [33046]

  Mr. Hanley
  The British team will be led by the head of the British development division in east Africa. Democracy, good government and human rights, as well as economic issues, are likely to be discussed. Whilst there has been good progress in some respects, we shall he pressing the Kenyan authorities to maintain their efforts on all aspects of the reform process.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government of Kenya have sought or been offered to help in the development of a better justice system. [33798]
  616
  Mr. Hanley
  [holding reply 11 July 1995]: We have discussed a number of possible areas of assistance with the Government of Kenya, including support for the office of the Attorney-General and for the Kenya police force. We have conducted institutional appraisals of both organisations, and expect to sign shortly a senior command and human rights awareness police training programme. We are also considering support for non-governmental organisations providing legal aid.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance and training is being given to staff concerning the treatment of people who are appealing against a decision that they are capable of work but are signing on as unemployed pending their appeal. [32042]

  Mr. Burt
  This is a matter for Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 11 July 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the guidance and training given to staff concerning the treatment of people who appeal against a decision that they are capable of work but are signing on as unemployed pending their appeal.

  General advice to staff dealing with incapacity benefits and customers found capable of work has not changed with the introduction of Incapacity Benefit (IB). Customers are advised to claim Unemployment Benefit and or Income Support until their appeal is heard. Guidance is given in standing instructions which were amended to take account of the introduction of IB.

  Training material was issued to Income Support staff at Benefits Agency offices in January 1995 and was followed by a comprehensive procedures circular issued in March 1995; both documents reminded staff of existing procedures.

  Benefit Agency staff are acutely aware of the sensitivities in dealing with customers who appeal against a decision that they are capable of work.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Social Fund
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those Benefits Agency offices which achieved targets for community care grants decisions between I April 1994 and 31 March 1995. [33687]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund 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 Mr. William O'Brien, dated 11 July 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about listing those Benefits Agency (BA) offices which achieved their targets for Community Care Grants (CCG) between 1st April 1994 and 31st March 1995.

  At present, Social Fund performance is measured against a standard time for processing each type of application. This is based on the time it takes to clear the more straightforward cases. For CCG applications the aim is to process 65 per cent. in the standard

  617
  time of seven days. To ensure proper emphasis is given to the remaining applications, a secondary measure is set which is 95 per cent. in 20 days.

  I have provided, at Annex A, details of the CCG performance of all BA Districts for 1994/95. I am pleased to state that all BA Districts met the primary CCG target.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A: Community Care grant performance by district 1994–95

  District

  Target: 65 per cent. in 7 days Achievement Per cent.

  Target: 95 per cent. in 20 days Achievement Per cent.

  Bankside

  93.20

  98.65

  Barking and Havering

  91.03

  98.48

  Barnet

  91.23

  99.38

  Barnsley

  96.91

  99.74

  Bedfordshire

  83.23

  98.39

  Berkshire

  87.22

  96.69

  Birmingham Chamberlain

  85.31

  98.82

  Birmingham Heartlands

  86.13

  98.57

  Birmingham North West

  93.27

  99.10

  Birmingham South East

  79.75

  99.20

  Birmingham South West

  89.87

  98.51

  Blackburn and Accrington

  88.88

  98.34

  Blackpool

  85.74

  98.59

  Bolton

  91.75

  98.42

  Bradford

  93.64

  98.81

  Bristol Severnside

  78.33

  97.59

  Brunel

  81.39

  98.14

  Buckinghamshire

  92.45

  98.70

  Burnley Pendle Rossendale

  85.16

  98.42

  Cambridgeshire

  88.62

  98.27

  Canterbury and Thanet

  79.07

  97.46

  Central Derbyshire

  89.77

  97.95

  Central Staffordshire

  77.09

  98.95

  Channel

  90.03

  97.94

  Chesterfield and Worksop

  79.30

  96.72

  City East

  83.68

  98.47

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  92.39

  99.35

  Clyde Valley

  89.99

  99.32

  Coatbridge

  93.23

  99.08

  Cornwall

  85.12

  97.70

  Coventry1

  72.48

  94.90

  Cynon Merthyr Rhymney Valley

  93.24

  99.31

  Devonia

  85.75

  97.77

  Doncaster

  84.47

  97.47

  Dorset

  90.07

  98.18

  Essex Southwest

  92.05

  99.37

  Ealing1

  72.12

  94.06

  East Lowlands

  79.28

  96.80

  East Nottinghamshire

  88.02

  98.41

  East Sussex

  85.63

  97.43

  East Yorkshire

  89.75

  99.09

  Essex South East

  95.24

  99.03

  Euston1

  67.62

  94.97

  Fife

  93.54

  99.13

  Forth Valley

  87.95

  99.05

  Glasgow City

  91.61

  98.63

  Glasgow East

  87.15

  98.11

  Glasgow Laurieston

  91.89

  98.97

  Glasgow South West

  94.90

  99.23

  Glasgow West

  97.18

  99.44

  Gloucestershire

  78.78

  98.02

  Grampian and Shetland

  86.64

  98.37

  Gwennigion

  86.80

  98.41

  Hackney and Islington

  81.45

  97.59

  Hampshire North

  90.24

  97.55

  Harrow and Hillingdon

  89.55

  98.76

  Hereford and Worcester

  83.52

  97.15

  Highlands and Islands

  86.58

  98.64

  Hounslow and Kingston1

  69.91

  91.92

  618

  Annex A: Community Care grant performance by district 1994–95

  District

  Target: 65 per cent. in 7 days Achievement Per cent.

  Target: 95 per cent. in 20 days Achievement Per cent.

  Hull

  91.39

  98.64

  Irvine Kilmarnock

  79.56

  97.20

  Kirklees

  90.35

  98.22

  Knowsley

  80.86

  98.37

  Lancaster and South Cumbria

  85.28

  97.77

  Lea Roding

  85.26

  96.92

  Leaside

  62.55

  95.68

  Leeds Aire and Wharfe

  89.52

  98.33

  Leeds Ridings

  90.45

  98.44

  Lewisham and Brixton

  84.43

  97.75

  Liverpool Central

  92.97

  98.97

  Liverpool North

  85.05

  98.45

  Liverpool South

  83.14

  98.40

  Lomond and Argyll

  89.47

  98.24

  London Central

  94.82

  99.31

  Lothian Central

  92.71

  98.73

  Lothian West

  91.77

  99.01

  Manchester Central

  85.34

  97.05

  Manchester South

  96.48

  99.23

  Manchester Trinity

  81.59

  97.97

  Mid Wales and Maelor

  96.79

  99.36

  Neasden

  72.84

  95.43

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  92.33

  99.33

  Newham

  84.03

  96.48

  North and East Herts.

  90.20

  98.12

  North Cheshire

  93.35

  99.04

  North Cumbria

  73.40

  97.85

  North Durham

  90.61

  99.06

  North Essex

  91.07

  98.47

  North Gwent and Brecon

  94.74

  99.44

  North Kent

  83.80

  96.63

  North Leicestershire1

  81.65

  93.48

  North Nottinghamshire

  86.04

  97.94

  North Staffordshire

  94.17

  98.88

  North Surrey

  84.57

  97.57

  North Tees

  83.50

  99.08

  North Tyneside

  88.67

  98.74

  North Wales Coast

  82.97

  96.88

  North Worcestershire

  95.96

  99.51

  North Yorkshire

  91.44

  98.36

  Northamptonshire

  83.19

  97.29

  Northumberland

  86.74

  98.63

  Norwich

  90.31

  98.83

  Nottinghamshire West

  78.83

  97.95

  Ogwr Afan Nedd

  80.18

  98.27

  Oldham

  88.47

  98.01

  Oxfordshire

  85.88

  96.78

  Palace

  80.77

  95.92

  Preston

  92.80

  98.94

  Renfrew

  85.35

  99.10

  Rother and Dearne

  88.98

  99.30

  Sale and East Cheshire

  90.61

  98.66

  Salford

  86.57

  98.28

  Sandwell

  94.74

  99.07

  Sefton

  91.71

  97.99

  Sheffield East

  87.49

  97.26

  Sheffield West

  81.65

  98.60

  Shropshire

  95.34

  99.02

  Solent and Forest

  81.42

  97.43

  Somerset

  82.33

  97.79

  South Cheshire

  90.20

  98.84

  South Derbyshire

  81.65

  97.63

  South Devon

  88.64

  98.06

  South Downs

  86.29

  98.30

  South Durham

  95.35

  99.17

  South East Hants, and Wight

  76.58

  98.59

  South Glamorgan

  91.21

  97.77

  South Gwent and Islwyn

  90.55

  99.34

  South Humberside

  93.40

  98.77

  619

  Annex A: Community Care grant performance by district 1994–95

  District

  Target: 65 per cent. in 7 days Achievement Per cent.

  Target: 95 per cent. in 20 days Achievement Per cent.

  South Leicestershire

  77.08

  97.94

  South Tees

  81.63

  97.74

  South Tyneside

  86.27

  98.54

  South West Lancashire

  88.95

  98.84

  South West Scotland

  89.80

  98.59

  South West Thames

  84.24

  97.23

  Springburn and Cumbernauld

  87.54

  99.50

  Stockport

  85.64

  97.68

  Suffolk

  85.14

  98.02

  Surrey Downs

  90.96

  98.47

  Swansea

  87.73

  98.51

  Taff Rhondda

  92.19

  99.03

  Tameside

  95.08

  99.08

  Tayside

  82.94

  99.53

  Thameside

  83.85

  96.54

  Wakefield

  85.31

  98.18

  Walsall

  92.92

  99.26

  Warwickshire

  76.83

  98.38

  Wash Coast

  95.05

  99.42

  Wearside

  95.10

  99.34

  West Herts.

  79.80

  96.83

  West Kent

  82.58

  96.83

  West Lincolnshire

  90.62

  99.11

  West Pennine

  96.07

  99.49

  West Sussex

  85.70

  98.20

  West Wales

  92.19

  98.31

  Wigan and Leigh

  76.76

  97.61

  Wiltshire

  72.59

  97.00

  Wirral

  88.04

  98.72

  Wolverhampton

  95.35

  99.61

  Yorkshire Pennine

  84.33

  97.62

  1 BA Districts which did not meet the secondary target of 95 per cent., clearance in 20 days.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were successful in gaining an exceptional needs payment in the last year of operation of the scheme; and how many people were granted similar payments from the social fund in the last year for which figures are available. [32832]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There were 1.1 million exceptional needs payments made in 1979–80, the last year of the scheme. There were 1.9 million awards from the discretionary social fund made in 1994–95.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how may(a) claimants and (b) organisations have made representations about difficulty experienced in the repayment of social security loans. [32830]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has made to representations from the mortgage insurance industry about the availability of private mortgage insurance for poor families. [32834]
  620
  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have had no such specific representations from the mortgage insurance industry about the availability of private mortgage insurance for poor families. However, the Association of British Insurers takes the view that if a person qualifies for a mortgage then there is no reason why they should not also qualify for insurance.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the implications of his proposals for cuts in mortgage interest payments for the 1991 agreement in respect of Council of Mortgage Lenders. [32835]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  From October this year, we expect the 1991 agreement to apply to cases where we continue to meet the full interest payments. In cases where the 1991 agreement no longer applies we would not expect to see an increase in arrears or repossessions as most borrowers will take out insurance.

  We believe that it is important that lenders make clear to their borrowers their practice in relation to arrears, and that borrowers fully understand their obligations when entering into a mortgage contract. We are working closely with the council of Mortgage Lenders to develop a leaflet which sets out details of benefit entitlement and borrowers' rights and responsibilities in relation to lenders and insurers.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received alleging that inadequacy of income support in respect of mortgage interest payments is resulting in claimants going into rented accommodation and claiming the higher rate of housing benefit. [32836]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have had no such representations.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the cost in housing benefit in the last year of claimants formerly receiving income support in respect of mortgage interest payments and subsequently going into rented accommodation. [32837]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Funeral Expenses
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his estimated savings will be(a) in restricting social fund funeral expenses towards the cost of embalming the body for a journey in excess of 25 miles, (h) by limiting social fund funeral expenses towards the cost of floral tributes to £25 and (c) by the alteration of the definition of close relative and partner in relation to the social fund payments of funeral expenses. [32707]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We estimate the savings will be in the order of:(a) £2 million; (b) £2 million; (c) £1.3 million.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total annual spending on social security in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92, (c) 1992–93 and (d) 1993–94; and if he will list the total (i) in real and (ii) in percentage terms of gross domestic product. [32951]
  621
  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table.

  Social Security expenditure:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Cash terms

  £59,713 million

  £69,878 million

  £79,342 million

  £86,896 million

  Real terms (93–94 prices)

  £68,012 million

  £74,884 million

  £81,770 million

  £86,896 million

  As percentage of GDP

  11 per cent.

  12 per cent.

  13 per cent.

  14 per cent.

  The figures have been taken from the 1995 Social Security Departmental Report and include administrative costs as well as additional local authority expenditure on housing and community charge\council tax benefits.

  Income Support
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 359, what information on severe hardship claims and awards is available other than national figures. [33937]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is available from 1988 by Department of Social Security region, monthly on a national basis, broken down into successful and unsuccessful applications. A monthly breakdown by Benefits Agency territory is available from 1992. Since April 1993 information has been collected monthly by district offices in the categories new, repeat or continuous application; and whether successful or unsuccessful.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department and its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33859]

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its agencies over the last five years; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33890]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33878]

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of administration of the habitual residence test and of the appeal system; and what proportion of the money saved by non-payment is spent on administration. [33799]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The cost of administering the habitual residence test for 1995–96 is estimated at £3.3 million. The allocation to the Independent Tribunal Service for administering the appeal system as a whole in 1995–96 is £48.6 million. It is not possible to apportion the costs of appeals against the habitual residence test. The estimated saving from introducing the habitual residence test is £30 million annually.
  622
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have been refused benefit, per month, since the introduction of the habitual residence test; of these, how many have appealed; and how many appeals have been upheld. [33803]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) on 18 April,Official Report, column 43, on 21 April, Official Report, column 314, on 1 May, Official Report, column 7 and on 10 July, Official Report, columns 449–50.

  Numbers of claimants who have been refused housing benefit and council tax benefit because of the habitual residence test are being recorded from the 1995–96 tax year and will be available in December 1996.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the future of the habitual residence test; and what plans he has to make changes in its operation. [33805]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have received a number of letters from Members of Parliament and the public. I have no current plans to change the test.

  Pensions
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cumulative sums saved by the Exchequer and his Department by the departure and domicile of those qualified for United Kingdom old age pensions, by virtue of their exemption from uprating, for the decade 1985–95, in(a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) New Zealand and (d) South Africa, stating for each the increased sums in sterling to which each as a basic pension would receive for a pension first paid in 1985. [33047]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that the cumulative cost' to the Social Security budget of paying all upratings of retirement pension from November 1985 to April 1994' to UK pensioners in the countries specified would have been(a) Australia £500 million, (b) Canada £275 million, (c) New Zealand £175 million, (d) South Africa £100 million.

  The rate of basic pension payable to any individual depends on that person's national insurance contribution record. In November 1985, the rate payable to a person who fully satisfied the contribution conditions for a basic pension was £38.30. It is currently £58.85. Where the contribution conditions are not fully satisfied, a reduced pro rata pension is payable at rates varying from 98 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the full basic rate.

  Note:

  1 The cost figures are estimates rounded to the nearest £25 million.

  2 The estimated cost of paying the April 1995 uprating to pensioners in countries where UK pensions are not uprated is not yet available.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 79, if he will estimate the percentage of pensioners retiring on an income between 75 per cent. and 100 per cent. of average earnings; and what figure has been used as average earnings. [33710]
  623
  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that 12 per cent. of recently retired pensioner units have an income between 75 and 100 per cent. of average earnings. The average earnings figure used for the reply is £304.60 per week.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey 1992.

  Employment Gazette, February 1995.

  Notes:

  1. Average earnings are based on full time employees on adult rate in all industries and services for 1992.

  2. Recently retired pensioner units are defined as single pensioner units and married couples where the individual or head of the household is less than five years over state pension age.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 79, if he will estimate the expenditure on rebates to members of contracted out money purchase schemes in (a) 2010, (b) 2020 and (c) 2030; and what estimate he has made of the number of members of (i) APPS and (ii) COMPS in each of those three years. [33711]

  Mr. Heald
  The estimated expenditure on the rebate for contracted-out money purchase schemes and the estimated numbers of members of appropriate personal pensions and COMPS are shown in the table. The level of the rebate will be reviewed regularly under the terms of the Pensions Bill 1995.

  Year

  APP numbers 000s

  COMPS numbers 000s

  COMPS rebates £ billion

  2010

  4,200

  400

  0.2

  2020

  3,600

  400

  0.3

  2030

  2,800

  400

  0.3

  (Figures based on the assumptions detailed in the Government Actuary's report on the Pensions Bill 1995 CM 2714).

WALES

  EDS
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the contracts his Department has with the computer company EDS. [33171]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has no contracts with the computer company EDS.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning local government reorganisation and job security of council employees. [33496]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The new authorities are responsible for deciding their staffing structures, including the number and grade of posts.

  I wrote to the chairman of the Staff Commission for Wales in January, setting out our view that, in the first instance, it is for each new authority, in consultation with its predecessors, to decide which staff—over and above those covered by the TUPE regulations—should be transferred to it.
  624
  The decisions which councils reach will be reflected in the staff transfer order. We aim to publish the order for consultation in November 1995.

  This process should reassure staff who are covered by the order about their immediate future, but it is for the new councils to decide what security of employment they wish to offer them beyond April 1996.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with local government leaders concerning job security for employees when local government reorganisation takes place, and if he will make a statement. [33497]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions since taking up his appointment.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total amount of(a) usable and (b) set-aside capital receipts held by each local authority in Wales on 31 March. [33472]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information is given in the following table:

  Capital receipts and outstanding loan debt at 31 March 19941

  Usable receipts

  Receipts awaiting final redemption2

  Total outstanding loan debt

  Alyn and Deeside

  967

  5,006

  34,214

  Colwyn

  924

  3,046

  25,799

  Delyn

  0

  0

  30,027

  Glyndwr

  283

  2,155

  16,214

  Rhuddlan

  334

  3,242

  25,732

  Wrexham Maelor

  981

  0

  70,781

  Carmarthen

  1,857

  6,751

  35,364

  Ceredigion

  2,069

  7,862

  19,395

  Dinefwr

  370

  3,310

  25,639

  Llanelli

  1,056

  3,021

  42,445

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  2,725

  1,212

  40,689

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,641

  0

  10,686

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,876

  11,978

  102,562

  Islwyn

  359

  12,077

  59,588

  Monmouth

  4,905

  6,847

  43,911

  Newport

  8,125

  6,150

  123,117

  Torfaen

  3,271

  7,928

  80,776

  Aberconwy

  1,793

  2,928

  18,801

  Arfon

  207

  7,715

  25,845

  Dwyfor

  314

  1,039

  14,713

  Meirionnydd

  0

  749

  9,163

  Ynys Mon

  60

  4,084

  51,270

  Cynon Valley

  0

  5,134

  49,381

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,072

  4,390

  60,661

  Ogwr

  3,326

  0

  83,171

  Rhondda

  1,570

  2,178

  92,068

  Rhymney Valley

  1,107

  6,067

  69,422

  Taff Ely

  3,003

  3,276

  31,853

  Brecknock

  1,769

  7,137

  26,953

  Montgomeryshire

  1,574

  11,523

  21,284

  Radnorshire

  450

  3,289

  12,727

  Cardiff

  20,363

  729

  180,689

  Vale of Glamorgan

  5,716

  24,269

  55,662

  Port Talbot

  550

  7,191

  37,384

  Lliw Valley

  2,211

  7,483

  38,172

  Neath

  481

  6,844

  38,199

  Swansea

  268

  11,367

  128,489

  Clwyd

  2,216

  15,827

  131,446

  Dyfed

  1,318

  4,597

  113,084

  Gwent

  7,205

  0

  158,180

  Gwynedd

  2,615

  3

  76,420

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,915

  1,741

  120,829

  625

  Capital receipts and outstanding loan debt at 31 March 19941

  Usable receipts

  Receipts awaiting final redemption2

  Total outstanding loan debt

  Powys

  431

  4,627

  52,729

  South Glamorgan

  2,563

  0

  155,000

  West Glamorgan

  1,971

  0

  158,502

  Dyfed Powys Joint Police Authority

  0

  70

  4,653

  North Wales Joint Police Authority

  846

  1,610

  3,368

  South Wales Joint Police Authority

  437

  239

  9,753

  Source:

  Local authority returns.

  1 Receipts figures include sales of capital assets and repayments of capital grants and advances.

  2Including European Community grants.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many school-age pupils resident in each local education authority areas attend independent schools. [33494]

  Mr. Richards
  Information about the place of residence of pupils attending independent schools is not collected centrally. Total pupil numbers at independent schools, tabulated according to the local authority area in which the schools are located, are shown in table 1.06 of "Statistics of Education and Training in Wales: Schools No. 3 1995", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  NHS Trust Members
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the members appointed to, and the vacancies that exist in,(a) the Clwydian trust, (b) the Wrexham Maelor trust and (c) Glan Clwyd trust; and if he will list the salaries concerned. [33498]

  Mr. Richards
  The members appointed together with their remunerations are as follows:

  Remuneration (£)1

  (a) Clwydian Community Care Trust

  Chair:

  Mr. Edmund Francis Lloyd Fitzhugh OBE

  19,285

  Members:

  Mr. Christopher Powell

  5,000

  Professor Charles Fergus Lowe

  5,000

  Modern apprenticeships in Wales in 1995–96

  Occupational area

  Gwent

  Mid Glamorgan

  North East Wales

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  Targed

  West Wales

  Business/Finance

  50

  60

  35

  —

  50

  63

  220

  Tourism Leisure

  —

  —

  5

  —

  25

  —

  —

  Catering

  —

  15

  —

  —

  25

  32

  —

  Retail

  —

  70

  20

  —

  35

  36

  —

  Hairdressing

  —

  35

  15

  —

  15

  37

  60

  Child/Health Care

  —

  —

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chemicals

  —

  —

  30

  —

  10

  —

  —

  Agriculture/Horticulture

  —

  —

  —

  17

  5

  12

  55

  Construction

  75

  45

  80

  14

  50

  15

  80

  Engineering Manufacture

  214

  185

  140

  43

  60

  36

  10

  626

  Remuneration (£)1

  Mr. Malcolm Charles Pratt

  5,000

  Ms Marion Claire Gerrard-Jones

  5,000

  Ms Susanne Jane Brierley2

  5,000

  (b) Wrexham Maelor Trust

  Chair

  Mr. Aldham Edward Roberts

  17,145

  Members

  Mr. John Philip Glyn Evans

  5,000

  Professor Geraint Meirwyn Roberts

  5,000

  Mr. Simon Dyson-Wingett

  5,000

  Mr. Idris Dwyryd Price

  5,000

  Mrs. Margaret Thomas

  5,000

  (c) Glan Clwyd Trust

  Chair:

  Mr. Edward Michael Wynne Griffith, CBE

  11,020

  Members:

  Mr. Trefor Glyn Jones, OBE

  5,000

  Professor Kenneth Walter Woodhouse

  5,000

  Mr. Ronald Francis Peter Drennan

  5,000

  Mrs. Elizabeth Alice Jones

  5,000

  1 Those appointed as chairmen or non-executive directors are not salaried, but are entitled to receive a flat rate taxable remuneration.

  2 Ms Brierley has accepted an invitation to become a non-executive director. The Secretary of State will shortly be writing to confirm the appointment. Once confirmed there will be no vacancies on the above trusts.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total spending in each Welsh county on modern apprenticeships in the past year; what were the amounts of under or overspendings; and what new subjects have now been added to the original courses offered. [33285]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested on expenditure in 1994–95 is not available centrally on a county basis.

  The development of modern apprenticeships is fundamental to creating the competitive edge that Welsh industry needs to compete in world markets. In 1994–95, the first year of modern apprenticeships, manufacturing engineering was made a priority and 550 trainees embarked on apprenticeships in this field. In 1995–96, support for modern and accelerated modern apprenticeships is being extended to other key occupational areas needed by Welsh businesses, as shown in the following table; and it is expected that a further 3,400 young people will start apprenticeship training during the course of the year.
  627

  Modern apprenticeships in Wales in 1995–96

  Occupational area

  Gweni

  Mid Glamorgan

  North East Wales

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  Targed

  West Wales

  Electrical Installation

  10

  15

  10

  —

  15

  17

  40

  Plastics Manufacture

  14

  35

  5

  —

  —

  8

  —

  Steel

  100

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  45

  Motor Vehicle Trades

  35

  35

  25

  10

  50

  27

  80

  Information Technology

  —

  20

  60

  —

  —

  24

  20

  Non Specific

  80

  85

  15

  11

  —

  —

  20

  Modern Apprenticeships Total

  578

  630

  485

  95

  350

  320

  950

  Note:

  Modern apprenticeships frameworks are still being developed in many areas like accountancy, banking, insurance, amenity horticulture etc./

  Non specified places are to allow these to be introduced as they are developed.

  Cardiologists
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the number of specialist cardiologists in post in the NHS in Wales; and if he will list the numbers for each of the previous five years. [33330]

  Mr. Richards
  The information, which relates to the whole-time equivalent number of consultant cardiologists in post at 30 September, is given in the following list:

  1989: 3.1

  1990: 4.6

  1991: 4.6

  1992: 6.1

  1993: 9.1

  1994: 9.0

  Cardiac Mortality
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cardiac mortality rate for each year since 1989; and if he will provide a breakdown by health authority area in Wales. [33329]

  Mr. Richards
  The available information is in the following table:

  Cardiac mortality (ICD 390–429) per 100,000 residents

  Area of residence

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Wales

  397

  381

  380

  371

  408

  Clwyd

  405

  382

  421

  407

  434

  East Dyfed

  461

  425

  422

  408

  455

  Pembrokeshire

  401

  352

  360

  342

  400

  Gwent

  395

  394

  374

  386

  405

  Gwynedd

  410

  399

  398

  368

  437

  Mid Glamorgan

  400

  384

  367

  365

  409

  Powys

  428

  366

  396

  403

  414

  South Glamorgan

  329

  333

  329

  308

  354

  West Glamorgan

  398

  388

  375

  367

  398

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its agencies over the last five year; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33884]

  Mr. Hague
  Details of the contracts awarded to computer consultants in the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 are as follows.
  628
  Information relating to the periods prior to 1992–93 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its agencies over the last five year; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33884]

  Mr. Hague
  Details of the contracts awarded to computer consultants in the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 are as follows. Information relating to the periods prior to 1992–93 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Consultants

  Number of contracts

  Axis

  5

  DBI Associates

  1

  Computer Management

  1

  Consultants

  Easams Ltd.

  3

  The Government Centre for

  7

  Information Systems

  NCC Consultancy

  1

  KPMG Management Consulting

  1

  Admiral Management Services

  1

  IPL

  1

  Software Personnel

  2

  SPS Ltd.

  1

  MVA Systematica

  1

  Praxis Plc

  2

  DMS

  1

  Softa and Company Ltd.

  1

  JBA International plc

  2

  Computercentre Ltd.

  1

  Saftynet plc

  1

  KOALA Publishing

  2

  Mouncey and Partners

  2

  ICL

  1

  Mountfields

  1

  MMM Consultancies

  1

  Comms Associates

  1

  W. S. Atkins

  2

  BIS Information Systems

  1

  Ernts and Young

  1

  Price Waterhouse

  1

  Gower Business Systems

  1

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33867]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  629
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department and its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33866]

  Mr. Hague
  Details of the information technology consultants employed in the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and expenditure to date this financial year are given as follows. Information relating to the periods prior to 1992–93 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  1992–93: £380,799

  1993–94: £521,094

  1994–95: £591,007

  1995–96: £97,364

  Estimated expenditure on consultancies over the next five years is some £1,215,000.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many ballots for schools to become grant-maintained have been held in the last 12 months; and what was the result in each case. [33828]

  Mr. Richards
  Six ballots were held, all of which resulted in a vote against seeking grant-maintained status.

  Welsh Correspondence
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to sign official letters from his office which are in the Welsh language. [33712]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on Tuesday 11 July 1995,Official Report, column 514.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which members of(a) the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods, (b) the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and (c) the Food Advisory Committee receive any form of grant from his Department or private companies. [32420]

  Mr. Boswell
  No members of any of these non-departmental public bodies receive any grants from my Department but they are paid travel and subsistence expenses and daily fees for attendance. Some members receive remuneration from private companies and details of these interests are published in the committees' annual reports, copies of which are deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  Advertising
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [32485]
  630
  Mr. Boswell
  Comprehensive information in the form requested is not readily available.

  In common with other Government Departments MAFF does not spend directly with advertising agencies. Any advertising forming part of a publicity campaign is placed via the Central Office of Information. Major advertising campaigns since 1990–91 are:

  Rabies Prevention;

  Joint Imports (prevention of plant and animal diseases being brought into the UK);

  Foodsense (promoting safe and healthy eating); Animal Health and Welfare Issues;

  Balance in the Countryside.

  Other smaller campaigns have promoted the various schemes available to farmers.

  The value of all forms of advertising commissioned through the COI since 1990–91 is as follows:

  1990–91: £107,846

  1991–92: £342,896

  1992–93: £663,460

  1993–94: £637,953

  1994–95: £703,928

  (All figures are exclusive of VAT).

  Farming (New Entrants)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to help new entrants to farming; and if he will make a statement. [32729]

  Mr. Baldry
  The quota schemes which currently operate in the beef and sheep sectors include special arrangements which allow new entrants access to quota from the sheep and suckler cow scheme national reserves. Milk quotas pose a special problem; the Department has in the past looked at ways of attempting to assist new entrants but there are fundamental difficulties to be overcome. However, the Government are ready to consider proposals from the dairy industry for an industry-run scheme.

  The introduction of farm business tenancies will help to ensure that more land is available for new entrants to rent. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors has estimated that within two years more than 300,000 hectares of extra land will be offered for rent as a result of the flexibility provided by the new arrangements.

  An extensive range of courses are available to prospective new entrants through agricultural colleges. New entrants can also take advantage of the extensive range of training courses available through ATB-Landbase and other training providers.

  Banks provide general business start up and planning advice that would meet most of the requirements of new entrants for general information. We are also working, through our contact with ATB-Landbase, to raise awareness of skills gaps and deficiencies and the benefits, both to new and established business, of strategic business planning and training. Training and enterprise councils also have a role to play through business start up activities and business links will be an important contact point for new entrants seeking advice on business set up and development matters.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the acreage of the largest single holding of land in England and Wales that was in set-aside as of 1 June. [33021]

  Mr. Baldry
  As we have given an undertaking to claimants under the arable area payments scheme that all information regarding their claim is held in confidence, specific information on single claims cannot be published.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total acreage of land in England and Wales in set aside as of 1 June. [33014]

  Mr. Baldry
  The total area of land in set aside in England and Wales at 1 June 1995 is not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member when this information is known.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the 10 largest sums paid in set-aside payments since the inception of the scheme; and to whom were they paid. [33117]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: We have given an undertaking to claimants under the arable area payments scheme that all information regarding their claim is held in confidence. Specific information on individual claims cannot, therefore, be published. However, in 1993–94 there were seven claims in excess of £500,000 in 1994–95 there were 15 such claims.

  Shareholdings
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [33484]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its agencies do not hold information centrally about declared company shareholdings. Each declaration is, however, scrutinised carefully to guard against potential conflicts of interest.

  Environmental Protection
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people were employed in environmental protection in each of the last ten years. [32900]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: The protection and enhancement of the rural and marine environment is an important aim of the Ministry. It is pursued through a number of programmes and the resources associated with each programme, including administration costs, are given in chapter 3 of the annual report, a copy of which is lodged in the Library of the House. Records are not kept of staff numbers associated with specific aims and programmes.

  Fraud
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many serious irregularities in the intervention regimes are currently under 632
  investigation in the United Kingdom for each agricultural commodity. [32387]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [pursuant to the reply 5 July, Official Report, c. 307]: I am now able to provide the number of serious irregularities in the intervention regimes which are currently under investigation in the United Kingdom. The information is as follows:

  Scheme

  Number of cases

  Beef intervention processing

  1

  Beef intervention purchases

  2

  Fruit and vegetable withdrawal

  1

  Surplus food

  9

  Seed production aid

  1

  Milk quotas

  79

  School milk

  1

  Total

  94

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many investigations into intervention fraud in the United Kingdom have taken place in each of the last six years(a) for each agricultural commodity and (b) in total. [32384]

  Mr. Hogg
  [pursuant to the reply, 5 July, Official Report, c. 307]: I am now able to provide the number of completed investigations into intervention fraud in the United Kingdom for each support scheme. The information is as follows:

  Scheme

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Beef Intervention Purchases

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  1

  —

  Cereals Intervention Purchases

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Fruit and Veg Withdrawals

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Surplus Food

  1

  —

  1

  —

  6

  20

  5

  NPO Butter

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Butter for Manufacture

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sheep Variable Premium

  19

  4

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cereals Corep Levy

  4

  3

  14

  15

  3

  2

  —

  Beef Special Premium

  53

  16

  15

  12

  11

  1

  4

  Linseed

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  2

  —

  Peas, Beans and Lupins

  1

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Milk Supplementary Levy

  8

  1

  1

  2

  1

  9

  8

  School Milk

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Whisky Refunds

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Conc. Butter for Direct

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Consumption

  Aid for Dehydrated Fodder

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Liquid Skimmed for Animal Feed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Starch

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  87

  30

  38

  38

  30

  42

  18

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arms Decommissioning
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the outcome of the talks between the British and Irish Prime Ministers in Cannes, with particular reference to(a) decommissioning of arms and (b) the terms of remission for prisoners. [32910]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach had a constructive meeting on 27 June. They discussed a whole range of subjects. It was announced after the meeting that the Prime Ministers had commissioned a joint report on the decommissioning of weapons and explosives.

  Farm Burglaries
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the number of burglaries on farms and farm out-buildings for each of the last 10 years; [33135]

  (2) what was the number of cases of livestock theft for each of the last 10 years. [33133]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Offences on Farms in Northern Ireland 1987–1994

  Burglary offences1

  Thefts of animals2

  1987

  105

  24

  1988

  94

  92

  1989

  102

  135

  1990

  128

  95

  1991

  130

  84

  1992

  136

  96

  1993

  130

  110

  1994

  163

  119

  1 Includes attempts and going equipped to steal/going equipped for burglary etc.

  2 May include thefts of domestic and wild animals from farms/farm premises as well as thefts of livestock.

  Figures are not available before 1987.

  Leadhill School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils were enrolled at Leadhill primary school, Castlereagh in each of the past five years; how many pupils were enrolled in each class this year at Leadhill school; what capital investment there was at this school in each of the past five years; what proposals there are to improve accommodation at the school; and if he will make a statement. [32993]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Total pupils enrolled

  Year

  Number

  1990

  175

  1991

  172

  1992

  179

  1993

  187

  1994

  201

  634

  Enrolment by year group in 1994–95

  Year group

  Number

  P1

  31

  P2

  32

  P3

  33

  P4

  24

  P5

  31

  P6

  26

  P7

  24

  Capital investment

  Year

  Amount £

  1990–91

  802

  1991–92

  1,381

  1992–93

  15,092

  1993–94

  3,178

  1994–95

  1,209

  The South Eastern education and library board has no proposal at present to improve accommodation at the school but will continue to keep the matter under review.

  Security
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he is giving to the removal of(a) the security tower at Rosemount in Londonderry and (b) vehicle checkpoints near the Donegal border of Northern Ireland as a consequence of the ceasefire. [33043]

  Sir John Wheeler
  At present the RUC advise that these security installations remain operationally necessary, but the requirements to retain these, and similar structures, is kept under constant review.

  University of Ulster
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures, sources of funding and timescales are being followed in consideration of the Springvale campus proposal by the University of Ulster. [33041]

  Mr. Ancram
  Following the announcement by the University of Ulster of its proposal to establish a campus at Springvale, my right hon. and learned Friend commissioned a full economic appraisal of the scheme. In addition, I commissioned a report from the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council specifically to consider the educational aspects of the proposal. The economic appraisal is nearing completion, and the Secretary of State will wish to give full consideration to its findings, including the costs involved, and to the NIHEC report before taking a decision on the Springvale campus proposal.

  Land Bank
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which parts of Northern Ireland currently have inadequate publicly owned land banks to respond to the needs of incoming investors; and what he proposes to do about this. [33045]
  635
  Mr. Ancram
  The Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland has a land bank of over 1,100 acres, which, is adequate to meet the needs of incoming investors in most cases. Additional land is currently being acquired at Ballycastle, Banbridge, Belfast, Castlereagh, Downpatrick, Dungannon, Enniskillen, Londonderry and Omagh.

  Support Programme
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the contents of the special support programme for peace and reconciliation which has recently been submitted to the European Commission. [33040]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The guidelines for the special support programme makes provision for a range of measures under the five priorities of employment, urban and rural regeneration, cross-border development, social inclusion and industrial development/productive investment. It is expected that the programme will mirror this provision. As the submitted draft is still being negotiated between the member states concerned and the European Commission, it is not possible to give definitive details of the content.

  Theft (Fields)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of cases of theft of produce from fields for each of the least 10 years. [33124]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Data on theft of produce from fields are not available.

  Fish Kills
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fish kills have been reported on Kellswater, County Antrim, in the 12 months ended 30 June; what was the location and cause of each fish kill; on how many occasions prosecutions have taken place in respect of the above fish kills and on how many occasions(a) the chief executive of the fisheries Conservancy Board (NI) has recommended no prosecution to the Fisheries Conservancy Board; how many reported incidents of failure to protect fish with special reference to smolts in Northern Ireland, have resulted in (a) prosecution and (b) no prosecution; and if all reported fish kills are brought to the attention of the Fisheries Conservancy Board (NI) by the chief executive of the Fisheries Conservancy Board. [33269]

  Mr. Ancram
  In the 12 month period ended 30 June 1995 two reports of fish kills on the Kellswater river, Co Antrim, were received and investigated by the Fisheries Conservancy Board.

  The first fish kill occurred between Wiggleton weir and Shankbridge. No discharge was detected at the time of investigation. However, the source is believed to be an industrial discharge, coupled with unusually high water temperatures and low oxygen levels in the river.

  The second fish kill occurred below Shankbridge and is under investigation. In the first case the chief executive did not pursue prosecutions due to insufficient evidence. Statutory water samples have been taken in the second
  636
  case with a view to prosecution. Prosecutions are recommended in those cases where water samples have been taken and the analysis supports prosecution.

  During the last year the Fisheries Conservancy Board issued 29 warning letters for failures by persons or organisations to protect fish with special reference to smolts in Northern Ireland under the provisions of section 659 of the Fisheries Act (NI) 1966. Of these 15 have applied for or have been granted an exemption by the Department of Agriculture from the requirements of section 59 of the Act, four are now complying with the Act, four are being considered for prosecution, three are still within the three-month warning period during which they must take action to comply and three are under further investigation.

  The board has records of a further five cases where files have been prepared for prosecution. One of these cases has been successfully prosecuted, two have subsequently complied with the Act and two are awaiting prosecution.

  The chief executive of the Fisheries Conservancy Board advises the board of all fish kills and resulting action from investigations.

  Specialist Cardiologists
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his latest estimate of specialist cardiologists in post in the NHS in Northern Ireland; and if he will provide figures for each of the previous five years. [33331]

  Mr. Moss
  The information at 30 September of each year is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  19941

  18

  1993

  17

  1991

  16

  1992

  15

  1990

  14

  1989

  14

  1 Latest dates for which figures are available centrally.

  Cardiac Mortality
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cardiac mortality rate for each year since 1989 giving the figures for each health authority area in Northern Ireland. [33332]

  Mr. Moss
  The mortality rate per 1,000 population was as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  3.6

  3.4

  3.3

  3.3

  3.3

  3.1

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  3.3

  2.9

  2.8

  3.0

  3.0

  2.9

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  3.2

  3.1

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  2.8

  3.1

  3.0

  3.0

  2.7

  2.7

  1 1994 figures are provisional.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its agencies over tine last five years; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33889]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Details of firms awarded information technology consultancy contracts and the number of contracts awarded to each firm are as follows:

  Company

  Number of contracts

  ACT Ltd.

  1

  Advanced Recognition Ltd.

  1

  Advec

  4

  Aims Ireland

  6

  Barnes McCrum

  1

  BB Consultancy

  2

  Belmin

  2

  BIC Systems

  3

  Binder Hamlyn

  1

  BIS Beecom

  6

  Blackhall Medical Centre

  1

  Business Objects

  3

  Cambridge Consultants

  1

  CAMS

  1

  Capita Muir and Addy

  7

  Caspe

  1

  CCTA

  27

  CEM Computers Ltd.

  2

  Centre for Social Research QUB

  2

  CFM

  13

  Common Services Agency

  1

  Computer Association

  1

  Consulting International

  1

  Coopers Lybrand and Deloitte

  63

  CSL

  2

  D. Vincent

  1

  Daicomp Services

  1

  Data General

  8

  Datapro International

  1

  DBI Associates

  14

  Defence Research Agency

  1

  Delta Performance Systems

  1

  Digital

  9

  DMW Group Ltd.

  2

  Dr. Campbell

  1

  Dr. Farrington

  2

  Dr. P. Berrey

  1

  Dr. Port

  1

  Economic and Social Research Council

  1

  Elite

  5

  Employment Service

  1

  Ernst and Young

  1

  European Services (Printing)

  1

  European S/W

  1

  Geoffrey Moss

  1

  Goldarrow

  1

  Hanna Thompson

  1

  Hedley Computer Consultants

  1

  Helm

  5

  Hewlett Packard

  2

  HM Paymaster General

  1

  Horizon Services Ltd.

  2

  Hoskyns

  2

  IBM

  1

  ICL

  4

  ICS

  4

  Insight Consulting

  5

  Intersystems

  1

  ITSA

  5

  ITSS

  1

  638

  Company

  Number of contracts

  Justaim Ltd.

  3

  Kainos Software Ltd.

  1

  Kinesis

  1

  Knowledge Insight Ltd.

  1

  KPMG

  5

  Logica

  1

  Logical Choice

  1

  Logicom

  1

  Logotech

  1

  London Business School

  1

  Lorien Computers

  1

  Maygrove Consultancy

  1

  McDonnell Douglas

  4

  MDISL

  1

  Miss M. Burns

  1

  Morris/Shaw

  1

  Mott McDonald

  3

  Naylor and Devlin

  1

  NCC

  2

  NIRRL QUB

  1

  Oracle

  12

  PA Consulting

  3

  PACE

  6

  Page Design

  1

  Park Applications

  1

  Park Place Training

  1

  Peter Henderson

  1

  PI UK Ltd.

  1

  Pixel Innovations

  1

  Portfolio Systems

  1

  Price Waterhouse

  3

  QMI

  1

  Rely Business Software

  1

  RMS Services Ltd.

  1

  Ruth McAllister

  2

  School of Psychology QUB

  1

  Scoll

  3

  Secure Information Systems Ltd.

  1

  SEMA

  1

  Sequel Technology

  1

  Sequelogic

  1

  Sequent

  1

  SIA Ltd.

  1

  Siemens Nixdorf

  2

  Silicon Bridge Research

  1

  Softlab Ireland

  2

  Software Ireland

  1

  Solcom

  1

  Spectrum

  1

  Sybex

  1

  Synoptics

  2

  Syntech

  1

  System Source Ltd.

  2

  Technical Resource Consultants

  1

  Touche Ross

  19

  Ulster University Jordanstown

  1

  Unidata

  1

  Unidirect

  1

  Wellington Group System

  4

  WS Atkins

  1

  363

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33877]
  639
  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department and its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33857]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The total amount paid to consultants for information technology is as follows:

  1990–91: £1,690,000

  1991–92: £1,300,982

  1992–93: £1,100,867

  1993–94: £520,892

  1994–95: £1,151,501

  Details of expenditure over the next five years is not available.

  Investigators
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the revised statutory code of practice in respect of authorised investigators to come into operation. [34491]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have today laid before Parliament a revised draft code of practice in connection with the exercise by authorised investigators of the powers conferred by schedule 5 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, as I am required to do by paragraph 7(3) of that schedule. I intend also to make an order which will bring the code into operation on 1 August 1995. The revised code was published for consultation on 3 April 1995 and takes account of a change to the 1991 Act which relaxes the law by permitting authorised investigators to obtain information in writing rather than requiring individuals to attend for interview and produce documents.

  The draft code provides guidance to authorised investigators on how they should exercise their powers and contains a number of valuable safeguards for those who may be interviewed by them.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Metric Measures
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received on the subject of compulsory metric measures. [32125]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have received a number of letters about recent press coverage of the compulsory use of metric units for certain products from 1 October 1995.

  Beer
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further representations he has had from the Campaign for Real Ale about consumers having to pay for the frothy head on beer. [32139]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have received no further representations from the Campaign for Real Ale.

  Oil Installations (Recycling)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support he intends to give to British yards bidding for work recycling redundant oil installations from the North sea. [32140]

  Mr. Eggar
  My oil and gas projects and supplies office is already helping UK industry to compete for this type of work.

  Post Offices
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to maintain a nationwide network of post offices. [32142]

  Mr. Lang
  The Government are committed to the improvement of the network's commercial prospects by the introduction of technology and by allowing Post Office Counters Ltd. greater freedom to take on new clients.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of Crown post offices. [32150]

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) earlier today.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current figures for manufacturing output. [32143]

  Mr. Lang
  Manufacturing output rose by 2.6 per cent. in the 12 months to May.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current figures for manufacturing output. [32148]

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the earlier answer I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham).

  Gas Supply (Kent)
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the potential effect on domestic consumers of the introduction of competition into gas supply in Kent. [32144]

  Mr. Eggar
  Competition in domestic gas supply is expected to lead to generally lower gas bills. British Gas competitors anticipate average price reductions of around 10 per cent. It will allow customers to choose the mix of price and service that best meets their particular requirements.

  Unethical Sales Practices
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with London trading standards about unethical sales practices. [32145]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In December 1994, my Department issued a consultation document to trading standards departments and others on the powers of the Director General of Fair Trading to act against traders whose practices are unfair to consumers. A number of
  641
  responses have been received from London boroughs' trading standards departments.

  Over-regulation
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to urge other EU states to relieve small and medium enterprises of the burden of over-regulation. [32146]

  Mr. Page
  Increasingly, other member states of the European Union are recognising the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises for job creation, and of their particular sensitivity to poor regulation. This is reflected in the Cannes European Council's conclusions, and also in the work of the Commission's small firms directorate on disseminating best regulatory practice for small business. I believe that member states can benefit from our "think small first" approach to new legislation and our small firms litmus test. We are working closely on this with other member states.

  Privatised Utilities
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the estimated value, potential value and past profit of privatised utilities, directors and senior executives' share option schemes. [32147]

  Mr. Eggar
  The details of share options schemes and the value of awards made under the schemes are matters for the companies concerned.

  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the change in the pay of the executives of privatised utilities since privatisation. [32149]

  Mr. Eggar
  Pay in the private sector is a matter for the companies concerned and for their shareholders.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to review the current system of regulations of the privatised utilities. [32152]

  Mr. Eggar
  The ways in which the systems of regulation of the privatised utilities develop is a matter of continuing interest, and the regulators and the Government always welcome practical suggestion for improvements to the current system.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current salary of the Director General of Telecommunications; and what has been the salary for this post since 1990. [33550]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 26 June 1995,Official Report, columns 448–50 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain).

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current salary of the Director General of Electricity Supply; and what has been the salary for this post for each year since 1990. [33549]

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), whose similar question was answered on 26 June 1995,Official Report, columns 448–50.
  642
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the criteria used to determine the salaries of director generals of electricity supply, gas supply and telecommunications. [33551]

  Mr. Eggar
  The remuneration of the director generals of electricity supply, of gas supply and of telecommunications is determined by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Minister with responsibility for the civil service, and salaries are set at the rate necessary to recruit and retain the best candidates.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current salary of the Director General of Gas Supply; and what has been the salary of this post since 1990. [33557]

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of the current salary of the Director General of Gas Supply and the salary of this post since 1990, were given to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 26 June 1995,Official Report, columns 448–50.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on employment prospects in the utilities. [32190]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: Employment prospects in the utilities are subject to the commercial judgment of their management and the needs of their customers.

  Exports
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the trend in United Kingdom exports. [32151]

  Mr. Nelson
  The outlook for exports in 1995 is excellent. In the three months to April, the volume of United Kingdom exports, excluding oil and erratics was 9.5 per cent. higher than a year earlier. The CBI reports that export order books are growing faster than ever before and that optimism among exporters is at its highest for a generation.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on inward investment. [32153]

  Mr. Eggar
  Inward investment is a UK success story. I announced only last week that in 1994–95, a record number of 434 inward investment decisions were notified to the Invest in Britain Bureau, expecting to create nearly 37,000 new jobs. Almost 57 per cent of these decisions were by foreign investors already established here, a tremendous vote of confidence in the strength of the UK economy.

  Firework Injuries
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to reduce the number of firework injuries. [32154]
  643
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Legislation is in place to control the supply of unsafe fireworks and to prohibit the supply of fireworks to persons under 16 years of age.

  To complement these measures, an annual firework campaign is undertaken to inform retailers and users of the necessary precautions to be taken when fireworks are supplied and used. The 1995 firework campaign will concentrate upon the age group nine to 13 years and garden firework parties which were associated with most of the firework accidents in 1994.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans the Government have to remove non-leviable status from the nuclear industry once it is privatised; and in what way they will then seek to recognise the benefits of pure renewable forms of energy. [32639]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are considering the future of non-leviable status, and expect to announce their conclusions before the privatisation of the nuclear generating stations.

  Pallion Engineering Ltd.
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his departmental officials including regional officials have received from Appledore, Devon regarding Pallion Engineering Ltd., Sunderland. [33765]

  Mr. Eggar
  My officials have not received any representations from Appledore Ltd. about Pallion Engineering Ltd. of Sunderland.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he last discussed the future of Pallion Engineering Ltd. with the European Commissioner responsible for competition; [33763]

  (2) when his Department's officials last met representatives of the European Commissioner responsible for competition to discuss Pallion Engineering Ltd., Sunderland. [33762]

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the then Minister for Industry, corresponded with the European Commissioner responsible for competition about the future of Pallion Engineering in July 1994. A number of meetings have taken place since then between officials of my Department and those of the Directorate General for Competition to discuss the shipbuilding industry generally and those officials discussed Pallion most recently by telephone on 4 July 1995.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received regarding Pallion Engineering Ltd., Sunderland; and if he will make a statement. [33764]

  Mr. Eggar
  Ministers and officials have received approximately 15 representations about Pallion Engineering since July 1994. I have agreed to meet a delegation of hon. Members to discuss the constraints imposed on Pallion Engineering by the European Community's seventh shipbuilding directive.

  European Commissioner (Competition)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next meet the European Commissioner responsible for competition; and what matters will be discussed. [33766]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade meets the European Commissioner responsible for competition from time to time but has no specific plans to do so in the immediate future.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the European Commissioner responsible for competition; and what matters were discussed. [33767]

  Mr. Evans
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last met the European Commissioner responsible for competition on Monday 3 April 1995. Their discussions covered state aids issues and the liberalisation and privatisation of the energy and telecoms sectors.

  Directory Inquiry Services
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Director General of Telecommunications, as to standards of directory inquiry services; and if he will make a statement. [32457]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  None. The standard of directory inquiry services is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications. I invite my hon. Friend to inform the director or myself of any specific concerns.

  Biodiesel
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of biodiesel(a) imported into the United Kingdom and (b) produced in the United Kingdom last year. [32717]

  Mr. Nelson
  A small amount of biodiesel was produced in the UK last year for trial purposes only. Exact quantities produced and import figures are not available.

  Asbestos
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the quantities of asbestos imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [32864]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is published by the Central Statistical Office in the overseas trade statistics of the United Kingdom, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many asbestos slates have been imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; what was their cost; and what is the cost of their United Kingdom—made substitutes. [32865]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is not available.

  Jaguar
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in establishing support for the location of Jaguar's new model investment in the midlands; and it he will make a statement. [33625]

  Mr. Eggar
  DTI Ministers and officials have been working very closely with Ford and Jaguar to maximise the prospects of Jaguar's new X200 saloon car being built in the west midlands. The DTI, in association with English Partnerships and local agencies, working through the Government offices in the west midlands, is putting together a substantial package of support, including site improvements and training.

  Company Inspections
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when inspectors were appointed in relation to(a) Pennine Commercial Holdings plc, (b) British Anzani plc and (c) International Signal and Control Group plc; and if he will list in each case the reasons for the appointment of inspectors, the names of the inspectors and their business connections, the cost of the investigation together with details of the way in which it has been disbursed to each inspector, including the basis of disbursement, the number of hours for which each inspector has billed his Department, including the hourly rate, the date of completion and publication of the report and the action taken by the Department against the parties criticised in the report, the parties who have seen the report and under what section and statute. [33923]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Elizabeth Appleby QC and Peter Wilfred Foss FCA, a partner of Moores Rowland, were appointed inspectors of Pennine Commercial Holdings plc on 4 October 1983 and also of British Anzani plc on 11 March 1983—a related investigation.—both appointments being under the provisions of section 165(1)(b) of the Companies Act 1948—now section 432 of the Companies Act 1985—following concern over a number of matters and in particular the conduct of certain of its directors. They completed their report on British Anzani plc on 28 November 1986. The inspectors are reviewing their interim report on Pennine Commercial Holdings plc with a view to submitting a final report, following the conclusion in April 1995 of appeals against criminal convictios. When the inspectors have submitted their completed report on Pennine Commercial Holdings, publication of the reports will be considered. The cost of the inspection of British Anzani plc and related investigations to date, excluding Pennine Commercial Holdings, is £745,600. The cost of the investigation of Pennine Commercial Holdings plc to date is £391,000 of which £355,00 and £36,000, respectively, relate to the accountant and legal inspector. The hours billed and the hourly rate are confidential. Appropriate disclosure has been made within the criminal proceedings and to regulatory bodies.

  Inspectors have not been appointed to International Signal and Control Group plc.

  Copyright Law
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce legislation to incorporate a transmission right into the existing copyright law. [33307]
  646
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  United Kingdom legislation—the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988—already provides copyright owners with exclusive rights to prohibit or to authorise transmission of their works. Broadcasting of copyright material and its inclusion in a cable programme service, which covers digital on-line services, both require authorisation of the copyright owner.

  My Department has established close links with industry on issues which may be affected by advances in information and communication technology, including copyright. A sub-committee of my multi-media industry advisory group is considering these matters at present. We are keeping matters under review, not only in the United Kingdom, but, since transmissions cross territorial boundaries, within the European Union and other international forums.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment he has made on the impact on mass market sales of classic paperback reprints of European Union proposals to harmonise copyright laws; and if he will make a statement; [33007]

  (2) What assessment he has made on the impact on British printers of European Union proposals to harmonise copyright laws; and if he will make a statement. [33008]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: Effects on the sale of paperback reprints may arise from directive 93/98/EEC, which was adopted by the Council of Ministers in October 1993. This requires that copyright should expire 70 years after the death of the author and will mean that the duration of copyright in the United Kingdom will have to be increased from its present duration of 50 years, to 70 years after death, and that certain works on which copyright has ceased will have their copyright revived for up to 20 years. However, the directive provides that publication of works prior to revival of copyright will not be regarded as infringement, and enables member states to introduce safeguards to protect those who are in the process of publishing works on the assumption that they are in the public domain.

  My Department has recently circulated a consultative draft of legislation to implement the directive. This draft proposes extensive safeguards which, for example, will allow publishers to make and to sell copies made as a result of commitments entered into before 1 January 1995, and to sell any copy made before 1 July 1995, without liability to owners of revived rights. Furthermore, the draft legislation proposes that any publisher who wishes to make a new edition—that is, one which is not covered by the safeguards mentioned above—will be able to do so, and that this cannot be prevented by the owner of revived rights.

  I understand that royalty rates for paperback editions are generally around 7 per cent. of the publishers' selling price to the trade. Given the safeguards we propose to introduce, the effects of implementing this directive on the market for classic books would not appear to be substantial, especially since the directive will be of practical significance to only a relatively small number of books,—that is, those which remain popular more than 50 years after their authors' deaths. Classics whose authors have been dead for more than 70 years will not be affected.
  647
  As part of the consultation exercise, views as to costs or benefits of the directive have been sought from businesses and others directly affected. A compliance cost assessment will be produced in due course.

  The effect of this directive on the United Kingdom printing industry can be expected to be marginal since there is no reason to believe that the directive will affect overall activity in the industry.

  Export Credits Guarantee Advisory Service
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will update the list of members of the Export Credits Guarantee Advisory Service given in his answer of 20 January 1994,Official Report, columns 748–50, indicating the reason for any departure of members. [33163]

  Mr. Nelson
  Since 20 January 1994, two members have left the Export Guarantees Advisory Council—Mr. Gormly retired at the end of his term of office and Mr. Smallwood resigned due to business commitments. No new members have been appointed.

  Telecommunications Companies
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in obtaining access for British telecommunications companies in the United States market. [32817]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  There has been improvement in the access of UK companies to the United States market, particularly since international simple resale of telecommunications between the UK and the US was authorised in October 1994. My Department has now licensed 33 companies to provide ISR to the US, as well as to Australia, Canada and Sweden.

  The Government have been following closely the regulatory and legislative proposals currently being considered in the US on foreign ownership and access to the US market, with a view to improving UK companies' position in the US. We have also urged US officials to avoid any measures which may cause difficulty with a successful outcome of the World Trade Organisation negotiations on basic telecommunications, due to end in April 1996.

  Ceramics and Porcelain Quotas
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was his policy in respect of the proposal to abolish quotas for the importation of tableware and ornamentalware at the 113 Committee of the European Commission and Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement; [33225]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect on employment in north Staffordshire of abolishing tableware and ornamentalware quotas. [33239]

  Mr. Eggar
  The European Commission is reviewing the quotas on all non-textile imports from China, including ceramics and porcelain, and will report to the Council of Ministers later in the year. The Government consider that protection should continue only if clear economic justification can be shown. Evidence from the UK ceramics industry, including on employment aspects,648
  will be among the factors considered in establishing the Government's response.

  Buses
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many buses were produced in the United Kingdom in 1994; and how many buses were imported and exported. [32813]

  Mr. Nelson
  The available information is set out in the table. Care is required in interpreting these figures as production and trade are recorded under different classifications; in particular, the treatment of minibuses may differ between the two.

  UK production, imports and exports of buses in 1994

  Number

  Production1

  1,585

  Imports2

  1,005

  Exports2

  785

  1 Production of buses and coaches (excluding mini-buses).—Source: Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

  2 Trade in (new) motor vehicles for the transport of ten or more persons—Source: HM Customs and Excise.

  Manufacturers (Imports and Exports)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of imports and exports of manufactures in each of the main manufacturing countries in 1994. [32827]

  Mr. Nelson
  The available information is given in the table.

  Main manufacturing countries trade in manufactures1—1994

  US $ Billion

  Exports

  Imports

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  n/a

  n/a

  Canada2

  119

  129

  France

  203

  191

  Germany

  377

  281

  Italy

  170

  112

  Japan2

  389

  152

  Netherlands

  102

  102

  Sweden

  n/a

  n/a

  Switzerland

  n/a

  n/a

  UK

  170

  185

  USA

  381

  552

  Notes:

  1 Standard International Trade Classification Section 5 to 8.

  Includes Standard International Trade Classification Section 9—Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC.

  n/a= not readily available.

  Source:

  OECD Series 0041.

  Eurostat Intra & Extra EU Trade.

  CSO Business Monitor MM20A.

  US Dept of Commerce—US Merchandise Trade December 1994.

  Coal Authority
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the individual plots of land currently owned by the Coal Authority in the Stoke on Trent, North constituency. [32709]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the Coal Authority. I have asked the authority to write to the hon. Member.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about his latest White Paper on competitiveness. [32141]

  Mr. Lang
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer that I gave the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) earlier this afternoon.

  Iraq (Arms)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the answer to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Quin) from the then Minister for Trade, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), on export licensing of 13 November 1989,Official Report, column 1. [32969]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: The matters referred to in the question by the hon. Member for Wokingham, answered on 13 November 1989, are under investigation by the Scott inquiry. It would be inappropriate for me to comment before Sir Richard has completed his report.

  Royal Ordnance (Exports)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all exports of munitions by Royal Ordnance since 1980 to(a) Singapore Technologies and (b) Chartered Chemical Industries plc. [32890]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: This question could be answered only at disproportionate cost. Following the recent statement on BMARC by my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade, 13 June, Official Report, column 595, and the subsequent decision of the Trade and Industry Select Committee to undertake an inquiry into this area, Departments are now carrying out research into some associated areas in relation to defence exports to Singapore. I shall consider what information it might be appropriate to disclose, and which might be relevant to the Select Committee's inquiry, after that research work has been completed.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the export licences(a) applied for and (b) granted to Allivane for military equipment and materials destined for Singapore Technologies since 1980. [33058]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today in response to his questions on exports by Royal Ordnance.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the export licences(a) applied for and (b) granted to Royal Ordnance for military equipment and materials destined for Chartered Chemical Industries Pte Ltd. of Singapore, since 1980. [33026]
  650
  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today on this issue.

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what purpose staff from BNFL were seconded to his Department. [33278]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: The staff on secondment to the Department of BNFL are filling posts that have been identified as benefiting from their particular skills and experience. They are part of the continuing programme of interchange of staff between the Department and industry.

  BMARC
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 671, on what date in April information was first sent to HM Customs and Excise, and on what date in June the final information was sent concerning BMARC export licences. [32527]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: I am afraid that the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology on 28 June should have read early April, rather than late April. The first occasion this year on which my Department provided information to HM Customs in connection with BMARC was on or soon after 3 April. The first occasion prior to the statement by my right hon. Friend the former President of the Board of Trade was on 7 June.

  Export Promotion Advice
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the export promotion advice for small service businesses and the appropriate level of charges for this advice, and if he will make a statement. [33274]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: The effectiveness of export promotion advice for all companies, including small service sector firms, is currently measured through data collected on companies' satisfaction with the services and information provided.

  These services are currently either free or charged at a heavily subsidised price. Charging has not deterred the serious exporter as is evidenced by the continuing growth in the use of the charged services.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times Government grants have been awarded to private forestry firms over the past five years; and what was the total value for each year. [30441]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Some 24,000 woodland grant scheme applications were approved in Great Britain in the five years to 31 March 1995, of which about one-quarter were from companies; private forestry companies are not recorded separately.
  651
  Total payments under the woodland grant scheme, and other Forestry Commission grant schemes which are now closed, were as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Payments (£ million)

  1991

  16.5

  1992

  17.2

  1993

  21.8

  1994

  29.8

  1995

  32.8

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the name of the principal recipients of Government grants for private forest schemes in Scotland over the past five years. [30443]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Forestry Commission has no management reason to keep a record of cumulative payments made to each owner. To provide the information requested would require a manual search through a very large number of individual grant scheme files. This could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the criteria for Government grants being awarded to private forestry, and what restrictions there are on foreign-owned forestry in Scotland. [30445]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Applications for grant aid have to satisfy the aims of the woodland grant scheme and meet the silvicultural and environmental standards set out in guidelines published by the Forestry Commission. There are no restrictions on nationality; applicants must be the legal occupiers of the land.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs he estimates have been created by privately owned forestry in Scotland over the past five years. [30442]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Forestry Commission carried out a sample survey of forestry employment in 1988–89. The results were published in the Commission's Occasional Paper 27, a copy of which is in the Library. The Commission carried out another sample survey in 1993–94, and it is currently analysing the results of this. I shall send the hon. Member a copy of the survey report when it is published, and I shall also place a copy in the Library.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hectares of(a) new native pinewoods and (b) new broadleaved woods were grant aided in (i) Scotland and (ii) Argyll and Bute for 1994–95 [30444)

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information is as follows:

  Area of new planting (hectares)

  Scotland

  Argyle and Bute

  Native pinewoods (including associated broadleaves)

  2,400

  60

  Broadleaved woods (excluding broadleaves in native pinewoods)

  3,900

  160

  Rabies
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of rabies there were in each year since 1967. [32289]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  There have been no cases of rabies recorded in Scotland in the years in question.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy occurred in each year since 1985. [32373]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Scotland is as follows:

  1986: 0

  1987: 7

  1988: 54

  1989: 208

  1990: 486

  1991: 808

  1992: 1,850

  1993: 2,208

  1994: 1,324

  19951: 253

  1To 30 June.

  BSE was first identified in November 1986 and information on the incidence of the disease prior to that date is not available.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Soctland how many cases of peste des petits ruminants occurred in each year since 1985. [32286]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  There have been no cases of peste des petits ruminants in Scotland since 1985.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of contagious equine metritis occurred in each year since 1985. [32304]

  Mr. Robertson
  There has been only one case of contagious equine metritis recorded in Scotland since 1985. This occurred in 1990.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will show, by type, the number of cases of fowl pest in each year since 1985. [32292)

  Mr. Robertson
  No cases of fowl pest—avian influenza or Newcastle disease—have been reported in Scotland since 1985.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of epizootic haemorrhagic virus disease occurred in each year since 1985. [32283]

  Mr. Robertson
  No cases of epizootic haemorrhagic virus disease have been recorded in Scotland since 1985.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of African horse sickness occurred in each year since 1985. [32301]
  653
  Mr. Robertson
  African horse sickness has never been reported in Scotland.

  A74
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Government has changed the penalties to be applied for failing to meet contractual obligations on the contract to upgrade the A74 between Eaglesfield and Kirkpatrick Fleming to motorway standard. [32713]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The application of liquidated damages, which are not penalties, are being applied strictly in accordance with their purpose in the contract.

  The liquidated damages provisions relate to two parts of the works. Those provisions related to the southern section, which can be open to traffic as and when it is ready, remain unchanged. Those related to the northern section, which cannot be open to traffic until the adjacent contract is complete, are now no longer relevant. Their purpose was to cover the Secretary of State against any claim by the adjacent contractor for delay in handing over the northern section which is necessary to provide access for him to construct his adjacent section. The adjacent contractor has now waived all such claims against the Secretary of State as he is now acting as sub-contractor to Castelli-Girola for the northern section. Consequently, there is now no justification for the application of liquidation damages against Castelli-Girola by the Secretary of State for the northern section.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the project to upgrade the A74 between Eaglesfield and Kirkpatrick Fleming to motorway standard; and what penalties have been applied to Castelli-Girola for failing to meet their contractual obligations on this project. [32712]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The southern section of the works that should have been open to traffic at the end of last year has now been granted a partial substantial completion certificate and is open to traffic. This section of the works is subject to the deduction of liquidated damages for failure to deliver the road in due time. The extent of the damages will be determined by the contract and will be subject to any contractually agreed extensions of time.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the costs to public funds of the delays in the work to upgrade the A74 between Eaglesfield and Kirkpatrick to motorway standard. [32714]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The delays in completing the upgrade of the A74 Eaglesfield to Kirkpatrick Fleming section to motorway standard has not caused any additional public expenditure; nor have public funds suffered any loss.

  Citylink Development
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on public funds provided to Citylink Developments since 1980; and if he will list the conditions attached to such funding. [32855]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Citylink Developments received assistance from the Scottish Development Agency. The provision of that assistance is now an operational matter 654
  for Scottish Enterprise. I have asked the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to write to the hon. Member.

  Constituency Boundaries
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 November,Official Report, columns 112 –13, if he is now in a position to list the names for the 72 Scottish parliamentary constituencies as proposed by the boundary commission and the names of the new local authority areas which each constituency will be part of from April 1996. [33705]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Proposed constituency

  Comprising part of new local authority from April 1996

  Aberdeen Central

  City of Aberdeen

  Aberdeen North

  City of Aberdeen

  Aberdeen South

  City of Aberdeen

  Airdrie and Shotts

  North Lanarkshire

  Angus

  Angus/City of Dundee/Perthshir

  and Kinross

  Argyll and Bute

  Argyll and Bute

  Ayr

  South Ayrshire

  Banff and Buchan

  Aberdeenshire

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  Highland

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  East Ayrshire/South Ayrshire

  Central Fife

  Fife

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  Dumbarton and Clydebank/East

  Dumbartonshire

  Clydesdale

  South Lanarkshire

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  East Dumbartonshire/North Lanarkshire

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  North Lanarkshire

  Cunninghame North

  North Ayrshire

  Cunninghame South

  North Ayrshire

  Dumbarton

  Argyll and Bute/Dumbarton and Clydebank

  Dumfries

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dundee East

  City of Dundee

  Dundee West

  City of Dundee

  Dunfermline East

  Fife

  Dunfermline West

  Fife

  East Kilbride

  South Lanarkshire

  East Lothian

  East Lothian

  Eastwood

  East Renfrewshire

  Edinburgh Central

  City of Edinburgh

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  East Lothian/City of Edinburgh

  Edinburgh North and Leith

  City of Edinburgh

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  City of Edinburgh

  Edinburgh South

  City of Edinburgh

  Edinburgh West

  City of Edinburgh

  Falkirk East

  Falkirk

  Falkirk West

  Falkirk

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Glasgow Anniesland

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Baillieston

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Cathcart

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Govan

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Kelvin

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Maryhill

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Pollok

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  City of Glasgow/South Lanarkshire

  Glasgow Shettleston

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Springburn

  City of Glasgow

  Gordon

  Aberdeenshire/Moray

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  Inverclyde

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  North Lanarkshire/South Lanarkshire

  Hamilton South

  South Lanarkshire

  Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber

  Highland

  655

  Proposed constituency

  Comprising part of new local authority from April 1996

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  East Ayrshire

  Kirkcaldy

  Fife

  Linlithgow

  West Lothian

  Livingston

  West Lothian

  Midlothian

  Midlothian

  Moray

  Moray

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  North Lanarkshire

  North East Fife

  Fife

  North Tayside

  Angus/Perthshire and Kinross

  Ochil

  Clackmannanshire/Perthshire and Kinross/Stirling

  Orkney and Shetland

  Orkney Islands/Shetland Islands

  Paisley North

  Renfrewshire

  Paisley South

  Renfrewshire

  Perth

  Perthshire and Kinross

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West

  Highland

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  The Scottish Borders

  Stirling

  Stirling

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  East Dunbartonshire

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  Midlothian/The Scottish Borders

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  Aberdeenshire

  Western Isles

  Western Isles

  West Renfrewshire

  Inverclyde/Renfrewshire

  Cardiac Mortality
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cardiac mortality rate for each year since 1989; and if he will provide a breakdown by health authority area in Scotland. [33327]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Death rates for heart disease1 per 100,000 population for each health hoard area, 1989–94

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19942

  Scotland

  416

  390

  385

  380

  391

  349

  Health Board Areas

  Argyll and Clyde

  421

  393

  400

  401

  414

  356

  Ayrshire and Arran

  419

  438

  398

  396

  428

  386

  Borders

  474

  421

  444

  412

  391

  372

  Dumfries and Galloway

  489

  459

  419

  427

  420

  403

  Fife

  414

  393

  403

  386

  381

  358

  Forth Valley

  394

  361

  358

  383

  359

  331

  Grampian

  370

  342

  320

  325

  339

  301

  Greater Glasgow

  455

  414

  416

  399

  421

  376

  Highland

  399

  382

  353

  364

  355

  325

  Lanarkshire

  392

  355

  371

  367

  375

  350

  Lothian

  376

  356

  363

  345

  351

  307

  Orkney

  461

  567

  399

  462

  420

  363

  Shetland

  410

  339

  324

  283

  420

  319

  Tayside

  453

  432

  419

  427

  452

  376

  Western Isles

  553

  500

  510

  419

  486

  423

  1 World Health Organisation International Classification of Diseases (Ninth Revision) codes 390–429.

  2 Provisional.

  Home Office Road Traffic Forms
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of forms HORT-1 issued for the years(a) 1993 and (b) 1994; and if he will provide a breakdown by individual police force in Scotland. [33369]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33873]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is currently not held centrally and is therefore not available. Steps are, however, being taken to establish a central record of such information.

  Cupar Sheriff Court
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary for Scotland (1) what sums have been spent in maintenance and refurbishment of Cupar sheriff court in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; [32661]

  (2) when a review was last carried out of the existing facilities at Cupar sheriff court; and what proposals there are for upgrading them. [32662]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish court service. I have asked its chief executive, Michael Ewart, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Michael Ewart to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 12 July 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your questions about how much was spent in the last 10 years on maintenance and refurbishment at Cupar Sheriff Court; when a review was last carried out of the facilities there; and what proposals there are for upgrading them.

  Responsibility for arranging maintenance and refurbishment of courthouses prior to 1 April 1992 lay with the Property Services Agency and I regret that we do not have detailed expenditure figures readily available before that date. However, expenditure at Cupar since then was as follows:

  1992–93: £15,000

  1993–94: £4,000

  1994–95: £20,000

  The facilities at all Courthouses are constantly kept under review. Projects are initiated to solve particular problems as resources allow. We recently improved the prisoner interview and toilet facilities at Cupar to assist the local police and we do not have further major plans to develop the facilities at Cupar at this stage.

  Court Services Salaries
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current salaries of(a) sheriffs, (b) sheriffs principal, (c) senators of the College of Justice, (d) the Lord Justice General and Lord President of the Court of Session and (e) the Lord Justice Clerk. [32666]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: The current annual salaries are (a) £72,524, (b) £85,241, (c) £98,957 (outer house) and £110,137 (inner house), (d) £114,874 and (e) £114,137.

  Farming Employment
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed in Scottish farming in each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33539]
  657
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: The figures requested are set out in the table.

  Year

  Number employed in Scottish farming

  1990

  62,650

  1991

  61,061

  1992

  60,146

  1993

  58,778

  1994

  59,942

  The figures are obtained from the annual June agricultural census and relate to main holdings. The numbers include total regular staff full and part-time, casual staff, occupiers working on farms and occupiers' spouses also working on farms. Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many fatalities there have been among those employed in Scottish farming in each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95; [33541]

  (2) how many people employed in Scottish farming have been injured in each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33540]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: The information on injuries and fatalities among those employed in Scottish farming as reported to the Health and Safety Executive is set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of injuries

  Number of fatalities

  1990–91

  216

  9

  1991–92

  195

  6

  1992–93

  223

  4

  1993–94

  193

  8

  Note:

  The table shows injuries and fatalities reported to the HSE and to local authorities covering agriculture and horticulture. The HSE gets to know of virtually all workplace deaths but it is known that non-fatal injuries are subject to under-reporting; the extent of under-reporting may be considerable so the figures need to be interpreted in this light. Figures for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Road Accidents (Children)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by region the number of school children killed or injured on roads in the latest available year. [33309]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: The information requested is given in the following table.

  Child casualties of school age (five to 16 years), by region and severity, 1994

  Region

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Borders

  1

  15

  77

  93

  Central

  1

  59

  143

  203

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  32

  60

  92

  Fife

  —

  47

  151

  198

  Grampian

  7

  49

  265

  321

  Highland

  —

  35

  102

  137

  658

  Child casualties of school age (five to 16 years), by region and severity, 1994

  Region

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Lothian

  3

  117

  504

  624

  Strathclyde

  13

  516

  1.4

  1,929

  Tayside

  3

  82

  280

  365

  Orkney

  —

  5

  3

  8

  Shetland

  —

  —

  8

  8

  Western Isles

  1

  6

  17

  24

  Scotland

  29

  963

  3,010

  4,002

  Sewerage Services
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what subsidy will be provided to each of the three new Scottish sewerage authorities to cover the costs of sewerage services in the years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99. [33312]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 15 June, Official Report, column 679. The new public water and sewerage authorities will not receive a subsidy as such from the Government for the services they provide. In recognition of the change in financing of domestic sewerage, however, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make regulations to reduce charges for domestic sewerage in 1996–97. He will give grant to the authorities to compensate for the income forgone. The amount of grant will be determined later this year, and the full charges will be phased in over a period of time.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Training for Work
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish a breakdown by TEC administrative area showing the amount of spending on training for work as a percentage of TEC spending as a whole. [32365]

  Mr. Paice
  Information on Training and Enterprise Council spend, by programme, is not held centrally. Information is available on what the Department has paid to TECs under their contract. However, this does not equate to TEC spend; TECs may also spend funds obtained from sources other than the Department contract and from their own reserve.

  Workstart
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the people who participated in the original workstart pilot programme started in 1993 currently(a) employed with the original employer, (b) employed with another employer, (c) in training or education and (d) unemployed. [32366]

  Mr. Forth
  Approximately one third of the participants in the original workstart pilots are still on programme and therefore employed with the original employer. Destinations of participants who have left the programme will be obtained from a follow-up survey which is due to report in November 1995.
  659
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what obligation lies on employers in the second phase of workstart pilot schemes to provide training for people taken on. [32368]

  Mr. Forth
  Employers receiving a workstart subsidy are not required to offer training.

  The evaluation of the initial workstart pilots found that nearly two thirds of employers felt new workstart recruits had the necessary skills to undertake the job adequately and they required no more help than would have been otherwise offered to new recruits.

  Pamphlets and Mailings
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the(a) pamphlets and (b) mailings which her Department has issued since 22 June giving the subject for each. [33603]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has issued the following new brochures and booklets since 22 June:

  ON EDUCATION TOPICS:

  Final report to the DFE on a national survey of LEA's policies and procedures for the identification of, and provision for, children who are out of school by reason of exclusion or otherwise

  GCSE to GCE A/AS—Value Added: Briefing for Schools and Colleges

  GM ballots: Notes for Parents

  Schools Update—Summer Term Issue

  Technology Colleges and Language Colleges: Schools for the Future

  ON EMPLOYMENT TOPICS:

  Industrial Tribunal Procedure

  Guidelines on Training for Offender

  Technical. Vocational and Education Initiative (TVEI):

  Free Your Potential (Insight 33)

  TVEI Briefings No 9 TVEI Report 1994

  Adult and Training Strategy (Individual Commitment):

  The Tool Kit Guide

  Employee Development Schemes

  The Tool Kit Summary

  Youth Education and Policy:

  Modern Apprenticeships—Employers' Leaflet

  Equal Opportunities:

  Equal Opportunities for Women

  Careers Service:

  Measuring Satisfaction with the Careers Service

  Careers Guidance Performance Indicators for work with

  Clients with Special Needs

  Working Models of Careers Guidance

  A Review of Current Literature on the Careers Service

  An Evaluation of the Use Made of Careers Service

  Useful Products from the Careers Service

  Careers Education and Guidance in Schools

  Open Learning:

  New Perspectives in Modern Language

  Attracting small firms to Open Learning

  Achieving Flexibility in Training

  Open Learning in High Region Libraries

  Open Learning Project Report

  660

  Loan and Learn—Stockport and Highpeaks

  Open and Flexible Learning for People

  Flexible Learning and Market Forces

  Exemplar Project—Essex TEC

  Translating Industrial German

  Taking Training to Local Communities

  Multi-Media and Tourism

  Developing Open Learning Materials

  Trainers' Guide to Learning Design

  Technology in Learning

  Briefing Notes for Project Managers

  Learning Technologies Leaflet

  French Language for UK Hotels

  Computer Assisted Language Learning

  The Enterprise Tutor

  Opening Doors to Open Learning

  Literacy and Numeracy

  Dyslexia in Adults

  Computer Conference for Distance Learning

  Open Learning and NVQs

  Thinking and Learning at Work

  A Manager's Guide to Teleworking

  National Education and Training Targets:

  Developing Skills—A Successful Future

  National Training Awards:

  National Training Awards/Modern Apprenticeship Entry Forms

  Small Firms Training Loans:

  Direct mail letter to employers

  Employment Service:

  Job Club Members Workbook

  Travel to Interview Scheme

  General Job Club leaflet

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) pamphlets and (b) mailings have been issued by (i) the Funding Agency for Schools and (ii) the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation since 22 June. [33608]

  Mr. Squire
  There are matters for the funding agency and the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation respectively. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member.

  English Tests
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment she has made of the external marking and assessment of English tests for 14—year—olds; and if she will make a statement; [33607]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the external marking of the key stage two English tests. [33605]

  Mr. Forth
  The Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority is carrying out a thorough review of external marking for key stages 2 and 3 and will report when its review is complete. The full external marking process is not due to finish until the end of September.
  661
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what has been the cost of the external marking and assessment of English tests for 14—year—olds; [33606]

  (2) what has been the cost of the external assessment and marking of English tests in key stage 2. [33604]

  Mr. Forth
  The estimated cost of the external marking process is estimated to be £19 million for this year's tests for 11 and 14—year—olds. It is not possible to identify separately the costs either for each age group or for individual subjects.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from her Department and its agencies over the last five years; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33887]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following firms have been awarded computer consultancy contracts by the Department and its agencies in each of the last five years:

  Consultancy firm

  Number of contracts

  1990

  BIS Ltd.

  3

  Coopers and Lybrand

  3

  ICL Ltd.

  3

  Oracle

  2

  Butler Cox

  1

  CMG Ltd.

  1

  Henley Consultants

  1

  Hoskyns

  1

  Intac

  1

  Kinesis Computing

  1

  Lalcrest

  1

  LBMS

  1

  OCTS Ltd.

  1

  Radius

  1

  RML

  1

  SCOLL

  1

  Tranrate

  1

  Two B

  1

  1991

  1

  SEMA Systems

  6

  LBMS

  4

  Kinesis Computing

  3

  Admiral Computing

  2

  BIS Ltd.

  2

  Coopers and Lybrand

  2

  Duhig Berry

  2

  EIS Ltd.

  2

  Express Consultants

  2

  Insight Consulting

  2

  Oracle

  2

  W. S. Atkins

  2

  BBT Statistical Services

  1

  Microsoft

  1

  MSL Ltd.

  1

  NCC

  1

  OCTS Ltd.

  1

  Radius

  1

  Research Machines

  1

  ROCC Ltd.

  1

  SCS

  1

  SD Scicon

  1

  Software Sciences

  1

  Sybase

  1

  662

  Consultancy firm

  Number of contracts

  1992

  BIS Ltd.

  3

  Coopers and Lybrand

  2

  Insight Consulting

  2

  Admiral Computing

  1

  Amtec Consulting

  1

  BBT Statistical Services

  1

  Duhig Berry

  1

  Express Consultants

  1

  Forvus Ltd.

  1

  Granada Computer Services

  1

  Hoskyns

  1

  Kinesis Computing

  1

  MFT Computer Systems

  1

  MSL Ltd.

  1

  OCTS Ltd.

  1

  Oracle

  1

  SEMA Systems

  1

  1993

  1

  Express Consultants

  2

  Uden Consulting

  2

  AMP Systems Ltd.

  1

  Arden Business Consultants

  1

  BIS Ltd.

  1

  CMG Ltd.

  1

  Commercell Ltd.

  1

  Ingres Ltd.

  1

  J. Holds worth

  1

  Kinesis Computing

  1

  Kingdon Technology

  1

  KPMG

  1

  Microsoft

  1

  OCTS Ltd.

  1

  Ove Arup

  1

  Pilat Ltd.

  1

  Trackit Systems

  1

  W. S. Atkins

  1

  1994

  W. S. Atkins

  3

  Arden Business Consultants

  2

  Data Sciences

  2

  DPS Ltd.

  2

  MFT Ltd.

  2

  Amtec Consulting

  1

  Aran Ltd.

  1

  Axios Systems

  1

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1

  ED5 Information Systems

  1

  Ernst and Young

  1

  Forvus Ltd.

  1

  Gloucester Computer Co.

  1

  Imagineering Ltd.

  1

  Kermon Ltd.

  1

  KPG Ltd.

  1

  MSL Ltd.

  1

  Microsoft

  1

  Ove Arup

  1

  Parity plc

  1

  PMS Communications

  1

  SAS Software

  1

  Shortlands

  1

  Systemstar Softools

  1

  University of Bath

  1

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which firms of consultants employed by her Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33875]
  663
  Mr. Squire
  Over the last year, instances of the Department paying more than £1,000 per day for individual representatives are restricted to the following firms:

  Baring Brothers

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Ernst and Young

  Hay Management Consultants

  KPMG

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much her Department and its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33856]

  Mr. Squire
  The value of computer consultancy contracts awarded by the Department and its agencies in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Value of contracts £

  1990

  448,000

  1991

  590,000

  1992

  380,000

  1993

  657,000

  1994

  691,000

  1995

  262,000

  There is no projection of expenditure over the next five years.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many contracts her Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each 1990 of the last five years. [33561]

  Mr. Squire
  The information requested is listed in the following table.

  Year

  Number of contracts

  Value £

  1990

  47

  974,000

  1991

  84

  1,517,000

  1992

  39

  1,994,000

  1993

  69

  1,629,000

  1994

  96

  1,800,000

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which her Department has been engaged since 1980. [33456]

  Mr. Squire
  Between 1980 and the end of the last financial year, the Department—when it had responsibility for science—spent some £627,000 on privatisation of the Plant Breeding Institute.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from her Department(a) by number contacts and (b) monetary value in the last five years for which figures are available. [33447]
  664
  Mr. Squire
  The information requested for each of the last five years is as follows:

  By number of contracts

  Year

  Name of consultancy firm

  1990

  Coopers and Lybrand

  KPMG

  BIS Ltd.

  ICL Ltd.

  PE International

  1991

  Coopers and Lybrand

  SEMA Systems

  LBMS

  PE International

  Touche Ross

  1992

  Coopers and Lybrand

  KPMG

  BIS Ltd.

  Price Waterhouse

  SEMA Systems

  1993

  Coopers Lybrand

  KPMG

  Touche Ross

  Price Waterhouse

  Ernst and Young

  1994

  Coopers and Lybrand

  KPMG

  Data Sciences

  Ernst and Young

  W. S. Atkins

  By monetary value:

  Year

  Name of consultancy firm

  1990

  KPMG

  BIS Ltd.

  Coopers and Lybrand

  ICL Ltd.

  Touche Ross

  1991

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Touche Ross

  SEMA Systems

  LBMS

  PE International

  1992

  Coopers and Lybrand

  BIS Ltd.

  KPMG

  SEMA Systems

  Price Waterhouse

  1993

  Coopers and Lybrand

  KPMG

  Touche Ross

  Price Waterhouse

  Ernst and Young

  1994

  Coopers and Lybrand

  KPMG

  WS Atkins

  Ernst and Young

  Data Sciences

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many contracts and for what total sum were let by her Department and agencies for which
  665
  it is responsible to (a) Coopers and Lybrand and its subsidiaries, (b) Peat Marwick and its subsidiaries, (c) Ernst and Young and its subsidiaries, (d) Arthur Andersen and it subsidiaries, (e) Price Waterhouse and its subsidiaries. (f) Grant Thornton and its subsidiaries, (g) Stoy Hayward and its subsidiaries, (h) Grant Thornton and its subsidiaries, (g) Stoy Hayward and its subsidiaries, (h) Robson Rhodes and its subsidiaries, (i) Pannell Kerr Forster and its subsidiaries for privatisation, market testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33915]

  Mr. Squire
  The number of contracts and their total sum awarded to each of the consultants and their subsidiaries during financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95 are as follows:

  Consultant

  Number of contracts

  Total value of contracts £

  1993–94

  (a) Coopers and Lybrand

  9

  258,000

  (b) Peat Marwick

  5

  130,000

  (c) Ernst and Young

  0

  —

  (d) Arthur Andersen

  0

  —

  (e) Price Waterhouse

  2

  36,000

  (f) Grant Thornton

  0

  —

  (g) Stoy Hayward

  0

  —

  (h) Robson Rhodes

  1

  13,500

  (i) Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  —

  1994–95

  (a) Coopers and Lybrand

  4

  443,000

  (b) Peat Marwick

  3

  88,000

  (c) Ernst and Young

  1

  80,000

  (d) Arthur Andersen

  0

  —

  (e) Price Waterhouse

  0

  —

  (f) Grant Thornton

  0

  —

  (g) Stoy Hayward

  0

  —

  (h) Robson Rhodes

  1

  74,000

  (i) Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  —

  Testing Costs
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the estimated costs of testing at(a) key stage I, (b) key stage 2 and (c) key stage 3 in the current year. [33802]

  Mr. Forth
  A comprehensive breakdown of costs by each key stage is not available. The Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority estimates the costs of developing national tests and tasks and supporting consistency in assessment to be some £34 million in the financial year 1995–96. In addition, the Department is supporting 60 per cent. of the estimated £8 million costs of auditing the marking of the tasks and tests for key stage I and 60 per cent. of the estimated £15 million costs of providing supply cover for teachers administering the tasks and tests at key stage I and the tasks only at key stages 2 and 3.

  Educational Achievements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research her Department has carried out into the educational achievements of young people who have left care. [33833]
  666
  Mr. Forth
  The Department has not commissioned research on the educational achievements of young people after they left local authority care. A special study of the educational difficulties and needs of young people while in care was undertaken by HM inspectorate and the social services inspectorate jointly in 19941, whose emerging findings informed joint Department for Education-Department of Health guidance' on good practice in this field. Copies of these publications may be found in the Library.
  The Education of Children who are Looked After by Local Authorities (Department of Health & Ofsted, 1995)
  2The Education of Children being looked after by Local Authorities (DFE Circular 13/94 DH LAC (94) 11).

  Dance Education (Discretionary Awards)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the future of discretionary awards for dance education. [33815]

  Mr. Forth
  The Government are aware of the difficulties faced by some potential students of dance in obtaining discretionary award support from their local authorities. My officials are currently considering, together with officials from the Department of National Heritage, whether anything might be done to help. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many-grant maintained schools there are in each of the London borough council areas. [33486]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  GM schools in the London area

  LEA area

  Number of GM schools

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  Barnet

  12

  Bexley

  8

  Brent

  15

  Bromley

  20

  Camden

  2

  City of London

  0

  Croydon

  12

  Ealing

  9

  Enfield

  6

  Greenwich

  1

  Hackney

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1

  Haringey

  0

  Harrow

  1

  Havering

  4

  Hillingdon

  23

  Hounslow

  2

  Islington

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3

  Kingston upon Thames

  5

  Lambeth

  14

  Lewisham

  1

  Merton

  1

  Newham

  1

  Redbridge

  1

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  Southwark

  10

  Sutton

  11

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  Waltham Forest

  2

  667

  GM schools in the London area

  LEA area

  Number of GM schools

  Wandsworth

  8

  Westminster

  0

  Total

  175

  Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff in her 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. [33418]

  Mr. Squire
  In the last five years, no member of staff has declared any company shareholdings. Staff are required to declare where they could be involved in a decision which could affect the value of shareholdings, such as through the award of a contract.

  Teacher-pupil Ratio, Devon
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the teacher to pupil ratio in Devon in 1989–90 and latest year for which figures are available. [33491]

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

  Pupil: Teacher ratios in maintained primary and secondary schools in Devon local education authority area in 1990 and 1994

  Primary

  Secondary

  1989

  22.3

  16.1

  1994

  22.9

  16.4

  Departmental Staff (Coventry)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list separately, by each office of her Department, the numbers and grades of casuals, fixed appointments and vacancies in the Coventry travel-to-work area. [33778]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In the Coventry travel-to-work area, there are four casual administrative officers. Two are based at Bankfield House unemployment benefit office, one at Park court jobcentre and one at Tile Hill jobcentre, all in Coventry.

  There are no fixed appointments or vacancies in the Coventry travel-to-work area.

  School Governors
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received on the impact on school governor training of the introduction of school effectiveness grants.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has had formal and informal discussions with a range of organisations about the school effectiveness activity within the grants for education support and training programme. The 668
  activity gives school governing bodies discretion to decide in co-operation with the head teacher and school staff, how to spend the funds allocated to them in order to promote their school's effectiveness thet includes decing what part of the funds to spend on governor training and support, so the impact of the activity will vary depending on the decisions taken by individual schools.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimates have been made for(a) the administrative cost and (b) the total cost of providing nursery vouchers to the parents of all four-year-olds.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total cost of the voucher scheme for four-year-olds which my right hon. Friend has just announced is estimated at £730 million for full implementation in England. Administrative costs will be determined by the tendering process used to select a contractor to administer the scheme, but are expected to be up to 1.5 per cent. of the total cost of the scheme.

  Sex Education
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what monitoring arrangements her Department has in place to record the number of children being withdrawn from sex education in secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The new statutory requirements for sex education, under the Education Act 1993, including the statutory parental right to withdraw their children, came into force on 1 September 1994. The Office for Standards in Education, as part of its regular programmes of inspections, will be monitoring schools' implementation of the full range of new arrangements.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if she will list the components of the standard spending assessment which account for differences in the standard spending assessment between London and Cheshire, other than the area cost adjustment; and if she will make a statement on the reasons for this differentiation; [33056]

  (2) if she will list the components of the standard spending assessment which account for differences in the standard spending assessment between Manchester and Cheshire, other than the area cost adjustment; and if she will make a statement on the reasons for this differentiation; [33055]

  (3) if she will list the average standard spending assessment per pupil in (a) London, (b) Manchester and (c) Cheshire, broken down into (i) total, (ii) additional educational needs and (iii) area cost adjustment. [33009]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Within the education standard spending assessment methodology, there are three cost adjustments, apart from the area cost adjustment, which reflect variations between authorities in the cost of providing a standard level of service: (i) additional educational needs; (ii) sparsity; and (iii) free school meals.

  The table sets out how much of the overall education SSA per pupil for London, Manchester and Cheshire is

  669
  attributable to the allowance for additional educational needs and the area cost adjustment. The figures are based on the primary sub-block of education SSAs but similar differentials apply to the secondary sub-block.

  Education SSA per 5–10 year-old

  LEA

  Overall SSA £

  Attributable to AEN £

  Attributable to ACA £

  London

  2,451

  510

  378

  Manchester

  2,258

  673

  0

  Cheshire

  1,817

  253

  0

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans she has to reassess the calculation of the standard spending assessment for pupils in secondary and primary schools; [33012]

  (2) what plans she has to exclude pupils in independent schools from the calculation of the population receiving secondary and primary education, as part of the standard spending assessment; [33010]

  (3) if she will list the percentage of pupils in (a) state schools and (b) independent schools in (i) London (ii) Oxfordshire and (iii) Cheshire. [33011]

  Mr. Squire
  We are consulting the local authority associations about the possibility of excluding from that part of the education standard spending assessment methodology that relates to resident population pupils in independent schools. All representations will be carefully considered before we decide whether changes should be made.

  The table sets out the number of pupils in state schools and the number of children in independent schools as a percentage of resident population aged five to 18. A residual proportion of authorities' population is in neither state nor independent schools.

  Proportion of population in state schools

  Proportion of population in independent schools

  London

  73.4

  8.9

  Oxfordshire

  69.6

  12.4

  Cheshire

  77.9

  4.3

  Returning to Teaching Guide
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of(a) publishing and (b) distribution of her Department's publication "Returning to Teaching—A guide to distance learning materials"; to whom it was distributed; and pursuant to page 1 of the document what is contained in it which does not have the approval of the Secretary of State. [32715]

  Mr. Forth
  The cost of producing "Returners to Teaching—a Guide to Distance Learning Materials" was some £120,000.

  The cost of initial distribution of the guide to schools, teacher training institutions and local education authorities in England was some £33,500.
  670
  The guide, now the responsibility of the Teacher Training Agency, gave details of material available from a wide variety of sources, likely to be of interest to qualified teachers contemplating returning to teaching. The disclaimer explained that while the list of material had been carefully selected, neither the Secretary of State nor the Teacher Training Agency had approved the contents of the individual items.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children are currently educated in grammar schools. [32946]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1994, the latest date for which information is available, 116,193 pupils attended maintained grammar schools in England.

  School Transport
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much is currently spent from public funds on school transport.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  LEA expenditure in England on home to school transport for pre-primary, primary, secondary and special school pupils was £288 million in 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Selective Education
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which European states have selective education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Three EU/EEA states operate selective entry to secondary school at age 11 or 12; Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. All other states provide comprehensive systems of lower education, although at upper secondary level—age 15+—vocational and general education is offered in many different types of schools.

  Pre school Provision
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 521, what was the number and percentage of all four-year-olds, including the rising-fours and rising-fives, in (a) maintained nursery schools and nursery classes, (b) reception classes in primary schools, (c) private or voluntary sector provision and (d) pre-school provision overall, at the latest available date. [32065]

  Mr. Forth
  My earlier answer provided estimates of four-year-olds in maintained schools or some form of private or voluntary provision in England in January 1994. A more detailed breakdown is not available. From January 1996, the Department will collect information about rising fours—that is, children aged three in August whose fourth birthday falls between September and December. It is normal practice to exclude the rising fives—that is, children aged four in August whose fifth birthday falls between September and December—because they are of compulsory school age in January.

DEFENCE

  Gurkhas (Brunei)
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Gurkas will continue to be stationed in Brunei; and if he will make a statement. [34403]

  Mr. Soames
  On 19 June 1995, the Prime Minister and the Sultan of Brunei Darussalam signed an agreement that will extend the stationing of a Gurkha battalion in the Sultanate for a further five years from 29 September 1998. This reflects the close defence relations between our two countries.

  Logistic Information Systems Agency
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about key targets for the Army's Logistic Information Systems Agency for 1995–96. [34404]

  Mr. Soames
  The Logistic Information Systems Agency was established as a Defence agency on 21 November 1994. The role of the agency is to enhance the logistic effectiveness of the Army in peace and war by providing information systems, services and support.

  The chief executive has been set the following targets for the second year of operation:
  Key Target 1: Meet performance levels laid down by the Quartermaster General for the timeliness, cost and planning effectiveness of information system projects.

  95 per cent. on time.

  95 per cent. within costs

  80 per cent not adjusted for time or cost.

  Key Target 2: By 31 March 1996 increase overall customer satisfaction with the services provided by LISA. Achieve a 70 per cent. satisfaction rating and at least a 40 per cent. return of surveys dispatched.
  Key Target 3: Introduce dummy invoicing for all chargeable services provided by LISA by 31 March 1996.
  Key Target 4: Initiate the selected partnership with the private sector or develop a plan for the implementation of an alternative "Competing for Quality" initiative.
  Key Target 5: Fully implement IT support to LISA Finance and Business Systems by 31 March 1996.
  Key Target 6: Achieve EN ISO 9001 certification for LISA by 31 March 1996.
  Key Target 7: Continue to improve the efficiency by LISA's operations to meet the consolidated efficiency target of £676,000 defined in the owner's management plan.

  Recruitment Costs
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of recruitment to the armed forces in the last year for which figures are available. [32825]

  Mr. Soames
  Total expenditure on recruitment to the armed forces in financial year 1994–95 was £93,427,000.

  Annual Reports
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 June,Official Report, column 236, if he will list the four inspecting grades of his departmental police who were awarded Box 4 assessments for their overall performance between 1990 and 1994, together with the appointments they held when
  672
  given this assessment and the marks awarded in each category of part 3—aspect of performance—of their annual staff report. [32722]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of inspecting grades to receive box 4 assessments was in fact six; an incorrect figure which resulted from a computer error was unfortunately given in my answer of 20 June,Official Report, column 236. Disciplinary action was not initiated against either of the two further officers as in both cases they responded to the advice, training and support given and were subsequently graded as meeting the requirements of the rank. It is not my Department's policy to provide more personal information of the type requested in this question.

  HS800 Aircraft
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many HS800 twin-engined jet executive aircraft military and civilian versions are in service with(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) the Ministry of Defence. [33097]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Careers Information Office, Torquay
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the site occupied until recently by the Army careers information office in Union street, Torquay. [33492]

  Mr. Soames
  The careers information office in Torquay is at present with the local Defence land agent for disposal action. Tenders are being invited for the appointment of selling agents.

  Armed Forces Administration Facilities (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what facilities for(a) home defence and (b) the wartime administration of the armed forces have been provided within the Kincardine district of Scotland since 1980; and what were the costs of establishing or maintaining such facilities; [33313]

  (2) what facilities for (a) home defence and (b) the wartime administration of the armed forces have been provided at the Inverbervie in the Montrose district of Scotland since 1980; and what were the costs of establishing or maintaining such facilities. [33315]

  Mr. Soames
  The only defence/wartime administration facility within the Kincardine district is at Inverbervie; there is no facility in Montrose. These facilities consist of a below-ground command centre. Maintenance costs have averaged £200 per annum since the MOD took over responsibility for its maintenance from the Property Services Agency. Receipts to the value of £2,500 per annum are received from a local farmer, for grazing rights, and Grampian regional council. Up until August 1992, a caretaker was employed for 30 hours per week at a cost of £7,359 annually. Between August 1992 and July 1993, the requirement was reduced to six hours per week at a cost of £1,322 annually. The caretaker post was subsequently cancelled.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities for(a) home defence and (b) the wartime

  673
  administration of the armed forces have been provided within the Lanark district of Scotland since 1980; and what were the costs of establishing or maintaining such facilities. [33314]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no home defence/wartime administration facilities within Lanark district.

  Service Personnel
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men have been reinstated in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force following a conviction and a term of imprisonment for (i) murder, (ii) manslaughter, (iii) culpable homicide, (iv) sexual assault or rape and (v) offences involving homosexual activities in each of the past 15 years; and if he will make a statement. [33621]

  Mr. Soames
  No central record of this information is maintained and it would involve disproportionate cost to carry out a physical check of my Department's records over the past 15 years. It is, however, normal practice for service personnel to be discharged if they are sentenced to a term of imprisonment by a civil court, although in exceptional circumstances there is discretion to retain individuals in service.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those Governments which have been invited to the DESO exhibition in Aldershot in September. [33238]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It has been the consistent practice of successive administrations not to release details of invitations to attend British forces equipment exhibitions. Invitations are issued on a confidential basis and it would be a breach of trust to disclose details.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department or its agencies over the last five years, indicating the number of contracts per firm; [33932]

  (2) how much his Department or its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the anticipated expenditure over the next five years. [33934]

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

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from his Department(a) by number of contracts and (b) monetary value in the last five years for which figures are available; [33446]

  (2) which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33933]

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

  Avocet Explosive Waste Incineration, Shoeburyness
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to permit the burning of munitions waste on open ground or a beach in the vicinity of the mid-Essex coast. [33987]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 12 July 1995:

  1. Your priority written question to the Secretary of State for Defence about plans for burning munitions waste on open ground or beaches in the vicinity of the mid Essex coast, has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, has included the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation (DTEO) Ranges at Shoeburyness, Essex.

  2. Currently conventional munitions are disposed of by a number of means on the Shoeburyness range area in Essex. These munitions are mainly those which have arisen from wartime clearance operations or munitions which are no longer safe for service. No chemical munitions are disposed of at Shoeburyness. Hitherto munitions had been disposed of by deep sea dumping but this was banned in 1993. The method chosen for disposal depends largely on the nature of the munitions, the size of the explosive component and safety of and environmental considerations.

  3. One method employed is to burn the munitions in preference to detonating them with allthe noise problems involved. The preferred method of burning is to incinerate the munitions in an explosive waste incinerator, code named "AVOCET", with a complex pollution control system which reduces the pollution emissions to levels below the EC and HMP permitted levels.

  4. Some munitions, notably those which are extremely sensitive or with too high an explosive content for Avocet processing, are burned in the open both on the tidal and flats and on the land. The temperatures achieved when these munitions burn are well in excess of 800 degrees centigrade and at these temperatures volatile organic compounds are destroyed. The residues of these burns are immediately removed for disposal by a commercial waste disposal company under the terms of the 1990 Environmental Protection Act.

  5. I hope this information is helpful.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds Shoeburyness was chosen for the siting of the Avocet explosive waste incineration system. [33988]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 12 July 1995:

  1. Your priority written question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking why Shoeburyness was chosen for the siting of the AVOCET explosive waste incineration system, has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, has included the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation (DTEO) Ranges at Shoeburyness, Essex.

  2. With the end of the Cold War and the resultant stockpiles of surplus or unsafe munitions, combined with the international ban on the deep sea dumping in 1993, large amounts of unserviceable munitions are currently awaiting disposal. There is also a considerable annual requirement to dispose of unexploded wartime munitions found in this country. Shoeburyness was chosen in 1993 as the UK focus for munitions disposal based on a number of factors:
  675
  It is a large range area (over 7000 acres plus tidal sands of 35,000 acres) and as such it has the area required for the safe disposal of items with a large explosive content. There is no other site in the UK which can offer similar facilities.

  It also has the experienced Army Ammunition Technicians competent to safely and efficiently dispose of such munitions.

  It has the storage facilities required for safe and secure holding of munitions whilst awaiting disposal.

  It also has the means to receive munitions by sea. In some cases the munitions are not cleared for movement by overland means and the alternative is to land them over the beach from specialist military shipping without a danger to the public.

  In essence, Shoeburyness was carefully chosen as the most suitable and safest place to carry out the MOD duty of care to dispose of unwanted or unserviceable munitions without risk to the public.

  3. The AVOCET explosive waste incineration system is one of the most advanced methods of munitions disposal systems available in the world today. Its development was a direct response to the need for a more environmentally friendly system of disposing of unwanted ammunition and it is favoured as a method for disposal over burning, burying and detonation of unwanted ammunition each of which have drawbacks.

  4. I hope this is helpful

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the quantity of ammunition to be incinerated in the Avocet explosive waste incineration system at Shoeburyness and over what period. [33989]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm, to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 12 July 1995:

  1. Your priority written question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the quantity of ammunition to be incinerated in the AVOCET explosive waste incineration system and over what period, has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, has included the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation (DTEO) Ranges at Shoeburyness, Essex.

  2. In the current year the AVOCET facility is programmed to accept 500 tonnes (All Up Weight) of conventional munitions. In subsequent years the system is programmed for 1500–20000 (All UP Weight) per year for up to 10 years (based on current predictions of UK ammunition disposal requirements).

  3. The AVOCET facility is licensed by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP). It is not used for the disposal of chemical weapons nor is it used for disposing of anything containing radioactive traces.

  4. I hope this information is helpful.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to incinerate ammunition imported into Britain at the Avocet explosive waste incineration system in Shoeburyness. [33990]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 12 July 1995:

  1. Your priority written question to the Secretary of State for Defence about plans to incinerate ammunition imported into Britain at the AVOCET waste incinerator system at Shoeburyness has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, has included the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation (DTEO) Ranges at Shoeburyness, Essex.
  676
  2. The AVOCET explosive waste disposal incinerator is based on United States rotary kiln furnace technology which has been integrated and enhanced with a UK designed and manufactured pollution control system which enables the safest and most environmentally sound means of disposing of conventional ammunition currently available. Emission levels from the incinerator are well below current and projected Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) and European Commission levels making the system a world leader.

  3. The primary purpose of the AVOCET Explosive Waste Incinerator is to clispose of the UK arisings of surplus ammunition and ammunition found in Explosive Ordnance Disposal operations. These items are part of the UK duty of care to dispose of our explosive waste.

  4. There are currently no plans to import ammunition from other countries as there is only sufficient capacity in AVOCET for the UK requirement. In the future, if sufficient capacity existed in the system, arisings from elsewhere may be considered but only after all the factors had been considered including the nature of the munitions, the country of origin and manufacture, and the safety and environmental implications of both transport an disposal.

  5. I hope this information is helpful.

  RAF Fylingdale
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reasons underlie the decision not to uphold byelaws at RAF Fylingdales with particular reference to byelaw 2b on persons entering the applicable area. [33963]

  Mr. Soames
  No such decision has been made.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to renew the American security of tenure at Menwith Hill Station when it expires in May 1997; and whether any proposal to renew the lease will be brought to the House for approval. [33948]

  Mr. Soames
  The United States forces, who are in the United Kingdom pursuant to the NATO status of forces agreement of 1951, use Menwith Hill Station under confidential administrative arrangements between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America. It is not our practice to comment on the details of such arrangements. No lease has ever been granted.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many injunctions are currently in force to prevent intrusions at Mentwith Hill Station; and if he will name those against whom injunctions have been obtained. [33961]

  Mr. Soames
  One injunction is in place against Ms Percy.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many injunction proceedings have been started against people who have trespassed at the American National Security Agency base at Menwith Hill Station since the one brought against Ms Lindis Percy in October 1991. [33954]

  Mr. Soames
  None. However, we reserve the right to bring injunctions against any persons who persist in trespassing on Ministry of Defence property where they have no right to be.
  677
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to give powers to the National Security Agency of America to be a lawful user of Menwith Hill Station in relation to the proposed byelaws; how long his legal department has been working on the drafting of new byelaws; and at what total cost. [33959]

  Mr. Soames
  The National Security Agency of America is already in lawful occupation of the Menwith Hill Station site under the terms of the confidential administrative arrangements between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and will continue to be a "lawful user" of the site in relation to the proposed byelaws. Work on a review of byelaws has been in progress for approximately two years, involving staff from several areas of the Department; the costs involved could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been arrested and prosecuted for aggravated trespass under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 at the America National Security Agency base at Menwith Hill. [33956]

  Mr. Soames
  One person has been arrested under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 at Menwith Hill Station. The question of prosecution is still under consideration.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who at Menwith Hill Station will be required to sign the proposed byelaws for the purpose of enforcement of byelaws. [33962]

  Mr. Soames
  The byelaws, when made, will be signed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As with all other Ministry of Defence sites, the authorisation for purposes of enforcement of byelaws will be signed by the senior United Kingdom officer with security responsibilities at the establishment concerned; at Menwith Hill Station this is at present the chief inspector, Ministry of Defence police.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish or place in the Library the precise wording of the security of tenure document regarding the leasing of Menwith Hill Station to the National Security Agency of America. [33947]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a confidential administrative arrangements between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States. It would therefore not be appropriate to publish or to comment on the details of such arrangements.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds it is necessary to introduce new byelaws at Menwith Hill Station in addition to existing criminal and civil remedies to deter intruders. [33960]

  Mr. Soames
  The Menwith Hill Station byelaws are the first set in a complete revision of byelaws for all establishments which we consider require them. They are intended to provide protection for all MOD establishments where other criminal or civil law does not provide sufficient remedy.
  678
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have appealed against their convictions under the HMS Forest Moor and Menwith Hill Station Byelaws 1986 since they were declared defective on their face in the High Court in July 1992; how many of these appeals were contested; and how many were(a) upheld and (b) dismissed. [33953]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held by my Department.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the United States Army handed control of Menwith Hill Station to the USAF/NSA electronic surveillance group; for what reasons the transfer of control was made; what parliamentary procedures applied; if the change of control fell within the remit of the terms of the War Office/USAF agreement on 11 December 1951 under which the USAF were given the right to occupy and control RAF bases in Britain; and whether this agreement extends to non-Royal Air Force bases. [33949]

  Mr. Soames
  In 1966, with the agreement of Her Majesty's Government, Menwith Hill Station became a field element of the National Security Agency. United States forces use Menwith Hill Station under confidential arrangements between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America. It is not our policy to comment on the details of such arrangements.

  US Forces
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times, when and by whom the ambassadors' agreement regarding American occupation of British Royal Air Force bases has been subjected to periodic review; and if he will place a copy of this agreement in the Library. [33950]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our policy to comment on the detail of confidential arrangements between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America; the basis on which United States forces are stationed in the United Kingdom is contained in the NATO status of forces agreement of 1951.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreement exists between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government, in their respective Defence Departments, to allow American personnel who are occupying and controlling British bases to employ psychological operations units against British subjects either inside or outside of these bases. [33958]

  Mr. Soames
  No such operations are undertaken in this country by the US forces against British subjects.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British RAF bases are occupied and controlled by the US Department of Defense; if he will list those bases by name; how many non-RAF bases are similarly occupied and controlled; if he will list those bases; how many of those RAF and non-RAF bases employ members of the National Security Agency of America; and if he will list such bases. [33951]
  679
  Mr. Soames
  As of 1 July 1995, bases and facilities were made available to the United States Department of Defence at the following locations:

  Main Operating Bases

  RAF Lakenheath

  RAF Mildenhall

  Standby Deployment Base

  RAF Fairford

  Storage/Support Facilities

  RAF Alconbury

  RAF Brawdy

  Chilwell

  RAF Daws Hill

  Eastcote

  Framlingham

  RAF Hythe

  London USN Europe HQ

  RAF Molesworth

  RAF Northwood

  Oakington

  RAF Spadeadam

  RAF Watton

  RAF Welford

  West Ruislip

  Wartime Contingency Hospitals

  RAF Arbroath

  RAF Nocton Hall

  RAF Upwood

  Communications Facilities

  RAF Barford St John

  RAF Barkway

  Botley Hill

  Bovingdon

  RAF Chelveston

  RAF Chicksands

  Christmas Common

  Coldblow

  RAF Croughton

  RAF Daventry

  RAF Dunkirk

  RAF Edzell

  RAF Feltwell

  Menwith Hill Station

  RAF Oakhanger

  RAF St Mawgan

  RAF Swingate

  RAF Uxbridge

  NATO Armaments Depot

  Glen Douglas

  While these have been made available for use by United States visiting forces, Her Majesty's Government retain legal possession of the site and control over the use that is made of them and their facilities. It is not our policy to comment in further detail on operational matters.

  US Communications Centres
  Mr.Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many US Department of Defense 680
  communication center operate from British soil; and if he will list them and the agencies by which their workers are employed. [33952]

  Mr.Soames
  As of 1 July 1995 there were 18 United states Department of Defense communication facilities in the UK as follows:

  RAF Barford St John

  RAF Barkway

  Botley Hill

  Bovingdon

  RAF Chelveston

  RAF Chicksands

  Christmas Common

  Coldblow

  RAF Croughton

  RAF Daventry

  RAF Dunkirk

  RAF Edzell

  RAF Feltwell

  Menwith Hill Station

  RAF Oakhangar

  RAF St Mawgan

  RAF Swingate

  RAF Uxbridge

  It is not our policy to give details of personnel assignment.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many public interest immunity certificates he has issued during the last five years; and if he will list them. [33955]

  Mr. Soames
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 3 July 1995,Official Report, column 92.

  National Security Agency of America
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the National Security Agency of America operates from(a) RAF Croughton and (b) RAF Chicksands. [33957]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Croughton and RAF Chicksands are US Department of Defense communications centres managed by the United States Air Force. It is not our policy to comment further on operational matters.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on market testing in respect of Royal Air Force establishments. [33098]

  Mr. Soames
  Further to my answer of 18 May to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)Official Report, column 303, about Royal Air Force activities which have been market tested, listed below are those Royal Air Force establishments and functions where exposure to the "Competing for Quality" process has commenced or is planned to begin in the current financial year:

  681

  RAF Machrihanish

  RAF Hospital Wegberg

  VIP helicopters

  Flight Simulators and Synthetic Trainers Maintenance

  RAF Stornoway

  RAF Lyneham

  RAF High Wycombe

  Target Facilities engineering support, 100 Squadron

  RAF Ascension

  RAF Northolt

  RAF St. Mawgan

  Aircraft Ground Maintenance Schools

  IUKADGE stations

  RAF Brize Norton

  RAF St. Athan

  RAF Sealand

  682

  RAF Oakhanger, 1001 Signals Unit

  RAFSEE Henlow

  RAF Brampton/Wyton facilities management

  RAF distribution services

  RAF Halton support services

  University Air Squadrons

  Air Traffic Control at Valley, Shawbury, Cosford, Linton-on-Ouse, Cranwell and Newton

  RAF Valley

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse

  RAF Cosford support services

  RAF Shawbury

  RAF Cranwell

  RAF Innsworth

  RAF Uxbridge

  Multi-engine pilot training trial

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.

European Union and Sovereignty
The Clerk of the Parliaments: Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, no.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply, but I believe that it is in order for me to put the Question before she answers. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that widening the European Union to include new member states is likely to lead to an increase in the powers of the European Commission and other Community institutions at the expense of the sovereignty of national parliaments.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble friend and the House for that error, but I was so keen to give my noble friend the Answer. No. There is no reason why further enlargement should change the broad balance of powers within the European Union.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply, by which I take it she confirms that there will be no extension of the qualified majority vote or any loss of our veto under Article N of the treaty. In view of my noble friend's robust reply, does she agree with me that any future widening of the Community should give the UK the opportunity to achieve the variable geometry, or different nations moving at different speeds towards perhaps different European goals—the variable geometry so favoured by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and, I would hope, favoured by the Foreign Office and even perhaps the Treasury?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the treaty retains unanimity for highly sensitive issues of treaty change, accession and own resources, and certainly that will continue. Recent evidence suggests to us that unanimity does not prevent decisions being reached on highly difficult issues. We do not anticipate more qualified majority voting; the Prime Minister has made that clear many times over. I can also agree with my noble friend that widening should allow us to achieve the very variable geometry which indeed has been something this country has worked successfully for and which many other countries are now working for.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in current circumstances, or certainly in an enlarged Community, qualified majority voting as it is now would not necessarily be helpful to the UK?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is not referring to qualified majority voting; he is referring indirectly to the balance in the number of votes. As he well knows, that is a matter for further discussion because the large nations in the European Union feel that they are sometimes not well looked after by the current system. But that does not mean extending QMV.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, surely the addition to the Community of a number of well run democratic states, as is proposed, will, if anything, diminish the influence of the central authority and will help also to offset the predominance which exists at the moment of France and Germany.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We have to have a better balance. That is essentially what he is saying, and we agree. We know also that one cannot force 15, let alone 20 or more members, as we may well be in the next 10 years, into the same mould. As a cook, I can tell my noble friend that putting too much mixture into a vessel and cooking it too hard will break that vessel. We had better take things step by step. I believe also that it is important that we conform where necessary but ensure that flexibility is the name of European Union relationships.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is it not a major UK interest to see the major reform of the CAP? Will not that be promoted by the enlargement of the Community? Does the Minister believe that that kind of reform of the CAP in an enlarged Community can be brought about without qualified majority voting?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer is yes to the noble Lord's first two questions. We must think carefully about how we reform the CAP. Unless we do, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the enlargement of the Community cannot take place. I believe that it can be done without forcing a situation, as some would have us do, where we move to qualified majority voting on something which has a major financial implication.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, would my noble friend care to re-read the Question? She says that there is no reason for an increase in the powers of the Commission. Of course not; there never has been. However, the Question is whether she thinks it likely.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my answer to whether I thought it likely was no.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to indicate that she thought that the broad balance of powers between the institutions would continue more or less unchanged. Within that context, would she confirm that the Commission will retain the absolute and exclusive power given to it under the Treaty of Maastricht to originate all proposals?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I would have thought that by now my good friend the noble Lord would have realised that that is not quite how the reality occurs. It may be a formal matter that the Commission proposes but, before one ever has a proposal from the Commission, the amount of discussion is something which I have learned to respect. During that pre-discussion and pre-proposal phase we must remain at the heart of Europe in order to influence what arises in the first place.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend help me on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson? She says that she hopes the Community will be widened in the next 10 years. A committee of your Lordships' House found that it was totally impossible to do that with the common agricultural policy in its present state. The CAP takes 50 per cent. of direct expenditure and about 20 per cent. of indirect expenditure. In other words, it takes about 70 per cent. of the European budget. That must be reformed. How does the Minister see that being done root and branch, which is the only way that it can happen?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is only one answer to my noble friend's question; it is by discussion and hard work. We must recognise the kind of agricultural policy that we all need and how it affects markets world wide. We must also recognise the need to develop the agricultural markets of the developing nations.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was pleased to hear her say that she did not foresee that a widening of the Community would result in any great change in the balance between its different institutions? Is she also aware that I share her views on the way in which the Commission works? However, may I urge the Minister not to be over-mathematical in her approach to the way in which the Community will develop? The trouble with mathematics is that all too frequently it ceases to be variable and flexible, which is what we need.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree about flexibility. As a mathematician and a statistician, I learnt a long time ago not to put all my faith in figures but to look at what lies behind them.

Indonesia
2.46 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the outcome of the recent discussions between the Minister for Overseas Development and the Indonesian Government on the British aid programme in Indonesia.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, during my visit I saw some of our aid projects in East Java and Kalimantan. I had useful discussions in Jakarta with Indonesian Ministers and senior officials about our programme and a range of other issues. I also signed a new concessional loan arrangement between the United Kingdom and the Government of Indonesia.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the whole organisation of the armed forces in Indonesia continues to be geared to repression? Has she seen the recent reports of arrests of journalists, the imprisonment of young East Timorese recently peacefully commemorating the Dili massacre, the killing of 37 people in the vicinity of the Freeport copper mine during the forced removal of tribals and the arrest of the opposition parliamentarian Sri Bintang Pamungkas following his lecture in Germany? Does all that amount to a case for increased aid? How can it be reconciled with the Minister's commitment to the importance of human rights in aid and also to the recent Halifax G7 statement that unwarranted military spending must be taken into account in deciding aid levels?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we target our aid on strengthening human resource development, tackling environmental problems, promoting good government and transportation. Indonesia is still a relatively poor country, with a GNP per head of approximately 730 dollars per annum and with a large population. Its government are pursuing sound economic policies. But we have always made it absolutely clear that we are against repression wherever it occurs.
Although there has been some improvement in human rights in Indonesia, I can tell the noble Lord that not only have I seen the reports that he mentioned but I have made it absolutely clear to Indonesian Ministers, including the Foreign Minister, that we believe that, although the establishment and manning of the National Human Rights Commission are steps in the right direction—as is the recent sentencing of soldiers involved in the Liquica killings and the greater openness for visitors to East Timor—there is considerable scope for further progress. That is why we are pressing them on that issue. The very fact that we have a decent relationship with the government enables us to press all the harder.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that any form of aid, apart from perhaps disaster relief, frees funds in the recipient country for purchasing weapons from Britain or anywhere else? Does she not agree with my noble friend that over the past 30 years arms in Indonesia have been used solely for internal repressive purposes or for the illegal invasion and suppression of East Timor and West Irian?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is not correct in his last statement. Indonesia plays a full part in ASEAN, and it is for those purposes that various countries have supplied equipment to Indonesia. We have made it absolutely clear on every occasion when an application has been made for licences that those licences will be granted only where equipment is being bought for legitimate purposes, and that does not include the repression of Indonesia's own people.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is it not misleading to refer to the loan as an aid agreement? Is it not better to call it what it is? It is a development agreement which strengthens the ability of UK companies to supply capital goods and related services, and it prohibits the purchase of luxury goods or items for military or

1677
defence purposes. Does the Minister not agree that any form of leverage for improvement in relation to human rights is not possible as Indonesian government policy excludes expressly foreign debt being tied to non-economic conditionalities?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the concessional loan arrangement is a soft loan and it will be repaid over 25 years. The projects which it will enable to take place will be good for Britain and will concentrate on health, education, transport, water and sanitation and the environment. Therefore, the noble Viscount is absolutely right to say that that concessional loan arrangement is for very important developmental purposes.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if weapons and arms supplied to Indonesia are not intended to be used for internal repression, will the Minister tell the House against what potential threat it is proposed that they are used?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is not for me to second guess Indonesia or any of the other ASEAN countries. But I know from international discussions on the security of the region that countries certainly wish to have the means with which to defend themselves under the UN Charter, and they have every right to do that.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that the difficulty in Indonesia is that, with the overall role of the armed forces as regards repression, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to separate what is and what is not used for repression? Does she not agree also that if she is as determined as we know she is to promote human rights, it is sad to be increasing aid at a time when the situation is deteriorating rather than improving?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but looking at the facts of the situation—and I truly mean this—and in response to the questions that I have put to Indonesian Ministers, I believe that, although, as I said in answer to the noble Lord's original Question, there is still some way to go, the very fact that soldiers have quite rightly been sentenced for the Liquica killings—something which could not have happened a few years ago—and the establishment and proper manning of the National Human Rights Commission mean that Indonesia is seeking to do things in a very much better and more acceptable way than in the past. We need to encourage that progress.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, will my noble friend elucidate further as to whether in her discussions with the Indonesian government she obtained the impression that they were planning to ease repression in East Timor as well as taking the action that they have taken to which she referred in her last answer?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the government of Indonesia know only too well that they must stop the repression of persons. But of course the critical issue in relation to East Timor is the relationship between East Timor, Portugal and the Indonesian
1678
Government. Until discussions take place to resolve that matter, we know that there will always be room for dispute, which has occasionally in the past spilled over into violence and may sadly do so in the future. But we have made our point and that of all European members absolutely clear.

Rail Users' Consultative Committees
2.55 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that rail users' consultative committees play an effective role in protecting the interests of passengers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government recognise the valuable role that the rail users' consultative committees play in protecting the interests of passengers. The role of the committees was strengthened by the Railways Act 1993 which widened their powers to comment on levels of service, closure and all aspects of fares.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that somewhat evasive reply. He is no doubt aware that smoking was banned on the Brighton line in January, 1993, after 150 years of such practices. That was done without any reference whatever to the consultative committee, which was very upset about it. However, is he aware that, within a few weeks of that ban, Sir Bob Reid, the then chairman of British Rail, wrote to Sir Patrick Mayhew saying:
"We liaise carefully with statutorily constituted representatives of transport users and the respective proportions of smoking and non-smoking accommodation provided in trains has been changed in response to regular consultations with them"?
Does the Minister find that this misrepresentation of the consultative committee's procedures is satisfactory?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, Network SouthEast accepts that problems did occur in informing the TUCCs of the intention to extend the ban. The company tendered a formal apology to the CTCC, which was accepted. Nevertheless, the question of whether or not to ban smoking on trains is properly for the operator and the operator alone.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that reports in the press state that the bids for the privatisation of certain sectors of British Rail—notably ScotRail—are to be postponed further? Does he agree that that uncertainty as regards the dates for receiving bids for the privatisation process is causing a deterioration in the standard of service provided by British Rail? Therefore, does he not believe that the rail users' consultative committees have a vital role to play not only as regards the Brighton line but also in overlooking the entire situation of British Rail, which is rapidly deteriorating?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not accept that it is deteriorating. We believe firmly that with privatisation we shall see clear increases in the level of

1679
services being provided. The noble Lord is right to say that the consultative committees play a very strong role in the process. He referred to ScotRail. The consultation with the regional councils and the Scottish Rail Users Consultative Committee on ScotRail's passenger service requirement ends today. The views of the committee have been taken fully into account.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in the past few weeks there have been two examples of a failure by British Rail to consult the relevant consultative committees: first, on the west coast of Scotland in relation to the sleeper service, and, secondly, the matter now referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. What sanctions are there on British Rail or ScotRail when there is a failure to consult in the manner dictated to them under the various Acts of Parliament?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is important that the operators consult properly. As regards ScotRail, the sleeper arrangements are part of the negotiations which have gone forward. It is important to note that the sleeper service has not been included in the draft ScotRail passenger service requirement; that is, the Fort William service. Of course, other sleeper services have been included. As I said, the consultative committees have been consulted on the draft PSRs and that consultation ends today.
Lord Howell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that people who use mobile telephones in railway carriages are a much greater nuisance than smokers? Will he kindly make representations to the authorities that mobile telephone users and smokers should be confined to one carriage in our trains?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord's views certainly seem to have support within your Lordships' House. I shall ensure that his comments are passed on to British Rail.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, although it might have been desirable to consult the railway users' body, the fact is that those like myself, whose presence in your Lordships' House is made possible in reasonable health by the banning of smoking on the Brighton line, are perfectly happy with the outcome of what has been done?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, of course we are all very pleased that my noble friend is able to attend your Lordships' House and make such interventions. It is clear that there is a wide body of opinion that supports the banning of smoking on those trains.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the use of mobile telephones in one carriage as suggested by my noble friend, together with a carriage reserved for smokers, would be an excellent idea because people would be totally suffused by the smoke and perhaps, therefore, debarred from using their mobile telephones? However, to return to the Question which was not really about smoking, does the Minister further agree that the record of the consultative committees has been commendable? It has been
1680
commendable in trying to save the Fort William Motorail and sleeper services; commendable in underlining the gross underinvestment in the railways that has taken place over the past few years; commendable in pointing out the shortcomings of government undertakings to consult, which have in fact drifted into the sand in too many instances; and commendable also in pointing out the overweening bureaucracy that privatisation has already meant.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the rail users' consultative committees have done a valuable job in protecting the interests of passengers. However, I do not agree with anything else said by the noble Lord.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the Question. The Minister said that it was for the rail operators alone to decide such matters. However, the rail regulator, Mr. John Swift, said that he was concerned at the failure of British Rail to consult the consultative committee, which he described as his "ears and eyes". Can the Minister say—apart from party political observations—how we are to get people of substance to serve on consultative committees if they are bypassed in such a way by these large organisations?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is important that good quality people are able to serve on such committees and that they should be consulted in the proper way. However, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is especially concerned about the issue of smoking on that particular line. The arguments have been very thoroughly rehearsed and there does seem to be a large body of opinion from people who actually use that line and who support the banning of smoking on those services. As I said, it is ultimately a matter for the operator to decide.

Metric Units: Status
3.3 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow asked Her Majesty's Government:
In how many member states of the European Union it is a criminal offence to sell goods other than in metric units.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government understand that in all other member states metric units are the only lawful units of measurement, although the Government do not know whether other member states treat a failure to use metric units as a criminal offence.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that in France they sell plumbers' pipes in inches and that in Germany floppy discs are sold in inches? I believe that that will be a criminal offence in England after 1st October. Have we actually gone further in the implementation of the European Community directive on metrication than the directive itself actually specifies, especially bearing in mind that when metrication was first introduced into this county

1681
in 1968, the then President of the Board of Trade, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, promised that it would never be made compulsory?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not believe that we have over-implemented the directive. The particular example used by my noble friend of the three-and-a-half inch floppy disc is incorrect. Indeed, it is not a product which is required by law to be sold by weight, volume, length, area or capacity measure. Accordingly, there is no obligation under our law to use metric units. After all, one does not go into a shop and ask for a two-and-a-half or a three-and-a-half inch floppy disc. One asks for a floppy disc.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, after using our own measurements for hundreds of years, why should British people, British businessmen, British retailers and market people suddenly find themselves criminalised because they are no longer allowed to sell in pounds and ounces, which British people are used to? Why on earth should people not be able to continue to trade in pounds, ounces, litres and goodness knows what else—indeed, anything that people understand and are willing freely to trade in—rather than be subject to fines and imprisonment if they do not comply?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the decision that the United Kingdom should adopt metric units as the primary system of measurement was taken as far back as 1965. It was taken in response to active lobbying from business and industrial interests. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that it is the finest and oldest of English traditions going back as far as Magna Carta that we should have uniform systems of measurement and that there have always been criminal sanctions attached; indeed, medieval mercantile courts relied on flogging and pillorying to support them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, why did not my noble and learned friend include the ell, the rod, the pole and the perch?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I guess probably because not very many people in your Lordships' House or elsewhere would be able to say what those units of measurement were. It is clearly of advantage that we should have a standard unit of measurement. After all, Queen Victoria had 16 years to sit on her throne when we first signed up to the metric convention.
Lord Renton: My Lords, are we to abandon the nautical mile? Further, will we not be allowed to say in future that a cricket pitch should be 22 yards long?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, one does not sell cricket pitches by the yard. Although there are some that might be sold at present, they are not sold in that fashion. However, with reference to the specific question put by my noble friend, perhaps I may point out that the nautical mile and the knot are to be retained. So far as concerns aviation matters and aircraft heights, we shall continue to use the foot.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it would not be bad for England's bowlers—or, indeed, for England's batsmen—if the pitch were at least 22 metres. However,
1682
that is by the way. Does not the opposition to such implementation totally underestimate the young people in our country who are the ones we are doing this for? Is it not right that they are now taught in metric measures in school and that they have not the slightest difficulty coping with them? In the future, when they occupy the Benches of your Lordships' House, they will wonder what we old people were worrying about at this time.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Since 1974, primary schools have been teaching in metric units. I certainly find that my 14 year-old daughter has great difficulty understanding what an inch is now. However, we should not exaggerate the changes that have been made. From 1st January of this year we moved to the selling of alcohol—whisky and spirits—in bars by metric units. From the personal research I have been carrying out in the Bishops' Bar, your Lordships seem to have accommodated that change admirably.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Srebrenica.

Birmingham Assay Office Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Bill
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Bill, have consented to place their perogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. I hope that your Lordships will permit the small indulgence of a few words. It would be a discourtesy if I were to let the moment pass without paying due tribute to my noble friend Lord Courtown for the masterful way in which he steered the Bill to this stage. His assiduous and skilful handling of matters has been given its just reward, and I take this opportunity to congratulate him most warmly upon his new position. My noble friend has asked me to step into the breach vacated by his appointment. I am entirely happy so to do, secure in the knowledge that his sterling efforts have ensured that the Bill will be workable and effective, and that the ghost of Amendment No. 61, which caused my noble friend some agonies in Committee, will not haunt me.

1683
I should also take this opportunity on behalf of my noble friend to reiterate his gratitude to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and his department, to the Law Commission and to parliamentary counsel for their invaluable assistance. Thanks are also due to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and to the BRC and the BPF.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Northesk.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Northesk.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Pensions Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords,
I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (87) as first printed by the Commons.]
1 Clause 3, page 3, line 4, after 'force' insert 'by order'.
2 Clause 4, page 3, line 18, leave out 'or'.
3 Page 3, line 22, at end insert 'or
() where the trustee is a company or Scottish partnership and, if any director or, as the case may be, partner were a trustee, the Authority would have power to suspend him under paragraph (b),(c) or (e)'.
4 Page 3, line 42, after '(1)' insert `by order'.
5 Clause 5, page 4, line 5, leave out 'in the United Kingdom'.
6 Page 4, line 14, leave out 'in the United Kingdom'.
7 Page 4, line 22, leave out 'in the United Kingdom'.
8 Page 4, line 23, leave out from first 'given' to end of line 25 and insert 'to any person under this section may be given by delivering it to him or by leaving it at his proper address or by sending it to him by post; and, for the purposes of this subsection and section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 in its application to this subsection, the proper address of any person is his latest address known to the Authority.'.
9 Clause 10, page 6, line 1, after 'that' insert 'by reason of any act or omission'.
10 Page 6, line 3, leave out 'not exceeding a prescribed amount' and insert 'in respect of that act or omission not exceeding the maximum amount'.
11 Page 6, line 3, at end insert:
'(lA) In this section "the maximum amount" means?—

(a) £5,000 in the case of an individual and £50,000 in any other case, or

(b) such lower amount as may be prescribed in the case of an individual or in any other case,
1684
and the Secretary of State may by order amend paragraph (a) by substituting higher amounts for the amounts for the time being specified in that paragraph.'.

12 Page 6, line 4, leave out 'require' and insert 'provide for'.
13 Page 6, line 6, leave out 'a prescribed amount' and insert 'an amount specified in the regulations; and the regulations must specify different amounts in the case of individuals from those specified in other cases and any amount so specified may not exceed the amount for the time being specified in the case of individuals or, as the case may be, others in subsection (1A) (a).
() An order made under subsection (1A) or regulations made by virtue of subsection (2) do not affect the amount of any penalty recoverable under this section by reason of an act or omission occurring before the order or, as the case may be, regulations are made.'.
14 Clause 11, page 6, line 35, leave out 'subsection (6)' and insert 'the following provisions of this section'.
15 Page 6, line 41, leave out 'in the best' and insert 'necessary in order to protect the'.
16 Page 6, line 42, at end insert:
'(OA) The Authority may not make an order under this section on either of the grounds referred to in subsection (1) (a) or (b) unless they are satisfied that the winding up of the scheme—

(a) cannot be achieved otherwise than by means of such an order, or

(b) can only be achieved in accordance with a procedure which—

(i) is liable to be unduly complex or protracted, or

(ii) involves the obtaining of consents which cannot be obtained, or can only be obtained with undue delay or difficulty,

and that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make the order.'.
17 Page 7, line 13, at beginning insert 'except for the purpose of the Authority determining whether or not they are satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1A)'.
18 Clause 12, page 7, line 28, at end insert:
'() Subsection (1A) of section 11 applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that, but as if references to the Authority were to the appropriate authority.'.
19 Clause 14, page 8, line 12, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
'() that any act or omission of the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme was in contravention of section 35'.
20 Page 8, line 18, leave out 'transaction was entered into' and insert 'payment or distribution was made, or the act or omission occurred'.
21 Clause 15, page 8, line 29, leave out 'other'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 21. I also wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 43 to 45, 64, 99, 102, 129 to 131, 154, 172, 174 to 180, 238, 271, 273, 284 to 292, 294 to 296, 335, 337, 339, 353, 384 and 391. Noble Lords may think that that speech is almost long enough in itself without my going any further.
This is the first group of amendments with which we shall be dealing this afternoon. I know that the large number of amendments we have to deal with will not have escaped your Lordships' notice. Perhaps I can explain briefly why we need so many. We have brought some forward to meet commitments that were given

1685
both in your Lordships' House and in the other place. Many of the commitments were given by myself and some were given by my noble friend.
I am sure your Lordships do not need me to say what a difficult and complex subject we are dealing with. We have benefited greatly from input from the Occupational Pensions Joint Working Group; the Institute of Actuaries, the Faculty of Actuaries; the Association of Pensions Lawyers; the TUC; and many others. These amendments reflect a great deal of consultation that has been going on to try to make the provisions in the Bill work as well as possible.
Before I go into the detail of this group I should say that my department submitted a memorandum setting out the regulation-making powers in the Bill to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in January and of course that formed part of our discussion. The committee followed that up on 17th March giving details of changes in the regulation-making powers which had been made during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. The Bill finished its passage in the Commons last week and my officials wrote to the scrutiny committee with details of changes in the regulation-making powers on 10th July. This set out the effect of all the amendments that had been made during the Bill's passage through the Commons which affected powers to make delegated legislation.
I shall begin with the first group of amendments. The cement, so to speak, that binds together all the amendments in this group is that they all deal with the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. Amendments Nos. 1, 4, 43 and 99 are intended to make it clear that revocations by the authority in respect of prohibitions, suspensions and disqualifications of trustees are orders and will need to be made in writing.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are needed to ensure that the authority can take action to protect a scheme while proceedings, which could result in a person and in consequence of this his company or Scottish partnership being automatically disqualified from acting as a trustee, make their way through the appropriate court. Amendment No. 44 is designed to ensure that the trustees who have been disqualified by the authority because they were incapable because of a mental disorder, or are a company that is going through liquidation, are included in the registry of disqualified trustees. Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 follow debate in the other place about whether OPRA should be obliged to issue the notice of a prohibition order to the last known address of a trustee resident overseas. These amendments require notice to be sent to the last known address, wherever it is.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 13, 45, 238 and 273 relate to the authority's power to impose civil penalty fines. Amendment No. 9 makes it clear that the authority can impose a civil penalty only for an act or omission which breaches a particular obligation. Amendment No. 45 extends the principle that a trustee will not be permitted to use scheme assets to reimburse himself for fines imposed by the courts or for any civil penalties imposed by the authority under the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
1686
Amen0dments Nos. 10 to 13, 238 and 273 deal with matters raised in your Lordships' House about the maximum level of civil penalties which the authority is able to impose. We have considered these matters carefully, including the comments made by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. We have concluded that it would be appropriate for the maximum amounts of fines to appear on the face of the Bill. These amendments set down the maximum penalties, which can be uprated from time to time by order. Any order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedures, so the maximum penalties cannot be increased without being debated by Parliament.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 18 have been introduced in response to concerns expressed by your Lordships that the provisions of Clause 11 might allow the authority too much freedom to wind-up a scheme where the action was not essential to protect the scheme members' interests. These amendments ensure that the provisions mirror the existing powers of the Occupational Pensions Board. They allow the authority to entertain an application to wind up a scheme under Clause 11(1) (a) and (b) if the wind-up could not be achieved in any other way; if it can only be achieved by an unduly complex or protracted process; or if it involves obtaining consents that are unavailable. Similar limitations will apply to orders made to wind up public service schemes under Clause 12. Amendment No. 15 ensures that the authority can wind up a scheme under Clause 11(1) (c) where this is the only option available to protect scheme members' interests.
Amendment No. 271 responds to concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It ensures that all orders made by appropriate authorities in respect of public service schemes under Clauses 12 and 66 will have to be statutory instruments made by the negative resolution procedure. This also meets a point made by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
Amendment No. 21 will enable the authority to require the trustees of any trust scheme to send a copy of a statement prepared by the authority to the scheme members. We believe that this is necessary because there are likely to be occasions when it would not be appropriate to hold back a statement for issue with an annual report. This could cause undue delay or the report may not be circulated widely enough.
Amendment No. 64 tightens the criminal offence in Clause 35 so that it is more serious than the breach that carries a civil penalty. It makes it a criminal offence for a trustee or a manager of an occupational pension scheme to agree to a determination to make an investment that breaches the provisions on employer related investments. We believe that those who agree to use scheme assets in breach of these provisions should be liable to prosecution. Such action is, in many ways, equivalent to theft, and there must be a strong deterrent.
Amendment No. 102 will allow the authority to impose a civil penalty under Clause 10 on anyone who fails, in cases where payments of benefit to scheme members are made by an employer, to place any payments not made to members within a prescribed period into a separate bank account. Amendment No. 154 will make a failure by an employer to make

1687
payments by the date required in the schedule of contributions subject to Clause 10. We believe it is a serious matter if contributions are not paid according to the payment schedule. That is why we believe that an employer in breach of the requirements should be subject to a penalty.
Amendments Nos. 174 to 180 relate to the authority's information gathering and disclosure powers. Clause 93(2) is brought into line with other criminal offences in the Bill. Refusal to comply with the request from the authority to provide information will remain an offence, but a defence will be available if refusal can be justified as being reasonable in the circumstances.
The authority will have a clear right to have access to all documents that may be relevant in investigating a scheme. It can require a document to be produced even though a third party may have legal claim to it. The more flexible use of restricted information provided by the authority by allowing people holding such information to disclose it further is given, but only where the authority consents.
Amendment No. 180 ensures that the Inland Revenue is not prevented from providing relevant information to the authority.
Amendment No. 292 gives the Secretary of State the ability to make staff and other resources available to the authority. That will ensure that it has sufficient flexibility to be able to adjust its staffing levels quickly in response to unexpected workload changes. That could be particularly important in the vital early years of operation.
Amendments Nos. 335, 339 and 384 are consequential upon the dissolution of the Occupational Pensions Board.
That is a brief summary of the main provisions of this group of amendments. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the book—which is the only way to describe it—we have produced and made available in the Printed Paper Office which explains each of the amendments in turn. Those notes on the amendments are available to your Lordships. We have tried to make them as user friendly as possible. There is a table of contents at the front and an index of the amendments at the back. Therefore, I hope that between my brief explanation and those more detailed notes provided by my department your Lordships will have a clear idea of what the various amendments add up to. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 21.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I apologise for coming belatedly into the consideration of the Bill, having intervened only on one matter at an earlier stage. However, it caught my ear when the Minister referred to a certain amendment which was designed to ensure that the Inland Revenue was not prevented from giving information. That is a matter that we considered in considerable detail and force on the Child Support Bill. I can see the noble Lord smiling. The confidentiality of the Inland Revenue is a matter of great importance. Can the noble Lord expand on what he said?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, when I looked through the amendments I wondered whether the noble and learned Lord would allow the issue to pass without raising that question, which we debated at some length in a slightly different context on the Child Support Bill.
Perhaps I may explain that Amendment No. 180 removes a potential barrier to the exchange of information between the authority and the Inland Revenue. Section 182 of the Finance Act 1989 sets out the various duties of confidentiality owed by the board and staff of the Inland Revenue. However, the Board of the Inland Revenue and its staff are also subject to a duty of secrecy by virtue of Section 6 of the Taxes Management Act 1970. The amendment ensures that the Inland Revenue is not prevented from providing relevant information to the authority.
Perhaps I can help the noble and learned Lord by assuring him that the provisions for disclosure respect the usual conventions of confidentiality with regard to the Inland Revenue.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
22 Clause 16, page 8, line 37, after 'secure' insert '(a)'.
23 Page 8, line 39, after 'and' insert:
'(b) that those arrangements, and the appropriate rules, are'.
24 Page 8, line 43, leave out from 'provide' to end of line 16 on page 9 and insert:

'(a) for any person who has been nominated and selected in accordance with the appropriate rules to become a trustee by virtue of his selection, and

(b) for the removal of such a person to require the agreement of all the other trustees.

() Where a vacancy for a member-nominated trustee is not filled because insufficient nominations are received, the arrangements must provide for the filling of the vacancy, or for the vacancy to remain, until the expiry of the next period in which persons may be nominated and selected in accordance with the appropriate rules.'.
25 Page 9, line 20, leave out from 'years' to end of line 22.
26 Page 9, line 32, leave out from 'trustee' to end of line 35 and insert but, for the purposes of this subsection—

(a) any provision made by an order under section 8(4), and

(b) section 22(2),

shall be disregarded'.
27 Clause 17, page 9, line 42, leave out from 'scheme' to 'and' in line 3 on page 10 and insert:
'(b) the arrangements referred to in the proposal are for the time being approved under the statutory consultation procedure'.
28 After Clause 17, insert the following clause:—
Corporate trustees: member-nominated directors
`.—(1) Where a company is a trustee of a trust scheme and the employer is connected with the company or prescribed conditions are satisfied, the company must, subject to section (Corporate trustees: exceptions), secure—

(a) that such arrangements for persons selected by the members of the scheme to be directors of the company as are required by this section are made, and

(b) that those arrangements, and the appropriate rules, are implemented.

(2) Persons who become directors under the arrangements required by subsection (1) are referred to in this Part as "member-nominated directors".
(3) The arrangements must provide—

(a) for any person who has been nominated and selected in accordance with the appropriate rules to become a director by virtue of his selection, and

(b) for the removal of such a person to require the agreement of all the other directors.

(4) Where a vacancy for a member-nominated director is not filled because insufficient nominations are received, the arrangements must provide for the filling of the vacancy, or for the vacancy to remain, until the expiry of the next period in which persons may be nominated and selected in accordance with the appropriate rules.
(5) The arrangements must provide for the selection of a person as a member-nominated director to have effect for a period of not less than three nor more than six years.
(6) The arrangements must provide for the number of member-nominated directors to be—

(a) at least two or (if the scheme comprises less than 100 members) at least one, and

(b) at least one-third of the total number of directors;

but the arrangements must not provide for a greater number of member-nominated directors than that required to satisfy that minimum unless the employer has given his approval to the greater number.
(7) The arrangements must provide that, if a member-nominated director who was a member of the scheme when he was appointed ceases to be a member of the scheme, he ceases to be a director by virtue of that fact.
(8) Where this section applies to a company which is—

(a) a trustee of two or more trust schemes, and

(b) a wholly-owned subsidiary (within the meaning of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985) of a company which is the employer in relation to those schemes,

the following provisions apply as if those schemes were a single scheme and the members of each of the schemes were members of that scheme, that is: the preceding provisions of this section, section (Selection, and eligibility, of member-nominated trustees and directors) and section 18(7).'.
29 Insert the following clause:—
Corporate trustees: exceptions
'.—(1) Section (Corporate trustees: member-nominated directors) does not apply to a company which is a trustee of a trust scheme if—

(a) a proposal has been made by the employer for the continuation of existing arrangements, or the adoption of new arrangements, for selecting the directors of the company,

(b) the arrangements referred to in the proposal are for the time being approved under the statutory consultation procedure, and

(c) such other requirements as may be prescribed are satisfied.

(2) Where—

(a) by virtue of subsection (1), section (Corporate trustees: member-nominated directors) does not apply to a company which is a trustee of a trust scheme, and

(b) the employer's proposal was for the adoption of new arrangements which, in consequence of subsection (1) (b), are adopted,

the company must secure that the proposed arrangements are made and implemented.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the arrangements for selecting the directors of a company include all matters relating to the continuation in office of the existing directors,
1690
the selection or appointment of new directors and the terms of their appointments and any special rules for decisions to be made by particular directors.
(4) Section (Corporate trustees: member-nominated directors) does not apply to a company which is a trustee of a trust scheme if the scheme falls within a prescribed class.
(5) Section 10 applies to any employer who—

(a) makes such a proposal as is referred to in subsection (1) (a), but

(b) fails to give effect to the statutory consultation procedure.'.

30 Insert the following clause:—
Selection, and eligibility, of member-nominated trustees and directors
'.—(1) For the purposes of sections 16 to 18, the appropriate rules are rules which—

(a) make the provision required or authorised by this section, and no other provision, and

(b) are for the time being approved under the statutory consultation procedure or, if no rules are for the time being so approved, are prescribed rules;

and the arrangements required by section 16 or (Corporate trustees: member-nominated directors) to be made must not make any provision which is required or authorised to be made by the rules.
(2) The appropriate rules—

(a) must determine the procedure for the nomination and selection of a person to fill a vacancy as a member-nominated trustee, and

(b) may determine, or provide for the determination of, the conditions required of a person for filling such a vacancy.

(3) The appropriate rules must provide for a member-nominated trustee to be eligible for re-selection at the end of his period of service.
(4) Where a vacancy for a member-nominated trustee is not filled because insufficient nominations are received, the appropriate rules must provide for determining the next period in which persons may be nominated and selected in accordance with the rules, being a period ending at a prescribed time.
(5) The appropriate rules must provide that, where the employer so requires, a person who is not a member of the scheme must have the employer's approval to qualify for selection as a member-nominated trustee.
(6) Where section (Corporate trustees: member-nominated directors) applies to a trust scheme, references in this section to a member-nominated trustee include a member-nominated director.'.
31 Clause 18, page 10, line 28, after first 'implemented' insert `or the appropriate rules'.
32 Page 10, line 30, at end insert:
`() If, in the case of a company which is a trustee of a trust scheme—

(a) such arrangements as are required by section (Corporate trustees: member-nominated directors)(1) or (Corporate trustees: exceptions)(2) to be made have not been made, or

(b) arrangements required by section (Corporate trustees: member-nominated directors)(1) or (Corporate trustees: exceptions)(2) to be implemented, or the appropriate rules, are not being implemented,

sections 3 and 10 apply to the company.'.
33 Page 10, line 31, after 'arrangements' insert 'or rules'.
34 Page 10, line 38, leave out 'or 17(2)' and insert & 17(2), (Corporate trustees: member-nominated directors)(1) or (Corporate trustees: exceptions)(2)'.
35 Page 10, line 39, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:

1691
`() trustees or directors are required to be selected in pursuance of the appropriate rules'.
36 Page 10, line 41, leave out from 'when' to end of line 3 on page 11 and insert 'any approval under the statutory consultation procedure—
() of the appropriate rules, or
() of arrangements for selecting the trustees of a scheme, or the directors of a company, given on a proposal by the employer.'.
37 Page 11, line 5, leave out & 17' and insert 'to (Selection, and eligibility, of member-nominated trustees and directors)'.
38 Page 11, line 7, leave out & 17' and insert 'to (Selection, and eligibility, of member-nominated trustees and directors)'.
39 Page 11, line 9, at end insert:
`(7) For the purposes of this and those sections—

(a) approval of the appropriate rules, or of arrangements, under the statutory consultation procedure must be given by—

(i) the active and pensioner members of the scheme, and

(ii) if the trustees so determine, such deferred members of the scheme as the trustees may determine,

taken as a whole, and

(b) references to the approval of the appropriate rules, or of arrangements under section 17 or (Corporate trustees: exceptions), by any persons under the statutory consultation procedure are to prescribed conditions in respect of those rules or, as the case may be, arrangements being satisfied in the case of those persons in pursuance of the procedure, and those conditions may relate to the extent to which those persons have either endorsed, or not objected to, the rules or, as the case may be, arrangements.'.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22 to 39 en bloc. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 46 to 50, 63, 70, 128 and 309 to 312. This group of amendments concerns trustees. The most important changes concern the provisions for member-nominated trustees.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with the leave of the House and the consent of the Minister, perhaps I may make a suggestion. As he goes through the amendments the Minister gives the number of an amendment and then explains its purpose. It would be very helpful if at the end of each explanation he would repeat the number of the amendment to which he referred. There are so many amendments that by the time we realise which are the significant ones we have forgotten which number they were. The index, however friendly and useful, does not relate to the content of the amendments but merely gives their numbers. I believe that it would help the House if he would do that so that noble Lords can refer quickly to the amendments when so many are moved at once.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am happy to try to oblige the noble Baroness. If I forget at any point perhaps she will remind me.
The member-nominated trustee provisions are an integral and vital part of this reform package. We are fully committed to the benefits of appointing member-nominated trustees. Our overriding objective has been to make them a requirement for all schemes.
1692
However, we recognise that some schemes already have perfectly satisfactory arrangements and we do not want our proposals to force them to abandon those arrangements if scheme members are happy with them. That is why we made provision for schemes to opt out of the requirement, but only with the approval of scheme members.
The reason for the changes which we have brought forward in these provisions is that there was some ambiguity in Clause 16. This left it unclear about which aspects of the member-nominated trustee requirements could be left to the discretion of the existing trustees and which must be approved by members under the statutory consultation procedure.
Our concern was that Clause 16 could be interpreted to mean that the trustees alone might be responsible for determining the detailed composition of the trust board and that members' approval could be restricted to procedural matters concerning the actual nomination and selection of member-nominated trustees. The trustees could have determined, for example, that only active members were eligible to be trustees, leaving the members with the option of accepting or rejecting the proposed mechanics of the nomination and selection process. That is certainly not what we want. Scheme members should be able to say no to rules which are not acceptable to them and to ask their trustees to think again. They must be free to require arrangements which provide for a pensioner trustee if that is what they want. Amendment No. 30 in particular reflects our policy clearly and unambiguously. However, I must make it crystal clear that there is no change in policy.
We have also made it clear that where there are corporate trustees, members should have a right to nominate at least a third of the directors. Scheme members should not be deprived of the right to nominate as directors at least some individuals whose perspective differs from that of the employer. So for these schemes we are providing broadly similar arrangements to those for other schemes through Amendments Nos. 28 and 29. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 refer to corporate trustee members and run in parallel with the considerable discussions we had on trustee hoard members in ordinary schemes.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 46 and 47, these affect the provisions dealing with decisions taken by trust boards on a majority basis. Concerns were expressed about that in your Lordships' House. We have concluded that it would be wrong for trustees to be able to override scheme rules in all cases, even where, for example, the rules currently provide for unanimity or for a weighted majority in respect of decisions on particular matters.
Therefore, we have now brought forward amendments which ensure that where scheme rules already provide for voting to be other than by majority, those rules would not automatically be overridden. We believe that that will achieve the basic objective of the PLRC recommendation in respect of schemes which do not specify how decisions should be taken and which are at the moment required under trust law to operate only by unanimity. That is achieved in Amendments Nos. 46 and 47.

1693
We have also brought forward in Amendment No. 63 a new clause to give effect to the recommendation made by Mr. Justice Lindsey in the High Court judgment on the case of Manning v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Holdings Limited. His recommendation referred to the dilemma of a member trustee with a conflict of interest and the general rule of equity that a person in a fiduciary position is not permitted to benefit from his or her position. The recommendation was brought into sharp focus by the requirement to appoint member-nominated trustees.
The Drexel case has been the subject of debate in both your Lordships' House and the other place. It highlighted a number of issues which led us to reconsider. We have listened carefully to the views of pensions experts and others and have brought forward Amendment No. 63. I express my particular gratitude to the Association of Pension Lawyers and to Professor Hayton, of Kings College Law School, for their advice. The new clause in Amendment No. 63 aims to protect member trustees so that they may take discretionary decisions with confidence and at the same time enjoy any incidental benefits that arise from them.
Another change I am pleased to bring forward is Amendment No. 70, which provides protection to pension scheme trustees against victimisation by their employers. It overstates the matter a little to say that I was harried by the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. They debated strongly with me about this need.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We pressed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baronesses pressed me strongly on this need. As I indicated, I was reflecting on it and Amendment No. 70 was brought forward in the Commons. It means that pension scheme trustees will be given a right to complain to an industrial tribunal if they are dismissed or are subject to any other adverse treatment in connection with their duties as trustees. This is not subject to any qualifying length of service, hours of work or age threshold. The amendment is in response to the strong arguments put forward in your Lordships' House and in the other place, and we have been persuaded that it is necessary.
We are confident—as I said in the debate—that very few employers indeed will ever be tempted to act in such an irresponsible manner but we also believe that we must ensure that employee trustees can carry out their important duties confident in the knowledge that they have the protection afforded under employment protection legislation. That sketches out the main effect of the group of amendments. I commend the amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22 to 39.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if I trespass on the rules of the House perhaps noble Lords will forgive me. Is the Minister encouraging us at this time to comment on the other amendments he moved in the grouping, although they are not in the block? I presume that when the Minister moves the amendments later he
1694
will merely say that they have been spoken to. If this is the opportune time, I believe that I speak for the whole House in welcoming the fact that the Government reconsidered their opposition to the amendment pressed by my noble friend Lady Turner in Committee and at Report stage to give trustees protection. It was clearly one of the lessons to be learned from the Maxwell scandals. It was precisely because trustees did not have the confidence that they could speak out and protect their position as employees that so much of what could have been heard was not said.
We welcome the fact that the Government took on board the arguments brought forward and as a result we can hope that the trustees will join with OPRA in being whistle blowers in those unfortunate circumstances where it is necessary.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I wholly agree with what the noble Baroness said and very much welcome the provision.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
40 Clause 24, page 14, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
'(2) Subsection (1) does not make a person who is a director, partner or employee of a firm of actuaries ineligible to act as an actuary of a trust scheme merely because another director, partner or employee of the firm is a trustee of the scheme.
(2A) Subsection (1) does not make a person who falls within a prescribed class or description ineligible to act as an auditor or actuary of a trust scheme.
(3) A person must not act as an auditor or actuary of a trust scheme if he is ineligible under this section to do so.'.
41 Clause 25, page 14, line 41, leave out from 'so' to 'are' in line
42 Page 14, line 44, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
'() Where—

(a) a trustee of a trust scheme acts as auditor or actuary of the scheme, or

(b) a person acts as auditor or actuary of a trust scheme when he is ineligible under section 24 to do so by reason of being connected with, or an associate of, a trustee of the scheme,

section 3 applies to the trustee.'.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 to 42 en bloc. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 65 to 69, 71 to 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 85 to 98, 100, 101, 187 and 235. We have always made clear that professional advisers have a crucial role to play in our reforms. Amendments Nos. 40 to 42 change the requirement that neither the scheme actuary nor the scheme auditor should act as trustees of the pension scheme. Nor can a person who is connected with, or is an associate of, the scheme actuary or auditor. We consider that it would be wrong for an auditor to audit a pension scheme for which one of his associates is a trustee.
However, we believe that a person who is a director, a partner or an employee of a firm of actuaries should not be ineligible to act as an actuary of a trust scheme simply because another director, partner or employee of the firm is a trustee of the scheme.

1695
Amendments Nos. 40 to 42 will allow regulations to permit a person who falls within a prescribed class not to be ineligible to act as an actuary. That will allow firms which provide package arrangements to continue to provide those services.
We have also brought forward Amendments Nos. 71 to 80, 82, and 85 to 91 to ensure that the requirement to appoint a scheme auditor and a scheme actuary can apply to all occupational pension schemes rather than just those which are trust based. We do not mean to require a scheme actuary when there is no need for such services. For example, unfunded public service schemes which are set up under statute and whose benefits are guaranteed will be exempted from the requirement to appoint a scheme actuary. So will most money purchase schemes. However, we shall now be able to ensure consistency throughout the Bill. We can ensure that all relevant occupational pension schemes, and not just trust based schemes, must appoint a scheme auditor and a scheme actuary and so benefit from the whistle blowing provisions of the Bill.
In Amendment No. 96 we have ensured that those involved in running a scheme will be protected from being sued for breach of confidentiality if they report a matter to the regulatory authority. That is designed primarily to protect those individuals who may be employees of the employer sponsoring the scheme whose contracts of employment may include confidentiality clauses. They might otherwise be inhibited from reporting matters of concern about the scheme to the authority. We shall exclude legal advice from this protection. So those involved in running schemes can continue to expect lawyers to treat their exchanges in confidence.
I believe that these and other amendments contained in the group will improve the Bill. I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 to 42.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister the intent of Amendment No. 40. I understand the purpose of it: that where the connections are fairly loose one should not rule out an entire firm because of package arrangements.
In the worst possible scenario, if an actuary or an accountant audits a scheme, and, as part of that job, may be required to whistle blow, if another partner in the firm is a trustee of that firm, will he feel free, able and empowered to whistle blow on a fellow partner who may be colluding with impropriety?
I realise that the provision refers to actuaries, but I understand that it also refers to auditors. I think that a conflict of interest could arise. It is asking one auditor to blow the whistle possibly on a partner in his own firm who acts as a trustee. How confident can the Minister be that the whistle blowing will be effective in those circumstances?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is complicated when so many amendments are grouped together. However, there is a distinction between an auditor and an actuary. Perhaps I may deal with the position about an auditor.
As I mentioned, we consider—I believe this is what the noble Baroness asks me—that it would be wrong for an auditor to audit a pension scheme for which one of his associates is a trustee. The role of an auditor is to provide an opinion on whether the accounts provide a true and fair view of the financial health of the scheme. The actuary's role is different. His job is to take a broad view of the scheme provided by some funding matters, valuations including statements and contribution levels and the calculation of transfer values. The actuary is not involved in matters of scheme security in quite the same way as the auditor. We do not believe that there is the same need to extend the bar to the firm by which the actuary is employed.
That is the position. There is a difference between the actuary and the auditor. Regardless of whatever relationships there may be, there is a statutory duty to whistle blow and there will be professional requirements to do so with disciplinary back up if it does not happen. I hope that with that explanation and assurance the noble Baroness is content.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we understand the explanation but that is not the same as saying that we like it. All the time we were debating the Bill many of us stressed again and again the inadequacy of the provision for whistle blowing. It remains inadequate. I find it difficult to believe that if a partner in a firm has a paid appointment in the organisation—even if it is as an actuary and not as an auditor—he, the potential whistle blower, will not be influenced. He is not likely to blow the whistle against a colleague in his own firm.
However, there is not much point in repeating the arguments that we made at great length during earlier proceedings on the Bill; but simply to remark that we are not satisfied with the solution.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
43 Clause 26, page 16, line 9, at beginning insert 'by order'.
44 Clause 27, page 16, line 43, after 26(3)' insert 'or (4)'.
45 Clause 28, page 17, line 6, at end insert 'or under section 168(4) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993'.
46 Clause 29, page 17, line 29, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
'() Decisions of the trustees of a trust scheme may, unless the scheme provides otherwise, be taken by agreement of a majority of the trustees.'.
47 Page 17, line 38, leave out from 'trustees' to 'by' in line 40 and insert:
'(a) the trustees may, unless the scheme provides otherwise,'.
48 Page 17, line 43, leave out 'meetings' and insert 'any occasions'.
49 Page 17, line 43, after 'must' insert 'unless the occasion falls within a prescribed class or description'.
50 Page 18, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert:
'() This section is subject to sections 8(4) (b), 16(3) (b) and 22(2).'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 43 to 50 en bloc. I spoke to them in an earlier debate.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 43 to 50.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
51 Clause 30, page 18, line 11, leave out from 'the' to 'under' in line 12 and insert 'function has been delegated'.
52 Page 18, leave out line 14.
53 Clause 31, page 18, line 29, leave out from beginning to 'except' in line 33 and insert:
'(2) Any discretion of the trustees of a trust scheme to make any decision about investments—

(a) may be delegated by or on behalf of the trustees to a fund manager to whom subsection (3) applies to be exercised in accordance with section 33, but

(b) may not otherwise be delegated'.

54 Page 18, line 44, at end insert 'or the person who made the delegation on their behalf has taken all such steps as are reasonable to satisfy himself'.
55 Page 18, line 45, leave out 'he' and insert 'the fund manager'.
56 Clause 31, Page 19, line 3, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
'(5) Subject to any restriction imposed by a trust scheme—

(a) the trustees may authorise two or more of their number to exercise on their behalf any discretion to make any decision about investments, and

(b) any such discretion may, where giving effect to the decision would not constitute carrying on investment business in the United Kingdom (within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986), be delegated by or on behalf of the trustees to a fund manager to whom subsection (3) does not apply to be exercised in accordance with section 33;

but in either case the trustees are liable for any acts or defaults in the exercise of the discretion if they would be so liable if they were the acts or defaults of the trustees as a whole.
() Section 30 does not prevent the exclusion or restriction of any liability of the trustees of a trust scheme for the acts or defaults of a fund manager in the exercise of a discretion delegated to him under subsection (5) (b) where the trustees have taken all such steps as are reasonable to satisfy themselves, or the person who made the delegation on their behalf has taken all such steps as are reasonable to satisfy himself—

(a) that the fund manager has the appropriate knowledge and experience for managing the investments of the scheme, and

(b) that he is carrying out his work competently and complying with section 33;
and subsection (2) of section 30 applies for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purposes of that section.'.

57 Clause 32, page 19, line 34, at end insert:
'() Neither the trust scheme nor the statement may impose restrictions (however expressed) on any power to make investments by reference to the consent of the employer.'.
58 Clause 33, page 20, line 9, leave out 'they have delegated any discretion' and insert 'any discretion has been delegated'.
59 Page 20, line 28, leave out 'fund manager' and insert 'the fund manager to whom any discretion has been delegated under section 31'.
60 Page 20, line 32, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:

'(a) where giving the advice constitutes carrying on investment business in the United Kingdom (within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986), advice—

(i) given by a person authorised under Chapter III of Part I of that Act,

(ii) given by a person exempted under Chapter
IV of that Part who, in giving the advice, is acting in the course of the business in respect of which he is exempt,

(iii) given by a person where, by virtue of paragraph 27 of Schedule 1 to that Act, paragraph 15 of that Schedule does not apply to giving the advice, or

(iv) given by a person who, by virtue of regulation 5 of the Banking Coordination (Second Council Directive) Regulations 1992, may give the advice though not authorised as mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) above'.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 60 en bloc. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 78, 81, 83 and 84. We now move on to amendments covering investments.
When we considered Clauses 30 to 33, a number of noble Lords expressed concern that they did not provide trustees with sufficiently wide powers to delegate their investment functions and therefore to administer their pension funds effectively. There was also concern that it could result in trustees being less willing to make investments, such as in property, which fall outside the scope of the Financial Services Act. I can recall the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, being very involved in the matter, as well as my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire.
I then promised your Lordships that we would look carefully at the issues and would introduce suitable amendments as necessary. The outcome is Amendments Nos. 53 to 56. They will enable trustees to continue to enjoy the benefits associated with wider powers of delegation, such as greater operational flexibility and reduced administration and operational costs. We have also introduced a number of consequential amendments.
Amendment No. 56 will enable trustees to continue to benefit from exemptions from liability, when they invest in areas outside the scope of the Financial Services Act, provided that proper care is taken in appointing and monitoring those managers. The group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 53 to 56, I believe meet the concerns which were expressed when we considered matters during our discussions on the Bill. Amendment No. 57 is intended to make it absolutely clear that Clause 32 makes the trustees responsible for deciding investment policy after taking appropriate professional advice and fully consulting the employer. That is in line with recommendation 46 of the Pension Law Review Committee.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that we have taken full account of the debates which we had at an earlier stage on these important issues. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 60.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
61 Clause 34, page 21, line 21, at end insert:
'() where the power is conferred by the scheme on the employer, the employer has asked for the power to be exercised, or consented to it being exercised, in the manner so proposed'.
62 After Clause 34, insert the following clause:
Power to defer winding up
'.—(1) If, apart from this section, the rules of a trust scheme would require the scheme to be wound up, the trustees may determine that the scheme is not for the time being to be wound up but that no new members are to be admitted to the scheme.
(2) Where the trustees make a determination under subsection (1), they may also determine—

(a) that no further contributions are to be paid towards the scheme, or

(b) that no new benefits are to accrue to, or in respect of, members of the scheme;

but this subsection does not authorise the trustees to determine, where there are accrued rights to any benefit, that the benefit is not to be increased.
(3) This section does not apply to—

(a) a money purchase scheme, or

(b) a scheme falling within a prescribed class or description.'.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 and 62. With those amendments I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 132 to 146 and Amendment No. 234.
These amendments are in a group of amendments that deal with surplus and wind up. Amendment No. 61 provides that trustees who wish to make a payment from surplus to the employer must ensure that the employer is content to receive it. Perhaps it will help to remind your Lordships that Clause 34 provides that in a scheme which permits a payment from surplus to the employer, the trustees alone will be able to decide whether or not to make such a payment. Trustees may exercise the power only where certain statutory requirements have been met.
One of the main conditions is that benefits must be increased annually, in line with inflation, up to a maximum of 5 per cent. for both past and future service. In defined benefit schemes, the employer stands behind the pension promise and funds accordingly. Most scheme rules give the employer the sole power to authorise improvements.
The Bill places a statutory obligation on employers to fund their schemes so that the benefits are protected. That is entirely reasonable if the employer controls the commitment to additional enhanced benefit. But it would be more difficult to justify if the employer can be faced with potential additional costs as a result of benefit increases which he has not agreed.
Amendment No. 61 therefore provides that the trustees must ensure that the employer is content to receive a payment from surplus and not act unilaterally. That will ensure that any consequent increase in benefits
1700
is approved by the employer and that the employer has the opportunity to weigh all the implications before accepting the payment.
Amendment No. 62 overrides scheme rules which require the scheme to wind up in certain circumstances. It will allow trustees to continue a scheme where they believe it would be in the interests of the members to do so. We believe that it is right that trustees of a properly funded scheme should be able to discharge their liabilities on a gradual basis as and when they crystallise. Members will be protected because the trustees can continue with the scheme only if it is in the best interests of the members.
Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 develop our intention that additional voluntary contributions should attract a high level of protection, even when they have been transferred from another pension scheme. I have accepted that it is right in principle that the first priority should be given to any pension rights attributable to additional voluntary contributions. I undertook to bring forward an amendment at a later stage to cater for all variations. These amendments redeem that commitment.
Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 deal with the priority to be accorded to dependants' benefits. An example would be of a pensioner who died during winding-up. His pension would attract a high priority under the Bill because it was in payment at the time winding-up commenced. But a widow's or widower's pension coming into payment after the date on which the winding-up commenced would appear to attract a lower priority. My noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire raised the point and I promised to consider it. These amendments make it clear that any contingent dependant's benefit is accorded the same priority as the scheme member's entitlement.
We were also concerned that the way in which the categories of preferential liabilities in the clause are set out could be interpreted as implying that accrued rights do not include provision for indexation. They do. However, misunderstandings could have arisen because accrued rights and indexation are treated separately in the clause. The amendments remove any potential ambiguity.
Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 add to the flexibility which Clause 68 gives trustees in the way they discharge scheme liabilities when a scheme winds up. The clause provides a range of options for discharging liabilities but it has been suggested that the option to purchase transfer credits in another scheme does not apply when it is in respect of an existing pension entitlement. That could be particularly important when an employer is merging schemes or is being taken over. In those circumstances, a transfer may be a suitable alternative to the purchase of an annuity for the discharge of pensioner liabilities.
Amendments Nos. 138 and 146 address the situation where the scheme has wound up, liabilities have crystallised and the value of any excess assets can be calculated precisely. Most scheme rules have clear provisions setting out exactly how assets should be allocated on wind-up. A small minority of schemes have wind-up rules which could in principle result in assets being left unallocated. There could be need for a court to

1701
determine whether the excess assets should be deployed to increase members' benefits to Inland Revenue limits, whether they should be paid to the employer or whether they should go to the Crown. The PLRC recommended that where scheme rules were clear on the allocation of scheme assets on wind-up they should not generally be interfered with.
It has been suggested to us that Clause 70 does not achieve the desired effect. It would in practice override scheme rules on allocating excess assets on scheme wind-up by effectively requiring the trustees to authorise benefit improvements up to Inland Revenue limits before any payment could be made to the employer. That is not what the PLRC recommended; and it is not what we intend.
Amendments Nos. 138 to 146 restructure Clause 70 so that clear scheme rules will be applied, subject to the additional constraint that limited price indexation must be awarded in respect of past and future service, and members must he notified and given an opportunity to make representations to the authority.
Amendment No. 234 introduces a new clause to provide new options for contracted out money purchase schemes which are in the process of winding up. It addresses concerns about the problems that many schemes have found in placing protected rights in appropriate homes. The new clause brings in new ways for discharging protected rights and will help trustees and managers to wind up schemes. It will enable insured schemes to secure protected rights through appropriate insurance policies. We believe that these measures will protect the interests of both the members and the taxpayer who has contributed to members' protected rights. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 and 62.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend clear up one point on Amendment No. 146? This appears to give power by regulations to modify a section of the Act. I should like to know whether those regulations are themselves subject to parliamentary control.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I have a question on the group of amendments relating to provisions on the wind-up of a scheme and the disbursement of surplus funds. I was not quite clear as to what the Minister meant in relation to Amendment No. 138. He mentioned that the surplus might go to make up benefits to scheme members to Inland Revenue limits, go to the employer or go to the Crown. I gathered that that would happen if there were no effective mechanisms or rules to determine what should happen to the surplus on wind-up. Can we be assured that the new amendments the Minister presents will ensure that surplus money in a scheme remains the property, if I may put it that way, of scheme members. It is well established that the funds in a scheme represent deferred pay and are therefore in the ownership of the members. Parliament accepted that prior to wind-up, if there is a surplus, some of that surplus can go to the employer on the basis that if there were a deficit the employer would have to make up the difference. While that might be contested, it is now accepted by Parliament. But on the
1702
wind-up of a scheme that situation does not pertain. Effectively, any liability that the employer might have is wiped out. Therefore any surplus left in the scheme after all the agreed benefits have been paid should remain the property of scheme members and be distributed in some fashion to them, not go to the employers.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: Perhaps I may make a few comments on the clutch of amendments on the priority clauses on wind-up; namely Amendments Nos. 132 to 135. I am pleased to have the Minister's response on the improved priority clause on treatment of additional voluntary contributions and for dealing with contingent liabilities. However, I remain concerned about the changing of this priority clause in so far as it affects pensions in payment and pensions increases which are attached to those particular pensions.
I spoke on this matter at some length previously in the House, and I do not wish to rehearse the whole argument. There is increasingly widespread concern about the diminution and, as it were, the weakening in part of the position of accrued rights. Bearing in mind that the Bill, at least in part, deals with the security of accrued rights, it is somewhat strange to find that pension increases and payment will not be treated as a prior liability. That is the situation as I understand it.
There are some practical difficulties with the Bill as it stands. It is not clear how pension increases which have already been bought out with insurance companies could be unravelled in the event of the wind-up of a scheme where those annuities have been bought out in the name of the trustees. I am dealing with a scheme at the moment in relation to which I am trying to assign the annuities bought out by the trustees to the members. I am having considerable difficulties with the insurance company involved, which is trying to change the terms of the contract, and even to weaken that particular contract still further. Therefore I have some concerns.
As the Bill stands at the moment, trustees who have bought out annuities in their own name for pensioners would be advised to look at assigning those policies to the individual annuities so that there is no danger, no matter how unlikely it is, that in future schemes will go into wind-up in deficit. I do not believe that this clause was fully debated in another place. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments. I hope that he can offer some words of comfort.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support the remarks of the noble Earl. The Minister will no doubt recall that I raised the whole question of pensioners and their order in priorities in the event of wind-up. I was very concerned that the order seemed to have been reversed, with pensioners now appearing at the bottom of the list.
I understood the Minister to say during his presentation of these amendments that existing rules would not be overridden. It is to try to maintain rights that exist in current rules that I am most concerned. There are schemes that have a priorities rule which puts pensioners higher up the list than was proposed in the Bill. If that will still remain the situation where rules are in force, that at least would he a more satisfactory position. Perhaps the Minister would care to elucidate.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may start with the simplest of the questions I was asked; namely, that from my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Amendment No. 146 amends Clause 71 to enable regulations to modify the application of the clause. An example of the way in which we intend to use the power is to enable an individual section of an industry-wide scheme to be treated as a scheme in its own right. The power is similar to that for the other winding-up clauses in the Bill. It will be done by regulations, using the negative procedure. That is our intention.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend repeat what he said? Did he say "using the negative procedure"? I did not hear what he said.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords, I did say that it would be done using the negative resolution procedure.
To turn to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, most schemes have clear and carefully balanced provisions in place setting out exactly how scheme assets should be allocated on wind-up. Only a small minority of schemes have wind-up rules that could in principle result in assets being left unallocated. As I said, this can mean that when such a scheme winds up there is a need for a court to determine whether the excess assets should be deployed to increase members' benefits to the Inland Revenue limits or paid to the employer if he can establish a claim under what I gather is called "resultant trust" or go to the Crown as bona vacantia. No doubt the noble Lord understands exactly what that means.
4 p.m.
His argument may have been based on a slightly false premise. The money in a pension fund is not deferred pay. Once members' benefits are fully secured, any excess assets should be distributed according to the scheme rules, which could include payment to the employer. That is what the PLRC said and that seems the right course to us. That is what Amendments Nos. 138 to 146 will ensure. It has been debated quite fully during the passage of the Bill, both in this Chamber and in the other place.
I hope that that explanation will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that in the case of wind-up, the great majority of pension funds will already have clearly defined rules on what they do with the money and anything they have left over.
I come to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I appreciate the concerns expressed by my noble friend. Indeed, we had some considerable debate on the question of protecting the interests of pensioners in those circumstances. If a scheme is funded to at least a level of the MFR, pensioners' rights, including to indexation, will of course be protected. My noble friend was concerned about what would happen if a scheme winds up under-funded. We hope that that will not happen but, if it does, I am afraid that inevitably some members will lose out.
1704
The clause protects pensioners by making the continuation of pensions in payment at their current level the top priority after AVCs. It also protects them through the proposed basis for valuing accrued rights under this clause, which will entail the rights of pensioners and those close to retirement being valued on a relatively conservative basis. Beyond that, the clause does indeed incorporate the outcome of some hard choices. It is possible that, as a result of this clause, some pensioners' future pension increases will be reduced. But that is fairer than the current situation in which those close to retirement can be left with a very severely reduced pension at a stage in life when they are not in a position to do anything about it. Those of your Lordships who were with me in the long hours of debate on the Pensions Bill will remember that we discussed that particular balance in some detail.
We believe that all that is consistent with the general philosophy of the Bill, which is to protect all accrued rights, whether derived from service before or after 1997. It does not represent a retrospective reduction in pensioners' rights. It merely ensures that if a scheme winds up, and is unable to secure its members' rights in full, the pain is shared on an equitable basis with a bias towards pensioners' interests.
My noble friend will also be reassured to hear that a transitional order of preferential liabilities will apply over the period until the MFR is fully in place. This will give higher protection to the rights of existing pensioners, including to indexation, and to accrued GMP rights. Therefore, it will avoid any sudden change in the position of pensioners or those with substantial contracted out rights. The extent to which rights are covered by the preferential liabilities in this clause will increase in line with the build-up of funds in schemes under the MFR.
I trust that that reassures my noble friend. I believe that we have struck the right balance in this difficult area. However, I have to say to him, at the risk of opening a Pandora's Box, that one of the advantages of regulations in difficult areas of this kind is that, if experience proves us wrong, the clause contains powers to modify the preferential liabilities to achieve what might be considered, should something happen in the future, a more satisfactory outcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked me whether the Bill would override existing scheme rules. The Bill will override scheme rules in establishing a new statutory priority order. It is the scheme rules on distributing excess assets on wind-up which will be left in place. The new priority order will, we believe, produce a fairer distribution of assets, if a scheme winds up under-funded with, as I said, a bias towards protecting pensioners.
I hope that I have answered the points that were made. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to say to those noble Lords who are very interested in this complicated matter that if anybody comes across anything or needs clarification I should be more than happy to correspond with him over the Summer Recess. With those remarks, I hope that the House will accept the amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
63 After Clause 34, insert the following clause:
Exercise of powers by member trustees
'.No rule of law that a trustee may not exercise the powers vested in him so as to give rise to a conflict between his personal interest and his duties to the beneficiaries shall apply to a trustee of a trust scheme, who is also a member of the scheme, exercising the powers vested in him in any manner, merely because their exercise in that manner benefits, or may benefit, him as a member of the scheme.'.
64 Clause 35, page 22, line 39, leave out from beginning to 'is' in line 40 and insert 'If any resources of an occupational pension scheme are invested in contravention of subsection (1), any trustee or manager who agreed in the determination to make the investment'.
65 Clause 36, page 23, line 7, leave out 'audited accounts' and insert 'accounts audited by the auditor'.
66 Page 23, line 8, leave out 'an' and insert 'the'.
67 Page 23, line 9, leave out 'an' and insert 'the'.
68 Page 23, line 25, at end insert 'in the case of occupational pension schemes to which section 41 does not apply'.
69 Page 23, line 32, leave out from beginning to 'make' and insert 'Regulations shall make provision for referring to an industrial tribunal any question whether an organisation is such a trade union as is mentioned in subsection (4) (d) and may'.
70 After Clause 40, insert the following clause:
Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed
'.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that, being a trustee of a trust scheme which relates to his employment, the employee performed (or proposed to perform) any functions as such a trustee.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal, except where an employee is dismissed in circumstances in which, by virtue of section 142 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act"), section 54 of that Act does not apply to the dismissal.
(3) Sections 22B and 22C of the 1978 Act (which relate to proceedings brought by an employee on the grounds that he has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of section 22A of that Act) shall have effect as if the reference in section 22B (1) to section 22A included a reference to subsection (1).
(4) In the following provisions of the 1978 Act—

(a) section 129 (remedy for infringement of certain rights),

(b) section 141(2) (employee ordinarily working outside Great Britain), and

(c) section 150 and Schedule 12 (death of employee or employer),
any reference to Part II of that Act includes a reference to subsection (1).

(5) The dismissal of an employee by an employer shall be regarded for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act as unfair if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for it is that, being a trustee of a trust scheme which relates to his employment, the employee performed (or proposed to perform) any functions as such a trustee.
(6) Where the reason or the principal reason for which an employee was selected for dismissal was that he was redundant, but it is shown—

(a) that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by him and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and

1706

(b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in subsection (5),

then, for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair.
(7) Section 54 of the 1978 Act (right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed) applies to a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of subsection (5) or (6) regardless of the period for which the employee has been employed and of his age; and accordingly section 64(1) of that Act (which provides a qualifying period and an upper age limit) does not apply to such a dismissal.
(8) Any provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not) shall be void in so far as it purports—

(a) to exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this section, or

(b) to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to an industrial tribunal by virtue of any provision of this section.

(9) Subsection (8) does not apply to an agreement to refrain from presenting or continuing with a complaint where—

(a) a conciliation officer has taken action under section 133(2) or (3) of the 1978 Act (general provisions as to conciliation) or under section 134(1), (2) or (3) (conciliation in case of unfair dismissal) of that Act, or

(b) the conditions regulating compromise agreements under the 1978 Act (as set out in section 140(3) of that Act) are satisfied in relation to the agreement.

(10) In this section, "dismissal" has the same meaning as in Part V of the 1978 Act.
(11) Section 153 of the 1978 Act (general interpretation) has effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that Act.'.
71 Clause 41, page 25, line 16, leave out 'trust' and insert 'occupational pension'.
72 Page 25, line 17, after 'trustees' insert 'or managers'.
73 Page 25, line 20, after 'trustees' insert 'or managers'.
74 Page 25, line 22, leave out 'trust' and insert 'occupational pension'.
75 Page 25, line 24, after 'by' insert 'or on behalf of.
76 Page 25, line 24, after 'trustees' insert 'or managers'.
77 Page 25, line 25, leave out 'a trust' and insert 'an occupational pension'.
78 Page 25, line 25, leave out from 'person' to 'to' in line 29 and insert:

'(a) is appointed otherwise than by the trustees or managers as legal adviser or to exercise any prescribed functions in relation to the scheme, or

(b) is appointed otherwise than by or on behalf of the trustees or managers as a fund manager,

sections 3 and 10 apply'.

79 Page 25, line 29, after 'trustee' insert 'and section 10 applies to any manager'.
80 Page 25, line 31, leave out 'a trust' and insert 'an occupational pension'.
81 Page 25, line 32, leave out from 'actuary' to 'referred' in line 35 and insert 'and legal adviser appointed by the trustees or managers,
() any fund manager appointed by or on behalf of the trustees or managers, and
() any person appointed by the trustees or managers to exercise any of the functions referred to in subsection (3) (a), are'.
82 Page 25, line 36, at beginning insert 'This section does not apply to an occupational pension scheme falling within a prescribed class or description and'.
83 Page 25, line 41, leave our from 'which' to end of line 42 and insert 'professional advisers may be appointed and removed'.
84 Page 25, line 43, leave out from 'which' to '(including' in line 44 and insert 'professional advisers may be appointed'.
85 Page 26, line 1, after 'trustees' insert 'or managers'.
86 Page 26, line 3, leave out 'a trust' and insert 'an occupational pension'.
87 Page 26, line 6, after 'trustee' insert 'and section 10 applies to any manager'.
88 Page 26, line 8, leave out 'trust' and insert 'occupational pension'.
89 Page 26, line 11, after 'trustees' insert 'or managers'.
90 Page 26, line 13, after 'trustees' insert 'or managers'.
91 Page 26, line 15, at end insert:
'() If in the case of an occupational pension scheme a person fails to comply with any duty imposed under subsection (9) (a), section 10 applies to him.
() If in the case of an occupational pension scheme any duty imposed under subsection (9) (b) is not complied with, sections 3 and 10 apply to any trustee, and section 10 applies to any manager, who has failed to take all such steps as are reasonable to secure compliance.'.
92 Clause 42, page 26, line 16, leave out 'trust' and insert 'occupational pension'.
93 Page 26, line 19, after 'trustees' insert 'or managers'.
94 Page 26, line 26, leave out 'trust' and insert 'occupational pension'.
95 Page 26, line 29, leave out 'trust' and insert 'occupational pension'.
96 Page 26, line 31, at end insert:
'(3A) If in the case of any occupational pension scheme any professional adviser (other than the auditor or actuary), any trustee or manager or any person involved in the administration of the scheme has reasonable cause to believe as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), he may give a report of the matter to the Authority.
(3B) In the case of any such scheme, no duty to which any such adviser, trustee or manager or other person is subject shall be regarded as contravened merely because of any information or opinion contained in a report under this section; but this subsection does not apply to any information disclosed in such a report by the legal adviser of an occupational pension scheme if he would be entitled to refuse to produce a document containing the information in any proceedings in any court on the grounds that it was the subject of legal professional privilege or, in Scotland, that it contained a confidential communication made by or to an advocate or solicitor in that capacity.
(3C) Subsections (1) to (3B) apply to any occupational pension scheme to which section 41 applies.'.
97 Page 26, line 37, leave out 'trust' and insert 'occupational pension'.
98 Page 26, line 39, leave out 'trust scheme or all trust' and insert 'occupational pension scheme or all occupational pension'.
99 Page 26, line 43, after 'subsections' insert 'by order'.
100 Page 26, line 45, leave out 'a trust' and insert 'an occupational pension'.
101 Page 27, line 2, leave out 'a trust' and insert 'an occupational pension'.
102 Clause 43, Page 27, line 35, after '(3)' insert 'or (5)'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 63 to 102 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 63 to 102.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
103 Clause 45, page 28, line 31, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3A)'.
104 Page 28, line 39, leave out from 'scheme' to and' in line 40.
105 Page 28, line 45, leave out from 'it' to second 'is' in line 46.
106 Page 28, line 47, at end insert 'or, in the case of money purchase benefits, to payments in respect of employment carried on on or after the appointed day'.
107 Page 29, line 2, at end insert 'or, as the case may be, to payments in respect of employment carried on'.
108 Page 29, line 5, at end insert:
'(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply to a pension under an occupational pension scheme if the rules of the scheme require—

(a) the annual rate of the pension, or

(b) if only part of the pension is attributable to pensionable service or, as the case may be, to payments in respect of employment carried on on or after the appointed day, so much of the annual rate as is attributable to that part,

to be increased at intervals of not more than twelve months by at least the relevant percentage and the scheme complies with any prescribed requirements.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A) the relevant percentage is—

(a) the percentage increase in the retail prices index for the reference period, being a period determined, in relation to each periodic increase, under the rules,
or

(b) the percentage for that period which corresponds to 5 per cent per annum,
whichever is the lesser'.

109 Page 29, line 6, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (2A)'.
110 Page 29, line 8, leave out from 'service' to end of line 12 and insert 'or to payments in respect of employment were attributable to pensionable service or, as the case may be, payments in respect of employment—

(a) before the appointed day,

(b) on or after that day, or

(c) partly before and partly on or after that day'.

111 Page 29, line 12, at end insert:
'(3A) This section does not apply to any pension or part of a pension which, in the opinion of the trustees or managers, is derived from the payment by any member of the scheme of voluntary contributions.'.
112 Page 29, line 13, leave out subsection (4).
113 Clause 48, page 30, line 40, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 43 and insert 'revaluation percentage for the revaluation period the reference period for which ends with the last preceding 30th September before the increase is made (expressions used in this definition having the same meaning as in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (methods of revaluing accrued pension benefits)'.
114 Page 30, leave out lines 44 to 50.
115 Page 31, line 2, leave out from 'scheme' to end of line 7 and insert 'and includes an annuity'.
116 Clause 49, page 31, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert 'the principal appointed day for the purposes of Part III of the Pensions Act 1995'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 103 to 116 en bloc. I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 244 to 247.
This group of amendments change the indexation provisions in the Bill. When we discussed the indexation requirements both in your Lordships' House and the other place, the view was put forward that there should be a statutory requirement to index pensions derived from free-standing additional voluntary contributions. Those of your Lordships who attended the debate will remember that we consistently opposed that view. These arrangements are, by definition, voluntary. Individuals may be deterred from making such arrangements for their retirement if tighter controls are put in place.
We have accepted the point that it would be inconsistent to treat free-standing AVCs differently from AVCs paid to an individual occupational scheme. By definition, all AVCs are voluntary. So we have brought forward amendments to treat all pensions derived from AVCs in the same way. We do that by excluding them from the indexation requirements. Let me make it clear that Amendments Nos. 103, 104, 111 and 114 simply stop indexation being a statutory requirement. Schemes will still be free to index pensions arising from AVCs if they so choose.
We have listened to concerns about the administrative difficulty that some schemes may face by linking the increases required in the Bill to the timing of revaluation orders. The difficulty is that schemes have their own scheme year and may well already have indexation requirements which link with it. The Bill would require schemes to base their increases on the period ending every 30th September. We believe that that is too restrictive. Therefore, we have allowed an appropriate exemption. We have also taken a regulation-making power in Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 so that details of variations in the way that schemes administer increases can in fact be catered for. I should like to make clear that this is not at all a dilution in any way of the indexation requirements. It is simply to deal with the administrative difficulties that I mentioned.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 103 to 116.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
117 Clause 50, page 31, line 34, after 'verified' insert 'by a prescribed person and'.
118 Clause 51, page 32, line 4, leave out 'at' and insert 'before the end of'.
119 Page 32, line 5, after 'occasions' insert 'or within prescribed periods'.
120 Clause 52, page 33, line 24, after 'be' insert:

'(i) rates of contributions determined by the trustees or managers, being such rates as in their opinion are adequate for the purpose of securing that the minimum funding requirement will continue to be met throughout the prescribed period or, if it appears to them that it is not met, will be met by the end of that period, and

1710

(ii) other'.

121 Clause 53, page 34, line 3, at beginning insert 'Except in prescribed circumstances'.
122 Clause 54, page 34, line 42, at beginning insert 'Except in prescribed circumstances'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 117 to 122 en bloc. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 152, 153 and 155.
This group of amendments deals with funding. Amendment No. 117 is designed to ensure that the minimum funding requirement will operate properly by ensuring that the scheme actuary appointed by the trustees will also be the individual who undertakes the valuation of the scheme assets and liabilities. We shall be able to do that in regulations made as a result of this amendment. We intend to make it clear that the individual will be a properly qualified actuary who is a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries or Faculty of Actuaries. This mirrors a similar provision in Clause 69(5).
Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 affect the timing of actuarial valuations and certificates. We intend that schemes should have valuations at intervals of not more than three years, with annual certificates to check on the funding position in the years in between. The Bill could have been interpreted as requiring those to be carried out on a particular day. Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 allow for flexibility to ensure that the provisions actually work in practice.
Amendment No. 120 has already been signalled in an earlier debate. It is about the operation of the schedule of contributions. We would normally expect the employer and trustees to agree the rates of contribution to be entered in the schedule. But there needs to be a failsafe should they not be able to agree. That needs to rest with the trustees, but they should not have a carte blanche to expose employers to financial risks. This amendment would leave the trustees with the power to set the contribution rate but limit their discretion so that they cannot preset a rate which is more than adequate to comply with the minimum funding requirement.
Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 153 will enable regulations to clarify the duty on trustees to notify OPRA and members when payments due in the schedule of contributions are not made by the date. Without these amendments, the Bill would require trustees to notify OPRA and scheme members whenever a payment was overdue, even if it was delayed for a short time or for a trivial reason. That would involve unnecessary costs and cause anxiety for members. The amendments will allow regulations not to require OPRA and members to be notified where payment is delayed for good reason, for example, administrative fault or where it is made following OPRA's intervention.
I am sure your Lordships will be aware of the importance of the schedule showing rates of contributions and when they should be paid. Amendment No. 152 clarifies how the rates and due dates of contributions to he shown in the schedule are to he determined in respect of money-purchase schemes. It has been suggested that the clause does not make it sufficiently clear that the matters to be shown in the schedule should be consistent with

1711
scheme rules. To make it completely clear, Amendment No. 152 spells out that if the matters are already set down in the scheme rules, it is what is contained in those rules that should be shown on the schedule. If they are not contained in the scheme rules, they should be agreed between the employer and the trustees. If exceptionally they cannot agree they should be determined by the trustees. This amendment will leave trustees in no doubt how the matters to be shown in the contributions schedule should be determined.
Amendment No. 155 introduces a power to modify the minimum funding requirement and the employer debt provisions to apply to money-purchase schemes in certain circumstances. The PLRC Report noted that:
"in money-purchase schemes funding is automatic unless a scheme member bears the investment risks but there is no reason why the member should also bear the risk of loss through misappropriation of scheme assets".
We have accepted this by agreeing that the compensation arrangements should cover money-purchase schemes where there has been dishonest removal of assets. But this will apply only where the employer is insolvent. This amendment addresses the situation where an employer sponsoring a money-purchase scheme which has suffered fraud remains solvent. It places a requirement on such employers to make up a deficit arising from theft or fraud. Our proposal is about protecting members from the risk of loss through misappropriation of assets, not about protection from investment risk. So members, not employers, of money-purchase schemes will still bear the investment risk, but members should have similar protection to members of salary-related schemes in cases of misappropriation. The amendment will ensure that they do.
Amendment No. 155 will also provide a power that can be used to ensure that certain schemes that pay defined benefits are not inadvertently excluded from the minimum funding requirement. That is because some of the schemes are hybrid and pay out defined benefit pensions instead of purchasing annuities. We would not wish to exclude them from the minimum funding requirement.
I believe that these amendments will all improve the Bill and I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 117 to 122.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we welcome Amendment No. 155. However, can the Minister give us a little more help in relation to Amendment No. 120? It may be that I misunderstood the purport of what he was saying. He seemed to be suggesting that trustees could not increase the rate of contribution which would produce funds which would more than meet the minimum funding requirement. In other words, they may levy only such contributions as would meet a minimum funding standard.
1712
If that is correct—I believe that is what the Minister said—it would mean that what was a minimum has become a maximum. At present, as I understand it, virtually all good company schemes are funded above the current minimum funding level, which is only around 80 per cent. on average of what most schemes contain. From what the Minister said in his introduction to the amendment, that would in future depress that level of funding and reduce the level of contributions payable by the employer and possibly also by the members but would expose the scheme to greater risk in the unlikely event of a subsequent wind-up. Can the Minister explain that point to us?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend referred to Amendment No. 117 and indicated that this was to secure that verification was undertaken by an actuary. The amendment refers to a "prescribed person". Where is it laid down that a "prescribed person" means an actuary?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, to answer my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter first, in a slightly less simple question than the one he asked me earlier, I have explained that it is our intention to ensure that the people defined will be as I indicated—Fellows of the Institute of Actuaries or of the Faculty of Actuaries. We shall be making it clear in regulations that those qualifications will be necessary for those individuals described as "prescribed persons". It is not laid down in the Bill, but our intention is that it will appear in the regulations.
To turn to Amendment No. 120, as the noble Baroness indicated, we would normally expect the employer and the trustees to agree the rates of contribution to be entered in the schedule. But there needs to be a failsafe in the event of their being unable to agree. We believe that it is appropriate for that failsafe to rest with the trustees but that they should not be able to expose employers to financial risk. The amendment would leave the trustees with the power to set the contribution rate but limit their discretion so that they cannot prescribe a rate which is more than adequate to comply with the minimum funding requirement.
The noble Baroness is arguing that that limits the powers and the responsibilities of the trustees. But this is a default procedure in the event of an agreement not being reached between the employer and the trustees. It must be in the interests of all the parties that that does not happen and that they do reach agreement. The amendment is necessary to keep a balanced approach and avoid the risk of the employer being put at financial risk should the trustees demand an unreasonably high rate of contributions which was over and above the rate acceptable to the employer and more than adequate for the scheme to meet the minimum funding requirements.
Our analysis indicates that the vast majority of schemes, as the noble Baroness said, are already funding above the minimum funding level and there is no reason why the introduction of the minimum funding requirement should change that. It would be prudent practice for schemes and sponsoring employers to keep a margin in the fund above the minimum level to avoid the risk of the scheme failing to meet the test and

1713
triggering what could be a destabilising cash call on the employer. We hope that Amendment No. 120 provides a backstop—a failsafe—in the event of the employer and the trustees being unable to reach agreement.
While I see the point being made by the noble Baroness, we hope that we have struck a balance in the light of disagreement between the trustees and what their views might be and the needs of the employer. However, we hope that the situation will not arise where the use of the failsafe becomes necessary.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister has confirmed what I feared—where there is a dispute the minimum funding requirement becomes effectively a maximum funding requirement. His point that most schemes will go above it, for the sake of prudence and so on, should precisely apply in those situations where there is a dispute between employers and trustees, because that dispute is likely to occur when there is either some controversy in the management or there is some doubt about the financial viability of the employer's scheme, and so on.
I am rather worried. From what the Minister has suggested, those schemes where the trustees have most doubt, because there they are not getting the support of the employer, are precisely the ones which will have as their maximum funding requirement the minimum funding requirement and, as the Minister himself said, that is not for the most part likely to be adequate for a scheme to be prudently managed. The Minister has allowed no headroom for a situation where there is a dispute between employers and trustees. I wonder whether even at this late stage the Minister might like to produce some headspace. After all, this is only about an 80 per cent. minimum funding requirement of what is required for full solvency. Therefore, where there is a dispute—precisely where headspace is needed—there will not be headspace. That will expose more scheme members to more risk than was ever intended. Can the Minister help us further?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course I should like to help the noble Baroness further in this regard but I should perhaps remind her that we had a debate about this problem. I cannot recall whether it was a long one or a short one. It did not take up too many columns of Hansard, so it must have been fairly short. My noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire raised a concern that the Bill as originally drafted would leave the trustees with control over the rates of contribution payable by the employer and that could potentially leave employers financially vulnerable.
The amendment with which we are dealing now was made in the other place in June. It is needed to achieve the objective that the trustees, if there is a disagreement, should not have a power to decide on a rate which is more than adequate for the MFR rate. It is a failsafe. I do not really believe that one could operate a failsafe which set a floor for the failsafe above the level of the minimum funding requirement. That is what the noble Baroness wants me to do. I do not think one should do that. If I were to do that she would accuse me of not looking at the MFR as a safe floor. Therefore, we have to aim at looking at the MFR as the safe floor, in what I think we would both agree is the very unlikely event that the failsafe power is needed.
1714
A balance has to be struck here. I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels uneasy about it but I can assure her that we believe that this is the right balance. We do not believe that it will be putting members of pension funds at risk. I hope that she can see her way to agreeing with me that it is better that we treat the MFR as the floor in this regard rather than attempt to set another floor above that MFR.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not want to extend this debate but clearly the MFR is the level to which employers must fund the scheme and, above that, to which trustees might or may fund the scheme. Let us remind ourselves that two—thirds of all trustees will be employer appointed—the Government rejected Opposition amendments to the contrary—so it is unlikely that there will be a dispute between the employer and a trustee body in which the employer's interest remains dominant. A dispute will occur only in situations where even the employer's trustees feel that the scheme is at some risk. However, we have expressed our concerns. I do not wish to push the matter further, but I believe that the Government are leaving scheme members unreasonably exposed in the most precarious of situations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
123 Clause 56, page 35, line 27, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (4B)'
124 Page 36, line 3, at end insert:
`(4A) References in subsection (4) and sections 57 to 59 to the terms referred to in subsection (2), or the effect of any of those terms, include—

(a) a term which confers on the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme, or any other person, a discretion which, in a case within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (3)—

(i) may be exercised so as to affect the way in which persons become members of the scheme, or members of the scheme are treated, and

(ii) may (apart from the equal treatment rule) be so exercised in a way less favourable to the woman than to the man, and

(b) the effect of any exercise of such a discretion; and references to the terms on which members of the scheme are treated are to be read accordingly.

(4B) In the case of a term within subsection (4A) (a) the effect of an equal treatment rule is that the term shall be treated as so modified as not to permit the discretion to be exercised in a way less favourable to the woman than to the man.'.
125 Clause 57, page 36, line 6, at end insert 'and the reference in section 56(4A) to the way in which members of a scheme are treated includes the way they are treated as it has effect for the benefit of dependants of members.'.
126 Clause 60, page 37, leave out lines 33 to 41 and insert `subsections (1A) and (2) (exclusion for terms related to death or retirement) there is substituted—
"(1B) An equality clause shall not operate in relation to terms relating to a person's membership of, or rights under, an occupational pension scheme, being terms in relation to which, by reason only of any provision made by or under sections 56 to 58 of the Pensions Act 1995 (equal treatment), an equal treatment rule would not operate if the terms were included in the scheme.

1715
(1C) In subsection (1B), "occupational pension scheme" has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and "equal treatment rule" has the meaning given by section 56 of the Pensions Act 1995".'
127 Page 38, leave out lines 3 to 17 and insert:
'() for subsection (4) there is substituted?—
"(4) Subsections (1) (b) and (2) do not render it unlawful for a person to discriminate against a woman in relation to her membership of, or rights under, an occupational pension scheme in such a way that, were any term of the scheme to provide for discrimination in that way, then, by reason only of any provision made by or under sections 56 to 58 of the Pensions Act 1995 (equal treatment), an equal treatment rule would not operate in relation to that term.
(4A) In subsection (4), "occupational pension scheme" has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and "equal treatment rule" has the meaning given by section 56 of the Pensions Act 1995".'
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 123 to 127. At the same time I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 278, 316, 320, 321, 324 to 326, 374 and 376 to 380. This group of amendments deals with the extremely complex area of equal treatment. Amendments Nos. 123 to 125 will ensure that the principle of treating men and women equally in their access to and membership of occupational pension schemes is complied with even when scheme rules contain an element of discretion. Any discretion permitted to trustees in trust deeds will have to be exercised in accordance with the equal treatment rule.
Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 ensure that UK legislation on sex equality in employment is brought into line with EU law. They reflect the fact that decisions of the European Court of Justice since 1990 have permitted derogations in limited circumstances from the principle of equal treatment in the field of occupational pensions. Employment law will now reflect exactly what pension law requires. The amendments are structured so that future changes in the relevant pensions legislation will apply equally in the employment provisions.
Amendment No. 278 changes the commencement date of the equal treatment provisions in the Bill. Instead of coming into force immediately on enactment, we have decided that it would be better to bring them into force by commencement order. This is to ensure that the powers under which the present equal access regulations are made and related provisions remain in force until the regulations under the new powers in the Bill can be made, laid before the House and brought into force. We intend that the relevant provisions should be brought into force by commencement order instead of on the day the Bill is enacted. This will ensure continuity of the relevant legislation and not lead to the possibility of there being, so to speak, a hole in the system.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 123 to 127.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can give us some guidance in terms of Amendment No. 278. When does he think the commencement date order might be?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure when we intend to do it. However, I can give the noble Baroness a categoric assurance, in the usual words Ministers use, that it will be "As soon as we possibly can".
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
128 Clause 62, page 39, line 41, at end insert:
'() Regulations may provide that this section does not apply to trust schemes falling within a prescribed class or description.'.
129 Clause 63, page 40, line 29, at end insert 'or'.
130 Page 40, line 31, leave out from 'scheme' to end of line 34.
131 Clause 66, page 41, line 39, after 'made' insert 'in respect of a scheme other than a public service pension scheme'.
132 Clause 67, page 42, line 25, leave out from 'benefits' to first `the' in line 26 and insert 'which, in the opinion of the trustees are derived from'.
133 Page 42, line 27, leave out from 'contributions' to end of line 29.
134 Page 42, line 30, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
`(b) where a person's entitlement to payment of pension or other benefits has arisen, liability for that pension or benefit and for any pension or other benefit which will be payable to dependants of that person on his death (but excluding increases to pensions)'.
135 Page 42, line 33, after 'accrued' insert 'to or in respect of any member of the scheme (but excluding increases to pensions)'.
136 Clause 68, page 43, line 25, leave out from 'the' to end of line 26 and insert 'member'.
137 Page 43, line 33, leave out 'on account' and insert 'in respect'.
138 Clause 70, page 45, line 7, after 'scheme insert 'in any circumstances'.
139 Page 45, line 11, leave out from beginning to 'to' and insert 'in those circumstances power is conferred on the employer or the trustees'.
140 Page 45, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
141 Page 45, line 16, leave out from '(1) (c)' to 'unless' in line 18 and insert 'cannot be exercised'.
142 Page 45, line 27, leave out paragraph (c).
143 Page 46, line 4, leave out from `(1) (c)' to 'without' in line 5.
144 Clause 71, page 46, line 15, after 'scheme' insert 'in any circumstances'.
145 Page 46, line 25, leave out paragraph (f) and insert:
`() the scheme prohibits the distribution of assets to the employer in those circumstances'.
146 Page 47, line 2, at end insert:
`() Regulations may modify this section as it applies in prescribed circumstances.'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 128 to 146. I have already spoken to the amendments in earlier debates.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 128 to 146.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Srebrenica
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place on events in Srebrenica.
"Srebrenica was established as a safe area by UN Security Council Resolution 819 on 16th April 1993. This was followed by an agreement on its demilitarisation between UNPROFOR, Bosnian Government and Bosnian Serb military commanders signed on 17th April.
"In June 1993, the UN suggested that up to 36,000 troops could be necessary to implement the safe areas concept. The UK, France and the Netherlands responded well, but many others did not. The total committed amounted to only 7,500—a significant shortfall. This has had significant implications for the safe areas policy. A Dutch contingent of UNPROFOR troops was deployed to Srebrenica to replace the original Canadian contingent.
"The reality is that neither side properly observed these provisions on demilitarisation. It is this that lies at the root of events over the past few days. For three months there have been sporadic attacks by each side against the other. Some 450 Dutch troops were in Srebrenica when fighting escalated over last weekend during which one Dutch soldier was killed by Bosnian Government forces on 8th July, and 30 Dutch soldiers were taken by the BSA as they withdrew from outlying OPs to a blocking position l½ kilometres to the south of the town. On the evening of 10th July Bosnian Serb troops launched an infantry attack against this position; the Dutch returned fire and the attack was abandoned.
"At around midday on 11th July, however, Bosnian Serb forces launched a further attack, using mortars and tanks. Srebrenica town came under fire with shells hitting the hospital and the Dutch compound. The Dutch commander requested NATO close air support. Two missions were launched, resulting in the destruction of two Bosnian Serb army tanks. Meanwhile, Dutch troops helped to evacuate the hospital and withdrew from the compound as it was under heavy shelling and undefendable.
"The Dutch blocking position was bypassed and, at around 1800 hours, Dutch UNPROFOR troops withdrew northwards to their compound at Potocari. They took with them some 2,500 displaced persons, and some 80 to 100 are wounded. Latest reports indicate that some 30,000 displaced persons are now in the Potocari area—several thousand of them in and around the Dutch compound—and that Bosnian Serb forces now effectively control the whole of the Srebrenica enclave.
"I have spoken this morning to the Dutch Foreign Minister, Mr. Van Mierlo. He confirmed that the Dutch troops remain in their Potocari compound. He has no reports of casualties. The compound is not presently under attack. But food and water supplies are running low. Dutch commanders are in touch with General Mladic, who is now in Srebrenica, about getting relief to the displaced persons.
1718
"We are in close touch with our allies and friends about the next steps and I have instructed our chargé in Belgrade to speak today to President Milosevic. Our immediate priorities are to get food, water and medical help to the displaced persons in the Potocari area and to offer any help to the Dutch that they may need; secondly, to safeguard the other enclaves and in particular the British forces in Gorazde; and thirdly, to pursue action in the United Nations Security Council in response to this Bosnian Serb aggression. Our overall objective should remain, despite the difficulties, to restore Srebrenica as a safe area, but on the basis of a genuine implementation of the demilitarisation agreement of April 1993.
"On the humanitarian situation, I spoke to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees last night. I understand that UNHCR are seeking to negotiate access to provide help to the displaced persons and assistance to those who expressly wish to leave. We have offered technical assistance to UNHCR from ODA experts in the area.
"On the position in the other enclaves, there is continued sporadic shelling around Zepa, which is guarded by Ukrainian UNPROFOR forces. There are no reports of increased activity by Bosnian Serb forces around Gorazde. Members of this House will nevertheless share my concern about the safety of British troops there. I can assure the House that we are in constant touch with UNPROFOR commanders on the ground about developments; and we shall take appropriate measures to safeguard the security of our troops. Part of the Rapid Reaction Force is deployed in theatre, where it will be able to support UNPROFOR's political and humanitarian objectives.
"At the UN, we, the United States, France, Germany and Italy are co-sponsoring a draft resolution which was circulated yesterday evening. This condemns the Bosnian Serb offensive; demands that Bosnian Serb forces withdraw immediately from the Srebrenica safe area; that the Bosnian Serbs immediately release all detained UNPROFOR personnel; and that all parties allow unimpeded access for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian agencies to the safe area to alleviate the plight of the civilian population; and requests the Secretary-General to use the resources available to him to restore the safe area status of Srebrenica. I look to see a resolution along these lines in New York today.
"Beyond these immediate priorities, we have to consider the implications of these events for the political process and for the future of UNPROFOR. I am seeing Carl Bildt, the new EU negotiator, immediately after this Statement. He has already travelled extensively in the region and has had three lengthy negotiating sessions with President Milosevic. I will be discussing with him how he can use his channels to the parties to help stabilise the situation in Srebrenica, as well as his broader objective of a negotiated settlement to the Bosnian conflict and mutual recognition between the republics of former Yugoslavia. Later today, Mr. Bildt will

1719
meet the contact group of the UK, France, Germany, the United States and Russia to discuss these developments.
"On the future of UNPROFOR, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that the continued fighting in Bosnia was putting the future presence of United Nations forces at risk and that the warring parties had to indicate soon that they were prepared to return to the negotiating table to reach a political solution. This remains the position. There is no question about the value of UNPROFOR's work. This is the largest peacekeeping operation in the history of the UN: 40,000 troops are involved, drawn from almost 40 countries. They have saved tens of thousands of lives: casualties in the Bosnian war have fallen from 130,000 dead in 1992 to 2,500 in 1994. They have contained the conflict, which threatened a wider Balkan war. They are providing support for more than 2.7 million people in Bosnia who have been affected by the war.
"But to operate, they require co-operation from the parties. UNPROFOR is not configured to fight a war. We must rely on the judgment of UN commanders on the ground as to whether they remain able to carry out their mandate. So withdrawal must remain an option. The structure for a political solution is there if the parties choose to use it; but they have to recognise that negotiating time is running out".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The news that the safe haven of Srebrenica fell to the Serbs earlier today is yet another terrible turn of events in Bosnia. The people of Srebrenica can be not only frightened but angry and betrayed by this latest development. Even if their lives are not immediately threatened there are reports of only enough food and water for one day for the 30,000 or more refugees who have been created. If that is true, we need to ensure that urgent action is now taken to alleviate the situation. I was glad to hear the Minister refer to such action.
From the very first day the safe havens' policy was announced, it was never meaningful. Safe for whom? And safe for how long? Those questions were asked in the House when the policy was first announced over two years ago. Despite all the warnings of the deficiencies in the policy, no heed seems to have been taken. As the Government appear to accept, at least implicitly in today's Statement, enough troops and back-up have never been made available to make the enclaves remotely safe. Surely the international community must not continue to make commitments of this kind without providing the necessary resources to fulfil them. The failure to do so, allowing Srebrenica to fall and civilian areas in Sarajevo and elsewhere to be shelled with impunity, is a serious blow to the credibility of the international community.
1720
At the same time, we on this side of the House join the Government in condemning both sides for failing to observe demilitarisation in Srebrenica and elsewhere. In particular, we condemn the Bosnian Serbs in the strongest terms. Yet again they have refused to accept the authority of the United Nations, wilfully ignoring its resolutions. The aggressive action they have taken in Srebrenica is utterly unacceptable.
Why was no ultimatum issued at the weekend when the Bosnian Serb troops started to move in on the enclave? Should not an ultimatum now be issued demanding their immediate withdrawal? I note that the Minister referred to a draft resolution in New York. Perhaps she will tell the House when that will be discussed in the Security Council. It has also been suggested that the French Government have put forward proposals for the use of UN troops to back an ultimatum. Will the Minister tell the House what consultations have taken place on that proposal? Could we have some more details of the French plans?
Will the Minister also tell the House why the Rapid Reaction Force was not deployed to try to prevent the fall of Srebrenica? Where are those troops? What are they currently doing? Surely their deployment should now be speeded up. What happened in Srebrenica cannot be seen in isolation. The Minister mentioned Gorazde and the British troops in the UN force there. Will the Minister give the House some further reassurances that the RRF will be used to protect them if necessary? The Minister made no reference to Zepa, the other enclave in eastern Bosnia. Perhaps we could hear what is the situation there.
On the wider goals we all share of achieving a political settlement, it is now well over a year since the contact group met the warring parties. What progress is now being made to get them around the table again? I note that contact is now being made with Carl Bildt, the European Union negotiator. But can the Minister throw any more light on his latest discussions with President Milosevic? Is President Milosevic prepared to put pressure on the Bosnian Serbs to withdraw from Srebrenica immediately and to sit down with the contact group and the other parties?
Finally, we share the Government's view that UNPROFOR has saved many lives in Bosnia. We understand also that withdrawal must remain an option. However, no one should underestimate the possible consequences of withdrawal, not just in Bosnia but well beyond it. I hope therefore that everything will be done, first, to reinforce existing UN mandates; and, secondly, to work for a political solution before such action is taken.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may apologise for the fact that I have to be on duty as Chairman of one of your Lordships' Committees just after 5 o'clock; so I hope that I will be acquitted of any discourtesy if I have to leave before these exchanges are completed.
In this latest, dangerous example of Bosnian Serb aggression, our prime and immediate concern must be for the suffering civilians, for the UN soldiers, including

1721
our own, and for the relief workers, including those from the ODA in this country, who are risking their lives amid the warring factions. The priority must be to bring immediate relief, as the Minister said, but I would go further than that. Should there not now be some special UN emergency relief effort to force a passage in one way or another for urgent relief, first, to Potocari and then through to Sarajevo. I urge that not just for immediate humanitarian reasons, but because there is a need to restore some kind of credibility to the UN role in the former Yugoslavia. I am glad that UNPROFOR's value was put into proper perspective in the Statement. If at all possible, it must be maintained, reinforced and made more effective.
I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that while withdrawal must remain an option, none of us should be under any illusions about the military risks of withdrawal or the damage that it would do to the UN's future authority and to future prospects for any sensible European Union foreign policy.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord for their comments. The first question the noble Baroness asked me was why no ultimatum was issued at the weekend or why is one not being issued now. On the ground, ultimata were issued over the weekend, but at this very moment a resolution which requests the Secretary General to use all resources available to him to restore the status defined by the agreement of 16th April 1993, as I said in the Statement, and which calls on the parties to co-operate to that end, is being debated.
The resolution was in its semi final form last night. It demands that the Bosnian Serb forces immediately and unconditionally release all detained UNPROFOR personnel—of whom I gather there are 43 Dutchmen at the moment—that the parties respect fully the safety of UNPROFOR personnel; that they ensure their complete freedom of movement, including resupply; and that all the parties allow unimpeded access to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees—all the matters that were indeed in the Statement. The resolution goes on to demand that the Bosnian Serb forces cease their offensive and withdraw immediately from the safe area of Srebrenica.
There has been great pressure on the ground. There has been action on the ground. We understand that it was because of the action on the ground, which took out two Bosnian Serb tanks, that the Dutch UNPROFOR troops were taken. We heard President Chirac's statement yesterday. Consultations are going on with the French Government at this moment. I cannot give the noble Baroness any details of the plans, such as they are, because they are not finalised. I shall be in touch with her when I hear any further news.
The noble Baroness asked about Gorazde. The safety and security of British troops are of course of paramount importance to us all. We are naturally alive to the implications for other enclaves, particularly Gorazde, of any Bosnian Serb attack. We have been in close contact all morning with UNPROFOR commanders on the
1722
ground. As I said in repeating the Statement, there are no reports at the moment of any increased activity around Gorazde. Long may that continue.
We are also confident that the appropriate planning is in place to safeguard the security of our troops. I know that the noble Baroness will understand that I would not want to go into further detail for operational reasons.
The noble Baroness also asked me about the RRF. It is part of UNPROFOR, operating under UN command and its authority. I understand that there is some belief that the RRF will be active immediately. That just does not happen when deploying troops, but I can assure the noble Baroness and your Lordships that having the RRF, many of whose members are already gathered in theatre, will increase the flexibility of the UNPROFOR commanders' responses because they will have a greater variety of equipment which will strengthen them and enable them to give a graduated response to the warring factions or attacks. The noble Baroness asked why they are not being used per se at present. We must have in mind the fact that there are 43 Dutch troops held at present, against whom severe threats have been made.
We are looking to see what more can he done, and that is the matter under discussion at the moment. I remind your Lordships that the RRF is not an offensive force. It is there to protect UN forces and to undertake missions in support of the UN mandate. In order to operate it requires the strategic consent, as does UNPROFOR, of the warring factions. It cannot engage in peace enforcement. The UN mandate is for peacekeeping and for humanitarian aid. The RRF will operate under that mandate.
The noble Baroness asked about the other enclaves. At the moment we have no bad news from Zepa, but anything could happen in the next hours. Indeed, something may have happened since I left the Foreign Office.
The noble Baroness also asked about contact with Mr. Carl Bildt. A meeting with him is about to start—perhaps the Foreign Secretary has already started the meeting—and only afterwards will I be able to give her any more details.
The noble Baroness asked about the influence of President Milosevic on the Bosnian Serbs. Our chargé is on his way to see President Milosevic today. We hope that the president will again use his influence on Mr. Karadzic and on General Mladic. However, I must tell your Lordships that the situation is not good. As I was coming into the Chamber I heard that General Mladic has gone to Potocari with vehicles. He is seeking to separate the males over the age of 16 from the women and children and take them to Bratunac, presumably for some kind of screening. At the same time, he is offering to take the women and children to Kladanj, which is further to the north east of Srebrenica. I cannot say what the outcome of that will be. It has been agreed that there will be a UN monitor on each truck to monitor human rights for the people who are forced on to those trucks should that happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, rightly spoke about the suffering people, the UN soldiers and the relief workers and the priority being to bring relief. That is exactly why we are there and why we have been

1723
able to do as much as I described in the Statement which I repeated to your Lordships. Britain is the third largest donor of humanitarian aid and the only major donor of humanitarian aid to have so many troops on the ground. Neither the US nor Japan, which have given money for humanitarian aid, has any troops on the ground. Therefore, we are playing a major role in trying to resolve this serious situation.
We have the capacity to do more if we can get through. We are ready and have offered to UNHCR our ODA logistics people to provide help wherever we can. That is particularly important should the refugees, who are currently at Potocari, be taken up to Tuzla where there are already 430,000 displaced persons under the feeding and care of UNHCR.
There is a major job to be done. By putting our efforts behind UNPROFOR and behind the discussions that Mr. Carl Bildt and others are carrying on, we hope that we shall get the discussion going again and will stop what is happening. However, there are no easy answers. Certainly, indiscriminate bombing by either side—the Bosnian Serbs or the Bosnian Moslems—will not solve the problem. There is no military solution to the problem, certainly not by getting UNPROFOR into an untenable position, which is what would happen if it went beyond the UN resolutions.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness Thatcher: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement and perhaps make a number of comments and ask a number of questions. As I listened to her—and I have listened to other Statements on the subject—I had the impression that so long as this operation is supervised by UNPROFOR, no one will ever get a hold of it and take the requisite decisions and action to bring it to an end and see that the victims win and the aggressors are vanquished. Would she therefore see whether it is possible to put the matter under NATO, which would be much, much more effective?
Secondly, as I listened to the scene that my noble friend described, I was reminded that the right of self-defence is far older than the United Nations. The United Nations did not invent it and the United Nations has no right, in effect, to make it inoperative. Why, then, in view of the scene that she described and the lack of men and equipment, are the Bosnians not allowed to arm themselves effectively with sufficiently strong equipment and sufficient munitions to defeat the Serb aggressor? The Serb is the aggressor; the Bosnians, are the victims. We should not deny them the fundamental right to self-defence. I doubt the legality of doing it, and I have no doubt that it is morally wrong to deny them that right.
Thirdly, my noble friend spoke of the United Nations resolutions and the possibility of there being more. Will she agree that the resolutions on humanitarian aid and on protecting the safe areas are taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and are enforcement resolutions, and, therefore, the UNPROFOR troops have the right to enforce humanitarian aid getting through and have the right to enforce the safety of safe areas? By
1724
calling these areas "safe" we have encouraged innocent people to go into them. We should therefore make proper provision for their effective defence. All those resolutions are under Chapter VII. They are not peacekeeping; there is no peace to keep. They are to enforce the resolutions. Those powers are not being used. We have the weapons, we have the quality, the number and the most excellent armed forces, in particular those to whom my noble friend referred. They are not being used to protect the innocent.
Finally, my noble friend spoke of negotiations. There have been negotiations after negotiations after negotiations after negotiations. The last round of negotiations actually gave land to the Serbs from the Bosnians. The Bosnians were prepared to accept that if it would bring peace. We can have no more negotiations. The Serbs must accept the agreement of the contact group. There is no point in more negotiations because each time more are entered into the Serbs are given hope: the Serbs need only have a bit more aggression and there is a bit more land. That will not do. There are many potential aggressors looking at and learning from what is happening in Bosnia, waiting to see whether they would get away with it, in countries of the former Soviet Union and of the Middle East. Please will my noble friend take away the message that soft words will not do? We need stern, calmly calculated, effective action.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her comments, which tune in with everything that she has previously said on the tragic situation in the former Yugoslavia. Having been on the ground in Bosnia many times I have some sympathy with her. However, I cannot agree that rearming the Bosnians will bring the conflict to a speedy end. I believe that it would draw many more nations into a war which would spread far beyond the Balkans.
I agree with my noble friend that Chapter VII covers the resolutions. Looking through them today yet again, I realise that it would be highly desirable and would help my humanitarian relief aid very much if one could force the aid through. But on some occasions forcing the aid through will cause a wider conflict. I will not second guess any of the commanders on the ground, British or otherwise, who are doing their best to do the very thing that my noble friend wants; that is, to protect the innocent.
The whole House will know that when the idea went through the United Nations I had great doubts about the safety of the safe areas. I never made any secret of the fact that unless the proposal was enforceable it was not sensible. However, it was passed and we have done our best to give as much help as possible to get help through to the enclaves. For a certain amount of time we were extremely successful in doing so, enabling the people there to build up resources. Those resources are now under pressure and will continue to be.
My noble friend spoke of the contact group plan. That must be implemented. When we have had our discussions with Mr. Carl Bildt and others we will be in a better position to see what next steps to take.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, on this occasion it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, a former Prime Minister, because she has been resolute throughout on the Bosnian issue. She has never veered from her belief that a different approach might have been more successful.
I should like to ask the Minister two questions and then raise one larger issue. First, are any negotiations going ahead with regard to trying to arrange safe passage for the 25,000 civilians now fleeing from Srebrenica, some of whom are not at present in the enclave held by Dutch UNPROFOR troops?
Secondly, will immediate consideration be given to providing air-lifts of food for the other enclaves? In particular, I understand that both Bihac and Tuzla are now suffering from severe shortages and are near starvation. It would be a disaster if they were also to fall.
Thirdly, I raise the larger issue because the Minister has referred, and rightly so, to the dangers of a wider war in the Balkans. We all understand that fear. But in her remarks she referred to the fact that all the parties in Bosnia must agree before any action can be taken by the United Nations. I wonder whether the Minister and her right honourable friends will consider whether, in a situation where one partner fails consistently to agree to United Nations action—those partners being the Bosnian Serbs who have never proved themselves willing to accept any of the norms or understanding of civilized conduct—the United Nations and the United Kingdom Government might now think it fit to move to a stronger position on defending the remaining enclaves and to a stronger approach towards the constant misbehaviour of the Bosnian Serbs.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that in relation to the UK Government, I can say that we want stronger action in support of the enclaves. Whether the UN as a whole will agree to that, I cannot tell her at this moment. But we are determined to ensure—and this is why we have put more troops to UNPROFOR—that we are doing all that we can to protect the people and to get resources through to them.
The noble Baroness asked about safe passage for 25,000 people—I believe that it is rather more than that—who are trying to escape from Srebrenica. That is where the plan of allowing them to reach Tuzla is extremely important. I shall return to that point in a moment. But to be quite sincere about this, we are in some difficulty as regards separating the women and children from the men aged over 16. That needs to be handled extremely carefully on the ground. I do not want to say any more at the moment because I do not want to assist politically in any way the Bosnian Serbs. I never have and I never shall.
Perhaps I may now turn to Tuzla and Bihac. In Tuzla at the moment there are already over 430,000 internally displaced persons. Were all those from Srebrenica to join them, that would be an increase in the order of 10 per cent. That could be coped with because we have been getting supplies through to Tuzla by our own efforts. We are already working with the mayor of Tuzla to help should the people decide that they wish to reach 'Tuzla. That is already in hand.
1726
With regard to Bihac, we obviously condemn the continuing obstruction of relief convoys to Bihac by the Krajina Serbs. The situation is grim but three convoys have reached the pocket in the first week of July so there are supplies both there and in Tuzla. But they are very different situations and they are being coped with well on the ground.
We are in no doubt about the importance of doing all that we can to make sure that food, medicines and other necessary goods reach the people. But we must be advised by those on the ground. As I said earlier, sometimes to fight them through can cause a much wider conflict. We may have to try to proceed by agreement but I believe that if agreement is tried and fails, we may have to take the action which the noble Baroness suggests.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for one good piece of news; namely, that there are to be UNPROFOR monitors on those trucks. That is a considerable achievement in the tenseness of the situation and I am grateful to my noble friend for mentioning that and for giving us that information.
Does the Minister not agree also that in this situation, nothing is gained by either taking sides in a civil war or resorting to rhetoric? Talk of telling the Serbs to go back is meaningless unless it can or will be backed up by overwhelming force which, as we know, would only have the effect of enlarging the conflict. Therefore, does my noble friend not agree that in this matter rhetoric is to be abhorred, as is the taking of sides?
Is my noble friend really happy about the command structure? I believe that we all have a picture of, as it were, Mr. Akashi, on one side and the military commanders on the other. The United Nations Secretary General is to be empowered by a resolution still to be passed to "take all measures open to him". But that means nothing. Therefore, will she tell us about the command structure and any endeavours to improve it. I believe also that words of encouragement should go out from this House to the local commanders who are in a perfectly awful situation.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said and for underlining the importance of having gained the presence of UNPROFOR monitors on the trucks.
It is easy to condemn rhetoric or those who take sides. It is very much more difficult to see a resolution of these situations which does not draw a wider and greater number of people into the conflict. That is why I am not in the business of condemning anyone, other than those who cause the conflict. I am in the business of finding ways to resolve the situation. That is why I have referred on many occasions to the contact group meeting with Mr. Carl Bildt, which is taking place in London today.
It is right to encourage the commanders on the ground—General Rupert Smith and others—who are doing a first-class job under very difficult circumstances. I understand my noble friend's anxiety about the command structure. I understand also that

1727
the Dutch Government, who have 43 men taken hostage at present, are anxious not to exacerbate the situation. However much some noble Lords may object to my speaking of a negotiated settlement, I still believe that we must redouble or treble our efforts to achieve a lasting solution because there is no other way of preventing the war spreading.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will the Minister say a little more about what can be done for the safety of the 30,000 or so civilians who have fled from Srebrenica? I appreciate that the situation is difficult and that that it is changing from minute to minute. but it seems to me that an ominous chill is caused by the description which the Minister gave of the separation by the Bosnian Serbs of the men from the women and children. Anything which suggests that there is some action which we or the United Nations could take would be most welcome.
The whole situation has an element of a nightmare. I only wish that there was some way forward. The Minister said that resolutions are being put forward to the United Nations for discussion today which demand that the Bosnian Serbs should withdraw from Srebrenica. Given that we have no power of enforcement if they do not comply, does not the whole process make us seem even more impotent than we were before?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, puts his finger on the real problem; that is, the preparedness of other nations to implement fully under Chapter VII the resolutions in the UN, whether or not by unanimity. As I described early on in the Statement, when the safe areas were first put forward and there was a call for more support to resolve the matter, we were one of the first contributing nations at every stage to try to resolve the problem. Therefore, in no way can the British nation be blamed. But there are other nations which have spoken loudly and done little. That has been one of the major problems which the UN must face. There are too many who talk but do not do.
I should say also that this is a nightmare scenario. At the moment, we are working to try to look after those who are seeking refuge at Potocari, some of whom may go on to Tuzla. I cannot give the noble Lord any hard or fast advice about what will happen. We have dealt with situations even grimmer than this and have saved a very large number of lives and we have begun to bring back some normality. However bad the situation in Srebrenica about which we are talking today is, perhaps I may assure your Lordships' House that there are some areas in central Bosnia which were not peaceful but which have been made so by the tactics that we have, as the UN, deployed.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, is not one brutal lesson of this whole sorry affair the fact that no resolution or ultimatum is worth the paper it is written on if there are not the forces available to carry out and meet those resolutions or ultimatums? Has not the time come, in the face of reality, to stop allowing the political heart to rule its head and to decide whether
1728
to commit forces in sufficient weight to achieve the right, overall objectives; or to make resolutions which take account of the realities on the ground and match what is asked of the United Nations and UNPROFOR to the forces that they are provided with, and no more?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, by his remarks, the noble and gallant Lord expressed far better than I could the real situation and the irony involved. No resolution, no rhetoric and no ultimata will resolve the matter; indeed, the only way we can resolve it is to keep people alive and obtain a solution by discussion. I believe that the noble and gallant Lord would agree with me that it is absolutely vital that UNPROFOR does not become a combatant in the situation. We shall only be able to continue on the ground as long as that does not endanger our men beyond reason. At present, there is a very nasty situation in Srebrenica which has, perhaps, developed over a longer period of time during the cease-fire than we realised. However, we have to continue to try to find a solution which is not the use of military force by UNPROFOR.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, while I agree with the Minister that a great deal of humanitarian work has been carried out, does she agree with me that the ineffectiveness ensures that such work must go on and on? Surely the noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken gave the right answer; namely, that forces should be provided to ensure that negotiations succeed, if necessary by Britain and France alone. Further, can the Minister say whether it is true that the air strikes ordered against the attacking forces were stopped once two tanks had been destroyed because the Serbs threatened to kill Dutch hostages? If that threat was acceded to and air strikes stopped, does that not endanger hostages all over the world, but especially in Bosnia, at present? Can the Minister comment on the command structure? Am I right in thinking that the command structure consists of two people; namely, the Commander-in-Chief of the forces and the United Nations representative? Is that not a structure for disaster? One person can be in command, three people may be a command structure; but two is impossible.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the attraction of ensuring that the forces are sufficient in number to carry out the task given to them. However, given the fact that Britain and France have contributed far more forces than any other country, I am not sure that we should extend the forces still further beyond the recent extension that we announced.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is absolutely right in what he said about the air strikes. Threats were issued against the 43 Dutch hostages. It was on that basis, presumably, that Mr. Akashi was not prepared to go ahead with further air strikes. I can only agree with the noble Lord as regards his mathematics: two people disagreeing will never resolve a situation; but one or three might take a clear decision. Let us hope that we can soon get to some clearer decision taking.

Pensions Bill [H.L.]
5.15 p.m.
Consideration of Commons Amendments resumed.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
147 Clause 72, page 47, line 25, leave out from '1987' to end of line 26.
148 Clause 77, page 50, line 37, leave out from 'exceed' to first 'the' in line 4 on page 51.
149 Clause 78, page 51, line 18, after 'may' insert 'except in prescribed circumstances'.
150 Clause 78, page 51, line 21, leave out 'recover the payment. and' and insert 'or'.
151 Clause 78, page 51, line 23, leave out from 'excessive' to end of line 24 and insert:
'recover so much of the payment as they consider appropriate'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 147 to 151 en bloc. In speaking to those amendments, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 173, 181, 182, 248 to 254, 293, 297 to 308, 317, 334 and 383. All the amendments in the group are concerned with the compensation scheme.
Amendment No. 147 makes it clear that, while the compensation board may borrow from institutions authorised under the Banking Act 1987, it cannot borrow from the Bank of England. The Maastricht Treaty does not permit a public body to borrow from the Bank of England.
Amendment No. 148 is designed to ensure that the amount of compensation payable is not unduly restricted. The amount of compensation paid to salary-related schemes will be the lowest of three amounts. It can be 90 per cent. of the loss; it can be the amount required to restore a scheme to a funding level of 90 per cent. on the date when the scheme applied for compensation; and it can be the equivalent amount at the settlement date, which is the date after which the scheme is unlikely to make further recovery.
Amendment No. 148 removes the reference to one of those three amounts—that is, the amount required to restore a scheme to 90 per cent. funding at the application date. During the period between the application date and the settlement date, the trustees will have been taking action to recover lost assets. They will be under statutory duty to do so. If they are successful, the amount of compensation would take account of the recoveries that they have made, which is only reasonable. But if they are unsuccessful and the scheme is left in a worse position, the amount of compensation would not be sufficient to restore the scheme to 90 per cent. funding. We believe that that is inequitable. That is why we have made the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 149 to 151 respond to concerns raised in your Lordships' House, both in Committee and on Report. The compensation board has the power to make payments in anticipation of compensation. The board must be able to do that so that it can act quickly
1730
to help scheme members who may be in financial difficulties by paying interim payments to their schemes.
The compensation board may then decide that compensation was not, after all, appropriate or that it had made excessive payments. The board, therefore, needs the power to recover the payments that it has made. It is obviously right for the board to be able to do that, because all compensation payments are funded through the compensation levy paid by the schemes.
The issues of concern to your Lordships were, first, the possibility that trustees might be held personally liable; and secondly, that recovery might be sought from individual scheme members. There was also concern about the board's powers to make partial recoveries. I assured your Lordships that it was not the intention for the compensation board to hold trustees of schemes personally liable for repayment or to seek to make recoveries directly from scheme members. I also gave a commitment that we would consider the issues further and bring forward amendments if necessary.
On the first two issues, we have received firm legal advice that recoveries can be made only from the assets of the scheme. Payments will form part of the trust estate, which is separate from the trustee's personal estate; nor can the board seek to recover from individual scheme members. So no amendments are required there. But amendments are needed in connection with the board's power to make recoveries. Amendments Nos. 149 to 151 therefore provide for the board to make partial recoveries in all cases if appropriate.
Amendment No. 149 introduces a power to enable the circumstances in which recoveries can be made to be restricted. We envisage using that power to specify that recovery should not be made where it would result in the scheme being in a worse position than if interim payments had not been made. We have in mind here cases where interim payments have been made and payments made to members, but the compensation board subsequently decides that compensation is not after all payable. That could happen, for example, if the loss was due to incompetence rather than dishonesty.
Closely related is the question of partial recoveries. The board may make partial recoveries only where excessive payments of compensation have been made. There is, though, no specific provision for the board to make partial recoveries where it determines that compensation is not after all appropriate. The board's discretion to make recoveries may be sufficient to cover this but to put the matter beyond doubt we have brought forward Amendments Nos. 150 and 151. We believe that the amendments fully address the concerns raised with us.
Amendment No. 317 will bring the compensation board and the regulatory authority under the direct supervision of the Council on Tribunals in dealing with matters by means of a formal hearing as well as when dealing with reviews. They will act in a quasi-judicial manner when conducting a hearing in a way similar to a tribunal. We believe it right that the council should be able to supervise this function. I also gave a commitment that the compensation board would give

1731
written determinations in all cases dealt with by formal hearing or review. That is achieved by Amendment No. 305.
Amendments Nos. 181 and 182 take account of the fact that in the course of investigating whether compensation is payable the compensation board may obtain information relating to tax matters from the Inland Revenue or the commissioners of Customs and Excise. The board will not be able to disclose such information to a third party without being given the authority to do so except for the purposes of criminal proceedings. Amendment No. 182 adds recognised professional bodies, within the meaning of Section 391 of the Insolvency Act 1986, to those the compensation board may disclose information to or receive information from. That is important because compensation will be payable only where the employer is insolvent.
We have also, in Amendments Nos. 248 to 254 and 297, restructured the way in which the levy will work. Amendment No. 251 draws a clearer distinction between the levy to meet the costs of the compensation scheme, and the general levy which will meet the costs of the new regulatory authority as well as existing services such as the pensions ombudsman and the pensions registry.
The compensation levy will not be collected from the same schemes as the general levy. Personal pension schemes and schemes where all the members are trustees will not be covered by the compensation scheme. The amount to be collected will be determined in a different way from the general levy too. This is because it will largely be post event and determined by the number of compensable events. That is why we have decided to separate the compensation levy provisions from those of the general levy. Amendment No. 398 makes specific provision for regulations to impose a levy to cover the expenditure of the compensation board.
These regulations will set a framework for determining the compensation levy, including the maximum amount. The board will determine the rate of the levy because it will be in the best position to set the precise rate. However, we intend to set a maximum amount that can be collected. This will enable us to ensure that schemes liable to pay do not face a particularly high levy in any one year. The amendment also includes provision for one year to be taken with another. This will enable recovery of the board's costs to be spread over a number of years. The compensation levy will be paid direct to the compensation board although we envisage that it will, like the general levy, be collected by the pensions registry.
We are also taking a power to allow us to waive payments of the levy in certain circumstances. We intend this in cases where payment of the levy would adversely affect members' entitlements. We envisage that it will apply to some frozen and paid up schemes. However, there is flexibility to prescribe other circumstances should that become necessary. Amendment No. 301 brings the compensation board within the jurisdiction of the parliamentary commissioner for administration. Therefore the ombudsman will be able to investigate complaints of maladministration against the compensation board. With that explanation I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 147 to 151.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
152 Clause 81, page 52, line 13, leave out from 'requirements' to end of line 24 and insert:
`(4A) The matters shown in the payment schedule for a scheme—

(a) to the extent that the scheme makes provision for their determination, must be so determined, and

(b) otherwise,

(i) must be matters previously agreed between the employer and the trustees or managers of the scheme, or

(ii) if no such agreement has been made as to all matters shown in the schedule (other than those for whose determination the scheme makes provision), must be matters determined by the trustees or managers of the scheme.'.

153 Clause 82, page 52, line 30, at beginning insert 'Except in prescribed circumstances'.
154 Page 52, line 38, at end insert:
'() Where any amounts payable in accordance with the payment schedule by or on behalf of the employer have not been paid on or before the due date, section 10 applies to the employer'.
155 After Clause 82, insert the following clause:—
Application of further provisions to money purchase schemes
.—(1) In the case of money purchase schemes falling within a prescribed class or description, regulations may—

(a) provide for any of the provisions of sections 50 to 54 to apply, or apply with prescribed modifications, (in spite of anything in those sections), and

(b) provide for any of the provisions of sections 81 and 82 to apply with prescribed modifications or not to apply,

to such extent as may be prescribed.
(2) Regulations may provide for any of the provisions of section 69 to apply, or apply with prescribed modifications, to money purchase schemes to such extent as may be prescribed (in spite of anything in that section), and the power conferred by this subsection includes power to apply section 69 in circumstances other than those in which the scheme is being wound up or a relevant insolvency event occurs (within the meaning of that section).'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 152 to 155. I spoke to these amendments in previous debates.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 152 to 155.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
156 Clause 84, page 53, line 10, leave out 'pension' and insert `entitlement or right'.
157 Page 53, line 11, leave out 'pension' and insert 'entitlement or right'.
158 Page 53, line 14, leave out from 'unenforceable' to end of line 20 and insert:
`(2A) Where by virtue of this section a person's

1733
entitlement, or accrued right, to a pension under an occupational pension scheme cannot, apart from subsection (3), be assigned, no order can be made by any court the effect of which would be that he would be restrained from receiving that pension.
(2B) Where a bankruptcy order is made against a person, any entitlement or right of his which by virtue of this section cannot, apart from subsection (3), be assigned is excluded from his estate for the purposes of Parts VIII to XI of the Insolvency Act 1986 or the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.
(2C) Subsection (2A) does not prevent the making of—

(a) an attachment of earnings order under the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, or

(b) an income payments order under the Insolvency Act 1986.'.

159 Page 53, line 34, leave out 'at or after normal pension age' and insert 'on or after retirement'.
160 Page 53, line 42, after 'credits' insert 'other than prescribed transfer credits'.
161 Page 53, line 46, at end insert:
'(e) subject to subsection (4), except in prescribed circumstances, a charge or lien on, or set-off against, the person in question's entitlement, or accrued right, to pension, for the purpose of discharging some monetary obligation due from the person in question to the scheme and—

(i) arising out of a criminal, negligent or fraudulent act or omission by him, or

(ii) in the case of a trust scheme of which the person in question is a trustee, arising out of a breach of trust by him.'.

162 Page 53, line 48, after '(3) (d)' insert 'or (e)'.
163 Page 54, line 12, at end insert:
'() This section is subject to section 159 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (inalienability of guaranteed minimum pension and protected rights payments).'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 156 to 163. I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 165 to 170, 263, 314, 315, 318, 323 and 375. This group of amendments deals with forfeiture. Most of the amendments clarify the clauses themselves or consequential provisions. Amendment No. 160 is of more significance. Clause 84 generally prohibits the exercise of a charge or lien on pension rights or a set-off against those rights except to enable an employer to recover a debt due to him arising from a criminal, negligent or fraudulent act by the person. This is in line with PLRC recommendation 166. It will be subject to certain restrictions and safeguards.
Amendment No. 160 concerns one of the restrictions. It is that the charge, lien or set-off cannot be applied to any proportion of a person's pension rights which consists of transfer credits. This means that an employer cannot recover from pension rights accrued from a previous employment. There are, though, circumstances where we believe that an employer should be able to have access to such transfer credits. These are where the credits are derived from another scheme of the same or an associated employer. At present the Occupational Pensions Board has discretion to deal with these cases. The board will of course be abolished by the Bill. The amendment provides a power to make regulations which will permit an employer to have access to transfer
1734
credits in certain circumstances. However, the general rule will remain. We will use this power in a strictly limited way.
Under trust law a scheme is able to recover debts from a beneficiary's interest in the scheme which he has caused by a breach of trust or a criminal, negligent or fraudulent act or omission. Clauses 84 and 86, by preventing charges and forfeiture, could override these trust law provisions and restrict or prevent what is the proper right of a scheme to recover debts in the circumstances I have explained. This is not our intention. Amendment No. 161 will ensure that the present position is maintained in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 165 to 168 are concerned with an employer's right to recover a debt due to him arising from a criminal, negligent or fraudulent act or omission by means of a charge against a person's pension rights. Such a charge would become effective only when the pension becomes due for payment. In a case where a member died before his pension was paid, the employer would recover nothing under the charge because the pension would never come into payment.
We believe it would be right to allow a scheme to pay money out of a person's accrued rights to the employer to satisfy a debt due to the employer. We also believe it right to allow the scheme to reduce or extinguish pension rights by an amount which is equal to that which has been paid out. That is what these amendments will achieve. They are useful amendments and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 156 to 163. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
164 Leave out Clause 85.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 164. I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 255 to 262, 264 and 265. We had lively and interesting debates on divorce when we considered the Bill earlier, both in Committee and on Report. There was also considerable debate in the other place. Your Lordships' House adopted amendments introduced by my noble friend Lady Young and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, at Report stage. In the other place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr. Peter Lilley, announced our acceptance of the intentions behind these amendments and gave an assurance that we would revise them to make them workable. The amendments now before your Lordships' House are the result.
We have built on the intentions set out in our debate. Our amendments will emphasise the courts' existing duty to take pension assets into account in divorce settlements. They will also allow a court to direct trustees or managers of an occupational or personal pension scheme to make a maintenance payment to a former spouse from a pension which is due to a scheme member. This could be by way of a lump sum or by periodic payments.

1735
The courts will have the power to commute benefits to a lump sum. This will mean that a court may well be able to offset this against other assets in the settlement and remove the need for former spouses to maintain contact with their ex-partners.
The courts will be able to vary deferred lump sum orders. The amount of payment which the trustees or managers of the scheme must pay cannot be more than 100 per cent. of the scheme member's pension. The trustees or managers will be protected from claims from the scheme member in respect of the amount the court has asked them to pay. And the scheme member's income tax position will not be affected.
One concern which has arisen in debate has been that an ex-wife could lose access to payments from her ex-husband's scheme should he die. Our amendments give extra powers to the courts so that they will in future be able to order the scheme member to exercise any right of nomination so as to give his ex-wife all or part of any lump sum payment due from a scheme on his death. The court will be able to direct the trustees or managers to pay that sum direct to the ex-wife rather than leave her having to make a claim from the estate or dependants.
We have also addressed concerns about what happens when a scheme member transfers benefit rights from one scheme to another. Where a court order requiring a scheme to pay is enforced, that requirement will transfer automatically to the new scheme if all the pension rights were transferred. If only part of the rights were transferred the court can be asked for further directions.
There are regulation-making powers to deal with who the payments should be made to and who should notify changes of circumstances. Regulations will also deal with valuing pension rights.
We have removed references in the Matrimonial Causes Act to "foreseeable future" so far as they deal with pensions. This term could be construed as putting undue restriction on the courts when considering pensions, which build up over a working life. Therefore, we have removed this restriction.
We have also taken steps to improve the position north of the Border. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has suggested amendments to the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 so that we can bring in similar provisions for Scotland so far as it is practicable to do so.
We have, of course, had to have regard to the very different nature of the legislative regimes and procedures in Scotland. But we believe that the measures we are introducing will pave the way for significant improvements in the consistency with which the courts approach the question of pension rights on divorce. They will align the relevant law of Scotland with that of England and Wales to a significant extent.
I hope that the amendments I have outlined will be seen as representing a much improved framework in dealing with pension rights in divorce cases. These amendments build on the existing powers of the courts and improve on the amendments which my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis,
1736
introduced into the Bill. Needless to say, the significant difference between the amendments moved by the noble Baronesses and the ministerial amendments is in the length. My amendments seem to cover a great many more pages than did the original amendments. However, I can assure them, as I am sure they know, that the amendments make certain that the principles behind the amendments accepted by the Government from my noble friend Lady Young and won by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in the Division Lobbies can be enforced.
The effect should be to increase the number of settlements which include pension rights. It would be only right to pay tribute to both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for the tenacity with which they pursued me and this particular objective. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 164.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question for clarification. The Minister mentioned the lump sum payment. That can be important. He said that the husband paying for the pension may nominate the person to receive the share. Can he be required by the court to nominate his divorced wife to receive a share? It is very important that she should receive that share. If it is left to him he could decide not to do that. I was not sure from what the Minister said whether the court could say that he had to allocate so much to his previous wife or whether he was at liberty to do so.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, our amendments give extra powers to the courts so that they will in future be able to order the scheme member to exercise any right of nomination so as to give his ex-wife all or part of any lump sum payment due from a scheme on his death. He must so nominate if the court orders him to do so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister would not expect the amendment to be agreed without some comment from this side of the House.
We very much welcome the fact that, in this House and in another place, the Government have accepted the spirit of the amendments agreed by your Lordships and turned them into what I hope will be a workable scheme. That means that in addition to offsetting at the point of divorce the parties also have the option of earmarking assets managed by the pension scheme.
All of us accept that the third option of splitting the pension must follow shortly. We cannot leave the law as it is. We have broken the ice. We have helped a large number of women. That is desirable and useful. However, it is clear that the desirable situation would be that the courts, in conjunction with the partners concerned, should be able to choose between offsetting, earmarking or splitting, according to the resources within the marriage, the age of the parties and their own inclination. If the parties are fairly young they will wish to have a clean break, which can only be achieved by

1737
splitting, whereas where the parties are perhaps in their late 50s and retirement is fairly near, earmarking may make better sense.
I do not accept the figures that the Government offered first here and then again in the other place about the putative cost of splitting the pension. I accept that there may be a modest loss to the Inland Revenue because of the loss of associated revenue when there are two small pensions rather than one larger pension. As to the Government's figure of the cost to public funds of splitting pensions in the case of unfunded or pay-as-you-go public authority schemes, £300 million represented 20 years of divorces all rolled up into one year with in all cases the parties taking the money out of the scheme. That is an absurd method of calculation. Heavyweight firms of actuaries have reduced that figure of £300 million to under £50 million as the realistic cost likely to be faced by the Government. Even then it simply marks a transfer flow and not an actual cash sum. Therefore, the Government's objections on grounds of cost are widely regarded as dubious at best and probably spurious.
However, we all expect that the Queen's Speech may include a matrimonial causes Bill promoted by the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Home Office in association with reform of divorce law. As by that time the Government will have the full research findings that they made much of during the course of debate, we can expect, and have every reason to hope, that we shall see a further progression in the tidying up of pension arrangements on divorce so that in those marriage break-ups where it is appropriate splitting the pension—the clean break situation—will be an option. That must happen. We all know that it must happen.
Finally, I should like to press further the point rightly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the lump sum. The problem with earmarking, welcome and highly suitable though it is for women in their late 50s—the former husband is fairly close to drawing a pension—is that her money depends on his outliving her. If he dies before she reaches pension age, she receives no flow of money. If he dies before her, say, in his late 70s or early 80s, between the ages of 60, or 65, and 75 she may have enjoyed an appropriate share of his pension. He may be three or four years older than her and may not have the life expectancy that she has. If he then dies, it means that at the age of 75 or 78 she suddenly, from having an income of perhaps £150 or £200 from the pension, plunges to income support level benefits—the state pension plus a top up. Suddenly her pension will go because he has died. In her declining years, when she is most likely to need money to afford residential care and fees, she will receive no pension. That is the consequence of earmarking.
We have had informal discussions. There is absolutely no reason why in another place the Government should not have added an amendment which allowed that fraction of the pension which went to the first wife at the time of their divorce, say, 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the total pension, to continue as a fraction of the widow's pension after the husband's death. The sums may be exactly the same. They may need minor adjustment. That could be a matter for the
1738
courts to resolve. There was no reason on earth why the Government should not have made that modest addendum. I had hoped that they would do so in good faith. I know that there was informal pressure asking the Government to do so. Perhaps it is now too late. But the Government really should take up that last area of problem associated with earmarking until they, I hope, can bring back to the House the option of splitting.
Otherwise, we have to say to elderly women, "Yes, we fought for you. We have now conceded that you may have your due portion of your former husband's pension, but the moment he dies your money stops and down you plummet into income support at just the time when possibly your expenses will increase because you will need nursing care". That problem could have been overcome quite simply within the framework of an earmarking scheme by allowing the ex-wife's portion to continue. Perhaps the Government will comment on that point.
Secondly, do I understand that we are talking only about the lump sum that is paid if the ex-husband dies before he reaches pension age? Let me cite a scheme where the pension is 40/80ths, and 3/80ths of it becomes a lump sum. Such a scheme is not uncommon. One receives 40/80ths as a pension and 2.5 times one's annual salary as a lump sum. That is a fairly standard scheme. The husband then dies. I presume that the former wife would now lose the earmarked flow of money from the 40/80ths. But would she have a right to the 2.5 times the annual salary which would be part of his lump sum at retirement? Will the Minister explain what happens to that lump sum element, not when the former husband dies in service, but when it is part of his subsequent pension entitlement? Is that a claim of the ex-wife on his estate?
Can the Minister help us? We have some real problems which the Government could easily have overcome within the framework of their own scheme so as to ensure that the first wife continues to have a modest pension which is not dependent on the ex-husband outliving her. The Government have chosen not to do so, even though there is quite a lot of pressure on them to make that move. Perhaps we could have the Minister's response to some of those questions.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may try to address the question of the lump sum payment. It is certainly true that we listened to and have responded to concerns in the debate that if the ex-husband dies then the ex-wife could lose access to any payments from her ex-husband's scheme. In future the court will be able to order the scheme member to exercise any right of nomination in order to give his ex-wife all or part of any lump sum payment due from a scheme on his death. The court will have a power to direct the trustees or managers to pay this sum to the ex-wife so that she does not have to claim from his estate or other dependants. The new section also protects the trustees or managers from claims from scheme members with regard to the payments that they have been ordered to make.

1739
It is difficult to decide on my feet; I am trying to read at the same time as answering the noble Baroness. I think that it does not matter when a lump sum is made. The situation will apply if a lump sum is made after retirement as opposed to before retirement. However the question posed in debate was: if the member of a pension fund should die before he retired, what would happen? That is certainly the matter that I understood we addressed. I suspect that there will be no difference in the situation between pre-retirement and post-retirement. I shall confirm that to the noble Baroness as quickly as I am given the opportunity to read what the document says.
Having had my attention drawn to the right place, I am now considering the question of post-retirement death, which is the question the noble Baroness asked. The scheme, of course, will stop paying the ex-husband's pension. The noble Baroness makes the fair point that, therefore, there will be no income to pay continued maintenance. Therefore, as now, any ongoing maintenance will cease.
We have considered the issue carefully and have concluded that we can offer something of a solution. We have introduced a provision that could require a scheme member to nominate his ex-spouse to receive any lump sum that is payable to his estate following his death either in service or after retirement. As I suspected, the answer to the noble Baroness's question is, yes. Where necessary our legislation will override any scheme rules that would limit nomination. There could be limits to nomination in a scheme which might make what we seek to do impossible, but the legislation will overrule that.
I know that this is not a perfect answer. I hope that I have answered the point about the lump sum. Either before or after, the same rule applies: if there is a lump sum the court can order that the scheme member has to exercise the right of nomination either for the whole or part of the amount to the ex-wife.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in the case of the USS scheme, with which I am most directly familiar because I am a beneficiary, the lump sum is part of your pension. When one retires one receives a pension and a very convenient lump sum. What I ask is this. When the ex-husband retires—he does not have to die for my interest in him—he receives his pension and a very convenient lump sum. Does the ex-wife receive her share of the lump sum as well as her share of the annual pension? That is what I want to know.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I may ask another question. We are talking about a situation where there is power to commute. In many schemes there is power to take a half pay pension when you are entitled to two-thirds and one has the remaining part as a lump sum. It is called commutation. It applies in public service schemes as a matter of course. However, it also applies in a good many private schemes where one can agree to commute part of one's pension and receive a lump sum as well as one's pension.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the trouble with bringing forward amendments to which you think everyone agrees is that one gets into this kind of
1740
question. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has neatly changed the question she asked. Her original question related to death. I hope that I have answered the question about death before retirement and death after retirement; namely, if there are lump sums due there is no difference.
I am now asked about lump sums that are paid as what is called commutation at the time of retirement when the member of the scheme is still alive. The answer to the question about splitting that lump sum is yes, she can get some or indeed all of the lump sum on commutation. It is for the courts to decide on that matter. The courts could order the ex-husband to take the commutation and to arrange for an amount specified by the court to be paid to the ex-wife. I hope that that answers the three questions about the lump sum.
I turn to the more general point on the case for splitting, to which the noble Baroness returned. As she knows, it is rather like the amendments which we accepted from both her and my noble friend Lady Young which begin as a few lines. However, when we start ensuring that we write in something which will work in law, the few lines expand considerably. I have never given much thought to the issue, but obviously I have had to do so since the turn of the year and the problem is more complicated than the noble Baroness suggests it is in broad principle.
I believe that at some stage of the Bill I conceded that it was not an issue which we could lay to rest through what we propose in the Bill. As I explained, we have commissioned research and look forward to receiving the results. My honourable friend Mr. James Arbuthnot, who has now moved to the Ministry of Defence, said in the other place that we would be prepared to return to the subject once we had received the results of the research which had been commissioned. Therefore, we are prepared to revisit the issue in the future when the research becomes available.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister. However, he has not so far responded to our third question, if he can. It relates to the flow of earmarked income which ceases when the spouse, the husband, dies. The wife may then find herself in her last 10 years of life living on a pension down to income support level. We hoped that Ministers in the other place would take up the point and remedy the problem.
Given what the Minister said, the courts may require the husband to write into his pension that his first spouse should be the beneficiary of a lump sum, whenever that may be paid. There is no reason why the courts should not require exactly the same procedure to follow that portion of the widow's pension—let us say 50 per cent. of what would fall to the widow—which should be apportioned fairly between the first and the second wife, or however many wives there may be. The matter could be judged in terms of years of marriage, transfer value or whatever, by regulation or whatever the Minister chooses to lay down. That is simple.
Even at this late stage, why should the Minister not extend the principle of the court ordering the husband to have a defined nominee to inherit the lump sum? Why should that principle not apply to a defined nominee

1741
who would share in the widow's pension? Then the biggest single problem left with earmarking would be overcome.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps
I was rather more brief than I intended. I indicated that that difficulty would remain, and I accept the point. However, one of the purposes of conferring the power on the courts to order the scheme member to nominate the former spouse as the beneficiary of a lump sum payable on his death is to try—perhaps not as well as the noble Baroness would like—to provide the former spouse with compensation for the loss of the widow's pension. So that possibility exists. However, I am afraid that it is one difficulty more than we felt we could deal with.
As the noble Baroness rightly said, the issue would be dealt with if one went down the road of pension splitting. I believe that I have gone as far as I can at this late stage of the Bill. I suggest that she should accept the benefits that have come in the wake of her amendment and that of my noble friend Lady Young and not try to push me further and further.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
165 Clause 86, page 54, line 23, leave out from second 'section' to 'an' in line 24 and insert '(Forfeiture by reference to obligation to the employer)'.
166 Page 55, line 14, after 'section' insert 'and section (Forfeiture by reference to obligation to the employer)'.
167 After Clause 86, insert the following clause: —
Forfeiture by reference to obligation to the employer
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), section 86(1) does not prevent forfeiture of a person's entitlement, or accrued right, to a pension under an occupational pension scheme by reference to the person having incurred some monetary obligation due to the employer and arising out of a criminal, negligent or fraudulent act or omission by the person.
(2) A person's entitlement or accrued right to a pension may be forfeited by reason of subsection (1) to the extent only that it does not exceed the amount of the monetary obligation in question, or (if less) the value (determined in the prescribed manner) of the person's entitlement or accrued right to a pension under the scheme.
(3) Such forfeiture as is mentioned in subsection (1) must not take effect where there is a dispute as to amount of the monetary obligation in question, unless the obligation has become enforceable under an order of a competent court or in consequence of an award of an arbitrator or, in Scotland, an arbiter to be appointed (failing agreement between the parties) by the sheriff.
(4) Where a person's entitlement or accrued right to a pension is forfeited by reason of subsection (1), the person must be given a certificate showing the amount forfeited and the effect of the forfeiture on his benefits under the scheme.
(5) Where such forfeiture as is mentioned in subsection (1) occurs, an amount not exceeding the amount forfeited may, if the trustees or managers of the scheme so determine, be paid to the employer.'. '
168 Clause 87, page 55, line 17, after & 86' insert 'and (Forfeiture by reference to obligation to the employer)'.
169 Page 55, line 25, at end insert:
'() references to a charge are to be read as references to a right in security or a diligence and "charged" is to be interpreted accordingly,'.
170 Page 55, line 31, leave out from `1980'to end of line 35 and insert:
1742
'() the reference to an income payments order under the Insolvency Act 1986 is to be read as a reference to an order under section 32(2) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, and
() the reference to the making of a bankruptcy order is to be read as a reference to the award of sequestration or the making of the appointment of such a judicial factor.'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 165 to 170 en bloc. I have already spoken to them.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 165 to 170. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
171 After Clause 87, insert the following clause: —
Pension rights of individuals adjudged bankrupt etc
'. —(1) After section 342 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (adjustment of certain transactions entered into by individuals subsequently adjudged bankrupt), there is inserted—
"Recovery of excessive pension contributions.
342A.—(1) Where an individual is adjudged bankrupt and—

(a) he has during the relevant period made contributions as a member of an occupational pension scheme, or

(b) contributions have during the relevant period been made to such a scheme on his behalf,

the trustee of the bankrupt's estate may apply to the court for an order under this section.
(2) If, on an application for an order under this section, the court is satisfied that the making of any of the contributions ("the excessive contributions") has unfairly prejudiced the individual's creditors, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for restoring the position to what it would have been if the excessive contributions had not been made.
(3) The court shall, in determining whether it is satisfied under subsection (2), consider in particular—

(a) whether any of the contributions were made by or on behalf of the individual for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of his creditors or any of them,

(b) whether the total amount of contributions made by or on behalf of the individual (including contributions made to any other occupational pension scheme) during the relevant period was excessive in view of the individual's circumstances at the time when they were made, and

(c) whether the level of benefits under the scheme, together with benefits under any other occupational pension scheme, to which the individual is entitled, or is likely to become entitled, is excessive in all the circumstances of the case.

Orders under section 342A.
342B.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 342A (2), an order under that section may include provision—

(a) requiring the trustees or managers of the scheme to pay an amount to the individual's trustee in bankruptcy,

1743

(b) reducing the amount of any benefit to which the individual (or his spouse, widow, widower or dependant) is entitled, or to which he has an accrued right, under the scheme,

(c) reducing the amount of any benefit to which, by virtue of any assignment, commutation or surrender of the individual's entitlement (or that of his spouse, widow, widower or dependant) or accrued right under the scheme, another person is entitled or has an accrued right,

(d) otherwise adjusting the liabilities of the scheme in respect of any such person as is mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c).

(2) The maximum amount by which an order under section 342A may require the assets of an occupational pension scheme to be reduced is the lesser of

(a) the amount of the excessive contributions, and

(b) the value (determined in the prescribed manner) of the assets of the scheme which represent contributions made by or on behalf of the individual.

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), an order under section 342A must reduce the amount of the liabilities of the scheme by an amount equal to the amount of the reduction made in the value of the assets of the scheme.
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply where the individual's entitlement or accrued right to benefits under the scheme which he acquired by virtue of the excessive contributions (his "excessive entitlement") has been forfeited.
(5) Where part of the individual's excessive entitlement has been forfeited, the amount of the reduction in the liabilities of the scheme required by subsection (3) is the value of the remaining part of his excessive entitlement.
(6) An order under section 342A in respect of an occupational pension scheme shall be binding on the trustees or managers of the scheme.
Orders under section 342A: supplementary..
342C.—(1) Nothing in—

(a) any provision of section 159 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 or 84 of the Pensions Act 1995 (which prevent assignment, or orders being made restraining a person from receiving anything which he is prevented from assigning, and make provision in relation to a person's pension on bankruptcy),

(b) any provision of any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the passing of the Pensions Act 1995) corresponding to any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a), or

(c) any provision of the scheme in question corresponding to any of those provisions,

applies to a court exercising its powers under section 342A.
(2) Where any sum is required by an order under section 342A to be paid to the trustee in bankruptcy, that sum shall be comprised in the bankrupt's estate.
(3) Where contributions have been made during the relevant period to any occupational pension scheme and the entitlement or accrued right to benefits acquired thereby has been transferred to a second or subsequent occupational pension scheme ("the transferee scheme"), sections 342A and 342B and this section shall apply as though the contributions had been made to the transferee scheme.
(4) For the purposes of this section and sections 342A and 342B—
1744

(a) contributions are made during the relevant period if—

(i) they are made by or on behalf of the individual at any time during the period of 5 years ending with the day of presentation of the bankruptcy petition on which the individual is adjudged bankrupt, or

(ii) they are made on behalf of the individual at any time during the period between the presentation of the petition and the commencement of the bankruptcy, and

(b) the accrued rights of an individual under an occupational pension scheme at any time are the rights which have accrued to or in respect of him at that time to future benefits under the scheme.

(5) In this section and sections 342A and 342B—
"occupational pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, and
"trustees or managers", in relation to an occupational pension scheme, means—

(a) in the case of a scheme established under a trust, the trustees of the scheme, and

(b) in any other case, the managers of the scheme."

(2) After section 36 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 there is inserted—
"Recovery of excessive pension contributions.
36A.—(1) Where a debtor's estate has been sequestrated and—

(a) he has during the relevant period made contributions as a member of an occupational pension scheme; or

(b) contributions have during the relevant period been made to such a scheme on his behalf;

the permanent trustee may apply to the court for an order under this section.
(2) If, on an application for an order under this section, the court is satisfied that the making of any of the contributions ("the excessive contributions") has unfairly prejudiced the debtor's creditors, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for restoring the position to what it would have been if the excessive contributions had not been made.
(3) The court shall, in determining whether it is satisfied under subsection (2) above, consider in particular—

(a) whether any of the contributions were made by or on behalf of the debtor for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of his creditors or any of them;

(b) whether the total amount of contributions made by or on behalf of the debtor (including contributions made to any other occupational pension scheme) during the relevant period was excessive in view of the debtor's circumstances at the time when they were made; and

(c) whether the level of benefits under the scheme, together with benefits under any other occupational pension scheme, to which the debtor is entitled, or is likely to become entitled, is excessive in all the circumstances of the case.

Orders under section 36A.
36B.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) of section 36A of this Act, an order under that section may include provision—

1745

(a) requiring the trustees or managers of the scheme to pay an amount to the permanent trustee;

(b) reducing the amount of any benefit to which the debtor (or his spouse, widow, widower or dependant) is entitled, or to which he has an accrued right, under the scheme;

(c) reducing the amount of any benefit to which, by virtue of any assignation, commutation or surrender of the debtor's entitlement (or that of his spouse, widow, widower or dependant) or accrued right under the scheme, another person is entitled or has an accrued right;

(d) otherwise adjusting the liabilities of the scheme in respect of any such person as is mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c) above.

(2) The maximum amount by which an order under section 36A of this Act may require the assets of an occupational pension scheme to be reduced is the lesser of—

(a) the amount of the excessive contributions; and

(b) the value (determined in the prescribed manner) of the assets of the scheme which represent contributions made by or on behalf of the debtor.

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, an order under section 36A of this Act must reduce the amount of the liabilities of the scheme by an amount equal to the amount of the reduction made in the value of the assets of the scheme.
(4) Subsection (3) above does not apply where the debtor's entitlement or accrued right to benefits under the scheme which he acquired by virtue of the excessive contributions (his "excessive entitlement") has been forfeited.
(5) Where part of the debtor's excessive entitlement has been forfeited, the amount of the reduction in the liabilities of the scheme required by subsection (3) above is the value of the remaining part of his excessive entitlement.
(6) An order under section 36A of this Act in respect of an occupational pension scheme shall be binding on the trustees or managers of the scheme.
(7) The court may, on the application of any person having an interest, review, rescind or vary an order under section 36A of this Act.
Orders under section 36A: supplementary.
36C.—(1) Nothing in—

(a) any provision of section 159 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 or 84 of the Pensions Act 1995 (which prevent assignation, or orders being made restraining a person from receiving anything which he is prevented from assigning, and make provision in relation to a person's pension on sequestration);

(b) any provision of any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the passing of the Pensions Act 1995) corresponding to any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) above; or

(c) any provision of the scheme in question corresponding to any of those provisions,

applies to a court exercising its powers under section 36A of this Act.
(2) Where any sum is required by an order under section 36A of this Act to be paid to the permanent trustee, that sum shall be comprised in the debtor's estate.
(3) Where contributions have been made during the relevant period to any occupational pension scheme and the entitlement or accrued right to benefits acquired
1746
thereby has been transferred to a second or subsequent occupational pension scheme ("the transferee scheme"), sections 36A and 36B of this Act and this section shall apply as though the contributions had been made to the transferee scheme.
(4) For the purposes of this section and sections 36A and 36B of this Act—

(a) contributions are made during the relevant period if they are made at any time during the period of 5 years ending with the date of sequestration; and

(b) the accrued rights of a debtor under an occupational pension scheme at any time are the rights which have accrued to or in respect of him at that time to future benefits under the scheme.

(5) In this section and sections 36A and 36B of this Act—
"occupational pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993; and
"trustees or managers", in relation to an
occupational pension scheme, means—

(a) in the case of a scheme established under a trust, the trustees of the scheme; and

(b) in any other case, the managers of the scheme." '.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 171. With it, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 313.
This is the smallest group of amendments with which we have to deal, but although there are only two, they still look pretty formidable. Let me try to explain. Amendment No. 171 inserts a new clause into the Bill to deal with pension rights on bankruptcy. It is intended to prevent abuse by a bankrupt of the statutory protection offered to occupational pension rights under Clause 84(2) of the Bill.
The Bill protects all pension rights in occupational schemes from creditors. A trustee in bankruptcy will be able to gain access only by applying to a court for an income payments order against income payable from the pension fund.
It is right that we should protect pension rights in this way. But we must not ignore the possibility that there might be unscrupulous debtors who seek to use the statutory protection to defeat creditors. This long and complicated clause prevents such abuse by inserting provisions into the Insolvency Act 1986 for England and Wales and the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 for Scotland. They will enable a court to order recovery of some or all occupational pension contributions paid in the five years before bankruptcy. The court would make such an order only if it believed that the contributions were excessive in that they unfairly prejudiced the interests of creditors.
The amount of the recovery will normally be limited to the amount of the contributions considered to be excessive. The court is required to take account of any fall in the value of contributions to ensure that the pension scheme does not suffer any loss.
We expect that the complexity of the application procedure and the small number of cases in which the bankrupt is likely to have made excessive pension

1747
contributions which have prejudiced creditors' interests will mean that there will be very few cases. The measure is aimed at preventing abuse. We have taken great care to ensure that the relative needs of the creditors, the individual and the pension scheme are balanced equitably.
Amendment No. 313 is designed to avoid inconsistent treatment of debtors north and south of the Border. It inserts provisions into the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 which equate to the amendments which this Bill already makes to the Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to England and Wales. I hope that your Lordships will agree that these are useful amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 171.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
172 Clause 88, page 56, line 2, after '26(3)' insert 'or (4)'.
173 Page 56, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
174 Clause 93, page 59, line 38, after 'who' insert 'without reasonable excuse'.
175 Clause 94, page 60, line 32, at end insert:
'() Where a person claims a lien on a document, its production under section 90 or 91 shall be without prejudice to the lien.'
176 Clause 99, page 62, line 13, at end insert:

`The Lord Advocate.

Functions under Part I of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.'.

177 Page 63, line 48, leave out 'is permitted in the case of ' and insert 'may be made to'.
178 Clause 100, page 64, line 14, at end insert 'or any proceedings for breach of trust in relation to an occupational pension scheme'.
179 Page 64, line 36, at end insert:
'(3A) Section 96 does not preclude the disclosure by any person mentioned in subsection (1) or (3) of information obtained by the person by virtue of that subsection, if the disclosure is made with the consent of the Authority.
(3B) Section 96 does not preclude the disclosure by any person specified in the first column of the Table in section 99 of information obtained by the person by virtue of that subsection, if the disclosure is made—

(a) with the consent of the Authority, and

(b) for the purpose of enabling or assisting the person to discharge any functions specified in relation to him in the second column of the Table.

(3C) The Authority must, before deciding whether to give their consent to such a disclosure as is mentioned in subsection (3A) or (3B), take account of any representations made to them by the person seeking to make the disclosure as to the desirability of the disclosure or the necessity for it.'.
180 Clause 101, page 64, line 43, leave out 'Section 182 of the Finance Act 1989 does not preclude' and insert 'No obligation as to secrecy imposed by section 182 of the Finance Act 1989 or otherwise shall prevent'.
181 Clause 106, page 66, line 44, at end insert:
'() In the case of any such information as is mentioned
1748
in subsection (2), subsection (3) does not authorise any disclosure of that information by the Compensation Board unless made—

(a) to, or in accordance with authority duly given by, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, or

(b) with a view to the institution of, or otherwise for the purposes of, criminal proceedings under this Act or the Pension Schemes Act 1993, or any enactment in force in Northern Ireland corresponding to either of them.'.

182 Page 67, line 10, at end insert:
'() a recognised professional body (within the meaning of section 391 of the Insolvency Act 1986)'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 172 to 182 en bloc. I have
already spoken to them in an earlier debate.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 172 to 182. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
183 Clause 106, page 67, line 18, leave out subsection (7).
184 Clause 110, page 68, line 19, leave out from 'modify' to 'in'
in line 20 and insert 'any provisions of this Part'.
185 After Clause 112, insert the following clause: —
Crown application
'.—(1) This Part applies to an occupational pension scheme managed by or on behalf of the Crown as it applies to other occupational pension schemes; and, accordingly, references in this Part to a person in his capacity as a trustee or manager of an occupational pension scheme include the Crown, or a person acting on behalf of the Crown, in that capacity.
(2) References in this Part to a person in his capacity as employer in relation to an occupational pension scheme include the Crown, or a person acting on behalf of the Crown, in that capacity.
(3) This section does not apply to any provision made by or under this Part under which a person may be prosecuted for an offence; but such a provision applies to persons in the public service of the Crown as it applies to other persons.
() This section does not apply to sections 37 to 40 and (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed).
(4) Nothing in this Part applies to Her Majesty in Her private capacity (within the meaning of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947).'.
186 Clause 115, page 69, leave out lines 21 to 24.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 183 to 186 en bloc. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 188 to 195, 197, 204, 268, 269, 274 to 277, 280, 281, 283, 319, 322, 329, 403 and 404.
This is a group of amendments which I can only call miscellaneous. Unkindly, your Lordships may think that they are a bit of a ragbag collection, but they are tidying up and other amendments to ensure that the Bill will work. I shall deal with one or two of the more important ones and I am happy to answer questions about any of the others.

1749
Amendment No. 184 extends the power to modify certain provisions to cover the whole of Part I of the Bill. The reason is so that we can modify the provisions to make it possible for industry-wide schemes to meet them. We discussed industry-wide schemes in previous stages of the Bill.
We always intended to ensure that industry-wide schemes should be able to continue with arrangements which are perfectly sound and sensible. But the schemes have differences that need to be catered for in secondary legislation. It has now become clear that the powers in Clause 110 do not go far enough. One particular problem arises because of features in certain types of scheme, such as the electricity supply pension scheme and the Railways Pension Trustee Company Limited. Because of these features, the existing regulation-making powers would not be sufficient to make the necessary modifications, and the amendment will allow us to achieve what was always our intention.
Amendments Nos. 183, 274 and 275 ensure that there is a definition of the word "enactment" which can apply throughout the Bill. We have a specific definition for the purposes of Clause 106, but no general definition. Amendment No. 183 removes the definition from Clause 106, and the other two amendments insert a general definition at Clause 157.
Amendment No. 269 removes Clause 154 because its purpose is the same as the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 185. This is designed to ensure that the relevant provisions in Part I of the Bill apply in the same way to public service schemes as they do to private sector schemes. Those running public service schemes will be required to comply with the obligations of Part
I which are appropriate to these schemes. They will be liable to sanction by OPRA if they fail to do so.
Amendments Nos. 186, 188, 189 and 191 to 195 clarify a number of definitions of terms used in Part I of the Bill. The most significant of these is the definition of "accrued rights". This matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire. We acknowledged how important it was to make sure that we had a proper definition of accrued rights. We consulted various pension organisations and we now believe that we have what we need. These amendments provide it.
Amendment No. 268 inserts a new clause to enable public service pension schemes to recover any additional administrative costs that they incur from investment firms as a result of the mis-selling of personal pensions. This will put public service schemes in a comparable position to private sector schemes. We believe that this provision is necessary to ensure that occupational pension schemes run for civil servants, teachers, the NHS and local government employees should be able to recover the costs so that they do not fall on scheme members or taxpayers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 183 to 186.-—(Lord Mackay of.Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
187 Clause 115, page 69, line 27, leave out 'a trust' and insert 'an occupational pension'.
188 Page 69, line 35, leave out from 'person' to 'who' in line 39 and insert '(other than an active or pensioner member)'.
189 Page 70, leave out lines 7 to 15.
190 Page 70, line 21, at end insert:
"member-nominated director" has the meaning given by section (Corporate trustees: member-nominated directors) (2)'.
191 Page 70, line 31, leave out 'service' and insert `employment'.
192 Page 70, line 33, leave out 'long service benefit' and insert `pension or other benefits'.
193 Page 70, line 36, leave out from 'scheme' to end of line 37 and insert 'or by reason of transfer credits, is entitled to the present payment of pension or other benefits'.
194 Page 71, line 5, leave out from `to' to 'under' in line 7 and insert 'a member'.
195 Page 71, line 18, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
`() For the purposes of this Part—

(a) the accrued rights of a member of an occupational pension scheme at any time are the rights which have accrued to or in respect of him at that time to future benefits under the scheme, and

(b) at any time when the pensionable service of a member of an occupational pension scheme is continuing, his accrued rights are to be determined as if he had opted, immediately before that time, to terminate that service;

and references to accrued pension or accrued benefits are to be interpreted accordingly.'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 187 to 195 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments in earlier debates. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 187 to 195 en bloc.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
196 Clause 117, Leave out Clause 117.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 196.
In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 266, 267 and 279. I am sure that noble Lords will recall the debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, successfully moved a new clause providing for the restoration of war widows' pensions which had been withdrawn on remarriage. This gave rise to very strong feelings. The Government agreed that something needed to be done about the current legislation, which provides that the former war widow, having forfeited her war pension on remarriage, may not subsequently become re-entitled to that pension. Amendment No. 196 tidies up the wording of the noble Lord's amendment, and also adds to its scope. I am sure that the noble Lord is perfectly satisfied with that.

1751
The original clause benefited only the former war widow of a member of Her Majesty's Forces. We have now gone further and included the other categories of widow, mainly non-service widows who were awarded a war widow's pension under the wide-ranging war pension schemes. Our amendment ensures that former war widows of merchant seamen—as I recall, a subject raised by one noble Lord opposite during the debate—civilians whose deaths were due to enemy action during World War II (again, raised by noble Lords opposite during the debate) or widows of former members of the Polish forces who served under British command during that war will also benefit from the proposed change.
The amendment also ensures that the change benefits former war widows who become widowed on more than two occasions. It will apply following the termination of any marriage which was subsequently entered into by a former war widow. It will also apply where the parties have been judicially separated. So it goes beyond failure of the second marriage, which was provided for in the original clause.
The amendment will benefit some 16,500 former war widows at a net cost of around £45 million in a full year. Almost 80 per cent. of war widows are aged 70 or over. A former war widow aged, let us say, between 70 and 80 will be entitled to a pension worth at least almost £143. As I believe I explained during the debate, it will be tax free. So they have the same preference as that enjoyed by widows currently receiving a war widow's pension. There will of course be the £10 disregard for income related benefit claims and for those entitled to the supplementary pension for pre-1973 war widows. That amounts currently to £49.77 a week. That will also be disregarded.
I noted that in the other place a great deal was made of the fact that only about 6,000 war widows who were eligible had applied. At the last count, earlier this week, the figure stood at over 8,000 and was rising. As this provision has not yet been enacted, it is quite clear to me that the jungle drums are beating pretty loudly on the war widows circuit. I have every confidence that the figure of 16,500 will be reached shortly after we begin to enact this particular amendment.
That leads me to Amendment No. 279. This amendment ensures that this provision will come into force on the day on which the Bill is enacted. It will therefore be among the first measures in the Bill to be implemented. That could be this month—three months earlier than we had generally expected. I am sure that this will mean that many former war widows will be delighted that the progress we have been able to make on the Bill means that they may receive the payments earlier than expected. These amendments give us all the advantages in the original clause, and add to them.
I turn now to Amendment No. 267. It introduces a new clause to provide an extension of the war pension appeal provision. It will give Polish forces who served under British command during World War II a statutory right of appeal to a war pension appeal tribunal against a decision on a claim to award a pension or war widow's pension. The Polish forces entitled to claim a war pension for death or disablement arising from service
1752
through the special arrangements set up in 1947 were given no right of appeal at that time. Polish forces who are dissatisfied are able to have their cases reviewed by a war pensions committee. But these committees can only make recommendations which are not binding on the War Pensions Agency.
I know from meetings that I have had since I became Minister in charge of war pensions that ex-service organisations feel strongly that the time has come to give the same statutory right of appeal to Polish forces as that enjoyed by British forces. That is a feeling with which I heartily concur. It is most fitting that this change can be introduced during this year of memorable World War II anniversaries. I believe that these amendments make significant improvements in the field of war pensions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 196. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
197 Clause 120, page 74, line 30, leave out 'Administration Act' and insert 'Social Security Administration Act 1992'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 197. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 197. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
198 After Clause 121, insert the following clause:
Up-rating of pensions increased under section 52 of the
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act,
.—(1) For section 156 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 there is substituted—
"Up-rating under section 150 above of pensions increased under section 52(3) of the Contributions and Benefits Act.
.—(1) This section applies in any case where a person is entitled to a Category A retirement pension with an increase, under section 52(3) of the Contributions and Benefits Act, in the additional pension on account of the contributions of a spouse who has died.
(2) Where in the case of any up-rating order under section 150 above—

(a) the spouse's final relevant year is the tax year preceding the tax year in which the up-rating order comes into force, but

(b) the person's final relevant year was an earlier tax year,

then the up-rating order shall not have effect in relation to that part of the additional pension which is attributable to the spouse's contributions.
(3) Where in the case of any up-rating order under section 150 above—

(a) the person's final relevant year is the tax year preceding the tax year in which the up-rating order comes into force, but

(b) the spouse's final relevant year was an earlier tax year,

then the up-rating order shall not have effect in relation to that part of the additional pension which is attributable to the person's contributions."
(2) In section 151(1) of that Act (effect of up-rating orders on additional pensions), after "and shall apply" there is inserted "subject to section 156 and". '.
199 Insert the following clause:
Graduated retirement benefit
'.—(1) In section 62(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (graduated retirement benefit), after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
"(aa) for amending section 36(7) of that Act (persons to be treated as receiving nominal retirement pension) so that where a person has claimed a Category A or Category B retirement pension but—

(i) because of an election under section 54(1) above, or

(ii) because he has withdrawn his claim for the pension,

he is not entitled to such a pension, he is not to be treated for the purposes of the preceding provisions of that section as receiving such a pension at a nominal weekly rate;"
(2) In section 150(11) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (application of up-rating provisions to graduated retirement benefit) for the words following "provisions of this section" there is substituted—

"(a) to the amount of graduated retirement benefit payable for each unit of graduated contributions,

(b) to increases of such benefit under any provisions made by virtue of section 24(1) (b) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 or section 62(1) o (a) of the Contributions and Benefits Act, and

(c) to any addition under section 37(1) of the National Insurance Act 1965 (addition to weekly rate of retirement pension for widows and widowers) to the amount of such benefit."

(3) In section 155(7) of that Act (effect of alteration of rates of graduated retirement benefit) for the words following "provisions of this section" there is substituted—

"(a) to the amount of graduated retirement benefit payable for each unit of graduated contributions,

(b) to increases of such benefit under any provisions made by virtue of section 24(1) (b) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 or section 62(1) (a) of the Contributions and Benefits Act, and

(c) to any addition under section 37(1) of the National Insurance Act 1965 (addition to weekly rate of retirement pension for widows and widowers) to the amount of such benefit". '.

200 Insert the following clause:
Extension of Christmas Bonus for pensioners
`.—(1) Section 150 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (Christmas bonus: interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (k) there is inserted—
"(1) a mobility supplement".
(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) after the definition of "attendance allowance" there is inserted—
1754
"mobility supplement" means a supplement awarded in respect of disablement which affects a person's ability to walk and for which the person is in receipt of war disablement pension;"

(b) in the definition of "retirement pension", "if paid periodically" is omitted,

(c) in paragraph (b) of the definition of "unemployability supplement or allowance", after sub-paragraph (iv) there is inserted "or

(v) under the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939."
and accordingly, the "or" immediately following sub-paragraph (iii) is omitted.'.
201 Insert the following clause:
Contributions paid in error
'. After section 61 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 there is inserted—
"Contributions paid in error
61A.—(1) This section applies in the case of any individual if—

(a) the individual has paid amounts by way of primary Class I contributions which, because the individual was not an employed earner, were paid in error, and

(b) prescribed conditions are satisfied.

(2) Regulations may, where—

(a) this section applies in the case of any individual, and

(b) the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is appropriate for the regulations to apply to the individual,

provide for entitlement to, and the amount of, additional pension to be determined as if the individual had been an employed earner and, accordingly, those contributions had been properly paid.
(3) The reference in subsection (2) above to additional pension is to additional pension for the individual or the individual's spouse falling to be calculated under section 45 above for the purposes of—

(a) Category A retirement pension,

(b) Category B retirement pension for widows or widowers,

(c) widowed mother's allowance and widow's pension, and

(d) incapacity benefit (except in transitional cases).

(4) Regulations may, where—

(a) this section applies in the case of any individual, and

(b) the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is appropriate for regulations made by virtue of section 4(8) of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994 (provision during transition from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit for incapacity benefit to include the additional pension element of invalidity pension) to have the following effect in the case of the individual,

provide for the regulations made by virtue of that section to have effect as if, in relation to the provisions in force before the commencement of that section with respect to that additional pension element, the individual had been an employed earner and, accordingly, the contributions had been properly paid.
(5) Where such provision made by regulations as is mentioned in subsection (2) or (4) above applies in respect of any individual, regulations under paragraph 8(1) (m) of Schedule 1 to this Act may not require the amounts paid by way of primary Class I contributions to be repaid.
(6) Regulations may provide, where—

(a) such provision made by regulations as is mentioned in subsection (2) or (4) above applies in respect of any individual,

(b) prescribed conditions are satisfied, and

(c) any amount calculated by reference to the contributions in question has been paid in respect of that individual by way of minimum contributions under section 43 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (contributions to personal pension schemes),

for that individual to be treated for the purposes of that Act as if that individual had been an employed earner and, accordingly, the amount had been properly paid".'.
202 Clause 122, page 75, line 9, at beginning insert:
'() In section 23(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (contribution conditions: supplemental), for "22(1) (a)" there is substituted "22(1)".
() Section 54(4) of that Act (effect on advance claims for retirement pension of deferral of entitlement) is omitted.
() For section 55 of that Act (deferred entitlement) there is substituted—
"Increase of retirement pension where entitlement is deferred.
55.—(1) Where a person's entitlement to a Category A or Category B retirement pension is deferred, Schedule 5 to this Act shall have effect for increasing the rate of pension.
(2) For the purposes of this Act a person's entitlement to a Category A or Category B retirement pension is 'deferred' if and so long as that person—

(a) does not become entitled to that pension by reason only—

(i) of not satisfying the conditions of section 1 of the Administration Act (entitlement to benefit dependent on claim), or

(ii) in the case of a Category B retirement pension payable by virtue of a spouse's contributions, of the spouse not satisfying those conditions with respect to his Category A retirement pension; or

(b) in consequence of an election under section 54(1) above, falls to be treated as not having become entitled to that pension;

and, in relation to any such pension, 'period of deferment' shall be construed accordingly".'.
203 Page 75, line 9, leave out 'the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992' and insert 'that Act'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 198 to 203 en bloc. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 236, 327, 328, 330 and 381.
This group of amendments deals with national insurance contributions and benefits. It covers a great deal of ground, although many of these amendments, despite looking extremely complicated, are designed to tidy up existing legislation.
Amendment No. 198 changes a highly technical provision of the benefits uprating legislation which does not fully reflect what is intended. It deals with legislation which is deficient and in which those who went before us did not quite reflect their intention in the legislative provision.
1756
Amendment No. 199 makes changes to the graduated retirement benefit to deal with entitlements where there is no entitlement to retirement pension as such. Perhaps it will suffice for me to reassure your Lordships that this is a tidying-up amendment to validate existing practice and put the matter beyond doubt. It will not affect the way in which we treat anyone in terms of the payments that they receive.
Amendment No. 201 deals with the problem that results from employees and self-employed people paying different rates of national insurance contributions. That is reflected in a slightly narrower range of benefits available to the self-employed. Although they are eligible for the basic state retirement pension, they do not generally qualify for the state earnings related pension, or SERPS as it is more generally known.
It is usually clear into which category a person's employment falls. But difficulties can occur when the contractual arrangements under which an individual works are not clear cut. That can result in someone being treated as an employee and erroneously paying Class 1 contributions. If it is then found that the engagement amounted to self-employment, current legislation requires that a refund of the difference between the contributions paid and the self-employed contributions that should have been paid should be offered. Any benefits awarded to which the individuals would not have been entitled had they paid self-employed contributions must be recovered. Future entitlement to benefit will be based on the revised record.
Someone in that position would lose SERPS rights which they believed that they had accrued. An error that has gone on, say, for some years, would mean that any refund would almost certainly be insufficient to make equivalent private provision to replace the lost rights, and the pension of someone who had retired would be reduced accordingly. Such a situation has arisen in respect of certain workers in the television and film industries.
We decided that it would be right to introduce some additional flexibility and this new clause is designed to achieve that. It would allow individuals to choose not to receive a refund and to keep their SERPS entitlement as if the erroneously paid Class 1 contributions had been properly paid. Contributions made to personal pension schemes will also be able to stand. Nothing will prevent individuals from applying for a refund, if that is what they want. The engager will be able to receive a refund of the contributions that he has paid in the normal way.
Such circumstances do not crop up every day but they cause genuine concern when they do. I believe that this welcome provision will enable us to deal with them.
Amendment No. 202 corrects an error which occurred during the consolidation of legislation on the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Again, I should be prepared to explain this amendment in some detail, but I can assure the House that our proposal simply validates existing practice so that it will not change what is happening in practice.

1757
Amendment No. 236 amends the provisions so that earnings paid from different employments are aggregated to determine the national insurance contributions that are due. The provision will apply only if an employee with different pensions arrangements has more than one employment with the same or with associated employers and the earnings have to be aggregated for calculating national insurance contributions. That does not happen very often. We estimate that fewer than 100 people a year will he affected. In simple terms, it will mean that people with a personal pension scheme will have contributions paid into it. We intend to bring this provision into effect from April 1996.
The amendment also provides for the rebate to be allocated to contracted-out money purchase scheme pensions ahead of contracted-out salary related schemes. That will maximise the entitlement of the individual in such cases. The change will come into effect from April 1997.
I turn now to Amendment No. 327. This amendment reverses the effect of the amendment which the noble Baroness and noble Lords opposite were successful in inserting into the Bill at Committee stage. Amendment No. 327 returns us to the original intentions.
The amendment which was passed in your Lordships' House would have had effect from the year 2023, when the first contributors who had been in SERPS for 44 years would reach state pension age. It would allow anyone to drop five years of nil or low earnings from their SERPS calculation. Those who stand to gain most would be people who had earnings at the level of the national insurance upper earnings limit for the greater part of their working lives but who had a few years of nil or low earnings. It would particularly help those who retired early.
Amendment No. 327 returns us to the position in which, once SERPS matures, the calculation would be based on reckonable earnings over the whole working life. Our proposals will ensure the continued affordability of the SERPS scheme into the future while protecting the position of vulnerable groups. We have made arrangements to cushion the impact of our reforms on people who would have particular difficulty in building up additional pension provision. We have confirmed that we shall fulfil our commitment to bring in the necessary regulations to extend home responsibilities protection to SERPS. That will allow for up to more than half the working life to be disregarded in the SERPS calculation for those with caring responsibilities and those receiving incapacity benefits. The Bill also introduces a measure to provide help for families and working disabled people with low incomes on family credit and disability working allowance to improve their additional pension entitlements.
The best 44 years provision would have made inroads into the steps that we have already taken to put SERPS on a long-term sustainable basis. It would raise long-term expenditure in a way which I can only describe as poorly targeted, because high earning men would gain as well as low earning women. This amendment puts us back on track and I urge noble Lords to accept it.
1758
Amendment No. 200 is essentially a tidying-up amendment. There is an anomaly in the legislation because the mobility component of disability living allowance qualifies for a Christmas bonus but the war pensions equivalent does not. That distinction was never intended. Payments have in fact been made to war pensioners on an extra-statutory basis, but we should like to set the matter right in legislation. These amendments will validate existing practice. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 198 to 203.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 327, which removes the amendment won in your Lordships' House. That would have allowed SERPS to be drawn from the 44 best years rather than 49 years.
I am very sorry that the Government are being so churlish and mean on such an amendment. We pressed this amendment in your Lordships' House in order to save public funds on social security expenditure. The Government were equalising state pension age and retirement age for women, raising it from 60 to 65 years. So women are to work five years longer. But because they work five years longer, and being older and perhaps a little more frail, they are more likely also to suffer reduced earnings. So working five years longer, usually at somewhat lower rates, meant that they were working five years longer for a lower pension than they would have had if they had retired five years earlier at age 60, as the scheme would be now.
We argued that by floating off those five weakest years—not necessarily at nil or even low earnings, but at somewhat lower than the optimal earnings—women, though working five years longer, would not be the poorer as a result. It was at least some well targeted, modest compensation for the fact that women are working longer.
The Government now seek to remove that amendment—I am sure that their Motion will go through—by saying that it was poorly targeted and would benefit highly paid men as well as low paid women. That is nonsense. I do not know any highly paid men who are in SERPS as opposed to having opted out into an occupational pension or private scheme. It is absurd to think that highly paid men are in SERPS. We know that those who remain in SERPS are precisely those who do not have access to occupational pensions or private pension provision. They are low paid women and low paid men.
The problem with the amendment is that, far from being poorly targeted, it was targeted all too well. It was targeted at women who were being asked to work longer for less, and targeted at men in such low paid work that they never merited moving into an occupational scheme. Because it was targeted all too well and because it did something to mitigate the effect of this Bill on low paid women and low paid men, the Government have chosen to overturn it. That is churlish and ungenerous. When we look at the increasing division in society in terms of

1759
incomes, as substantiated by the Rowntree Report and the like, the Government are parachuting all the worst features of growing insecurity and poverty among women and low paid men in the world of work into the world of retirement as well.
I have to say, "Shame on the Government" for overturning an amendment that we could have afforded; that was well targeted; and that would have stopped women at least from having to work longer for less. The Government's behaviour on this issue is churlish and mean. I hope the signal will go out that, for all their talk about a society at ease with itself, as soon as we try to do something to give that legislative impact the Government overturn it as speedily and as quietly as they can. That is deplorable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
204 Clause 124, page 75, line 39, leave out 'Chapter' and insert 'Part'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 204. I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 204.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
205 Clause 124, page 76, line 28, after 'which' insert:
'(i)'.
206 Page 76, line 29, after 'scheme' insert 'and
(ii) may include a requirement that, if the only members of the scheme were those falling within any prescribed class or description, the scheme would comply with section 12A'
207 Page 76, line 36, at end insert:
'() In subsection (3) of that section (requirement for protected rights, etc.) after "case" in paragraph (a) there is inserted—
"(aa) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the scheme does not fall within a prescribed class or description".'.
208 Page 76, line 44, at beginning insert 'Subject to regulations made by virtue of section 9(2B) (c) (ii)'.
209 Page 77, line 10, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.
210 Page 77, line 15, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.
211 Page 77, line 23, leave out first 'the' and insert 'a'.
212 Page 77, line 23, leave out 'the actuary of the scheme' and insert 'an actuary (who, except in prescribed circumstances, must be the actuary appointed for the scheme in pursuance of section 41 of the Pensions Act 1995).'
213 Page 79, line 2, after 'pensions' insert:
'() the discharge of any liability to provide pensions under a relevant scheme'.
214 Clause 125, page 81, line 5, after 'week' insert 'in respect of that employment'.
215 Page 81, line 11, after 'shall' insert 'except in prescribed circumstances or in respect of prescribed periods'.
216 Page 81, line 13, after 'scheme' insert 'or, in prescribed circumstances, to a prescribed person'.
217 Page 81, line 19, after 'provision' insert '(a)'.
218 Page 81, line 21, at end insert:
'(b) for the adjustment of the amount which would otherwise be payable under that subsection so as to avoid the payment of trivial or fractional amounts,
(c) for earnings to be calculated or estimated in such manner and on such basis as may be prescribed for the purpose of determining whether any, and if so what, payments under subsection (3) are to be made'.
219 Page 81, line 23, after 'pay' insert 'or is not required to pay to the person to whom, or in respect of whom, he pays it'.
220 Page 81, line 34, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'this section'.
221 Clause 126, page 83, line 18, after 'week' insert '(other than earnings in respect of contracted-out employment)'.
222 Page 83, line 21, at end insert:
'() In subsection (3) (e), the words following "prescribed period" are omitted'.
223 Clause 127, page 84, line 24, leave out 'minimum payments' and insert 'payments under section 42A (3)'.
224 Clause 128, page 84, line 42, at end insert 'and section 45A of that Act did not apply (where it would, apart from this subsection, apply)'.
225 Page 85, leave out lines 10 to 16.
226 Page 85, line 23, at beginning insert 'In'.
227 Page 85, line 25, after 'benefits)' insert 'in subsection (2), paragraph (b) is omitted and, in paragraph (c), "if the earner dies before reaching pensionable age" is omitted.
() Section 48 of that Act'.
228 Clause 129, page 86, line 47, at end insert 'including provision requiring the Secretary of State to apply whichever prescribed actuarial table in force at the appropriate time is applicable'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 205 to 228 en bloc. In doing so I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos 237, 270, 272, 282, 331 to 333, 336, 338, 340 to 352, 354 to 369, 372, 373, 382, 385 to 390 and 392 to 402. We now come to a group of amendments dealing with contracting out. I confess that I find these particularly difficult to follow since, for the most part, they amend existing legislation rather than stand alone, as did many of the previous amendments.
Amendments Nos. 205, 206 and 207 amend Clause 124 which introduces the new contracting-out system for salary-related schemes. The scheme actuary will carry out detailed actuarial calculations to certify that a scheme satisfies the new test of overall scheme quality. The Bill specifies the minimum statutory benefits required under the reference scheme and the actuary will certify, with the aid of a professional guidance note, that a scheme delivers pensions which are broadly equivalent to, or better than, those provided under the reference scheme. These amendments help in the definition of the concept of "broad equivalence" and will add to the protection for members under the new test.
Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 are needed to allow regulations to prescribe which members in occupational pension schemes should be taken into account when considering whether a scheme meets the statutory

1761
standards. We intend to use this power to deal with schemes comprising different sections with different benefit packages.
Perhaps I can say a word at this stage about an amendment that is not needed. We have given further consideration to the potential risk which must exist in any scheme-based test that an employer might skew his scheme. Some members could receive very large pensions and others very little, but the scheme could still pass the test on an overall basis. We have consulted key groups on this issue, including the Institute of Actuaries, the Faculty of Actuaries, the Occupational Pensions Board, the TUC and the Occupational Pension Schemes Joint Working Group.
We intend to bring forward regulations which will set out the criteria for determining whether pensions are broadly equivalent to, or better than, the reference scheme. We propose to prescribe that an actuary could not certify unless 90 per cent. of members could expect to receive pensions as good as the reference scheme level. That should achieve our objective to protect scheme members by preventing any deliberate skewing of benefits in order to manipulate the level of the test. Some concern was expressed in the other place as to whether this was an appropriate use of the powers in new Section 12A. We are satisfied that regulations such as we propose can indeed be made under the powers provided in Section 12A (4).
The fundamental point about the new contracting-out arrangements is that additional pensions under SERPS will no longer accrue for periods during which people are in contracted-out employment. Amendment No. 224 is designed to put beyond doubt that payments of family credit or disability working allowance should not be treated as qualifying earnings for the purpose of calculating SERPS.
Amendment No. 215 provides two new powers in relation to payment of the top-up part of the age-related rebate for contracted-out money purchase schemes, which the man on the Clapham omnibus knows as COMPS. It allows payment of the top-up to be withheld in prescribed circumstances, and in respect of prescribed periods.
The power will be used in cases where the pension rights have been transferred from the COMPS to another scheme before payment of the top-up can be made. Although the top-up will be offered to the new scheme, in some cases the new scheme may refuse to accept the payment. To minimise the chances of an individual losing some rebate in these circumstances, we will be introducing two measures. First, there will be a fast-track payment system for anyone taking a transfer from a COMPS to a salary-related scheme. That will ensure that most, if not all, of the rebate will be included in the transfer payment.
Secondly, we will ensure that anyone considering a transfer of this kind is advised of what may happen should a further payment of top-up rebate arise. The power to withhold the top-up in respect of prescribed periods will be used in respect of the tax year in which state pension age is reached. In that year no SERPS accrues. Since age-related rebates are designed to replace the SERPS given up by contracting out in each
1762
particular year, the actuarially "correct" level of rebate would be zero. That would cause some difficulty because a zero rate of rebate would mean increasing employees' and employers' national insurance liability that year. That would be administratively complicated. We have decided therefore that COMPS members and their employers should continue to receive the flat rate portion of the rebate up to the time they reach state pension age. Amendment No. 216 ensures that people transferring from a COMPS to another contracted-out scheme do not suffer a delay in receiving their rebate. The amendment provides a power to prescribe situations in which the top-up shall be paid to a party other than the scheme to which the earner belonged at the time the entitlement to that payment arose. It will ensure that no extra burdens are placed on schemes by requiring them to pass on further payments following a transfer.
To some extent Amendment No. 348 mirrors Amendment No. 215. It provides a power to prescribe periods in respect of which no appropriate personal pension rebate will be payable. This power will be used to provide that no rebate will be paid in respect of the year in which state pension age is attained since no SERPS accrues in that year. The difference is that this measure will have no effect on the take-home pay of the individuals concerned since they pay full rate national insurance contributions and the rebate is paid directly by the DSS. The administrative problems which arise with COMPS do not therefore arise in this case.
Amendments Nos. 237, 272 and 273 will increase the flexibility for "hybrid" occupational pension schemes to contract out of SERPS. They allow occupational pension schemes to contract out while holding both defined benefits and defined contribution contracted-out benefits. Hybrid schemes will be able to offer a number of different benefit patterns. They will allow different members to be contracted out by different routes within the same scheme, and the same member to be contracted out under a scheme by different routes in respect of different periods.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister referred to Amendment No. 273. That is not in this group.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I did say Amendment No. 273. The noble Baroness is quite right. Clearly, she is listening. I was performing a little test to see whether everyone was listening. I should not have said Amendment No. 273. I should have said Amendment No. 237. This will probably not be the first time I get my numbers mixed up—and a great number there are.
I was talking about hybrid schemes. The new clause inserted by the amendment is a positive response to points raised during consultation and which arose in the other place. It will allow considerable scope for prescribing conditions in regulations to allow us to consider the consequential amendments which may be needed to make this work properly. This is a wide-ranging regulation-making power and we have

1763
therefore concluded that any regulations made under it should be exercised by the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendment No. 237 achieves that.
Amendments Nos. 338, 341, 354 to 359, 361 to 369, 372, 373, 385, 392 to 397 and 399 to 401 are designed to simplify the legislation. That may not at first sight appear to be apparent. However, they concern the legislation relating to determining and reviewing procedures covering contracted out matters. They will allow the contributions agency to deal with administrative matters such as the issue, variation and withdrawal of contracting out certificates. Our intention is broadly to mirror in regulations the arrangements currently followed by the Occupational Pensions Board. Other areas where there may be disputes, such as the questions about whether an employment is or should be treated as contracted out, will follow the established procedures which are set out in Section 17 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. We believe that this will provide a more streamlined and logical structure to the legislation covering determination and reviews.
I have attempted to give a very brief but magical mystery tour along the motorway of contracting out. There are some byways which I have not gone down. But if some noble Lords wish me to go down a byway, I shall do my best to deal with any points that arise. Perhaps I may say a word for clarification. Amendment No. 273 is not in this group. I should have said Amendment No. 237. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 205 to 228.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
229 Clause 130, page 87, line 20, after 'rights' insert '(a)'.
230 Page 87, line 22, after 'which' insert '(i)'.
231 Page 87, line 22, at end insert:
'(ii) satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed, and
(b) at the end of the interim period, in such of the ways permitted by the following subsections as the rules of the scheme may specify." '.
232 Page 87, line 27, leave out '(1A)' and insert '(OA) (a)'.
233 After Clause 132, insert the following clause:
Extension of interim arrangements to occupational pension Schemes
'. Regulations made by the Secretary of State may provide that sections 130 to 132 shall have effect, subject to prescribed modifications, in relation to protected rights under an occupational pension scheme as they have effect in relation to protected rights under a personal pension scheme.'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 229 to 233. This time I am happy to tell the House that I have no other amendments to speak to in this group.
This group of amendments deal with flexible annuities. Amendments Nos. 229 to 232 are about interim arrangements which will allow people to withdraw income from their personal pension fund
1764
before committing it to buying an annuity. They deal with situations where someone dies without leaving a widow or widower during the period when they are withdrawing income in this way or where a widow or widower dies. The Association of British Insurers has alerted us to the fact that the Bill does not deal adequately with these situations. We intend that the residual fund of protected rights should pass to the estate of the deceased. These amendments will provide the power to make regulations so that we can set these arrangements out in more detail.
The new clause inserted into the Bill by Amendment No. 233 builds on the arrangements in the Bill to permit income withdrawal from protected rights in a personal pension. These are the rights built up from contracted out national insurance contribution rebates. The purpose of the new clause is to pave the way for regulations which will allow members of contracted out money purchase occupational pension schemes to enjoy a similar facility at some point in the future.
There has been a wide welcome for flexible annuities. A number of people in the pensions world and elsewhere have asked why the arrangements do not also extend to money purchase occupational pension schemes. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on 21st February. I explained then that there was a very different tax regime for occupational schemes but that we were prepared to consider ideas for introducing more flexibility. We have listened carefully to the debate. We recognise the strength of the argument for treating money purchase occupational schemes in a similar way to personal pensions. The Inland Revenue is even now working on this. Discussions on the detailed arrangements for money purchase occupational pension schemes are being held with the occupational pensions scheme joint working group. We shall then consult about the precise arrangements for dealing with protected rights. This will include when any new arrangements should start. So the powers in this new clause will allow us to bring forward regulations to extend flexible annuities to money purchase occupational schemes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 229 to 233.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
234 After Clause 132, insert the following clause:
Discharge of protected rights on winding up: insurance Policies
'.—(1) After section 32 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 there is inserted—
"Discharge of protected rights on winding up: insurance policies.
32A.—(1) Where an occupational pension scheme is being wound up and such conditions as may be prescribed are satisfied, effect may be given to the protected rights of a member of the scheme (in spite of section 28) by—

(a) taking out an appropriate policy of insurance, or a number of such policies, under which the member is the beneficiary, or

1765

(b) assuring the benefits of a policy of insurance, or a number of such policies, to the member, where the policy assured is an appropriate policy.

(2) A policy of insurance is appropriate for the purposes of this section if—

(a) the insurance company with which it is or was taken out or entered into—

(i) is, or was at the time when the policy was taken out or (as the case may be) the benefit of it was assured, carrying on ordinary long-term insurance business (within the meaning of the Insurance Companies Act 1982) in the United Kingdom or any other member State, and

(ii) satisfies, or at that time satisfied, prescribed requirements, and

(b) it may not be assigned or surrendered except on conditions which satisfy such requirements as may be prescribed, and

(c) it contains or is endorsed with terms whose effect is that the amount secured by it may not be commuted except on conditions which satisfy such requirements as may be prescribed, and

(d) it satisfies such other requirements as may be prescribed".

(2) At the end of section 28 of that Act, as amended by this Act, (ways of giving effect to protected rights) there is inserted—
"(9) This section is subject to section 32A".'.
235 After Clause 132, page 90, line 4, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.
236 After Clause 133, insert the following clause:—
Earner employed in more than one employment
'.—(1) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (Class 1 contributions where earner in more than one employment) is amended as follows.
(2) For sub-paragraph (3) there is substituted—
"(3) The amount of the primary Class 1 contribution shall be the aggregate of the amounts determined under the following paragraphs (applying earlier paragraphs before later ones)—

(a) if the aggregated earnings are paid to or for the benefit of an earner in respect of whom minimum contributions are payable under section 43(1) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (contributions to personal pension schemes), the amount obtained by applying the rate of primary Class 1 contributions that would apply if all the aggregated earnings were attributable to employments which are not contracted-out to such part of the aggregated earnings so attributable as does not exceed the current upper earnings limit (referred to in this paragraph as "the APPS earnings"),

(b) if some of the aggregated earnings are attributable to COMPS service, the amount obtained by applying the rate of primary Class 1 contributions that would apply if all the aggregated earnings were attributable to COMPS service—

(i) to such part of the aggregated earnings attributable to COMPS service as does not exceed the current upper earnings limit, or

1766

(ii) if paragraph (a) applies, to such part of the earnings attributable to COMPS service as, when added to the APPS earnings, does not exceed the current upper earnings limit,

(c) if some of the aggregated earnings are attributable to COSRS service, the amount obtained by applying the rate of primary Class 1 contributions that would apply if all the aggregated earnings were attributable to COSRS service—

(i) to such part of the aggregated earnings attributable to COSRS service as does not exceed the current upper earnings limit, or

(ii) if paragraph (a) or (b) applies, to such part of the earnings attributable to COSRS service as, when added to the APPS earnings or the part attributable to COMPS service (or both), does not exceed the current upper earnings limit,

(d) the amount obtained by applying the rate of primary Class I contributions that would apply if all the aggregated earnings were attributable to employments which are not contracted-out to such part of the aggregated earnings as, when added to the part or parts attributable to COMPS or COSRS service, does not exceed the current upper earnings limit".

(3) For sub-paragraph (6) there is substituted—
"(6) The amount of the secondary Class I contribution shall be the aggregate of the amounts determined under the following paragraphs (applying earlier paragraphs before later ones)—

(a) if the aggregated earnings are paid to or for the benefit of an earner in respect of whom minimum contributions are payable under section 43(1) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, the amount obtained by applying the rate of secondary Class 1 contributions that would apply if all the aggregated earnings were attributable to employments which are not contracted-out to the APPS earnings,

(b) if some of the aggregated earnings are attributable to COMPS service, the amount obtained by applying the rate of secondary Class 1 contributions that would apply if all the aggregated earnings were attributable to COMPS service to the part of the aggregated earnings attributable to such service,

(c) if some of the aggregated earnings are attributable to COSRS service, the amount obtained by applying the rate of secondary Class 1 contributions that would apply if all the aggregated earnings were attributable to COSRS service to the part of the aggregated earnings attributable to such service,

(d) the amount obtained by applying the rate of secondary Class 1 contributions that would apply if all the aggregated earnings were attributable to employments which are not contracted-out to the remainder of the aggregated earnings".

(4) At the end of that paragraph there is added—
"(9) In this paragraph—
"COMPS service" means service in employment in respect of which minimum payments are made to a money purchase contracted-out scheme,

1767
"COSRS service" means service in employment which qualifies the earner for a pension provided by a salary related contracted-out scheme".
(5) Until the principal appointed day, that paragraph, as amended by this section, shall have effect as if—

(a) for sub-paragraph (3) (b) there were substituted—

"(b) if some of the aggregated earnings are attributable to service in contracted-out employment, the amount obtained by applying the rate of primary Class 1 contributions that would apply if all the aggregated earnings were attributable to such service—

(i) to such part of the aggregated earnings attributable to such service as does not exceed the current upper earnings limit, or

(ii) if paragraph (a) applies, to such part of the earnings attributable to such service as, when added to the APPS earnings, does not exceed the current upper earnings limit",

(b) sub-paragraph (3) (c) were omitted,

(c) in sub-paragraph (3) (d), for "COMPS or COSRS service" there were substituted "service in contracted-out employment",

(d) for sub-paragraph (6) (b) there were substituted—

"(b) if some of the aggregated earnings are attributable to service in contracted-out employment, the amount obtained by applying the rate of secondary Class 1 contributions that would apply if all the aggregated earnings were attributable to such service to the part of the aggregated earnings attributable to such service",

(e) sub-paragraph (6) (c) were omitted, and

(f) in sub-paragraph (9) the definitions of "COMPS service" and "COSRS service" were omitted.'.

237 After Clause 133, insert the following clause:
Hybrid occupational pension schemes
'.—(1) In spite of anything in sections 9 and 12 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (requirements for certification and determination of basis on which scheme is contracted-out), the Secretary of State may by regulations provide, where the pensions provided by an occupational pension scheme include both—

(a) such pensions that, if the scheme provided only those pensions, it would satisfy section 9(2) of that Act, and

(b) such other pensions that, if the scheme provided only those other pensions, it would satisfy section 9(3) of that Act,

for Part III of that Act to have effect as if the scheme were two separate schemes providing, respectively, the pensions referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).
(2) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may, in connection with any provision made by virtue of subsection (1), make such modifications of the following Acts, and the instruments made or having effect as if made under them, as appear to the Secretary of State desirable: the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and Part I of this Act.'.
238 Clause 139, page 93, line 12, leave out 'a prescribed amount' and insert 'an amount specified in the regulations; and the regulations must specify different amounts in the case of individuals from those specified in other cases and any amount so specified may not exceed the amount for the
1768
time being specified in the case of individuals or, as the case may be, others in section 10(1A) (a) of the Pensions Act 1995.
() Regulations made by virtue of subsection (4) do not affect the amount of any penalty recoverable under that subsection by reason of an act or omission occurring before the regulations are made.'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 234 to 238. I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 234 to 238.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
239 Clause 140, page 94, line 35, leave out 'and the Treasury'.
240 Page 94, line 38, leave out 'and the Treasury'.
241 Clause 142, page 97, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert:
'(c) for the payment by the Ombudsman of such travelling and other allowances (including compensation for loss of remunerative time) as the Secretary of State may determine, to—

(i) actual or potential beneficiaries of a scheme to which a complaint or reference relates, or

(ii) persons appearing and being heard on behalf of such actual or potential beneficiaries,

who attend at the request of the Ombudsman any oral hearing held in connection with an investigation into the complaint or dispute.", and'.
242 Clause 144, page 98, line 22, leave out 'the trustees or managers' and insert 'a person responsible for the management'.
243 Page 98, line 26, leave out 'for the prescribed period'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 239 to 243. At the same time I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 370 and 371. This group contains amendments which, I hope your Lordships will agree, improve the provisions for the pensions ombudsman. Amendment No. 241 will allow rules to be made providing for the ombudsman to pay travelling and other allowances to individuals when they are invited to attend oral hearings. Amendment No. 242 replaces the reference to the trustees or managers of an occupational or personal pension scheme with a reference to those responsible for the management of the scheme. This brings Clause 144 into line with the changes made by Clause 141 to the ombudsman provisions in Section 146 of the Pension Schemes Act. It will ensure that the ombudsman can include interest in any direction he makes involving late payment of benefits.
Amendment No. 243 removes the power to make regulations to specify the period for which interest should be awarded. The ombudsman is best able to decide the period for which interest should be paid. This amendment will ensure that he has discretion to do so.

1769
Amendment No. 371 will simplify the procedures in Scotland by which a complainant can enforce a determination of the pensions ombudsman. It will ensure that the enforcement procedures in Scotland are as simple and as straightforward as those already provided for in England and Wales. Although these may seem to he comparatively minor amendments, they are nevertheless useful.
This may be the last time that I shall be on my feet this afternoon on the Pensions Bill. Perhaps I may thank all those noble Lords who have taken a close interest in the Bill, especially for their co-operation this afternoon in moving all the Commons amendments. Although we disagree on one or two parts of the Bill, by and large I think your Lordships will agree that we are giving to the pensions world a much improved situation for looking after the position of all those people who have made pension provision for their retirement. In addition, there are the other matters we have dealt with, such as the war widow's pension. I hope that those of your Lordships who are, as I have described you before, the "season ticket holders" feel that the season ticket has been well worth it. Perhaps I may say that after today the season ticket can be returned. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 239 to 243.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, obviously we have no objection to these amendments. They are among the very many that we welcome. On behalf of these Benches we thank the Minister for the clarity with which he was able to take us through the very extensive business today. Obviously, we regret that in some areas he has been unable to go as far as we would wish. We are sorry about the SERPS amendment, which has tarnished somewhat the nature of the Bill which, for the most part, we welcome. As regards the return of the season ticket, my noble friend Lord Macaulay asks what arrangements is the Minister proposing to make for Friday when we have a rail strike?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I pay tribute to the Minister for his determination and staying power. He has had three absolutely appalling Bills to put through this House. There are still some to come. He has had business piled on him pretty heavily. We appreciate his staying power and good temper. There are changes in the Bill which we very much welcome. We would have liked to have had others, but no doubt they will come in the future.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to both Baronesses. While of course I admire my own staying power, I equally admire the staying power of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Seear; especially that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She has burned the midnight oil with me on this Bill as indeed on the others. Therefore, I believe that the plaudits about my stamina should be widened to include others in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
244 Clause 146, page 98, line 42, leave out 'made' and insert 'in respect of employment carried on'.
245 Page 99, line 2, leave out 'made' and insert 'in respect of employment carried on'.
246 Clause 147, page 99, line 22, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 25 and insert 'revaluation percentage for the revaluation period the reference period for which ends with the last preceding 30th September before the increase is made (expressions used in this definition having the same meaning as in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (methods of revaluing accrued pension benefits)'.
247 Page 99, leave out lines 30 to 34.
248 Clause 149, page 100, line 6, at end insert 'or'.
249 Page 100, line 11, leave out from 'Registrar)' to end of line 13.
250 Page 100, line 17, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
251 Page 100, line 40, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
'(3A) Regulations may make provision for imposing a levy in respect of prescribed occupational pension schemes for the purpose of meeting expenditure of the Pensions Compensation Board (including the establishment of the Board).
(3B) Any levy imposed under subsection (3A) is payable to the Board by or on behalf of—

(a) the trustees of any prescribed occupational pension scheme, or

(b) any other prescribed person,

at prescribed times and at a rate, not exceeding the prescribed rate, determined by the Board.
(3C) In determining the amount of expenditure in respect of which any levy under subsection (3A) is to be imposed, the Board, and regulations made by virtue of subsection (3B), may take one year with another and, accordingly, may have regard to expenditure estimated to be incurred in current or future periods and to actual expenditure incurred in previous periods (including periods ending before the coming into force of this subsection).
(3D) Notice of the rates determined by the Board under subsection (3B) must be given to prescribed persons in the prescribed manner.
(4) An amount payable by a person on account of a levy imposed under this section shall be a debt due from him to the appropriate person, that is—

(a) if the levy is imposed under subsection (1), the Secretary of State, and

(b) if the levy is imposed under subsection (3A), the Board,

and an amount so payable shall be recoverable by the appropriate person accordingly or, if the appropriate person so determines, be recoverable by the Registrar on behalf of the appropriate person.'.
252 Page 100, line 43, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'subsections (1) and (3A)'.
253 Page 100, line 45, after 'to' insert '(a)'.
254 Page 100, line 46, at end insert 'or
(b) the circumstances in which any such amount may be waived'.
255 Clause 150, page 101, line 8, leave out 'in the foreseeable future'.
256 Page 101, line 14, at end insert:
'and, accordingly, in relation to benefits under a pension scheme, section 25(2) (a) above shall have effect as if "in the foreseeable future" were omitted'.
257 Page 101, line 17, leave out 'in the foreseeable future'.
258 Page 101, line 28, leave out from 'such' to 'section' in line 29 and insert:
'matter.
(3) The following provisions apply where, having regard to any benefits under a pension scheme, the court determines to make an order under section 23 above.
(4) To the extent to which the order is made having regard to any benefits under a pension scheme, the order may require the trustees or managers of the pension scheme in question, if at any time any payment in respect of any benefits under the scheme becomes due to the party with pension rights, to make a payment for the benefit of the other party.
(5) The amount of any payment which, by virtue of subsection (4) above, the trustees or managers are required to make under the order at any time shall not exceed the amount of the payment which is due at that time to the party with pension rights.
(6) Any such payment by the trustees or managers—

(a) shall discharge so much of the trustees or managers liability to the party with pension rights as corresponds to the amount of the payment, and

(b) shall be treated for all purposes as a payment made by the party with pension rights in or towards the discharge of his liability under the order.

(7) Where the party with pension rights may require any benefits which he has or is likely to have under the scheme to be commuted, the order may require him to commute the whole or part of those benefits; and this section applies to the payment of any amount commuted in pursuance of the order as it applies to other payments in respect of benefits under the scheme.
Pensions: lump sums.
25C.—(1) The power of the court under section 23 above to order a party to a marriage to pay a lump sum to the other party includes, where the benefits which the party with pension rights has or is likely to have under a pension scheme include any lump sum payable in respect of his death, power to make any of the following provision by the order.
(2) The court may—

(a) if the trustees or managers of the pension scheme in question have power to determine the person to whom the sum, or any part of it, is to be paid, require them to pay the whole or part of that sum, when it becomes due, to the other party,

(b) if the party with pension rights has power to nominate the person to whom the sum, or any part of it, is to be paid, require the party with pension rights to nominate the other party in respect of the whole or part of that sum,

(c) in any other case, require the trustees or managers of the pension scheme in question to pay the whole or part of that sum, when it becomes due, for the benefit of the other party instead of to the person to whom, apart from the order, it would be paid.

(3) Any payment by the trustees or managers under an order made under section 23 above by virtue of this section shall discharge so much of the trustees or managers liability in respect of the party with pension rights as corresponds to the amount of the payment.
Pensions: supplementary.
25D.—(1) Where—

(a) an order made under section 23 above by virtue of section 25B or 25C above imposes any requirement on the trustees or managers of a pension scheme ("the first scheme") and the party with pension rights acquires transfer
1772
credits under another pension scheme ("the new scheme") which are derived (directly or indirectly) from a transfer from the first scheme of all his accrued rights under that scheme (including transfer credits allowed by that scheme), and

(b) the trustees or managers of the new scheme have been given notice in accordance with regulations,

the order shall have effect as if it has been made instead in respect of the trustees or managers of the new scheme; and in this subsection "transfer credits" has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
(2) Regulations may—

(a) in relation to any provision of sections 25B or 25C above which authorises the court making an order under section 23 above to require the trustees or managers of a pension scheme to make a payment for the benefit of the other party, make provision as to the person to whom, and the terms on which, the payment is to be made,

(b) require notices to be given in respect of changes of circumstances relevant to such orders which include provision made by virtue of sections 25B and 25C,

(c) make provision for the trustees or managers of any pension scheme to provide, for the purposes of orders under section 23 above, information as to the value of any benefits under the scheme,

(d) make provision for the recovery of the administrative expenses of—

(i) complying with such orders, so far as they include provision made by virtue of sections 25B and 25C, and

(ii) providing such information,

from the party with pension rights or the other party,
(e) make provision for the value of any benefits under a pension scheme to be calculated and verified, for the purposes of orders under section 23 above, in a prescribed manner,
and regulations made by virtue of paragraph (e) above may provide for that value to be calculated and verified in accordance with guidance which is prepared and from time to time revised by a prescribed person and approved by the Secretary of State.
(3) In this section and sections 25B and 25C—

(a) references to a pension scheme include—

(i) a retirement annuity contract, or

(ii) an annuity, or insurance policy, purchased or transferred for the purpose of giving effect to rights under a pension scheme,

(b) in relation to such a contract or annuity, references to the trustees or managers shall be read as references to the provider of the annuity,

(c) in relation to such a policy, references to the trustees or managers shall be read as references to the insurer,

and in section 25B (1) and (2) above, references to benefits under a pension scheme include any benefits by way of pension, whether under a pension scheme or not.
(4) In this section and sections 25B and 25C above—
"the party with pension rights" means the party to the marriage who has or is likely to have benefits under a pension scheme and "the other party" means the other party to the marriage,

1773

"pension scheme" means an occupational pension scheme or a personal pension scheme (applying the definitions in section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, but as if the reference to employed earners in the definition of "personal pension scheme" were to any earners),

"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations, and

"regulations" means regulations made by the Lord Chancellor;

and the power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".
() In'.
259 Page 101, line 30 at end insert:
'() In section 31 of that Act (variation, discharge, etc. of orders)—

(a) in subsection (2), after paragraph (d) there is inserted—
"(dd) any deferred order made by virtue of section 23(1) (c) (lump sums) which includes provision made by virtue of—

(i) section 25B (4), or

(ii) section 25C,

(provision in respect of pension rights)", and

(b) after subsection (2A) there is inserted—
"(2B) Where the court has made an order referred to in subsection (2) (dd) (ii) above, this section shall cease to apply to the order on the death of either of the parties to the marriage." '.

260 Page 101, line 31, leave out subsection (2).
261 Page 101, line 38, after 'scheme' insert '(within the meaning of section 25B (1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973)'.
262 Page 101, line 39, leave out 'in the foreseeable future'.
263 Page 101, line 43, leave out '159(4)' and insert '159(4) and (4A)'.
264 Page 101, line 50, at end insert 'corresponding to any of those enactments.
() Subsections (3) to (7) of section 25B and section 25C of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, as inserted by this section, do not affect the powers of the court under section 31 of that Act (variation, discharge, etc.) in relation to any order made before the commencement of this section'.
265 After Clause 150, insert the following clause:—
Pensions on divorce, etc: Scotland
'.—(1) In section 8(1) (orders for financial provision) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 ("the 1985 Act"), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
"(ba) an order under section 12A (2) or (3) of this Act;".
(2) In section 10 of the 1985 Act (sharing of value of matrimonial property)—

(a) in subsection (5)—

(i) after "party" there is inserted "(a)"; and

(ii) for "or occupational pension scheme or similar arrangement" there is substituted—

"or similar arrangement; and

(b) in any benefits under a pension scheme which either party has or may have (including such benefits payable in respect of the death of either party),

which is"; and
(b) after subsection (7) there is inserted—
"(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) for the value of any benefits under a pension scheme to be calculated and verified, for the purposes of this Act, in a prescribed manner;

(b) for the trustees or managers of any pension scheme to provide, for the purposes of this Act, information as to that value, and for the recovery of the administrative expenses of providing such information from either party,

and regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a) above may provide for that value to be calculated and verified in accordance with guidance which is prepared and from time to time revised by a prescribed body and approved by the Secretary of State.
(9) Regulations under subsection (8) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(10) In this section—

"benefits under a pension scheme" includes any benefits by way of pension, whether under a pension scheme or not;

"pension scheme" means—

(a) an occupational pension scheme or a personal pension scheme (applying the definitions in section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, but as if the reference to employed earners in the definition of "personal pension scheme" were to any earners);

(b) a retirement annuity contract; or

(c) an annuity, or insurance policy, purchased or transferred for the purpose of giving effect to rights under a pension scheme falling within paragraph (a) above; and

"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations.

(11) In this section, references to the trustees or managers of a pension scheme—

(a) in relation to a contract or annuity referred to in paragraph (b) or (c) of the definition of "pension scheme" in subsection (10) above, shall be read as references to the provider of the annuity;

(b) in relation to an insurance policy referred to in paragraph (c) of that definition, shall be read as a reference to the insurer.".

(3) After section 12 of the 1985 Act there is inserted—
"Orders for payment of capital sum: pensions lump sums.
12A.&(1) This section applies where the court makes an order under section 8(2) of this Act for payment of a capital sum (a "capital sum order") by a party to the marriage ("the liable party") in circumstances where—

(a) the matrimonial property within the meaning of section 10 of this Act includes any rights or interests in benefits under a pension scheme which the liable party has or may have (whether such benefits are payable to him or in respect of his death); and

(b) those benefits include a lump sum payable to him or in respect of his death.

(2) Where the benefits referred to in subsection (1) above include a lump sum payable to the liable party, the court, on making the capital sum order, may make an order requiring the trustees or managers of the pension scheme in question to pay the whole or part of that sum, when it becomes due, to the other party to the marriage ("the other party").
(3) Where the benefits referred to in subsection (1) above include a lump sum payable in respect of the death of the liable party, the court, on making the capital sum order, may make an order

(a) if the trustees or managers of the pension scheme in question have power to determine the person to whom the sum, or any part of it, is to be paid, requiring them to pay the whole or part of that sum, when it becomes due, to the other party;

(b) if the liable party has power to nominate the person to whom the sum, or any part of it, is to be paid, requiring the liable party to nominate the other party in respect of the whole or part of that sum;

(c) in any other case, requiring the trustees or managers of the pension scheme in question to pay the whole or part of that sum, when it becomes due, to the other party instead of to the person to whom, apart from the order, it would be paid.

(4) Any payment by the trustees or managers under an order under subsection (2) or (3) above—

(a) shall discharge so much of the trustees' or managers' liability to or in respect of the liable party as corresponds to the amount of the payment; and

(b) shall be treated for all purposes as a payment made by the liable party in or towards the discharge of his liability under the capital sum order.

(5) Where the liability of the liable party under the capital sum order has been discharged in whole or in part, other than by a payment by the trustees or managers under an order under subsection (2) or (3) above, the court may, on an application by any person having an interest, recall any order under either of those subsections or vary the amount specified in such an order, as appears to the court appropriate in the circumstances.
(6) Where—

(a) an order under subsection (2) or (3) above imposes any requirement on the trustees or managers of a pension scheme ("the first scheme") and the liable party acquires transfer credits under another scheme ("the new scheme") which are derived (directly or indirectly) from a transfer from the first scheme of all his accrued rights under that scheme; and

(b) the trustees or managers of the new scheme have been given notice in accordance with regulations under subsection (8) below,

the order shall have effect as if it had been made instead in respect of the trustees or managers of the new scheme; and in this subsection "transfer credits" has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
(7) Without prejudice to subsection (6) above, the court may, on an application by any person having an interest, vary an order under subsection (2) or (3) above by substituting for the trustees or managers specified in the order the trustees or managers of any other pension scheme under which any lump sum referred to in subsection (1) above is payable to the liable party or in respect of his death.
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) require notices to be given in respect of changes of circumstances relevant to orders under subsection (2) or (3) above;

(b) make provision for the recovery of the administrative expenses of complying with such orders from the liable party or the other party.

(9) Regulations under subsection (8) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(10) Subsection (10) (other than the definition of "benefits under a pension scheme") and subsection (11) of section 10 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as those subsections apply for the purposes of that section.".
(4) Nothing in the provisions mentioned in section 150(4) above applies to a court exercising its powers under section 8 (orders for financial provision on divorce, etc.) or 12A (orders for payment of capital sum: pensions lump sums) of the 1985 Act in respect of any benefits under a pension scheme which fall within subsection (5) (b) of section 10 of that Act ("pension scheme" having the meaning given in subsection (10) of that section).'.
266 Insert the following clause:
War pensions for widows: effect of remarriage
'.—(1) In determining whether a pension is payable to a person as a widow under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (3) in respect of any period beginning on or after the commencement of this section, no account may be taken of the fact that the widow has married another if, before the beginning of that period, the marriage has been terminated or the parties have been judicially separated.
(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) the reference to the termination of a marriage is to the termination of the marriage by death, dissolution or annulment, and

(b) the reference to judicial separation includes any legal separation obtained in a country or territory outside the British Islands and recognised in the United Kingdom;

and for those purposes a divorce, annulment or legal separation obtained in a country or territory outside the British Islands must, if the Secretary of State so determines, be treated as recognised in the United Kingdom even though no declaration as to its validity has been made by any court in the United Kingdom.
(3) The enactments referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) The Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and any order re-enacting the provisions of that order,

(b) The Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, and any subsequent scheme made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939,

(c) any scheme made under the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939 or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 applying the provisions of any such order as is referred to in paragraph (a),

(d) the order made under section 1(5) of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 concerning pensions and other grants in respect of disablement or death due to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment.'.

267 Insert the following clause:
Extension of Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943
'.—(1) The Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 (appeals against rejection of war pension claims made in respect of members of armed forces)—

(a) in subsection (1), after "administered by the Minister" there is inserted "or under a scheme made under section 1 of the Polish Resettlement Act 1947", and

(b) in subsections (3) and (3A), for "or Order of His Majesty" there is substituted ", Order of Her Majesty or scheme".

(3) In section 7 (application of Act to past decisions and assessments)—

(a) in subsection (2), at the beginning there is inserted "Subject to subsection (2A) of this section,", and

(b) after that subsection, there is inserted—

"(2A) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply in relation to any decision given by the Minister before the passing of this Act which corresponds, apart from any difference of the kind referred to in that subsection, with such a decision as is referred to in section 1 of this Act in respect of claims made under the scheme referred to in that section."
(4) In section 10 (power to modify sections 1 to 4 by Order in Council), in subsections (1) and (2), for "or Order of His Majesty" there is substituted ", Order of Her Majesty or scheme".
(5) In section 12 (interpretation), in the definition of "relevant service"—

(a) for "or Order of His Majesty" there is substituted ", Order of Her Majesty or scheme", and

(b) for "or Order" there is substituted ", Order or scheme".

(6) In the Schedule (constitution, jurisdiction and procedure of Pensions Appeal Tribunals), in paragraph 3(2), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—

"(ba) if the claim was made under the scheme referred to in section 1 of this Act in respect of a person who is treated under the scheme as an officer, shall be a retired or demobilised officer of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces;

(bb) if the claim was made under the aforesaid scheme in respect of a person who is treated under the scheme as a soldier, shall be a discharged or demobilised member of any of the said forces who was not at the time of his discharge or demobilisation an officer;".'.

268 Insert the following clause:
Information about public service schemes
'.—(1) In prescribed circumstances, the Secretary of State may provide information to any prescribed person in connection with the following questions—

(a) whether an individual who during any period—

(i) has been eligible to be an active member of an occupational pension scheme under the Superannuation Act 1972, but

(ii) has instead made contributions to a personal pension scheme,

has suffered loss as a result of a contravention which is actionable under section 62 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (actions for damages in respect of contravention of rules etc. made under the Act), and

(b) if so, what payment would need to be made to the occupational scheme in respect of the individual to restore the position to what it would have been if the individual had been an active member of the occupational scheme throughout the period in question,

and may impose on that person reasonable fees in respect of administrative expenses incurred in providing that information.
(2) Where—

(a) such an individual as is mentioned in subsection (1) is admitted or readmitted as an active member of an occupational pension scheme under the Superannuation Act 1972, or

(b) a payment is made to the Secretary of State in respect of such an individual for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection,

1778
the Secretary of State may impose on any prescribed person reasonable fees in respect of administrative expenses incurred in connection with the admission, readmission or payment.
(3) In the case of an occupational pension scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (superannuation of civil servants), the references in subsections (1) and (2) to the Secretary of State shall be read as references to the Minister for the Civil Service, or such person as may be prescribed.
(4) In the case of an occupational pension scheme under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (superannuation of persons employed in local government etc.), the references in subsections (1) and (2) to the Secretary of State shall be read as references to a prescribed person.
(5) In this section—
"prescribed" means—

(i) in the case of a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, prescribed by a scheme made by the Minister for the Civil Service, or

(ii) in any other case, prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, and

"active member", in relation to an occupational pension scheme, has the same meaning as in Part I.'.
269 Clause 154, leave out Clause 154.
270 Clause 155, page 104, line 14, at end insert:
'() Regulations made by the Secretary of State may, for the purposes of or in connection with the coming into force of any provisions of this Act, make any such provision as could be made, by virtue of subsection (4A) of section 161, by an order bringing those provisions into force.'.
271 Clause 156, page 104, line 16, leave out 'by the Secretary of State'.
272 Page 104, line 22, leave out 'or'.
273 Page 104, line 23, at end insert:
'() section (Hybrid occupational pension schemes), or order under section 10(1A)'.
274 Clause 157, page 104, line 28, after 'Ace insert:
"enactment" includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978)'.
275 Page 104, line 30, at end insert:
'and the definition of "enactment" shall apply for the purposes of section 106 as if "Act" in section 21(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978 included any enactment'.
276 Clause 159, page 104, line 35, after '134' insert '(War pensions for widows: effect of remarriage), (Information about public service schemes)'.
277 Page 104, line 35, leave out 'and 151(4) to (7)' and insert '151(4) to (7) and 160'.
278 Clause 161, page 105, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).
279 Page 105, line 10, at end insert:
'() section (War pensions for widows: effect of remarriage)'.
280 Page 105, line 11, at end insert:
'() section 160 and any repeal in Schedule 7 for which there is a note shall come into force in accordance with that note'.
281 Page 105, line 13, at end insert 'and different days may be appointed for different purposes'.
282 Page 105, line 14, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
'(4A) Without prejudice to section 155(3), the power to make an order under this section includes power—

(a) to make transitional adaptations or modifications—

(i) of the provisions brought into force by the order, or

1779

(ii) in connection with those provisions, of any provisions of this Act, or the Pension Schemes Act 1993, then in force, or

(b) to save the effect of any of the repealed provisions of that Act, or those provisions as adapted or modified by the order,

as it appears to the Secretary of State expedient, including different adaptations or modifications for different periods.'.
283 Clause 162, page 105, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
284 Schedule 1, page 106, line 40, leave out 'with the approval of the Treasury'.
285 Page 107, line 2, leave out 'with the approval of the Treasury'.
286 Page 107, line 6, leave out 'with the approval of the Treasury'.
287 Page 107, line 7, leave out 'with the approval of the Treasury'.
288 Page 107, line 22, leave out 'and the Treasury'.
289 Page 107, line 28, leave out 'and the Treasury'.
290 Page 107, line 30, leave out 'and the Treasury'.
291 Page 107, line 33, leave out 'and the Treasury'.
292 Page 107, line 33, at end insert:
'() The Secretary of State may, on such terms as to payment by the Authority as he thinks fit, make available to the Authority such additional staff and such other facilities as he thinks fit.
The Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11)
.—(1) Employment with the Authority shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed), at the end of the list of Other Bodies there is inserted—
"The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority".
(2) The Authority must pay to the Treasury, at such times as the Treasury may direct, such sums as the Treasury may determine in respect of the increase attributable to this paragraph in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.'.
293 Page 108, leave out lines 19 to 28.
294 Page 109, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (2)
295 Page 109, line 32, at beginning insert '(1).
296 Page 109, line 34, at end insert:
'(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to any document which is or is to be signed in accordance with the law of Scotland.'.
297 Schedule 2, page 110, leave out lines 21 and 22.
298 Page 110, line 26, leave out 'with the approval of the Treasury'.
299 Page 110, line 30, leave out 'with the approval of the Treasury'.
300 Page 110, line 32, leave out 'with the approval of the Treasury'.
301 Page 110, line 37, at end insert:
'The Ombudsman
In the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, in Schedule 2 (departments and authorities subject to investigation), there is inserted at the appropriate place—
"The Pensions Compensation Board".'
302 Page 110, line 39, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
303 Page 110, line 42, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
304 Page 111, line 2, at end insert:
'The Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11)
.—(1) Employment with the Compensation Board shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed), at the end of the list of Other Bodies there is inserted—
"The Pensions Compensation Board".
(2) The Compensation Board must pay to the Treasury, at such times as the Treasury may direct, such sums as the Treasury may determine in respect of the increase attributable to this paragraph in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.'.
305 Page 111, line 26, at end insert:
'.—(1) Where the Compensation Board notify any person of a decision on any matter dealt with by them by means of a formal hearing, or on review, they shall furnish a written statement of the reasons for the decision.
(2) Any statement by the Compensation Board of their reasons for a decision, whether the statement is given by them in pursuance of this paragraph or otherwise, shall be taken to form part of the decision, and accordingly to be incorporated in the record.'.
306 Page 112, line 23, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Secretary of State'
307 Page 112, line 25, at beginning insert '(1)'.
308 Page 112, line 27, at end insert:
'(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to any document which is or is to be signed in accordance with the law of Scotland.'.
309 Schedule 3, page 112, line 38, leave out 'and 38' and insert & 38 and (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed)'.
310 Page 112, line 39, at end insert:
In section 71(2B) (compensation award for failure to comply with section 69 not to be made), at the end there is added "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995."
.In section 72(3) (special award), at the end there is added "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995."
. In section 73(6B) (calculation of basic award), at the end there is added "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995."
. In section 77(1) (interim relief), after "57A (1) (a) and (b)" there is inserted "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995".
. In section 77A (1) (procedure on application for interim relief), after "57A (1) (a) and (b)" there is inserted "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995".'
311 Page 112, line 43, leave out 'or 38' and insert & 38 or (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed)'.
312 Page 113, line 3, at end insert:
In section 138 (Application of Act to Crown employment), in subsection (1), after "and section 53" there is inserted "of this Act and sections 37 to 40 and (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995." '.
313 Page 113, line 30, at end insert:
'The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 66)
. In section 31(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (vesting in permanent trustee of debtor's estate on sequestration), after "Act" there is inserted "and section 84(2B) of the Pensions Act 1995".
. In section 32 of that Act (vesting of estate, and dealings of debtor, after sequestration), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) The amount allowed for the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) above shall not be less than the total amount of any income received by the debtor—

(a) by way of guaranteed minimum pension; and

(b) in respect of his protected rights as a member of a pension scheme,

"guaranteed minimum pension" and "protected rights" having the same meanings as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993.".'.
314 Page 113, line 32, after 'orders)' insert:
'(a) in subsection (2), after "income of the bankrupt" there is inserted "when taken together with any payments to which subsection (8) applies", and (b)".
315 Page 113, line 34, leave out from second 'any' to end of line 40 and insert 'payment to which subsection (8) applies.
(8) This subsection applies to—

(a) payments by way of guaranteed minimum pension; and

(b) payments giving effect to the bankrupt's protected rights as a member of a pension scheme.

(9) In this section, "guaranteed minimum pension" and "protected rights" have the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993."'.
316 Page 114, line 30, leave out paragraph 11.
317 Page 115, line 7, at end insert:
'The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c. 53)
. The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 shall be amended as follows—

(a) in section 7(2) (concurrence required for removal of tribunal members), after "(e)" there is inserted "(g) or (h)",

(b) in section 10 (reasons to be given on request), at the end of subsection (5) there is added—
"(ba) to decisions of the Pensions Compensation Board referred to in paragraph 35(h) of Schedule 1",

(c) in section 14 (restricted application of the Act in relation to certain tribunals), after subsection (1) there is inserted—

"(1A) In this Act—

(a) references to the working of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority referred to in paragraph 35(g) of Schedule 1 are references to their working so far as relating to matters dealt with by them by means of a formal hearing or on review, and

(b) references to procedural rules for the Authority are references to regulations under—

(i) section 88(5) of the Pensions Act 1995 (procedure to be adopted with respect to reviews), or

(ii) paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to that Act (procedure of the Authority), so far as the regulations relate to procedure on any formal hearing by the Authority.", and

(d) in paragraph 35 of Schedule 1 (tribunals under the direct supervision of the Council on Tribunals: pensions), after paragraph (f) there is inserted—

1782

"(g) the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority established by section 1 of the Pensions Act 1995;

(h) the Pensions Compensation Board established by section 72 of that Act".'.

318 Page 115, line 17, leave out paragraph 16.
319 Page 115, line 18, leave out paragraph 17.
320 Page 115, line 35, at end insert:
'25A. In section 132 (conformity of schemes with requirements), "the equal access requirements" is omitted.
25B. In section 133(1) (advice of the Board), "the equal access requirements" is omitted.
25C. In section 134 (determination of questions)—

(a) in subsection (3), "the equal access requirements", and

(b) in subsection (4), "or the equal access requirements" and "or, as the case may be, section 118(1)", are omitted.

25D. In section 136(2) (e) (iv) (applications to modify schemes), "or the equal access requirements" is omitted.
25E. In section 139(2) (functions of the Board), "the equal access requirements" is omitted.
25F. In section 140(4) (effect of orders), paragraph (c) and the "and" immediately preceding it are omitted.'.
321 Page 115, line 39, at end insert:
'(aa) subsections (3) and (4) are omitted.'.
322 Page 116, line 8, leave out paragraph 29.
323 Page 116, line 18, leave out paragraph 30 and insert:
'.In section 159 (inalienability of certain pensions), after subsection (4) there is inserted—
"(4A) Where a person—

(a) is entitled or prospectively entitled as is mentioned in subsection (1), or

(b) is entitled to such rights or to such a payment as is mentioned in subsection (4),

no order shall be made by any court the effect of which would be that he would be restrained from receiving anything the assignment of which is or would be made void by either of those subsections.
(4B) Subsection (4A) does not prevent the making of an attachment of earnings order under the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971."'.
324 Page 116, line 18, at end insert:
'30A. In section 170 (determination of questions by Secretary of State), subsections (5) and (6) are omitted.'.
325 Page 116, line 24, after '(1)' insert:

'(i) the definition of "equal access requirements" is omitted, and

(ii)''

326 Page 116, line 33, at end insert:
'34A. In Schedule 7 (re-enactment or amendment of certain provisions not in force), paragraphs 1 and 3 are omitted.'.
327 Schedule 4, page 122, leave out lines 35 to 37.
328 Page 123, line 14, at end insert:
'Christmas bonus for pensioners
. In section 149(4) of that Act (Christmas bonus: supplementary), for "70 in the case of a man or 65 in the case of a woman" there is substituted "65".'.
329 Page 123, line 29, leave out 'within' the meaning'.
330 Page 126, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (9).
331 Schedule 5, page 129, line 2, at end insert:
'The Public Records Act 1958 (c. 51)
. In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of "Public Record"), in the Table—

1783

(a) in Part I, the entry relating to the Occupational Pensions Board is omitted, and

(b) in Part II—

(i) after the entry relating to the Nature Conservancy Council for England, there is inserted—

"Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority.", and
(ii) after the entry relating to the Office of the Director General of Fair Trading, there is inserted—
"Pensions Compensation Board."
The Administration of Justice Act 1970 (c. 31)
. In Schedule 4 to the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (taxes, social insurance contributions, etc subject to special enforcement provisions), in paragraph 3, for "State scheme premiums" there is substituted "Contributions equivalent premiums".
The Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (c. 31)
. In Schedule 2 to the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (taxes, social security contributions etc relevant for purposes of section 3(6)), in paragraph 3, for "State scheme premiums" there is substituted "Contributions equivalent premiums".
The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)
. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), the entry relating to the Occupational Pensions Board is omitted.
The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 25)
. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), the entry relating to the Occupational Pensions Board is omitted.
The Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (c. 60)
.—(1) In section 61 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (consultation about regulations) for the words from "refer the proposals" in subsection (2) to the end of subsection (3) there is substituted "consult such persons as he may consider appropriate".
(2) In section 61B (1) of that Act (orders and regulations: general provisions), "except any power of the Occupational Pensions Board to make orders" is omitted.
() In section 64(3) of that Act (expenses and receipts), for "state scheme premium" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premium".
The European Parliament (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979 (c. 50)
. In section 6(4) of the European Parliament (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979 (provision for payment of block transfer value into another pension scheme), "and the Occupational Pensions Board" is omitted.
The Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (c. 55)
. In section 55(6) (b) (ii) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (duties of local authorities), for "state scheme premiums" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premiums".
The Judicial Pensions Act 1981 (c. 20)
. In section 14A (2) of the Judicial Pensions Act 1981 (modifications of that Act in relation to personal pensions), in the definition of "personal pension scheme", for the words from "by" to the end there is substituted "in accordance with section 7 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;".
The Insurance Companies Act 1982 (c. 50)
. In the Table in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2B to the Insurance Companies Act 1982 (restriction on disclosure of information), the entry relating to the Occupational Pensions Board is omitted.
The Companies Act 1985 (c. 6)
. In Schedule 2 to the Companies Act 1985 (interpretation of references to "beneficial interest"), in paragraphs 3(2) (b) and 7(2) (b), for "state scheme premium" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premium".
The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c. 1)
.—(1) In section 649 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (minimum contributions towards approved personal pension schemes), in subsection (2), for the definition of "the employee's share" there is substituted—
"the employee's share' of minimum contributions is the amount that would be the minimum contributions if, for the reference in section 45(1) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to the appropriate age-related percentage, there were substituted a reference to the percentage mentioned in section 41(1A) (a) of that Act".
(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.
The Social Security Act 1989 (c. 24)
.—(1) Section 29(7) of the Social Security Act 1989 (regulations and orders) is omitted.
(2) In Schedule 5 to that Act (equal treatment in employment related schemes for pensions etc.), paragraph 4 is omitted.
The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c.4)
. In Schedule 1 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (supplementary provisions), in paragraph 8(1) (g), for "state scheme premium" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premium".'.
332 Page 129, line 4, after '1.' insert:
'—() The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.
() In section 110 (appointment and powers of inspectors)—

(a) in subsections (2) (c) (ii) and (6) (a) (ii), for "state scheme premium" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premium", and

(b) in subsection (7) (e) (i), for "state scheme premiums" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premiums".

() In section 120 (proof of previous offences), in subsections (3) and (4), for "state scheme premiums" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premiums".
()'
333 Page 129, line 4, leave out 'the Social Security Administration Act 1992' and insert 'that Act'.
334 Page 129, line 12, leave out from '(c)' to end of line 13 and insert 'is omitted'.
335 Page 129, leave out line 37.
336 Page 130, leave out lines 22 to 43.
337 Page 130, line 46, at end insert:
'Section 163 (rule against In subsection (6), for perpetuities). "consider" there is substituted "considers" '.
338 Page 130, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 131.
339 Page 131, line 6, at end insert:
'. In section 7—

(a) in subsections (1) and (6), for "Board" there is substituted "Secretary of State", and

(b) in subsection (4), "by the Board" is omitted.'.

340 Page 131, line 11, leave out '42A (3)' and insert '42A (2)'.
341 Page 131, leave out lines 12 to 17 and insert:
'() subsection (5) is omitted.'.
342 Page 131, line 19, at end insert:
'. In section 10 (protected rights), in subsection (2) (a), after "minimum payments" there is inserted "and payments under section 42A (3)"
343 Page 131, line 26, after 'factors)' insert:
'() in subsection (3), for the words following "at least" there is substituted "the prescribed percentage for each relevant year after the last service tax year; and the provisions included by virtue of this subsection may also conform with such additional requirements as may be prescribed", and
()'.
344 Page 131, line 33, leave out from 'benefits)' to 'not' in line 34 and insert:
'() subsections (1) and (5) are omitted,
() in subsection (4), for "(1) to (3)" there is substituted "(2) and (3)";
and subsections (2) and (3) of that section do'.
345 Page 132, line 14, after 'omitted' insert:
'() in subsection (3) (a), after "minimum payments" there is inserted "and payments under section 42A (3)"'.
346 Page 132, leave out line 33 and insert:
'() subsection (6) is omitted, and
() for subsection (7) there is substituted—
"(7) Without prejudice to the previous provisions of this section, failure of a scheme to comply with any requirements prescribed by virtue of section 25(2) shall be a ground on which the Secretary of State may, in respect of any employment to which the scheme relates, cancel a contracting-out certificate".'.
347 Page 132, line 36, leave out paragraph 23 and insert:
'. For section 37 (alteration of rules of contracted-out schemes) there is substituted—
"Alteration of rules of contracted-out schemes.
37.—(1) Except in prescribed circumstances, the rules of a contracted-out scheme cannot be altered unless the alteration is of a prescribed description.
(2) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1) may operate so as to validate with retrospective effect any alteration of the rules which would otherwise be void under this section.
(3) References in this section to a contracted-out scheme include a scheme which has ceased to be contracted-out so long as any person is entitled to receive, or has accrued rights to, any benefits under the scheme attributable to a period when the scheme was contracted-out.
(4) The reference in subsection (3) to a person entitled to receive benefits under a scheme includes a person so entitled by virtue of being the widower of an earner only in such cases as may be prescribed.'.
348 Page 133, line 16, at end insert:
'. In section 43 (payment of minimum contributions), in subsection (1), after "circumstances" there is inserted "or in respect of such periods".'.
349 Page 133, line 18, at end insert:
'. In section 46(1) (effect of entitlement to guaranteed minimum pensions on payment of social security benefits), for sub-paragraph (i) there is substituted—
"(i) to that part of its additional pension which is attributable to earnings factors for any tax years ending before the principal appointed day".'.
350 Page 133, line 18, at end insert:
'. In section 50 (powers to approve arrangements for scheme ceasing to be certified)—
(a) in subsection (1) (a)—

(i) at the end of sub-paragraph (i) there is inserted "or accrued rights to pensions under the scheme attributable to their service on or after the principal appointed day", and

(ii) in sub-paragraph (ii), for "guaranteed minimum pensions under the scheme" there is substituted "such pensions",

(b) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) The power of the Secretary of State to approve arrangements under this section—

(a) includes power to approve arrangements subject to conditions, and

(b) may be exercised either generally or in relation to a particular scheme.

(1B) Arrangements may not be approved under this section unless any prescribed conditions are met",
(c) subsection (7) is omitted.
. In section 51 (calculation of GMPs preserved under approved arrangements), in subsection (1) (a), for "are subject to approved arrangements" there is substituted "satisfy prescribed conditions".
. In section 52 (supervision of schemes which have ceased to be certified)—
(a) in subsection (2), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted—
"(a) the scheme has ceased to be a contracted-out scheme, and
(b) any persons remain who fall within any of the following categories.
(2A) Those categories are—
(a) any persons entitled to receive, or having accrued rights to—

(i) guaranteed minimum pensions, or

(ii) pensions under the scheme attributable to service on or after the principal appointed day but before the scheme ceased to be contracted-out,

(b) any persons who have protected rights under the scheme or are entitled to any benefit giving effect to protected rights under it",
(b) in subsection (3), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted—

"(a) the scheme has ceased to be an appropriate scheme, and

(b) any persons remain who have protected rights under the scheme or are entitled to any benefit giving effect to protected rights under it", and

(c) subsections (4) to (6) are omitted.

. In section 53 (supervision: former contracted-out schemes)—
(a) for subsection (1) there is substituted—
"(1) The Secretary of State may direct the trustees or managers of the scheme, or the employer, to take or refrain from taking such steps as the Secretary of State may specify in writing; and such a direction shall be final and binding on the person directed and any person claiming under him.
(1A) An appeal on a point of law shall lie to the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session from a direction under subsection (1) at the instance of the trustees or managers or the employer, or any person claiming under them.
(1B) A direction under subsection (1) shall be enforceable—

1787

(a) in England and Wales, in a county court as if it were an order of that court, and

(b) in Scotland, by the sheriff, as if it were an order of the sheriff and whether or not the sheriff could himself have given such an order",

(b) subsection (2) is omitted,
(c) for subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(3) If a certificate has been issued under subsection (2) of section 50 and has not been cancelled under subsection (3) of that section, any liabilities in respect of such entitlement or rights as are referred to in section 52(2A) (a) or (b) must, except in prescribed circumstances, be discharged (subject to any directions under subsection (1)) in a prescribed manner and within a prescribed period or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow",
(d) subsections (4) and (5) are omitted.
In section 54 (supervision: former appropriate personal pension schemes)—
(a) for subsections (1) and (2) there is substituted—
"(1) The Secretary of State may direct the trustees or managers of the scheme to take or refrain from taking such steps as the Secretary of State may specify in writing; and such a direction shall be final and binding on the person directed and any person claiming under him.
(1A) An appeal on a point of law shall lie to the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session from a direction under subsection (1) at the instance of the trustees or managers or the employer, or any person claiming under them.
(1B) A direction under subsection (1) shall be enforceable—

(a) in England and Wales, in a county court as if it were an order of that court, and

(b) in Scotland, by the sheriff, as if it were an order of the sheriff and whether or not the sheriff could himself have given such an order.

(2) If a certificate has been issued under subsection (2) of section 50 and has not been cancelled under subsection (3) of that section, any liabilities in respect of such entitlement or rights as are referred to in section 52(3) (b) must, except in prescribed circumstances, be discharged (subject to any directions under subsection (1)) in a prescribed manner and within a prescribed period or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow",
(b) subsection (3) is omitted.'.
351 Page 133, line 45, after "'55(2A) (c)"' insert 'and after
"widow" there is added "or widower" '.
352 Page 134, line 38, at end insert:
' In section 96 (right to cash equivalent: exercise of options)—

(a) in subsection (2) (a), after "guaranteed minimum pensions" there is inserted "his accrued rights so far as attributable to service in contracted-out employment on or after the principal appointed day", and

1788

(b) in subsection (3) (a), for "guaranteed minimum pensions" there is substituted "pensions, being guaranteed minimum pensions or pensions so far as attributable to service in contracted-out employment on or after the principal appointed day".'.

353 Page 135, line 17, leave out paragraph 43.
354 Page 135, line 19, after '5"' insert '"172, 173"'.
355 Page 135, line 24, after '5"' insert '"172, 173"'.
356 Page 135, line 29, leave out from 'premium"' to end of line 30 and insert:
'() the "and" at the end of paragraph (c) is omitted, and
() for the words following paragraph (d) there is substituted "and
(e) any question whether an employment is, or is to be treated, for the purposes of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 as contracted-out employment or as to the persons in relation to whom, or the period for which, an employment is, or is to be treated, for the purposes of that Act as such employment",'.
357 Page 135, line 31, at end insert 'and
() at the end of that section there is added—
"(7) Sections 18 and 19 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (appeals and reviews) shall have effect as if the questions mentioned in subsection (1) of section 17 of that Act included—

(a) any question arising in connection with the issue, cancellation or variation of contracting-out certificates or appropriate scheme certificates, not being a question mentioned in subsection (1) (e) above, and

(b) any other question arising under this Act which falls to be determined by the Secretary of State. not being a question mentioned in that subsection.

(8) Regulations may make provision with respect to the procedure to be adopted on any application for a review made under section 19 of that Act by virtue of subsection (7) above and generally with respect to such applications and reviews, but may not prevent such a review being entered upon without an application being made".
. In section 171 (questions arising in proceedings), in subsection (1) (b), for "state scheme premium" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premium".
. Sections 172 and 173 (reviews and appeals) are repealed.'.
358 Page 135, line 37, leave out '(3) (b) (ii)' and insert '(3) (b)—

(i) in sub-paragraph (i), "sections 2 to 5", "172, 173" and "and Schedule 1" are omitted, and

(ii) in sub-paragraph (ii)'.

359 Page 135, line 40, at end insert "172,173"'.
360 Page 136, line 2, leave out 'the definition of "the Board" is omitted' and insert '—

(i) the definitions of "accrued rights premium", "the Board", "contracted-out protected rights premium", "limited revaluation premium", "pensioner's rights premium", "personal pension protected rights premium", "state scheme premium" and "transfer premium" are omitted, and

(ii) in the definition of "contributions equivalent premium", for "section 55(6) (e)" there is substituted "section 55(2)".'

361 Page 136, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'omitted' and insert "172,173" and "and Schedule 1" are'.
362 Page 136, line 7, after '5- insert '"172,173"'.
363 Page 136, line 24, leave out 'and'.
364 Page 136, line 25, at end insert 'and
() in subsection (8), for "172(4)" there is substituted "170(8)"'.
365 Page 136, line 29, at end insert 'and "section 172(4) and (5)" is omitted'.
366 Page 136, line 42, leave out "'64- and insert "'63"'.
367 Page 136, line 43, leave out 'for "65" there is substituted "64- and insert "'to 65" is omitted'.
368 Page 136, line 43, at end insert:
'() in paragraph 9, for sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) there is substituted—
"(2A) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) shall be omitted".'
369 Schedule 6, page 137, line 6, at end insert:
'The Public Records Act 1958 (c. 51)
. In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of "Public Record"), in Part II of the Table, there is inserted at the appropriate place—
"Pensions Ombudsman."
The Pension Schemes Act 1993 (c. 48)'
370 Page 138, line 37, at end insert:
In section 145 (Pensions Ombudsman), in subsection (5), "with the approval of the Treasury" is omitted'.
371 Page 138, line 37, at end insert:
In section 151(5) (b) (enforcement in Scotland of Pensions Ombudsman's determinations), for the words from "Scotland," to the end there is substituted "in like manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.".'.
372 Page 138, line 37, at end insert:
After section 158, there is inserted—
"Other disclosures by the Secretary of State.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may, in spite of any obligation as to secrecy or confidentiality imposed by statute or otherwise on him or on persons employed in the Department of Social Security, disclose any information received by him in connection with his functions under this Act or the Pensions Act 1995 to any person specified in the first column of the following Table if he considers that the disclosure would enable or assist the person to discharge the functions specified in relation to the person in the second column of the Table.

TABLE

Persons

Functions

The Treasury.

Functions under the Financial Services Act 1986.

The Bank of England.

Functions under the Banking Act 1987 or any other functions.

The Regulatory Authority.

Functions under this Act or the Pensions Act 1995, or any enactment in forcing Northern Ireland corresponding to either of them.

The Pensions Compensation Board.

Functions under the Pensions Act 1995 or any corresponding enactment in force in Northern Ireland.

The Friendly Societies Commission.

Functions under the enactments relating to friendly societies

Persons

Functions

The Building Societies Commission.

Functions under the Building Societies Act 1986.

An inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.

Functions under section 94 or 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986.

A person authorised to exercise powers under section 106 of the Financial Services Act 1986.

Functions under that section.

A designated agency or transferee body or the competent authority (within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986).

Functions under the Financial Services Act 1986.

A recognised self-regulating organisation, recognised professional body, recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house (within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986)

Functions in its capacity as an organisation, body, exchange or clearing house recognised under the Financial Services Act 1986.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order—
(a) amend the Table in subsection (1) by—

(i) adding any person exercising regulatory functions and specifying functions in relation to that person,

(ii) removing any person for the time being specified in the Table, or

(iii) altering the functions for the time being specified in the Table in relation to any person, or

(b) restrict the circumstances in which, or impose conditions subject to which, disclosure may be made to any person for the time being specified in the Table".'.
373 Page 138, leave out line 42.
374 Schedule 7, page 139, line 26, leave out '13' and insert '14'.
375 Page 139, column 3, leave out line 28.
376 Page 139, column 3, line 44, at end insert:
'In section 132, "the equal access requirements".In section 133(1), "the equal access requirements".In section 134, in subsection (3), "the equal access requirements" and, in subsection (4), "or the equal access requirements" and "or, as the case may be, section 118(1)".In section 136(2) (e) (iv), "or the equal access requirements".In section 139(2), "the equal access requirements".In section 140(4), paragraph (c) and the "and" immediately preceding it.'.
377 Page 140, line 4, after '108)"' insert 'subsections (3) and (4)'.
378 Page 140, column 3, leave out line 9 and insert:
'In section 170, subsections (5) and (6)'.
379 Page 140, column 3, line 11, at end insert:
'In section 181(1), the definition of "equal access requirements"'.
380 Page 140, line 20, leave out 'paragraph 1' and insert:
'paragraphs 1 and 3.In Schedule 8, paragraph 3'.
381 Page 140, line 29, column 3, leave out 'the words from "but" to "70"' and insert:
'in subsection (1) (a), the words from "but" to "70", and subsection (4)'.
382 Page 140, line 47, at end insert:
'1958 c. 51. The Public Records Act 1958. In Schedule 1, in the Table, the entry relating to the Occupational Pensions Board.
1975 c. 24. The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. In Part II of Schedule 1, the entry relating to the Occupational Pensions Board.
1975 c. 25. The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. In Part II of Schedule 1, the entry relating to the Occupational Pensions Board.
1975 c. 60. The Social Security Pensions Act 1975. In section 61B (1), "except any power of the Occupational Pensions Board to make orders".
1979 c. 50. The European Parliament (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979. In section 6(4), "and the Occupational Pensions Board".
1982 c. 50. The Insurance Companies Act 1982. In Schedule 2B, in paragraph 3(1), in the Table, the entry relating to the Occupational Pensions Board.
1989 c. 24. The Social Security Act 1989. Section 29(7).In Schedule 5, paragraph 4.'.
383 Page 141, line 7, column 3, leave out from '(c)' to end of line 8.
384 Page 141, line 19, column 3, at end insert:
'In section 7(4), "by the Board"'.
385 Page 141, line 19, column 3, at end insert:
'Section 8(5)'.
386 Page 141, column 3, leave out lines 25 to 31 and insert:
'Section 22.In section 23, subsections (1) and (5).Section 24.In section 25, subsections (1) and (3). Section 28(7).Section 31(1).Section 34(6).'.
387 Page 141, column 3, leave out lines 33 to 35.
388 Page 141, line 44, column 3, at end insert 'and, in paragraph
(e), the words following "prescribed period'".
389 Page 141, line 44, column 3, at end insert:
'In section 48(2), paragraph (b) and, in paragraph (c), "if the earner dies before reaching pensionable age".'.
390 Page 141, line 44, column 3, at end insert:
'Section 50(7).In section 52, subsections (4) to (6).In section 53, subsections (2), (4) and (5).Section 54(3).'.
391 Page 142, leave out lines 24 to 26.
392 Page 142, line 28, after '5'" insert '"172,173'".
393 Page 142, line 30, after '5" insert '"172,173"'.
394 Page 142, line 33, leave out from '(1)' to 'and' in line 34 and insert 'the "and" at the end of paragraph (c)'.
395 Page 142, column 3, line 35, at end insert:
'Sections 172 and 173.'.
396 Page 142, line 36, after '177' insert 'in subsection (3) (b) (i), "sections 2 to 5", "172, 173" and "and Schedule 1"'.
397 Page 142, line 43, after '5''' insert "172, 173"'.
398 Page 142, line 46, column 3, leave out 'definition of "the Board"' and insert 'definitions of "accrued rights premium,", "the Board", "contracted-out protected rights premium", "limited revaluation premium", "pensioner's rights premium", "personal pension protected rights premium", "state scheme premium" and "transfer premium"'.
399 Page 142, line 47 at end insert "'172, 173" and'.
400 Page 142, line 54, after '5"' insert "'172, 173"'.
401 Page 142, column 3, line 60, at end insert:
1792
In section 192(2), "section 172(4) and (5)".'.
402 Page 143, line 6, column 3, after 'Board"' insert 'in sub-paragraph (2) "to 65"'.
403 Page 143, line 21, column 3, at end insert 'In section 145, "with the approval of the Treasury".'.
404 Page 143, line 48, leave out from '1971' to end of line 49 and insert 'shall come into force on the day this Act is passed'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 244 to 404. I have already spoken to these amendments in various debates.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 244 to 404. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children (Scotland) Bill
6.42 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Award of parental responsibilities and parental rights to father
.—(1) Where a child's father does not have parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to him and the mother and father have not agreed to provide for the father to have such responsibilities or rights, the father may apply to the court for such rights, provided that, unless there are exceptional circumstances he does so—

(a) no earlier than three months from the date of the child's birth; and

(b) no later than a maximum number of years to be prescribed by the Secretary of State from the date of the child's birth if during the intervening time he had no active part in providing for or caring for the child.

(2) Before awarding parental responsibilities and parental rights under subsection (1) above, the court shall satisfy itself that arrangements are made for these rights to be exercised in such a manner as to avoid the father having knowledge of the address of the mother if she does not wish him to have such information.
(3) Where a father awarded parental responsibilities or parental rights under subsection (1) above is subsequently convicted of any offence involving violence or of any offences mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (offences against children to which special provisions apply) or in sections 2A to 2C of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 (incest and intercourse with a child by step-parent or person in position of trust), or has had a protection order enforced against him, his parental responsibilities and parental rights will terminate, pending any further application by him to the court for the restoration of such responsibilities and rights.".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before moving this amendment, perhaps I may welcome the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, to his new-found eminence, if that is the correct word, within the Government's structure, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, in the particular task which he has to perform on behalf of the Government. It seems a long time ago, but we seem to say every year that, while we wish both noble Earls well, we trust that their period in office will not be too long. Apart from that, I know from the dealings I have had with the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in connection with this particular Bill, which is a non-party Bill, that, like his predecessor, the

1793
noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, we have all, I hope, approached this Bill in your Lordships' House in a constructive and understanding way because children are probably the most important element in our society. Parents fade away, but children grow up. We are trying to give children a decent way of life. This Bill deals with children who are unfortunate and who have to be looked after.
Amendment No. 1 was moved in another place. It was responded to by the then Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, who has moved to other pastures. The reason why the amendment is tabled is that in the course of the debate on these matters there were indications that the Government would take the amendment back and consider it and perhaps come up with their own amendment to deal with this particular issue.
Perhaps I may quote from Hansard of the other place for 1st May 1995, col. 84. The Minister then said:
"This has been a useful debate. First, I shall answer the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, (Mrs. Fyfe,) about legal aid. Any party to an action to obtain parental responsibilities and rights can apply for legal aid, and will obtain it if he or she satisfies the usual tests. The most important point raised in the debate was concern over the safety of women, especially battered women, in refuges. Although I shall oppose new clause 2"—
which is the clause now before your Lordships' House—
"on technical grounds, we shall consider an amendment to allow a mother to apply to the court to have her details kept confidential".
In fairness to the Minister then dealing with these matters, he made an important point at col. 85. He said that it may be practically impossible to keep the mother's address confidential because, if it follows from the fact that the father is gaining access to the child, then in some cases the child will tell the father where she is living. It is a difficult situation.
The Minister said:
"In any event, it would not be practicable for the court to be satisfied that the mother's address would not become known to the father. The court could not necessarily control all the circumstances in which such information might be made known to the father, including by innocent third parties such as the children themselves. I have said that we will look at this issue with a view to considering it further at the next stage of the Bill, although I do not think that subsection 2 is appropriately expressed in its present form".
I took the opportunity of speaking to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, to see whether there was some response to this particularly sensitive subject. One of the problems in life which we males know, is that we do not have responsibilities and rights forced on us. The very act of childbirth begins the responsibility and care which is imposed on the woman. The social ethic, if I may put it that way, behind this amendment is that where a woman gives birth to a child she should not be under any particular pressure until all matters surrounding the birth, such as perhaps having a distressful birth and the sudden calamities which sometimes happen, which I shall not go into, have been dealt with. Before the mother makes any agreement of any kind with the man who claims to be the father, she should be given the opportunity of "getting herself together", if I may put it that way without being too pejorative about it. That is the reason behind the amendment.
Subsection 1(3) refers to offences which have been committed against a child. The right of access should be withdrawn. It should,
"terminate, pending any further application by him to the court for the restoration of such responsibilities and rights".
I declare an interest as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The number of claims coming in as a result of child abuse, and the amount of money which is being paid out through the board's system, are monumental. There is a real social basis for this.
I accept the difficulties as regards subsection 1(2), in that the child may tell the father where the mother is living. Where the father is convicted of an offence within subsection 1(3), access should be withdrawn because inevitably, as life is at the moment, any offence covered by subsection 1(3) would lead to a claim against the state in terms of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I understand that this subject is to be debated in your Lordships' House on 19th of this month. I am not going through the minutiae of the debate which took place in the other place, because I am sure that the noble Earl has read the discussions on this particular issue. On that foundation, I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am worried about the amendment because according to my interpretation of the Bill, particularly Clause 3, the mother has the primary responsibility for the child. I believe that the Bill is correct in that. I fear that the first few words of the proposed new clause would weaken that position. That is one of the main reasons why I am unhappy about the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, first, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Courtown and myself, I should like to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord for his kind thoughts. As regards the proposed new clause, I stress that my right honourable friend the Minister of State made it clear when this clause was first considered in another place that, while the Government recognise the motives of the noble Lord in proposing such a clause, they are not convinced that such an amendment is necessary.
Under the terms of Clause 11, any person claiming an interest in the child can apply to the court for parental responsibilities and rights. In considering whether to make such an order, the court will have regard to the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration.
Subsection (1) of the new clause would restrict the circumstances in which a father who is not and has not been married to the child's mother can apply to the courts for an order conferring upon him parental responsibilities and rights. We consider, however, that the only cases where a genetic father and mother should be prevented from having access to the courts for that purpose are in the circumstances described by the House of Lords in its decision In re D and another (minors) on 9th March 1995 and in analogous circumstances where the parental rights and responsibilities of a parent have been extinguished by a court. In other cases we consider that it would be difficult, having regard to our international obligations, to have a provision which

1795
prevents a genetic parent from applying for such an order at any time in view of the variety of different circumstances which can arise. Therefore we think that it would be preferable to allow the genetic parent to apply but to leave it to the court to determine whether to make the order in all the circumstances of the case, having regard to the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration.
The Government remain to be persuaded that there should be a provision along the lines of subsection (2) of the new clause. It would not be practicable for the court to be satisfied that the mother's address would not become known to the father in the exercise of his parental responsibilities and rights. The court could not control all the circumstances in which such information might be made known to the father, including, as the noble Lord said, by innocent third parties such as the children themselves. It was for those reasons that the Government rejected the earlier proposal to make specific provision in legislation for the court to satisfy itself on a matter on which satisfaction may be simply impracticable to obtain. It appears paradoxical, moreover, to empower the court to satisfy itself on that matter when awarding parental responsibilities and rights when there is no provision for the court to prevent the father knowing the address of the mother in cases where it does not award such parental responsibilities and rights.
However, I recognise that my honourable friend the Minister of State agreed in another place, as the noble Lord pointed out, to examine whether an amendment might be brought forward to alleviate concerns over the safety of women, especially battered women in refuges. He undertook to consider an amendment which would allow the mother to apply to the court to have her details kept confidential.
As I have already said, the court could not be expected to control all the circumstances under which information could be made known to the father. However, it is our view that, in the preparation of rules of court, provisions might be made which, upon her application to the court, would allow the details of the mother to be kept confidential in relation to those parts of the process over which the courts have control. I would hope that the Sheriff Courts Rules Council and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, will take note of the noble Lord's concerns in the preparation of rules for the sheriff courts and the Court of Session. I understand that the Sheriff Court Rules Council has already begun work on the Sheriff Court Rules for Part I of the Bill.
Finally, in relation to subsection (3) of the new clause it seems discriminatory to deprive the unmarried father automatically of parental responsibilities and rights in the event of a conviction as described but to make no such provision in relation to the married father or indeed the mother. Arguably, any person with parental responsibilities and rights should be treated equally in relation to the possible risk to the child should he or she incur such a conviction.
The proposed new clause moved in another place and here is thought-provoking. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing these issues up. In answer to his
1796
concern that a mother who has just given birth may be vulnerable, she may be in a vulnerable state at any stage during the early years of her child's life. We have always stressed that any parent embarking upon an arrangement for parental responsibilities should, if they are unmarried, seek advice. For that reason and the other reasons I have given, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he tell the House whether rules of court are published so that noble Lords and others can obtain them? We have heard a great deal on this Bill about rules of court. Noble Lords are interested in how they come out in the end. I should be grateful to know whether that is possible.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it is my understanding that they are published, but if I have anything to add I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, it is probably my fault but I did not understand the point that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, was making. If he wishes to reiterate it, I might understand it better, but it is probably my fault.
Subsection (1) of the amendment is not designed for the protection of the child—on one view of the matter this should not be in the Children (Scotland) Bill—but for the protection of the mother. I wonder whether the Government might consider accepting subsection (1) (a) because it has been carefully framed. It provides:
"the father may apply to the court for such rights, provided that, unless there are exceptional circumstances he does so—
(a) no earlier than three months from the date of the child's birth".
It is a protective device for the mother. As I understand it, in England there is the Infanticide Act which protects the mother within six months of the child's birth from anything she may do to a child, including killing it.
It appears to be a reasonable proposition in the circumstances outlined in the amendment that the mother, who may for a variety of reasons have the emotional and other pressures put upon her which I mentioned when I moved the amendment, should be protected at least for three months, subject to the father being able to go to the court to say, "I want to see my child"—provided of course that the mother accepts that the person who wants to see the child is the father of the child, but that is another matter.
On subsection (2) of the proposed new clause, I am basically at one with the Minister as to the difficulty of keeping knowledge of the mother's address away from the father. The provision is carefully worded. It says only that the court should not divulge the address to the father. As the Minister will have noted from the debate in another place, when the amendment was being debated on 1st May (col. 77 of Hansard) a case was quoted:
"Sadly we learned while the Committee was sitting of a mother who killed her ex-husband while the young son hid in fear. The husband had obtained the address from the report of the children's hearing on three separate occasions".
So subsection (2) is merely an admonition to the court not to reveal the mother's address. The address may come out otherwise, and if the father is sufficiently

1797
determined to find out where his child is living he will do so. It is like burglars breaking into one's house; if they want to get in they will do so.
The amendment is carefully framed because it provides that the court shall satisfy itself and so forth. As regards subsection (3), I take the point about the unmarried father. Nevertheless, the point of principle is worthy of consideration. Having heard the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Clause 16 [Welfare of child and consideration of his views]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 14, line 8, after ("order;") insert:
("(iia) whether to grant a warrant under section 66 of this Act:").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, during the Report stage an amendment was introduced which empowered the sheriff to issue a warrant under Clause 66 requiring a child to be detained in a place of safety. The amendment applies to the provisions of Clause 16(2) and (3) to the sheriff's consideration. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 14, line 19, after ("decision") insert (", provided that the best interests of the child concerned shall remain a primary consideration of the children's hearing").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which are related. This is not a new amendment but it involves a most fundamental principle that has not yet been addressed. The amendments would definitely resolve the anxiety about the suspension of the paramountcy of the child's interests in Clauses 16 and 17. All three amendments propose the inclusion of the words:
"provided that the best interests of the child concerned shall remain a primary consideration of",
the children's hearing, the court or the local authority. That inclusion would resolve the concern or fear that members of the children's hearing, the Bench or the local authority may view the child in a totally different light.
The exceptional circumstances are that the child has acted against other people or their property. While such actions certainly require to be dealt with firmly, and secure accommodation may well be necessary, I cannot accept that the paramountcy of the child's interests can be suspended completely. I strongly recommend that the reduced status of a primary consideration should be spelt out to measure and quantify the suspension.
The justification is clear. Although the child may have been a considerable nuisance, possibly committing several offences, that is only one aspect of his or her life. The whole child and all his or her relationships, attributes, character and interests are being considered for placement in a special situation.
While the child is being considered on account of his or her offending behaviour, he or she retains all the other aspects of character and life. Those other aspects
1798
do not merit complete suspension of the paramountcy of the child's interests. A qualified suspension is necessary to keep that in balance. The child is more than, for example, a house breaker.
The three amendments would clarify the extent to which the paramountcy was being suspended. The legislation must not go forward with such a procedural error within it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, the amendment reminds me of an occasion when a children's reporter was explaining to the members of my old county council what their functions were. The headmaster of a school asked the reporter, "What procedures would you take to welcome back into the school the boy who had burnt it down?" I believe that the provisions of the Bill set an example as regards the welfare of the child coming first. However, as regards an arsonist, other steps must be taken because one cannot necessarily put the child first.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, during earlier stages of the Bill we agreed that to a certain extent we were dealing with semantics as regards the use of the word "paramountcy". I do not know where the word came from, but it is in the Bill and in earlier legislation. I am not sure what it means.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is trying to focus attention on the child. That is what the Bill is all about. The example of an arsonist is extreme. Obviously, such a child would not be welcomed back into the school because the school would no longer be there. But the child must be dealt with. I understand that the philosophy behind the Bill is to rescue children from their evil doings. If a child has burnt down the school or whatever, the amendments tabled by the noble Earl will remind those dealing with him that while paramountcy is a provision of the Bill at the end of the day there must be a rescue operation in order to get the child back on to the straight track.
The three amendments would not harm the Bill. Indeed, it would be useful to accept them so that persons dealing with children can be reminded that the issue is not the evil that was done but whether we make the child who has done wrong a better child and a better person to live with in a civilised society. I support the amendments.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the exception to the paramountcy principle in Clause 16 (for the courts and children's hearings) and also in Clause 17 (for local authorities) has already been discussed at great length. It was discussed most recently when the noble Earl moved and subsequently withdrew the same amendments during the Report stage. As the noble Earl said, the amendment is not new. Perhaps I may remind him that at that time my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate comprehensively set out the Government's firm view that the specification in the amendment was unnecessary. We are not talking about a complete suspension of paramountcy, to which the noble Earl referred. Nor are we suddenly taking the focus away from the child, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggested. The focus remains on the child; we are looking at the response.
My noble friend Lord Balfour summed up our objection to the amendments. The Bill is essentially about the welfare and protection of children and it

1799
clearly establishes the paramountcy of the child's welfare. It makes only one exception—to protect members of the public from serious harm. That is a protection the public have every right to expect.
The key point is that Clause 16(5) is not about giving hearings and courts powers to take specific action in relation to a child; rather it provides hearings and courts with a power to do something which would not put the welfare of the child as the paramount concern. That in itself is not a separate power to send a child to secure accommodation or to place the child under a supervision requirement. It opens the way to their exercising functions for which succeeding provisions of the Bill provide specific authority.
It is important to see Clause 16(5) in its context. It does not stand on its own; it provides flexibility for a sheriff or a hearing to make appropriate decisions under the relevant legislation where children threaten members of the public with harm. This is not some draconian measure which will allow local authorities, hearings and courts carte blanche to deal with children as they see fit. They would have to exercise their powers in accordance with the legislative provisions, and in doing so they would continue to have regard to the welfare of the child as an important consideration but not the paramount one. I hope that, with this further reassurance, the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendments.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Earl said, and I am reassured. A point of principle was involved. I felt that there should be a reduced status. I believe that the noble Earl has told me that that is implicit in the Bill. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Duty of local authority to child looked after by them]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of persons with parental responsibilities to notify change of address to local authority looking after child.
.—(1) Where a child is being looked after by a local authority, each natural person who has parental responsibilities in relation to the child shall, without unreasonable delay, inform that authority whenever the person changes his address.
(2) A person who knowingly fails to comply with the requirement imposed by subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of level 1 on the standard scale; but in any proceedings under this section it shall be a defence that—

(a) the change was to the same address as that to which another person who at that time had parental responsibilities in relation to the child was changing; and

(b) the accused had reasonable cause to believe that the other person had informed the authority of the change of address of them both.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 and 62. These amendments apparently bring in a new clause but it is of course a transfer of the provisions from the 1968 Act. It is right that there should be a duty
1800
placed on people with parental responsibilities to notify their change of address to any local authority looking after their child or children. It is possible to imagine circumstances in which the local authority could lose touch with parents. Whether the child can be reunited with the family is not material; it is simply appropriate that the local authority should be able to reach the parent for so long as the authority looks after the child and the parent has the parental responsibilities.
While the duty is on the adult to notify any change of address, the clause is as much related to the child and the child's needs. It is certainly appropriate to have it in the Children (Scotland) Bill, and the amendment brings in the necessary substantive clause. The other amendments make appropriate references in Schedule 5 to effect the necessary repeal in the 1968 Act and in Clause 104, making clear that it extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
These amendments offer a further enhancement of the Bill. It is preferable that provision of this type should be in the Bill rather than the 1968 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Welfare of child and local authority's consideration of his views
.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 17 above, where under or by virtue of this Part of this Act, a local authority decides any matter with respect to a child, the welfare of that child throughout his childhood shall be their paramount consideration.
(2) In making any such decision a local authority shall have regard so far as practicable to the views (if he wishes to express them) of the child concerned, taking account of his age and maturity; and without prejudice to the generality of this subsection a child twelve years of age or more shall be presumed to be of sufficient age and maturity to form a view.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 is not new. I am returning to it because I believe that the Bill will be weakened without it. A clear statement is needed about how the local authorities shall approach the needs of children who live in their area but are not being looked after by them.
In Scotland we are bound by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Therefore, I cannot see why the Minister has so far resisted the amendment. It would confirm what local authorities must do as they comply with that convention. Acceptance of the amendment would effectively cross-reference the convention and this new social work legislation. If the proposed clause is not included, social work practitioners who have a good grip of the legislative base will wonder why it is not included, especially as the convention must be complied with in any event. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am rather surprised by this amendment because the welfare of the child is very clearly specified in Clauses 16, 17, 21, 34 and 35 and there is even a provision for a review of it in Clause 30. I feel that the welfare of the child could not be emphasised more strongly in the Bill.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, this familiar amendment was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and

1801
Kellie, on Report, when I gave him a full explanation of the Government's position on this matter. The UN convention does not place a duty of paramountcy in respect of all children. That may clarify the noble Earl's position.
I think that we have to differentiate rather carefully between public intervention in the life of a child or family and the simple provision of support services. The noble Earl's clause would bite wherever and whenever a local authority were considering any action under Part II. I believe that writing such a sweeping provision into primary legislation would run a very serious risk of creating such a heavy and onerous requirement on local authorities that they would find real difficulty in meeting its terms and delivering their services—and in meeting priority needs. It is too prescriptive and would require a degree of consultation and interaction between the authorities and individuals which would probably prove impracticable.
I believe that the best of what the noble Earl seeks will be obtained through good practice, with guidance wherever necessary, but these are not matters for the Bill and I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. This was a point of principle. I am reassured that local authorities will be able to proceed in the way that I would like them to. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Manner of provision of accommodation to child looked after by local authority]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 20, line 8, after first ("or) insert ("the definition of that expression in").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is essentially a drafting amendment to clarify the definition of the families with whom a local authority would not place a child they are looking after. It puts beyond doubt that families where the persons have parental responsibilities for the child or with whom the child has been living would not come within the scope of Clause 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Welfare of children in accommodation provided for purposes of school attendance]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 25, line 30, at end insert ("and to ensure that strategies to prevent bullying and abuse are in place").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the purpose of the inspection of independent and private schools.
During the passage of the Bill through this House, I received communications from nine parents concerning independent schools throughout the UK with which they have been involved. Two letters were from parents who were very happy with the performance of the schools which they had selected. The other seven were written by parents who were far from happy with the schools.
1802
In every case the child or children had been removed from the schools in question and most were settled elsewhere.
I have tried to draw some useful conclusions from that sad exercise. The first must be a personal conclusion. As a prep school boy in Dunbar and an average pupil at Eton, I do not recall the kind of incidents which parents have recounted. I know that the memory is selective but there is determined recall, perhaps through the initial layer of happy memories. At the risk of whitewashing Eton, I believe that its system of having a well-constituted housemaster who is effectively in charge of the whole life of the pupil and a work tutor who is continuously responsible for the boy's academic work provides the type of supervision necessary to ensure that an unhappy child is identified and assisted quickly before the problem becomes out of hand.
Similarly, arranging for each pupil to have a room of his own has enormous merit. It makes routine conversations with the authorities easy and natural. The provision of a broad range of leisure and recreational opportunities is also a great help.
These schools are total institutions and they must provide an active programme and supervision for each of the 168 hours per week. In similar vein, the Scottish prison service has addressed that problem by introducing a personal officer scheme.
Secondly, parents who wrote to me have complained about bullying, lack of supervision, lack of a full programme, initiation ceremonies, harsh interrogation and lack of ability to meet the needs of overseas pupils, in particular for those for whom English is not a first language.
Thirdly, some parents complain that they have not been treated as equal partners in the upbringing of their children. It is as though they had been disenfranchised as parents when they handed over their children to the school in loco parentis. I wonder whether that is not inevitable. I have to say here that, as each school offers a unique system, parents have to be careful about what they are buying because they are in fact buying a specific product. Perhaps there is a need for less optimistic advertising.
Fourthly, parents have complained about the lack of an effective complaints system, both internally and externally. Recourse to the school's lawyers seems to come early on in the process at present. Perhaps there is also a deficiency in the record-keeping systems of some schools. Fifthly, some parents have complained that the board of governors or its equivalent rarely seems willing to do anything other than back the headmaster and protect the good name of the school. Perhaps such people should review their own role.
Sixthly, I would comment that not all children are suited to boarding school life, especially dormitory life, and that parents must be realistic about their child's likelihood of survival in a boarding school. Seventhly, I am surprised to a degree by the call from parents for greater state control in the independent sector in education. On the face of it, I thought that they had selected such schools because they were outside the

1803
state system. In conclusion, this sorry state of affairs requires close liaison and inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I have to confess at the outset that we are bound to reject the amendment moved by the noble Earl. However, perhaps I may try to reassure him. Her Majesty's inspectors of schools are currently developing detailed operational guidelines for their future inspections of the welfare of residential pupils. Welfare provisions at three independent schools in Scotland have recently been inspected in pilot inspections—with satisfactory results, I may add—to test the thoroughness of those guidelines. Further fine-tuning is being made to ensure that from school session 1995–96, Her Majesty's inspectors of schools can start a rolling programme of such welfare inspections in line with the provisions of Clause 34. Those guidelines include references to schools' strategies on child protection to combat bullying and abuse. I can assure the noble Earl that his point is already covered in planning currently under way for those welfare inspections.
Child protection guidelines for independent schools are currently being drawn up by Professor Kathleen Marshall, of Glasgow University, in consultation with a number of interested and expert parties, including Her Majesty's inspectors of schools and the social work services inspectorate, for use by the independent schools in meeting their welfare duty under the clause. Those guidelines will cover, for example, the responsibilities of schools, the appointment and training of staff, the designation of a senior member of staff with special responsibility for co-ordinating child protection within the school, and detailed guidance on action required in specific cases.
Clause 34 as presently worded will provide an effective means of ensuring that appropriate welfare standards are in place in independent schools.
I hope that the noble Earl can derive considerable comfort from what I have said. I should also point out that although he may have received nine letters, I believe that there are 100,000 or so children in private residential schools. So there is a silent majority out there reasonably satisfied with the education their children are receiving.
I was a little surprised that the noble Earl should think that one disenfranchises one's child when one sends him or her to school. In most cases, the parents make a positive choice in sending the child to a particular school. If there is any dissatisfaction, there is very often the option of changing the child's school. I hope that the noble Earl will accept those reassurances.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether he distinguishes between welfare and rights? I ask that question because the debate that has taken place to date during the course of the Bill's passage has established that it is all right for the inspectors to go in and ensure that the welfare of the child is all right, that the rooms are all right, and
1804
so on, as mentioned by the noble Earl. However, as I understand it, the focus of the amendment is the right of the child within the school system.
Parents who have to go abroad and who cannot perhaps take their children with them often choose to put them into the independent school system. The whole issue which has been debated throughout the various stages of the Bill is not a question of welfare—in other words, it is not a question of welfare or whether the children are well fed and have clean bedsheets, and so on—it is a question of whether the child has reasonable access to a complaints procedure if he is capable of making up his mind on the matter and seeks such access.
The noble Earl referred to the prison system, but you cannot have a protracted procedure of complaint about bullying and such matters that happen in any school. Bullying is not unique to independent schools; indeed, it is something which takes place in every school throughout the land. I wonder whether we have grasped the purpose of what we have been discussing during the passage of the Bill. We are talking about the child who has been in an independent school for whatever reason—because his parents have gone abroad; because they do not fancy having him about the house; or because they want to lead a better social life as they see it and therefore, as they can afford it, have put him into the independent system. I wonder whether we are looking at the real issue involved as regards this particular focus of the Bill. I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, if I have misrepresented him in any way, but that seems to me to be the real issue.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am sure that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. The detailed operational guidelines currently being developed by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools and also the child protection guidelines for independent schools being drawn up by Professor Kathleen Marshall, of Glasgow University, cover welfare duties in their widest sense. Therefore, the rights of the child as enshrined in the Bill will be consistently co-ordinated with the detailed investigation of the welfare of the child pursued by those two groups. I can also tell the noble Lord that complaints procedures and their operation will be reviewed in the course of inspections. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, we have had a very good debate about independent schools and their relationship to the future of the Children (Scotland) Bill. I do not believe that we intended to do so when we began, but certain parents made sure that the debate was brought to the Floor of the House. It is important to qualify press reports which suggested that I had received a dossier of correspondence. I do not know how many letters a dossier is supposed to contain, but I have established that I received nine from different sources.
Finally, although bullying happens in every school, one of the different features of a boarding school is that one cannot go home. It is a total institution from which one cannot escape in the way that is possible if one goes home in the evening. I should like to draw that distinction. It is most important that schools should have effective anti-bullying strategies. I am most grateful to

1805
the noble Earl for detailing how Her Majesty's inspectors will be dealing with independent schools in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Short-term refuges for children at risk of harm]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 27, line 39, leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11. This is an amendment to Clause 37 which involves the question of a child at his own hands seeking the help of the local authority where he is at risk of harm. As noble Lords will see from Clause 37(1) (a):
"Where a child appears to a local authority to be at risk of harm, they may at the child's request provide him with refuge",
and so on.
I would hope that the Government might take this amendment on board. It seeks to amend Clause 37(5) to allow a little more time to deal with the problem of a child who seeks help from a local authority. It goes without saying that if any child is in a situation where he has to leave home and seek help from the local authority, there must be something badly wrong either with the child or with the home. The Minister will no doubt be familiar by now with these amendments which relate to the whole concept of the Bill, which is to help children. For example, if a child turns up at a local authority home, the first thing that must be done is to find out who the child is. The child may claim that he is called John Smith or Jimmy Brown but the local authority staff must find out his identity, where he lives, his age and the school that he attends.
The philosophy—if that is the correct word—behind this amendment is to give a local authority time to find out what the problem is. If the relevant period is restricted to the period mentioned in Clause 37(5), the child can be thrown out of a refuge without his problem having been solved, if there is a problem. All that that will achieve will be to create the situation where the child will return to the refuge. I cannot see that it would constitute a great imposition on a local authority to keep a child for 14 or 21 days, as my amendments propose. I am the first person to recognise that keeping children in a refuge may be considered by some people to be an infringement of civil liberties. However, the Government have provided in the Bill that a local authority,
"may at the child's request provide him with refuge".
It is not a question of a child being apprehended and put into a home, but rather of a child seeking help. If local authorities are to help these children they must have the time to do so. Once a child has been identified under its correct name, one then has to find his mother or father, if the father is on the scene at all, but all that requires time. I am advised by people who are involved in these matters that the experience in England has been that the timescale we are discussing is far too short and that a longer timescale is better suited to the interests of the
1806
child who is seeking refuge and in terms of solving whatever problems may have caused the child to seek help from the local authority. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister replies, I hope I may ask him a question at this stage. Even if the local authority manages to find out nothing more than a child's name, from my reading of the legislation I do not think that the child could be thrown out on the street at the end of seven days, which is rather the impression I obtained from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I accept that the noble Lord referred to that as the worst case that could befall a child. I want to make quite certain that under no circumstances would a child be thrown out on to the street because a local authority could not find out anything about him, or who his parents were and whether, for example, they had disappeared off on holiday. However, from my reading of the legislation, I do not think that is the case.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, on this matter. I obviously wish to support the amendment. In Scotland we are blessed with our welfare-driven children's panel system. I can see that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, may want to resist these amendments because the matter can be referred to a children's hearing at any time. That is technically correct, but I want to refer to the situation where a child has arrived at a refuge and he is completely unknown to the welfare authorities; that is, social work, education or health authorities.
There will be much information to gather and many factors to be assessed before any long-term plan can be formulated, let alone agreed upon, and seven or 14 days will be woefully inadequate as a timescale. An early children's hearing may not assist the process in the eyes and, more particularly, the emotions of the child in question. The experiences that led up to the decision to run away from home will constitute depths which will not easily be plumbed. Only good can come from building sufficient flexibility into the Bill.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, let me reiterate to noble Lords that we see refuges as a comparatively small but important service which will be relevant to a limited number of children who are in danger of harm. The refuge provision responds to a need. It is a short-term response to a short-term need. We must resist any temptation to turn the refuge into something different or to allow children to stay there for longer periods without proper decisions being made as to their future. Children ask for "time-out" or a "breathing space" to be available in certain circumstances. The refuge provides for that. It means that seven days are available for the child and workers in the refuge to get to grips with the underlying problems and to consider how best to plan for their resolution. It may mean the child going home or it could mean the local authority thinking seriously about what statutory steps it should take to protect the child; for example, a child protection order or an exclusion order.

1807
What it certainly does not mean is what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, referred to—and what my noble friend Lord Balfour quite rightly doubted—and that is that a child would be thrown out of a refuge on to the streets, as it were. I have spoken about the two statutory steps which might be available and there are other options. Furthermore, if a local authority feels that the assessment has not been sufficient, it can always apply to the Secretary of State for an extension. However, the period of seven days for which the clause provides at present should in most circumstances be quite sufficient for the local authority and the child to reach decisions. The refuges are aimed at providing expert and swift assessment, and we do not want to prolong that. I cannot see that allowing a longer period in a refuge would encourage timely and purposeful assessment and action to assist vulnerable young people.
To accept the noble Lord's amendment would alter this provision to such an extent that consideration would have to be given to matters more appropriate to long-term care; for example, education, the transfer of parental rights and responsibilities and other matters well beyond the initial purpose of the refuge. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was incorrect when he said rather glibly that it was no problem for local authorities to keep these children in their care for, let us say, 14 days. As I have said, providing education and the sort of services associated with longer term residence would be a burden on local authorities.
In Committee I drew an analogy with an emergency casualty ward at a hospital. If, instead of carrying out a swift assessment of a patient and then transferring that patient to the part of the hospital where he could best be treated, one allowed the patient to spend twice or thrice as long in the emergency casualty ward, one would tie up resources and be unable to accommodate the next batch of those in need of the emergency services. I hope that the noble Lord is assured that the refuge provision is designed to provide purposeful assistance so that responsible decisions about a child's future can be made without delay. With that explanation and with the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation by the Minister. However, I return to my basic point, that the situation described in Clause 37(1) is not sparked off by the local authority but rather by a child. I accept that there may be some clever children who will think that the refuge is a great place in which to spend seven days, after which they will return home and then return to the refuge for another seven days and make a nuisance of themselves. We must be realistic about this, and within the context of this Bill we have tried to be realistic.
I would say in answer to the query of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that Clause 37(1) (a) (ii) states that a child can be kept in a refuge,
"for a period which does not exceed the relevant period".
The relevant period is then defined in Clause 37(5). It is seven days or 14 days. Therefore, in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, as I read the Bill, although I
1808
may be completely wrong, the child is thrown out after the maximum of 14 days. Whatever other processes may take place in the intervening period is another matter.
I would be the last one to impose further financial burdens on local authorities, because they have plenty to deal with already. However, I wonder whether the timescale is too short to deal with the case of a child who has a real problem. I do not mean a child who was doing this for fun and has perhaps heard from his pals that he can go along to a refuge and will be kept there for a week and then be thrown out. This Bill is concerned with problem children, but in the way it is presently framed local authorities are not being given sufficient time.
The amendment does not mean that a child would have to stay in a refuge for 14 or 21 days. The child could be released after two days. The purpose of the amendment is to give the local authority, the child, social workers and everyone else involved an opportunity to get together to try to solve the problem which is bothering the child within a reasonable period.
I hope that the Government will take note of what I say and have another look at the timescale. I am not sure whether consultation has taken place between the Scottish Office and the Home Office in relation to the operation of the Children Act 1989 in England. It is my understanding, although I have not researched the matter, that the operation of the Children Act 1989 is running into problems. This may well be one of the problems. Certainly it is my information that in England that period is not considered realistic. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Safeguarding child's interests in proceedings]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 29, line 27, leave out ("before") and insert ("at").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 to 24, 29, 30 and 55. All these amendments make minor textual changes to a number of provisions in the Bill but do not alter their effects. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Reference to the Principal Reporter by court]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 39, line 29, leave out ("and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 45, 46 and 67.
Clause 53 deals with various situations in which a court may refer matters relating to a child to the principal reporter. The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 also provides for such referrals, although at present it is to a reporter in terms of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Those requirements need to be suitably updated and brought together with the new arrangements under the Bill.
The substantive change is in Clause 53, which is amended to ensure that proceedings under the Education (Scotland) Act will be able to trigger a referral to the principal reporter where the court thought it appropriate. The particular matters would be where action was being taken under Section 35 of the 1980 Act in relation to a failure by a parent to secure regular attendance by a child at a public school, Section 41 in respect of a failure to comply with an attendance order or Section 42(3) in respect of a failure to permit examination of a child.
I also draw your Lordships' attention to the consequential changes to the 1980 Act brought about through Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 in Schedule 4 and the repeals effected through Amendment No. 67 in Schedule 5.
This group of amendments represents a helpful tidying up of the links between the Education (Scotland) Act and the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 39, line 32, at end insert ("; and
(d) proceedings for an offence against section 35 (failure by parent to secure regular attendance by his child at a public school), 41 (failure to comply with attendance order) or 42(3) (failure to permit examination of child) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Child protection orders]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 42, line 17, at end insert:
("(2A) Where a child seeks protection in a place of safety, he shall be treated as wishing to make an application in terms of subsection (1) above, and the officer in charge of the place of safety shall provide the child with all advice and assistance to prepare and make such an application.
(2B) Where a child has sought protection in a place of safety in terms of subsection (2A) above, he shall be entitled to remain in that place of safety, or in any other such place of safety, until the sheriff has disposed of the said application in terms of subsection (1) above.
(2C) For the purposes of subsections (2A) and (2B) above, 'place of safety' shall only be given the meanings listed as (a), (b) and (c) in the definition provided in section 90 of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to extend the Bill by permitting a child to seek a place of safety on his or her own behalf. The child would then be able to initiate an application for a child protection order.
I believe that there is an omission from the Bill. Section 37(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 states:
"any child who has taken refuge in a place of safety may be detained there until arrangements can be made for him to be brought before a children's hearing".
The amendment proposes that the act of seeking his or her own place of safety will automatically trigger child protection measures. It also avoids the use of the word "detention", preferring the more positive and empowering phrase "entitled to remain".
The amendment does not automatically grant a child protection order, but it ensures that the matter will definitely go before the sheriff. That will prevent any high-handed action by parents who are in difficulties with their teenage children.
There is an alternative. It lies in the wording of Clause 56(1), which reads:
"Where the sheriff, on an application by any person, is satisfied that".
I do not believe that Clause 56(1), which deals with applications for child protection orders, is the most appropriate way for a child to initiate him or herself. I suggest that it is aimed at the professionals.
The amendment is focused on the child who has found life at home intolerable and has run to a place of safety. The provision would he published in the wee booklet that the local authorities will be producing to explain their services to children. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I expressed some sympathy with the noble Earl's amendment when he moved it at Report stage. I express the same sympathy today. Nonetheless, I can still foresee a number of difficulties with the provision as drafted.
Most significantly, the amendment empowers a child to remain in a place of safety until the sheriff has disposed of a child protection order application made by that child, but no obligation is placed on the child to make such an application. It would therefore be possible for the child to remain indefinitely in a place of safety where he chose not to make such an application. That would clearly be inappropriate.
As I indicated in my earlier response at Report stage, there is no simple answer to this issue. Where a child has reasonable cause to run away from home we believe that the appropriate course of action would be for an application for a child protection order to be made. That way the responsibilities and rights of all concerned will be recognised and subject to judicial scrutiny.
As I said, we have sympathy with the underlying intention of the amendment but we have serious doubts as to how it would operate in practice. For those reasons, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I like the amendment because it guarantees judicial scrutiny. However, having listened to the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Duration, recall or variation of child protection order]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 18:
Page 45, line 37, leave out (", or continued under section 58(4),").
Page 45, line 38, after ("Act,") insert ("or such an order or direction continued (whether with or without variation) under section 58(4) of this Act,").
Page 46, line 5, after ("continued") insert ("(whether with or without variation)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 are consequential to a change made at Report stage. Clause 58(4) now empowers a children's

1811
hearing to vary a child protection order or any direction in relation to the exercise of parental responsibilities or parental rights made by a sheriff. The amendments ensure that the order or direction so varied may be the subject of an application of the sheriff under subsection (7) of Clause 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 64 [Referral to, and proceedings at, children's hearing]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 50, line 17, at end insert:
("(2A) Where a referral is made in respect of a child who is subject to a supervision requirement, the children's hearing shall, before disposing of the referral in accordance with section 68(1) (b) or (c) of this Act, review that requirement in accordance with subsections (9) to (12) of section 72 of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords this is a small but, as with all our amendments, a useful proposal. It requires a children's hearing before disposing of a referral in accordance with paragraphs (b) or (c) of Clause 68(1) to review any existing supervision requirements. This will ensure that the needs of the child will be considered in their entirety rather than in relation to the most recent referral. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Warrant to keep child where children's hearing unable to dispose of case]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 51, line 28, at beginning insert ("to find and to keep or, as the case may be,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 provide for a warrant made by a children's hearing under Clause 65 (1) to include the power to find the child, in addition to the existing power to keep the child in, a place of safety; and it clarifies that the period of a warrant runs from the date of granting it. It meets the intentions of amendments withdrawn by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, following our undertaking to consider the matter further. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward the amendment. I thought that I recognised the provision from an earlier occasion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 51, line 29, at end insert ("after the warrant is granted").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Continuation or disposal of referral by children's hearing]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 22 to 24:
Page 55, line 12, leave out ("from the warrant being issued") and insert ("after the warrant is granted").
Page 55, line 25, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted").
Page 55, line 46, leave out ("worker") and insert ("work officer").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 when moving Amendment No. 12. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 69 [Disposal of referral by children's hearing: supervision requirements, including residence in secure accommodation]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 56, line 30, at end insert ("so specified").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this minor amendment adds the words "so specified" to be consistent with the earlier terminology in the subsection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 [Parental responsibilities order: general]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 71, line 23, leave out from ("1976") to end of line 25 and insert (", under section 18 or 49 of the said Act of 1978 or under Article 17, 18 or 57 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (corresponding provision for Scotland and Northern Ireland);").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 85 enables a local authority, on application to a sheriff, to seek parental rights and responsibilities in relation to a child. Subsection (6) ensures that a parental responsibilities order will terminate under various circumstances including those where the child becomes subject to an adoption order or an order freeing the child for adoption. At present subsection (6) attracts the relevant adoption provisions for England and Wales from the Adoption Act 1976 and the amendment simply secures that the relevant provisions for Northern Ireland are also brought into the picture. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 [Consent of child to certain procedures]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 73, line 18, after ("a") insert ("direction or a").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27, I speak also to Amendment No. 28. The amendments aim to ensure that children subject to a child protection order will only be subject to a medical examination if they consent or if they are judged incapable of giving that consent.
Clause 89, in conjunction with Clause 15(5), clarifies that a child who is considered capable of giving consent to a medical examination is also capable of refusing a medical examination. There has been confusion about that with court cases occurring over similar legislation in England. In Committee, a government amendment sought to clarify and safeguard the child's right to refuse in those circumstances. However, there remains a doubt among social workers as to whether a child can refuse to consent to a medical examination in the face of a direction on a child protection order.
It would be doubly abusive to subject an abused child to an intimate examination against his or her will. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to confirm that the child's right to refuse will be made clear. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I appreciate the intention underlying the amendments which would extend the provisions specifically mentioned in Clause 89 to include a direction made in a child protection order. I would suggest, however, that they are not necessary.

1813
A direction under Clause 57 only empowers a sheriff to make a direction in relation to the exercise or fulfilment of any parental responsibilities or parental rights in respect of the child concerned. Where a child is of sufficient understanding to consent to surgical, medical or dental procedure or treatment by virtue of Section 2(4) of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991, then the child is enabled to make such decisions in his own right. In such circumstances, the right to consent to medical examination is not a parental responsibility or right and so cannot be the subject of a direction given by a sheriff under Clause 57.
The wording of the provisions specifically mentioned in Clause 89 do not relate to the exercise of parental responsibilities and as such might have been seen as overriding the general provision in Clause 89. Hence the proviso that these provisions are subject to the child's capacity to consent. Such a clarification is not, however, necessary in respect of directions attached to child protection orders.
I hope that I have answered the noble Earl and that on that basis he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the noble Earl has certainly answered my question. I am extremely grateful to him and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 90 [Procedural rules in relation to certain applications etc.]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 73, line 33, leave out ("by virtue of subsection (1) above") and insert ("under the said section 32").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 29 when I moved Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92 [Interpretation of Part II]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 78, line 12, at end insert ("granted the warrant or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104 [Extent, short title, minor and consequential amendments, repeals and commencement]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 85, line 8, after ("transitional") insert ("and consequential").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 31 and 35 to 38 are small, clarifying, technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 85, line 27, after ("Sections") insert ("Duty of persons with parental responsibilities to notify change of address to local authority looking after child").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 32 when I moved Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 90, leave out line 15 and insert:
("(a) in subsection (1), the words from "Subject" to "certain cases)" shall cease to have effect; and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 33, I speak also to Amendment No. 34 and related consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 44 and 64 to 66. The amendments represent our promised response to the matters raised on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, about adoption and custody.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 seek to delete references to Section 53(1) of the Children Act 1975 from Sections 14 and 15 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. In a sense they are consequential amendments to the repeal of Section 53 which is given effect by Amendments Nos. 64 and 65.
Section 53 of the 1975 Act provides that a court, in considering the adoption of a child, may make a custody order should that appear to be more appropriate. The Bill allows for a range of orders to be made through Clause 11 and the Section 53 provision in the 1975 Act is therefore spent. The amendments effect the repeal and make the necessary consequential changes elsewhere. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 90, leave out line 22 and insert:
("(a) in subsection (1), the words from "Subject" to "certain cases)" shall cease to have effect; and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 35 to 38:
Page 107, line 7, at end insert:
("() In section 59(1) (provision and maintenance of residential and other establishments) after the word "Act,", where it occurs for the second time, insert "or under Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995,").
Page 109, line 3, leave out ("and").
Page 109, line 6, at end insert ("; and
(k) for the definition of "training school" substitute-""training school" has the meaning assigned to it by section 180(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968;").
Page 109, line 7, leave out ("97(1)") and insert ("97").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 39 and 40:
Page 109, line 22, at beginning insert:
("—(1) The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 18(2) (information as to accommodation of younger with older persons), for the words "having functions under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute ", in respect of their functions both under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995,".
(3)").
Page 109, line 22, leave out ("of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 will amend Section 18(2) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That section deals with information to be provided by local authorities where younger people suffering from certain specified illnesses or mental disorder are accommodated in accommodation with persons over the age of 65. The amendment recognises that local authorities may provide residential accommodation for children under Part II of the Bill. While it is thought unlikely that such children would be provided with accommodation in the same premises as persons over 65 years, that cannot be ruled out completely and the amendment would take account of that possibility for purposes of the information that local authorities would provide in terms of Section 18(2) of the 1970 Act. These are essentially consequential amendments and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 109, line 43, after ("solicitor") insert ("but who satisfies the requirements set out in an Act of Sederunt in respect of —

(i) standards of training;

(ii) indemnification of loss suffered by any child represented by him; and

(iii) compliance with a code of conduct").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 58, which has the same effect. The amendment is put down to ensure that within the area of representation of the child there is a structure which can be dealt with by the courts. The amendment is not in any way self-seeking because I happen to be an advocate-and probably still a solicitor, although I am not sure. It is not a case of special pleading on behalf of the legal profession.
The reasoning behind the amendments is that, within the procedure in the relevant section, first, there should be a solid structure for representation on behalf of the child by people who are able to present the child's views. Secondly, within that structure there should be an indemnification policy which the person representing the child would take out. There should also be a code of conduct.
If that does not take place, then let us take the example of a child of 12 who is presumed on the basis of the legislation to understand what he or she is doing. If that child is represented by someone who does not fall within a reasonably structured representation system, what happens when the child reaches 16? What happens to him between the ages of 12 and 16 because of the representations made on his behalf? Those representations made on his behalf and with his understanding may have deprived him of the enjoyment of his youth. He may have been taken away from his home. At the age of 16 he may return to the court and say: "I did not tell that woman to say that on my behalf. I did not realise what was going on".
These are two mirror amendments to reflect what should happen under Section 25 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which refers to solicitor advocates. There are detailed provisions for training, a code of practice, for indemnification and for investigation of complaints. The Law Society of Scotland supports the proposal, not out of self-interest but to prevent disasters taking place. Unless there is some structure for representation, who in the end will be the representative of the child? It could be his mother, father, grandfather, Auntie Nelly, or Uncle Willie in Scotland, anybody. Where do we stop? Six people could come in, all saying: "We represent the child". Considerable argument could take place as to whether what is being said is a true representation of the child's views. I am not being facetious, because it is important that, when major decisions are made about a child's future, there should be properly structured representations to the court on the child's behalf. The two amendments are put before your Lordships' House for those reasons. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, there may have been some misunderstanding of this part of the Bill. The provision in the Bill is not about representation of the child: that is a separate matter. I stress that the child can be represented by a solicitor or advocate, as the noble Lord knows.
We have every sympathy with the noble Lord's intentions. During Report stage my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate stressed the importance of providing suitable machinery for taking the views of the child into account in relevant proceedings. However, he stressed that the procedures for ascertaining a child's views were more properly and effectively a matter of court procedure and practice. It is accordingly appropriate that those procedures be prescribed not by primary legislation but by rules of court.
The amendments seek to prescribe to a substantial extent the matters which may be contained in the relevant rules. That is excessively constricting. The rules councils, with their expertise in matters relating to children and family law generally, are undoubtedly best placed not only to identify the most appropriate means of taking and transmitting the views of a child to the sheriff but also to assess the extent, if any, to which such matters as are contained in the amendment require to be prescribed. We understand what the noble Lord seeks to achieve but we are convinced that it is better achieved through the rules of court.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I hope that I can take an implied indication that, when the rules of court are being structured, at least the spirit of the two amendments will be taken into account on behalf of the children. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 110, line 38, at end insert:
("Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c.56)
—(1) The Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 35(3) (disturbance payments where modification of dwelling required for disabled person), in paragraph (a), after "1968" insert "or section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".
(3) In section 80(1) (interpretation), in the definition of "disabled person"—

(a) after "means" insert"—

(a)"; and

(b) after "1972" insert "; and

(b) a child in need within the meaning of section 92(4) (a) (iii) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment will amend the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 so that it takes account of the new definition of a disabled child provided for in the Bill for purposes of disturbance payments where modifications of the dwelling are required for disabled persons. The amendment will mean that a disabled adult and a disabled child are defined separately, the latter by reference to the definition in the Bill. The second part of the amendment adds to the interpretation of the 1973 Act in consequence of the first part of the amendment. I commend these necessary changes to your Lordships and beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 111, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 4 and insert:
("—(1) The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 3 (special provision with respect to certain disposals by children's hearings)—

(a) for the words "Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 is that mentioned in section 32(2) (g)" substitute "Children (Scotland) Act 1995 is that mentioned in section 51(2) (i)"; and

(b) for the words "to the satisfaction of the sheriff under section 42 of that Act, the acceptance or establishment" substitute "(or deemed established) to the satisfaction of the sheriff under section 67 or 84 of that Act, the acceptance, establishment (or deemed establishment)".

(3) In section 5 (rehabilitation periods for particular sentences)—

(a) in subsection (3) (b), for the words "43(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "68(1) (b) and (12) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";

(b) in subsection (5) (f), for the words "Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Children (Scotland) Act 1995";

(c) in subsection (10), for the words "Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

(d) subsection (10A) shall cease to have effect.

(4) In section 7(2) (limitations on rehabilitation)—
(a)")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 43, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 57, 61, 63, 68, 69 and 70. This group of amendments introduces consequential amendments in the list of enactments set out in Schedule 4 to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 44 to 48:
Page 115, leave out lines 7 to 29 and insert:
("(6) Section 53 (custody order on application for adoption in Scotland) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 116, line 2, leave out ("In section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (interpretation),") and insert:
1818
(".—(1) The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 36(3) (referral to reporter of case of irregular school attendance), for the words from "may" to the end substitute ", where no requirement arises under section 52(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to give information about the child to the Principal Reporter, may under this subsection provide the Principal Reporter with such information.".
(3) In section 44 —

(a) subsection (1) (referral by court to Principal Reporter of case involving offence against section 35) shall cease to have effect; and

(b) in subsection (2) (powers of court where no referral to Principal Reporter), for the words "subsection (1) above, make a direction" substitute "section 53(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, refer the matter to the Principal Reporter".

(4) In section 65B (6) (sending of report in relation to recorded child)—

(a) paragraph (a) shall cease to have effect; and

(b) at the end add—

"and the local authority as education authority shall also ensure that the local authority for the purposes of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 receive such a copy.".
(5) In section 135(1) (interpretation)—
(a)").
Page 116, line 5, at end insert:
("(b) the definition of "reporter of the appropriate local authority" shall cease to have effect;
(c) for the definition of "residential establishment substitute —
""residential establishment" has the meaning given by paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression in section 92(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;"; and
(d) for the definition of "supervision requirement" substitute—
""supervision requirement" has the meaning given by section 69(1) of the said Act of 1995;".").
Page 118, line 36, at end insert:
("() In section 9 (suspension of court's powers in cases of wrongful removal), for paragraph (d) substitute—
"(d) making, varying or discharging an order under section 85 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;".
() In section 20 (further provision as regards suspension of court's powers)—
(a) for paragraph (d) substitute—
"(d) in the case of proceedings for, or for the variation or discharge of, a parental responsibilities order under section 85 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, make, vary or discharge any such order;"; and
(b) in subsection (5), for the words "within the meaning of Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "(as defined in section 92(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995)".
() In section 25 (termination of existing custody orders etc.), subsection (6) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 118, leave out lines 39 to 43 and insert:
("(3) In Schedule 3 (custody orders)—
(a) in paragraph 5—

(i) for the words "custody, care or control of a child or" substitute "residence, custody, care or control of a child or contact with, or";

(ii) in sub-paragraph (iii), for the words "tutory or curatory" substitute "guardianship";

(iii) in sub-paragraph (iv), for the words "16(8), 16A (3) or 18(3) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "85 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

1819

(iv) for sub-paragraph (v), substitute—

"(v) an order made, or warrant or authorisation granted, under or by virtue of Chapter 2 or 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to remove the child to a place of safety or to secure accommodation, to keep him at such a place or in such accommodation, or to prevent his removal from a place where he is being accommodated (or an order varying or discharging any order, warrant or authorisation so made or granted);";

(b) for paragraph 6 substitute—
"(6) A supervision requirement made by a children's hearing under section 69 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (whether or not continued under section 72 of that Act) or made by the sheriff under section 50(5) (c) (iii) of that Act and any order made by a court in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland if it is an order which, by virtue of section 32(1) of that Act, has effect as if it were such a supervision requirement."; and
(c) paragraph 7 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 119, line 12, after ("persons)") insert ("—(a)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 50 to 54. These amendments will further amend the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 by introducing some of the new terminology used in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 54:
Page 119, line 22, at end insert ("; and
(b) in paragraph (b), for the words "in the care of substitute "looked after by").
Page 119, line 27, at beginning insert (""for").
Page 119, line 44, leave out ("person in need") and insert ("relevant person for the purposes of section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968").
Page 119, line 49, leave out ("and").
Page 120, line 4, at end insert ("; and
(d) the existing provisions as so amended shall be subsection (1) of the section and at the end of the section there shall be added—
"(2A) In this Act as it applies in relation to Scotland, any reference to a child who is looked after by a local authority shall be construed in accordance with section 17(6) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 120, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("(interpretation)") in line 8 and insert:
(". In section 41 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 121, line 19, at end insert:
("Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26)
. In section 61 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (exemption from secure tenant's right to purchase)—

(a) in subsection (4) (f) (iii), for the words "have left the care of substitute "as children have been looked after by"; and

(b) after subsection (4) add

"(4A) The reference in subsection (4) (f) (iii) above to children looked after by a local authority shall be construed in accordance with section 17(6) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another simple consequential amendment to take account of the changes in terminology brought about by the Bill. It makes appropriate changes in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 121, line 23, at end insert:
("Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 (c.32)
. In paragraph (a) of the definition of "civil proceedings" in section 9 of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 (interpretation)—

(a) the words "under section 42 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" shall cease to have effect;

(b) after the word "application" where it first occurs insert "under section 64(6) or (8) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";

(c) after the word "established," insert "or of an application for a review of such a finding under section 84 of that Act";

(d) after the word "application" where it occurs for the second time insert "or, as the case may be, the review"; and

(e) for the words "32(2) (g)" substitute "51(2) (i)".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 121, line 44, at end insert:
("() In section 31(7) (b) (iii) (restriction on applications for care and supervision orders), for the words "the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 60. These are technical amendments which will amend the Children Act 1989 so that references to "supervision requirement" in that Act are drawn from the definition in the Bill rather than from the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:
Page 122, line 7, at end insert:
("() In Schedule 8 (privately fostered children), in paragraph 3(b), for the words "the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".").
Page 125, line 6, leave out from second ("proceedings"") to end of line 8 and insert ("—

(a) the words "under section 42 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" shall cease to have effect;

(b) after the word "application" where it appears for the first time insert "under section 64(6) or (8) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";

1821

(c) after the word "established" insert "or for a review of such a finding under section 84 of that Act"; and

(d) after the word "application" where it appears for the second time insert "or, as the case may be, the review".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 70:
Page 127, line 48, column 3, at end insert:
("Section 88.").
Page 128, line 25, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 5(10A).").
Page 129, line 7, column 3, at end insert ("Section 53.").
Page 129, line 33, column 3, at end insert ("In section 14(1), the words from "Subject" to "certain cases)"").
Page 129, line 34, column 3, leave out ("15(3)") and insert ("15, in subsection (1), the words from "Subject" to "certain cases)"; and in subsection (3),").
Page 129, line 55, at end insert:

("1980 c.44.

Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

Section 44(1). In section 65B (6), paragraph (a).

In section 135(1), the definition of "reporter of the appropriate local authority".")

Page 130, line 30, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 3, paragraph 7.").
Page 130, line 48, at end insert:

("1988 c.32.

Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988.

In section 9, in the definition of "civil proceedings", in paragraph (a), the words "under section 42 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968".").

Page 131, line 14, at end insert:

("1993 c.9.

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.

In paragraph 8 of Schedule 3, the definition of "criminal proceedings", the words "under section 42 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968".")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
8.13 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
The Children (Scotland) Bill which, as amended, is before your Lordships' House for a Third Reading today is a significant step forward in Scottish children's legislation. It is no exaggeration to say that it represents a historic advance on the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and other legislation, which has in its time served us well.
The Bill defines the responsibilities and rights of parents. It promotes the welfare of children. It improves the protection of children. It brings adoption law up to date. The Bill implements the undertaking to legislate
1822
which we made in our White Paper, Scotland's Children in 1993. It also implements important parts of the Scottish Law Commission's report on family law.
This Bill has been the subject of careful and helpful consideration in this House. In procedural terms, the Bill has followed an unusual course which, I think, noble Lords have found useful. In particular, the Committee stage of the Bill took place off the Floor of the House. This released it from some of the usual constraints on time and enabled us to consider the extensive and complex issues raised by it more fully. I am very grateful to noble Lords for the amount of time and care which they have devoted to the Bill, in particular at the Committee stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said, debate was carried out in a spirit of constructive and understanding cross-party consensus.
I am particularly indebted to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser, who was involved with this Bill from its very early stages when it was being drafted in consultation with various groups in Scotland, and all the way through to just a few days ago. I am also indebted to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate who, at comparatively short notice last week, lent us his wisdom and guidance on certain crucial matters. I must also thank my noble friend Lord Balfour, who is assiduous in his reading of the legislation, both for his comments on its substance and in making sure that the draftsmen have got it right. Once again, I will pass on the compliment paid to him behind his back by one of the officials, who remarked that he has a higher scoring rate than Gavin Hastings. The accuracy with which he managed to spot certain drafting matters continues to impress.
The noble Baroness, Lady Saltoun, was indefatigable in her efforts to bring this Bill forward and improve it during its passage. I would say the same of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. They all spent a considerable amount of their own time and interest in seeking to make sure that this Bill leaves the House in as good as state as it possibly can.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy, who made a tremendous contribution at Second Reading, was, sadly, not with us for all the intervening stages. However, she has still contributed to the final shape of the Bill. I must also mention the memorable maiden speech at Second Reading from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the Lord President, and the wisdom that he brought to our debate on the report on corporal punishment.
As noble Lords will know, we have considered a substantial number of amendments to this Bill while it has been before the House. Over 300 amendments have been made. This reflects the careful attention that has been given by noble Lords to the detail of the Bill in ensuring that it works well to the benefit of Scotland's children.
Major improvements have been made as a result. I would mention in particular the amendments which now make it possible to exclude an abuser from the family home on an emergency basis while still retaining the safeguards of a very early hearing before a sheriff on whether or not to confirm the original emergency exclusion.

1823
A new clause has also been added to provide a proper procedure by which new evidence can be considered. This amendment to the Bill arose out of the difficulties which had arisen over the case of the South Ayrshire children. It removes the need to make use of the nobile officium, which was considered an unsatisfactory way of considering new evidence. It is important in issues of the welfare of children to ensure that, if there is significant new evidence which needs to be considered, there is a clear procedure for doing this.
As a result of amendments brought forward by noble Lords, we have also added to the Bill a clear right for the child to attend his or her own hearing. This is in keeping with the greater emphasis on the rights of children. Important and useful amendments have also been made to the arrangements for warrants arising from child protection orders. These clarify procedures and provide safeguards for children.
Many other helpful changes have been made and, without wanting to single out any noble Lord in particular, I would express special thanks to all who have taken part. We now have before us a Bill which I consider to be substantially improved and one which will contribute significantly to promoting the welfare and protection of Scotland's children.
We now need to look forward to the major process of implementation. This will involve regulations and rules of court; guidance and training for all those involved in implementing the Act; information for children and their parents in a readily understood form; and information for the general public.
The Bill has been well described as setting a challenging agenda for the future in the interests of Scotland's children. It is certainly an extensive agenda and we shall be planning its implementation with great care so that all the parts are prepared and in place to ensure successful implementation. We still have to make decisions on exactly when the Bill's provisions are to be implemented, but we need to be realistic and follow an adequate timescale.
It is only right that we take account of the capacity and readiness of the new councils to assume their responsibilities under the Bill. At the same time we wish to ensure that the implementation programme has the benefit of responsible and informed opinion. This means that there will be wide consultation on important aspects of implementation—including rules of court—and we look to all those concerned with the Bill to make positive contributions to that process.
The Bill is a valuable statement of children's law based on clear principles. It is designed to benefit all the children of Scotland and their families. I am grateful to noble Lords for the close and co-operative interest they have taken in it. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I warmly welcome the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, to his new job. I know that he will not take it as any reflection on him when I say that I am very sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, is not present
1824
this evening to see this Bill safely through its penultimate stage. But I now see him entering the Chamber, and I am so glad because the Bill is his baby. Scotland owes him a considerable debt of gratitude for its conception and birth.
First, the noble and learned Lord consulted representatives from various children's organisations about the content of the Bill before it was finally drafted. Next, I am sure that he fought hard to persuade the Government to make time for it and played a great part in formulating the new, experimental procedures which took place at Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh; later before the Committee stage when the Standing Committee took evidence; again in Edinburgh, from many of the children's organisations which were interested; and when having the Committee stage off the Floor of the House. Our thanks are due to him for ensuring that the Bill has reached this stage. I certainly hope that he is very proud and happy about it. To all those noble Lords, whether or not Members of the Scottish All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, and to those who assisted us, I extend my warmest thanks as Lords' Convenor.
I know that some noble Lords still have concerns—that became quite clear this evening—and some would have liked further amendments. But I hope that they will recognise that there is a balance to be maintained between the interests of children and those of the general public, between what is ideal and what is practical and between the extent of provision which we would all like to see and what can be afforded.
Before we finish, I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, could tell us when the guidelines on interviewing children are to be published. Some of us would very much like to know that. Meanwhile, we shall see how the legislation works. If problems arise—we hope that they will not—we shall see then what can be done. I hope to see the Bill receive Royal Assent before we rise next week.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for their help, patience and reassurance throughout the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I also welcome the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, as the new Scottish Whip. I hope that he will enjoy dealing with Scottish business.
As the Bill has been classified as non-controversial and enjoys all-party support, so there has been a greater need to clarify at the margins and seek reassurance that any loophole spotted will be plugged, at least in guidance.
I pay considerable tribute to the help and advice that I have received from the Consortium for the Children (Scotland) Bill, serviced by Children in Scotland and the Scottish Child Law Centre, representing 80 childcare organisations in Scotland. In particular, I pay tribute to the outstanding contribution of Dr. Kay Tisdall, whose new employers, Glasgow University, will be pleased to gain her full attention. I should also like to thank parents for raising the relationship between independent schools and the Children (Scotland) Bill.

1825
Perhaps I may comment on the use of the Moses Room for the Committee stage of the Bill. The advantages were considerable in that the Ministers and their advisers were seated together and could confer speedily. Moreover, there was room for everyone to spread their papers on the tables in front of them. The downside of using that location was that apparently the acoustics below Bar are very poor. Considering that there were a number of well-paid advisers present, that was perhaps a pity.
Finally, I wish this Bill well as it proceeds to the Statute Book. I look forward to its early implementation.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, about the progress of the Bill. It started off on a pretty shaky foundation—not, that is, the Bill itself, but the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children. We were very fortunate to find a slot in the legislative procedure. I shall not go into the reasons for that. This is not the time to make any political points.
The Bill has taken a fairly protracted way through the legislative procedure. We join with the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, in paying tribute to the people who briefed us. We must be frank about the matter. One cannot use one's imagination on Bills such as this except to a limited extent. We must be instructed by the people who deal with children and know the problems. As the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, said, we now have a better Bill than when it came into your Lordships' House.
I should like to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, who, as I said, has been very co-operative from the beginning. It was pointed out to me that he now appears to have taken a seat on the Bishops' Benches. I wonder whether he has been elevated to one of their posts. He keeps moving upward all the time. But perhaps his choice of seat was just accidental and he will take his place on the Government Benches in due course. I am sure that, as yet, he has not become a Bishop.
We are very grateful to him. Everyone involved in the consultation process is grateful to him for his consideration of the issues which were raised. He did not agree with some of them but agreed with others. That is his privilege. But everyone recognises his unfailing courtesy towards those who raised the points. His successor, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has had an opportunity for a short time to take part in the debates and he echoed the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, to the Bill.
This is the moment when we all congratulate one another and say what fine fellows and ladies we are. I shall not shrink from that. We have done a lot of hard work on this Bill. Everyone in your Lordships' House who has contributed to it has done a lot of hard work on this Bill. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, as one who really makes the Government think. I have never met his equal as a scrutineer of legislation. There is a parallel with Long John Silver and the parrot. I am sure that some Ministers might have felt at times that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, was like Long John
1826
Silver's parrot, pointing out deficiencies in the legislation. It is always a pleasure to hear his contribution to debates.
We on this side of your Lordships' House have views about the continuation of this House in its present form. I wish that some of the detractors of your Lordships' House who speak without knowledge of what happens in this Chamber could come here for a few days to see the work done to get legislation through. This Bill is one of the better examples which demonstrates the purpose of the House of Lords from the legislative point of view; namely, to take a Bill, grab it by the throat, make it a little better and send it back to where it came from in the hope that it will be accepted in the other place. We have had many examples of that in the various matters that have been considered.
I make only one further point. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, spoke about the Moses Room. There is one problem about that room, which is that it can become a little too cosy. Because this was an all-party Bill, we got over that problem. But I am not sure that it is the proper place to hold discussions on a more controversial Bill. Until the noble Earl told me this morning, I did not realise that the people sitting in the seats at the far end of the Moses Room who were interested in the Bill could not in fact hear what was going on because the microphones were only used for reporting the proceedings. I may be wrong about that, but I believe some of them felt rather deprived, having come all the way to hear the debate and not being able to take part.
The second point made to me is that the reports of what happened in the Moses Room are not officially recorded in Hansard. They are separate reports. If we are to use those proceedings, it may be an idea that the reporting should be part of the Official Report. People buy the Official Report in the hope of seeing what has happened and find that there is no sign of the debates. Perhaps that is something which the House authorities can consider.
In any event, it has been an enjoyable experience and I join with other Members of your Lordships' House in thanking everyone for the pleasure of dealing with this Bill.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, at this stage I join with what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said. If another Bill is taken off the Floor of the House, its proceedings should be attached to the daily Hansard that comes out of the proceedings of the Whole House. It is a good point and I am grateful to the noble Lord for making it.
Of all the legislation I have followed through your Lordships' House, none has ever had the care and attention to detail that this Children (Scotland) Bill has received from my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser and my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the Scottish Office. More than half of the clauses and schedules of this Bill are introducing new ideas to protect the youngest members of our society.

1827
In its passage through Parliament this Bill has been practically rewritten to meet proposals from all sides of this House and of the political spectrum. It seems a pity to me that the electorate of Scotland are not aware of how much the laws and general welfare of Scotland have been improved by this Conservative Government.
Finally, I wish my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie every success in his new position as the Minister for trade and industry, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay every success in the Scottish Office.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, told us how important it was to be instructed by people who deal with children. I should like to say what a pleasure it was to instruct him on this matter. As the father of five children I have had considerable dealings with them and that may be why he listened so thoughtfully to everything I said from the Dispatch Box today.
He mentioned also that the passage of this Bill would be enlightening to the detractors of this House. He may ponder on the fact that his party are generating quite a lot of detraction of this House. When we think of the contribution to this Bill from the noble Earl, Lord Mar
1828
and Kellie, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, my noble friend Lord Balfour and others, some of the plans that his party has for this Chamber would have robbed this House of that calibre of scrutiny.
I can say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that the guidelines will be published shortly—and that is "shortly" in the dictionary sense of the word rather than in the shut-out sense that is sometimes used. I am especially glad that my noble and learned friends Lord Fraser and the Lord Advocate, if not in their normal seats, are in their places. I shall not repeat what I said about them both in their absence. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser heard the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, give him just praise for the quality of the Bill. It is perhaps fitting that they should sit on the Bishops' Bench; their guidance in spiritual and other matters is undoubted.
I can but reiterate that this Bill is a valuable statement on children's law based on clear principles. It is designed to benefit all the children of Scotland and their families. On that basis, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before nine o'clock.

  EU Council: Forthcoming Business
  EU Council: Forthcoming Business
  Foreign Office Papers: Release
  Foreign Office Papers: Release
  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Hong Kong: "Eligible Children" Quota
  Hong Kong: "Eligible Children" Quota
  Road Pricing in London: Report
  Road Pricing in London: Report
  Social Fund: Decisions Referred for Review
  Social Fund: Decisions Referred for Review
  Community Care Grants and Budgeting Loans
  Community Care Grants and Budgeting Loans
  Sex Tourism
  Sex Tourism
  Gurkha Battalion: Brunei Agreement
  Gurkha Battalion: Brunei Agreement