Sitting of 21 March 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Sir James Alexander Kilfedder, Member for North Down. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Reading Ability
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the reading abilities of 10-year-old children in England and Wales. [13242]
    The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): The chief inspector's annual report for 1993–94 states that seven to 11-year-olds are making satisfactory or better progress in reading in 90 per cent. of schools. We shall have a clear national picture of the reading standards of 11-year-olds as a result of the Government's introduction of tests for the first time this year.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that, on 9 March, an editorial in The Times estimated that poor standards of reading among children coming into and leaving secondary school is costing the country £10 billion a year? Does he recognise that one of the biggest problems is the inability of primary schools to teach six and seven-year-olds good reading skills? Why have the Government abandoned the reading recovery programme and, therefore, cut money available for specialist help, which has proved to be very effective in giving seven-year-olds a well above average reading ability for the investment of a relatively small amount of money and little intensive teaching time?
    Mr. Forth: Whether the estimated £200 million to continue this scheme nationwide is a small amount of money I shall leave to the hon. Gentleman to argue with his Front-Bench spokesmen. Indeed, whether he is making a commitment on behalf of his Front-Bench team, I shall leave them to sort out for themselves. The reading recovery scheme is one of many which deal with pupils in that age group who have reading difficulties. It is interesting that, having looked at the scheme, a number of local education authorities have decided to pick it up and to continue it as one of their priorities. That must be the
    128
    right way to proceed rather than us dictating from the centre what local education authorities—or, indeed, schools—should do.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the national curriculum and the testing of children are helping to raise standards and that the policies of his Department are doing much to improve the calibre of teachers, teaching and standards in the classroom?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he has identified rightly the battery of measures that we now have in place in schools to assist them in ensuring that our young pupils learn to read and to master numbers effectively. The curriculum is the keystone of that, regular objective testing is an important part of it, the independent inspection of schools is a vital element and the publication of school results, now welcomed by the Leader of the Opposition, is another key element. Together, all those measures will produce a steady increase in standards over coming years.

    Early Years Learning
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals she has to increase the provision of early years learning. [13243]
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): We shall be providing new places with new money by the end of this Parliament.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State clarify exactly what she will be providing and when? Are we not entitled to such clarification, and to a little honesty? We have the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying that we should introduce vouchers, we have the Prime Minister advocating increases in the number of nursery places and a place for everyone and we have the Secretary of State for Education herself writing to her colleagues saying that LEAs could cut nursery places to fund the underfunded teachers' salary increase. What is the situation?
    Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that my letter to colleagues about local government spending simply pointed out that, in a tough spending round, it is appropriate to question all areas of spending, especially non-statutory areas, when councils are complaining that they cannot meet their statutory obligations. One of the delights of education, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, is that it arouses very strong passions. Pre-school education is no exception. The Chief Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and I have all made it clear that no option for the delivery mechanism of nursery education has been ruled out and no option has been ruled in. Whatever mechanism is finally chosen, it will place parental choice and quality at its centre and an announcement will be made when we are ready.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the number of primary schools in my constituency that have encouraged nursery provision on the school premises? Indeed, last Friday I attended the opening of the Black Firs playgroup in Congleton. Is she aware of how helpful such arrangements are both to the schools

    129
    and to the relationship between the playgroups and the reception classes? Do they not represent one way of assisting early learning among very young children?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes, the whole sector is characterised by great diversity, with excellent classes in nursery schools, excellent reception classes in primary schools, and very good provision by playgroups and in the independent sector. It is getting all those threads to work together for the advantage of parental choice that is complex, and that takes the time.
    Mr. Steinberg: Despite the Secretary of State's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), will she tell the House whether she is in favour of a voucher system for nursery education? Is she aware that today there is a lobby of Parliament by parents, teachers, governors and support staff, who want a fully funded education service on an equal basis that is fair to all children in every school, including nursery provision that is not based on right-wing claptrap?
    Mrs. Shephard: I expect that the hon. Gentleman has been playing an important part in the rally organised by the National Union of Teachers this afternoon. Like other hon. Members, I have followed with interest the press reports about Cabinet splits, Ministers under pressure and so on. Like all good fiction, they make a good read, and I look forward keenly to the next instalment. Vouchers are an option as a delivery mechanism; they have their attractions but also their disadvantages.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, the most effective way to ensure choice and diversity in the provision of pre-school education would indeed be a voucher system, and that such a system would have much support among Conservative Members?
    Mrs. Shephard: Vouchers that put cash purchasing power into parents' hands would certainly ensure choice. As I have said, vouchers are an option, and they have both attractions and disadvantages.
    Mr. Beith: Has the Secretary of State not confirmed, only a few moments ago, the pessimistic interpretation that everyone in education places upon her letter to her colleagues—that she believes that, in what even she admits is a bad year for education funding, it would be right to abandon the development of nursery education and to cut the programmes that local authorities have put in place for it? What kind of advice is that to give to education authorities?
    Mrs. Shephard: I realise that financial realism is not a characteristic of councils run by Liberal Democrats, but, as I have said, it is appropriate to question all areas of spending, especially non-statutory areas, when councils are complaining that they cannot meet their statutory obligations.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the financial benefits that come from grant-maintained status. [13244]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Grant-maintained schools control the whole of their budgets, not just the proportion that would have been delegated by a local education authority. That gives them greater flexibility to spend more money where it really counts—in the classroom.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely interesting response, which I am sure will be noted by all schools with tight budgets and tight settlements. They may see that reply as representing a way forward. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principal attraction of grant-maintained status is not the added funding that such schools receive but the greater freedom that they enjoy, and the fact that we have cut the cords that secure such schools to local education authorities?
    Mrs. Shephard: I know that my hon. Friend is a great enthusiast for grant-maintained schools, as are all my right hon. and hon. Friends—as are many people on the Opposition Front Bench. Grant-maintained schools are indeed good and popular schools that continue to attract keen recruits. One of the strongest reasons for their success, as any head of a GM school will tell us, is their freedom from LEA control, as was made clear last autumn by The Times Educational Supplement survey covering more than 500 GM schools.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Notwithstanding the platitudes of the loony right of the Conservative party, does the Secretary of State recognise that immense damage is being done to the education of the vast majority of our children by preferential funding? How can she justify the situation in South Glamorgan, where two grant-maintained schools have received £4 million of capital funding as opposed to the total of £3 million which is going to 200 LEA schools? Is that not blatant bribery of schools for ideological ends
    Mrs. Shephard: I am disappointed to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible for South Glamorgan, but I can make it clear again that grant-maintained schools will continue to receive extra resources to reflect their extra responsibilities. We shall make sure that they continue to receive also a fair share of locally available resources, despite the best endeavours of hostile local authorities controlled by the Labour party.
    Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one good way for a school to become insulated from the profligacy of local education authority spending is to go grant-maintained? Is she aware that grant-maintained schools in Torbay have been protected from the disgraceful threats of cuts made by Devon county council?
    Mrs. Shephard: One of the greatest strengths of grant-maintained schools is their independence from LEA control, and they also have flexibility to manage their own budgets in a tough year.

    Ethnic Minorities
    Mr. Stevenson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment has been made of the effects on schools of changes in section 11 funding; and if she will make a statement. [13245]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Most of the £30 million recently announced for new

    131
    section 11 projects starting in 1995–96 will benefit schools. Together with continued funding of existing projects, it will support specialist English language teaching for ethnic minority pupils, and so help raise standards generally.
    Mr. Stevenson: Is the Minister aware that his response will be greeted with dismay throughout the country? Does he realise that section 11 cuts are having disastrous effects on pupils whose first language is not English? Will the Minister urgently intervene to restore the damaging cuts before further irreparable harm is done to that vital service?
    Mr. Boswell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the funding programmes are of great importance both to children and to schools generally, and I pay tribute to the teachers involved in them. The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed the announcement, which amounted to a doubling of new section 11 funding. For example, in the hon. Gentleman's own local education authority of Staffordshire, £191,000 of additional money will be given to support the existing programmes. That pattern will be reflected throughout the country in all areas where there is a major need for that activity.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are many Conservative Members who do not echo the calls from Opposition parties for more funding for a variety of ethnic programmes at a time when budgets are inevitably tight?
    Mr. Boswell: I agree that we must have priorities, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed that when drawing up his Budget decisions. The programmes have value, and they are not the only way in which we support areas of educational difficulty. They must be judged on their merits as part of a balanced programme.

    Selective Education
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her policy on selective education. [13246]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): The Government believe that schools which select pupils by ability, or which specialise in particular subjects, have an important part to play in giving parents a choice of schooling for their children.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that, as well as the serious budget cuts in various parts of the country, one of the anxieties of those lobbying Parliament today is the reappearance of selection, especially in Tory areas such as Wandsworth? The last thing that I want for my children and for my constituents' children is for them to be written off at the age of 11, as I was under the Tory education policies of the 1950s and 1960s. While selection may be the obvious next step in terms of the Government's policy, will they for once look at the lessons of the past and learn from the experiences of people like myself and thousands of others in the 1950s and 1960s?
    Mr. Squire: Unlike the hon. Gentleman and his party, the Government are not bound by dogma or ideology when it comes to selection in schools. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we believe that it is up to local education
    132
    authorities, controlled schools and, where relevant, grant-maintained schools to make proposals for selective education if they believe that it meets the demands of parents in their area. If the Labour party showed our commitment to higher standards in schools, it would not attack good schools of proven worth.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will approach with caution suggestions for changes in admission arrangements where they might have an unbalancing effect on a cluster of grant-maintained schools in a given area?
    Mr. Squire: I can reassure my hon. Friend that any proposals on admission changes are considered most carefully by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That consideration includes the impact that those changes would have on other schools in the area.
    Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister explain to the House why, since 1970, successive Tory Secretaries of State have signed the orders to close most of the grammar schools?
    Mr. Squire: I can only say in answer to the hon. Gentleman that those proposals did not come to me. They came to my ministerial predecessors, who will have considered them on precisely the merits of the schools which I implied in answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) a moment ago. Labour Members seem unable to grasp the fact that there should be diversity and choice in our education system and that the Government are pledged to defend that choice and diversity.

    Surplus Places
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost of surplus places in local authority schools; and if she will make a statement. [13247]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We estimate that the direct costs of maintaining surplus places in local authority schools is some £225 million. Of course, not all those places are in practice removable.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that rising pupil numbers may fill some of those spaces, but that that is no excuse for failing to improve teaching standards in unpopular schools or closing them altogether?
    Mrs. Shephard: Given that the Audit Commission has pointed out the savings to be made from sensible rationalisation, I hope that all authorities will look carefully at the position in their area. If they make savings, that will obviously enable them to take the measures that my hon. Friend has identified. Nothing could be more important than raising standards.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Secretary of State not realise that the biggest disincentive to local authorities to remove surplus places has come from the Government giving schools the opportunity to opt out of local education authorities? Does she realise that removing surplus places takes at least two years and is certainly no answer to the funding crisis that our schools face now?
    Mrs. Shephard: The first point is that high priority is given in capital funding to LEA bids for cost-effective

    133
    rationalisation proposals. The second point relates to GM schools. We do not normally approve proposals for self-governing status drawn up in response to a threat of closure, but we reserve the right to approve GM status for such schools when we are not persuaded by the LEA's case and the school is viable, effective and popular.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Derbyshire there are more than 17,000 surplus places? Can she confirm that every LEA this year had an increase in the amount of money that it could spend? Therefore, if there is any cash reduction to schools, it is simply because the LEA has changed its priorities.
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes, this year's settlement provides for an increase for all authorities. It should be viewed in the context of generous settlements in the past few years and lower than expected inflation. It is certainly the case that if Derbyshire had been prepared to tackle the large number of surplus places in the past, it would not have had the problems that it claims to have now.

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the links between class sizes and pupil attainment. [13248]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The accumulated research evidence has not demonstrated any conclusive link between marginal changes in class size and pupil attainment. What matters most is the quality of teaching provided.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that 1 million primary school pupils are now in classes of over 30; that the size of primary school classes has increased by 20 per cent. over the past two years; and that this year's settlement will result in further increases in class sizes next year? Will she therefore come clean over Government policy? Do they favour smaller classes, as set out in their 1983 and 1987 manifestos; are they neutral about smaller classes, as they showed by saying nothing about them in their last manifesto; or do they now argue that class size increases make no difference? If the Government think that class sizes make no difference, I presume that their education policy is like their taxation policy, on which they argue one thing but are so incompetent that they produce exactly the opposite result.
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I expect that he is overjoyed that Southwark will spend an extra £8 million on schools this year. He must be delighted by the Government's generosity in making that possible. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry but I have asked hon. Members to be careful when entering the Chamber when a Minister is responding to an hon. Member.
    Mrs. Shephard: It is worth while for the hon. Gentleman to note that, while class sizes have edged up recently, standards have improved steadily at all levels at the same time. Moreover, Ofsted reports have made no suggestion that class sizes are too large, and there is clear professional advice that teaching quality and leadership, to which we are committed, are the key factors.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Will my right hon. Friend add to those qualities classroom organisation and preparation?
    134
    Will she reiterate the point that the evidence on class sizes is ambiguous and that, as in the recent past, examples in the former ILEA showed clearly that the linkage between resources and attainment was far from conclusive?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is no conclusive linkage between resources and attainment. He is also right that teacher competence is the most important factor, which is why I am extremely pleased that we have been able to devote £250,000 to school effectiveness, in-service training, and grants for education, support and training programmes to achieve that competence.
    Mr. Blunkett: Does the Secretary of State believe the head of the private girls' high school in Sheffield who said on local radio recently that the three major reasons why her school was so successful were that she could choose her own pupils, she did not have to follow the national curriculum, and her class sizes were half those of neighbouring state schools? Who does the Secretary of State believe this afternoon: those who are lobbying as parents, governors and teachers, including the heads of private schools, who say that class sizes are crucial; or those around her who believe that the cuts in education imposed in the coming year will have no effect on standards and opportunities?
    Mrs. Shephard: The vast majority of pupils are taught in classes of 30 and below. The average size of classes in the primary sector is under 27 and, in the secondary sector, just over 21. One of the reasons why people choose the independent sector for their children is that, like Conservative Members, they value choice and diversity. So, too, do many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, including the hon. Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Perhaps he should ask them for their reasons. I am sure that they would be happy to explain.

    Grant-maintained Schools, Hendon
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the number of applicants to Hendon grant-maintained schools for September 1995. [13249]
    Mr. Robin Squire: The Department does not collect data on applications for places at individual schools, including Hendon grant-maintained school; but I would expect that, like GM schools generally, the three in Hendon are increasingly popular with parents.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that Hendon school was the first grant-maintained school in London and that, since then, it has been transformed from being under-subscribed to being heavily over-subscribed? Is he aware that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) visited the school, a teacher came up to him and said that she was a member of the Labour party but that the best thing that had happened to the school was its becoming grant-maintained? Does he believe that that school would be good enough for the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes his point unmistakably. I am delighted to join him in congratulating the school in being a pathfinder and to tell him that not

    135
    only are 1,034 other schools now grant-maintained, but, in under two weeks, they will be joined by another batch of schools which will be free from LEA control.
    As my hon. Friend says, a growing number of schools that are becoming grant-maintained continues to contain governors who are strong supporters of other political parties. I assume that they, having seen the evidence of their eyes, will go out and convert the Opposition parties so that they also become aware of the advantages of grant-maintained status.

    Exam Courses
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of GCSE and A-level courses can currently be undertaken on a modular basis; and if she will make a statement. [13250]
    Mr. Boswell: This information is not collected by the Department. We understand from the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority that 8 per cent. of national curriculum GCSE and 5 per cent. of GCE A and AS approved courses are modular.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many roads to heaven, and that provided—
    Mr. Skinner: I go where angels fear to tread.
    Mr. Greenway: Do not forget it!
    Does my hon. Friend agree that, provided that standards are high, modular courses at GCSE and A-level are as valid as A-levels where standards are equal? Does he accept that some pupils perform better on a modular-based course than on a course leading to an examination on a one-day basis?
    Mr. Boswell: I can readily agree with my hon. Friend that there are many ways to heaven and, further, that many pupils may benefit—at least, teachers tell me so—from the adoption of modular courses. The essential matter is that there should be some safeguard against accidentally straying on to the primrose path; that is provided by the SCAA code of practice and guidelines, which bear equally on modular and non-modular A-level courses.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Is the Minister aware that his former permanent secretary will make the case on television this evening that the present A-level structure is too narrowly conceived and offers limited opportunity to more than half our children? Why is it that, when the Confederation of British Industry, the National Commission on Education and the teacher unions and associations demand reform of the post-16 examination position—when there is that consensus in arguing for reform of the A-level system—the Government alone resist?
    Mr. Boswell: The Government are determined to maintain standards and excellence. Sir Geoffrey Holland was a most distinguished public servant. He is a highly distinguished vice-chancellor, with whom I have always enjoyed excellent personal relations and whose opinions I shall consider with the greatest attention and interest.

    Schools, Barnet
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many school places are provided in the borough of Barnet; and how many children are attending schools there. [13251]
    Mr. Robin Squire: The number of pupils attending maintained secondary schools in Barnet is 18,790 and information provided by Barnet LEA and the Funding Agency for Schools shows that for 1994, there was a total of 20,268 places.
    Similarly, there are 22,048 pupils attending maintained primary schools with places for 22,212. The latter figure excludes GM primary schools, for which such information is not collected centrally, but where I understand that 854 places were being provided when the schools became GM.
    Mr. Booth: Will my hon. Friend publicly recognise and congratulate the outstanding, second-to-none performance of the pupils of Finchley and Barnet, supported as it is by partnership between admirable parents and, until last year at any rate, a Tory council?
    Mr. Squire: I willingly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the schools in Barnet, whose results compare favourably with other LEAs. Barnet is in the top five LEAs in respect of the percentage of pupils achieving at least five GCSE grades A star to C, and in the top 25 LEAs in respect of GCSE A and AS-level achievements. By any standards, those are excellent results.

    Teachers (Hours Worked)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average number of hours worked (a) per day and (b) per week by classroom teachers in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools during term-time. [13252]
    Mr. Forth: The work load survey, based on teachers' own returns and carried out for the School Teachers Review Body, showed that the average total hours worked by full-time classroom teachers during a term time week in March 1994 was 48.8 hours for primary teachers and 48.9 hours for secondary teachers. Data are not available on a daily basis.
    Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show, yet again, just how hard teachers work and fully justify the Government's decision to increase their salaries by just short of 40 per cent. in the past five years and to allow in full this year's pay recommendation? Does he share my regret that parents, teachers and governors have been forced to lobby Parliament today because local education authorities continue to spend on discretionary and politically correct measures rather than fund properly, with the money that they have available, the full teachers' pay settlement?
    Mr. Forth: I am glad to join my hon. Friend in praising good teaching by good teachers. I agree that to concentrate simply on the number of hours worked reveals only part of the picture: it is the effectiveness of those hours which matters. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about LEA spending. It is interesting that a number of LEAs have been able to order their priorities in such a way that they have been able to meet the teachers' pay rise in full and to continue to provide well for their pupils and schools. If all authorities approached funding in that manner, we would not have to witness the artificial hysteria that has been generated in some quarters.
    Mr. Battle: Is not the truth that teachers have been totally demoralised as a direct result of 17 years of the

    137
    Government's education policy? Today's lobby of Parliament, which has brought together teachers, governors and concerned parents, should be listened to by the Government, because they are withdrawing capital funds from local authorities to repair schools and they are undermining those authorities' ability to pay the wage bill. Why are the Government shuffling off their responsibilities, as usual?
    Mr. Forth: I am slightly surprised by the hon. Gentleman's assertions for two principal reasons. First, it is certainly true that teachers' worth has been recognised in the pay increases that they have received under this Government, under whom they have done extremely well—and rightly so, I believe. Average teachers' pay, after 1 April 1995, will be £22,200 per annum. That amply rewards the contribution that they are able to make.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's second assertion that the pay awards cannot be met, he obviously did not listen to my earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler), in which I pointed out that a number of authorities, including many controlled by the Labour party, have found it possible to fund the teachers' pay award in full. I welcome that.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have applied for grant-maintained status. [13253]
    Mr. Robin Squire: To date, 1,157 schools have published proposals to acquire grant-maintained status. A further 15 schools are currently under a duty to publish such proposals following "yes" votes in parental ballots.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he a member of the Transport and General Workers Union? Does he agree with me that if the 1 million members of the TGWU had gone to grant-maintained schools, preferably the Oratory, they might have been prepared to support Bambi, the leader of that lot on the Opposition Benches, in rewriting clause IV?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend, in his typically understated way, has put his finger on it. Although I am not a member of the TGWU, what is good enough for its members and for those sponsored by it should be good enough for and on offer to all parents. That will happen as self-governing schools become the norm under the Government.
    Mrs. Mahon: Are not the Minister and the Government engaged in a huge bribery exercise? Surely that is why the Government have given more than £400,000 for the capital building programme to just one grant-maintained school in Calderdale, Holy Trinity, while the remaining LEA schools have just £125,000 to spend between them for 1995–96. How do the Minister and the Government justify such blatant discrimination against LEA schools?
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady is wrong. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said a moment ago, capital programmes for LEA schools will increase by more than 6 per cent. next year.
    Mrs. Mahon: Not in Calderdale.
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady suggests that Calderdale is treated differently from the rest of the country; of course
    138
    it is not. Capital allocations for LEA or GM schools are treated on the same basis. If she visits the GM schools in her constituency or in Calderdale she will generally find that, far from being bribed to become grant maintained, schools are pleased to become GM and they would not dream of doing anything differently.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Did my hon. Friend see the news item in last Tuesday's Evening Standard, which proved conclusively that support for grant-maintained status is not confined to Conservatives? Eric Hammond, a well-known trade union leader, said quite categorically that it was not in the interests of the school in his area to be part of an expensive bureaucracy such as Lancashire county council.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend, in her inimitable fashion, adds her voice and her own references to the examples that have already been given of prominent socialists who have seen the light and who are now embracing the advantages of grant-maintained status. We can only wait until all Labour Members take that view and, more particularly, encourage their local supporters to remove their tanks from the lawns of schools whose only crime is to seek to run themselves.

    Schools (Standards)
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her policy for improving standards in schools. [13254]
    Mr. Forth: The Government's education reforms, including the introduction of the national curriculum and testing, performance tables and independent inspection arrangements, are all driving up standards in schools. More pupils than ever before are achieving five or more GCSEs at good grades, and more are going on to further and higher education.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware that his statement will ring hollow in Warwickshire, where angry parents, teachers, councillors and Members of Parliament from all political parties believe that education standards will fall as a result of the Government's financial settlement? What do the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education have to say about declining education standards in Warwickshire, where school classes of more than 40 pupils are anticipated and 200 teachers may be sacked? What will be done to ensure that education standards in Warwickshire do not fall?
    Mr. Forth: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and parents and governors in Warwickshire ask some pretty searching questions of their local authority. They might look to a neighbouring authority, such as Birmingham, which is able fully to fund the teachers' pay rise in spite of the fact that it faces the same stringency and demands as other local education authorities. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's local education authority has many questions to answer and I hope that he will start asking them.
    Mr. Dunn: Is the Minister aware that the Labour-Liberal Democrat-controlled Kent county council spends £12,000 per day on conferences? What contribution does that expenditure make to raising standards in Kent schools?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the problem that people up and down the

    139
    country are facing. His example follows on very well from what I said to the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien). I suggest that my hon. Friends should advise any parents, teachers or governors who approach them to look very carefully at the books of their local authorities. They should examine their local authorities' priorities and what they are spending taxpayers' money on. If that money is being spent on useless conferences of the kind that my hon. Friend mentioned, I suggest that local education authorities should give much more positive answers than we have had so far.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister give priority to improving the teaching of history and geography in order to bring home to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the full impact of what 16 years of Tory government have done to this country's industrial base?
    Mr. Forth: It is perhaps regrettable that Members of Parliament are unable to take advantage of the excellent national curriculum that we have introduced in our schools. I am sure that had many hon. Members had the benefit of the national curriculum, they might have been better able to face the present policy challenges.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that a fair system of funding is important in improving standards in schools? Will he join me in condemning the contemptuous campaign run by Liberal Democrats in Cornwall, who claim that the Government allow Cornish schools £100 less per pupil than the rest of England? Does he agree that that claim is completely and utterly untrue?
    Mr. Forth: I was shocked to hear of the scurrilous misinformation being spread by Liberal Democrats in Cornwall. Unfortunately, I suspect that it is not unusual and the people of Cornwall should be getting pretty fed up with it by now, but I confirm absolutely that the assertions made by Liberal Democrats in Cornwall are utterly and totally baseless. I hope that the people of Cornwall will realise that and will ask some searching questions of the county council.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March. [13272]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meeting later today.
    Mr. Hill: In his busy day, has the Prime Minister noticed that his plea for peace within the ranks has failed and that the Chancellor and Lord Tebbit are at each other's throats again over Europe? How does he feel now that it is apparent that all sides of his party share the same view as the rest of the country—that he has no authority and is not up to the job?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about differing views in Europe, I suggest that he has a look around the Benches beside him. If he seriously thinks that the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), agrees with the Leader of the Opposition, or
    140
    that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), he is living in a fantasy world.
    Mr. Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most calls for more funding are really calls for higher taxation and that most calls for greater economic well-being are really calls for higher inflation? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, undertake to continue his policy of keeping a firm grip both on inflation and public expenditure and not to do what the Opposition always seem tempted to do—cheaply to buy people's votes with their own money?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the necessity of holding down public expenditure, and equally right to point out that it is simply economically illiterate to object to taxation levels and at the same time to call for higher expenditure, as the Opposition so frequently do.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Education Secretary, who said this morning—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Blair rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order; otherwise I shall have to name a Member on the Conservative Back Benches.
    Mr. Blair rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: It is Jacques Arnold.
    Mr. Blair: I apologise to my hon. Friend's dog.
    Does the Prime Minister agree with his Education Secretary who this morning admitted that in funding the teachers' pay award some schools and authorities would face "considerable problems"?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we recognised from the outset that this year's settlement is tough in education. We have never made any secret of that fact. We have made it clear that local authorities must choose their priorities. We believe that teachers in the classroom are a priority and should be a first priority among education authorities.
    Mr. Blair: But what does the Prime Minister say to schools and authorities that, as the Secretary of State for Education admits, do not have the reserves and balances to fund the award? If it is proven to the Prime Minister's satisfaction that such schools and authorities exist—for example, in Tory Buckinghamshire—will he take action and intervene?
    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what I would say to such authorities. If any local authority is thinking of cutting the number of teachers in the classroom, I would ask it what savings it had made in non-teaching aspects of education. I would ask if it has two administrators for every three teachers, as happens across the country. I would ask what administrative savings it had made. If the answer is none, I would ask, "Why have you made no savings, and why are you singling out teachers in the classroom?"
    Mr. Blair: Is not the Prime Minister aware that five out of the six authorities with the lowest administration

    141
    costs are Labour—and that all are facing cuts? The right hon. Gentleman talks about non-statutory funding. His Secretary of State for Education said what that means—nursery education, youth work and school transport. Is that an option? Why does not the Prime Minister listen to the voices of parents, governors and teachers, who speak for Britain when they say that if we fail to provide properly for our schools, we are not just letting down our children but betraying our country's future?
    The Prime Minister: We have provided more adequately for education and for choice in education than the right hon. Gentleman would ever contemplate. If he wants to know what the priorities are, I suggest that he addresses authorities—most of which are run by Labour—about the 1 million surplus school places, which cost £250 million a year, about making use of the estimated £700 million in unspent balances held by schools and about cutting bureaucracy at county hall, where they have failed to take account of the responsibilities of schools and where for every three teachers there are two support staff. Those are the questions that the right hon. Gentleman should address to education authorities. If he thinks that there are no savings to be made, I suggest that he refers to the Audit Commission report, which made it clear that better management of pay bills would save £500 million—5 per cent. of the whole pay bill.
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that regional assemblies for England would be confusing, expensive and divisive? Does he accept that people in Hertfordshire do not want to be governed from Norwich? When he exposed that policy, the Labour party fell into confusion and chaos. Will he say today that we are not going to do it?
    The Prime Minister: There certainly seems to be some confusion on the Opposition Benches about regional assemblies. Almost every statement about them that can be made has been made. As Labour examines its policy, it realises that it is the total nonsense that I pointed out some time ago.
    Mr. Prescott indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; clearly he does not understand that his party's policy is nonsense. When Labour examines its policies for Scottish and Welsh assemblies in further depth, it will find precisely the same.
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March. [13273]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McKelvey: Has the Prime Minister no sense of shame at having dithered over obscene fat cat salaries, alienating low-paid workers in the health service, including nurses and midwives? Is not the right hon. Gentleman setting the scene for a summer of discontent throughout the NHS?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have funded the health service better than any previous Government. That is clearly shown by the
    142
    number of people treated in the national health service, the wider range of services and the better treatment that is available.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March. [13274]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the fact that this is national science, engineering and technology week, has my right hon. Friend had time today to read the encouraging report from engineering employers, which states that economic recovery is developing in a way that will increase national prosperity in the longer term? Is not that a tribute to Government economic policies, and is not this the right time for young people to go for a career in engineering?
    The Prime Minister: I agree about that, and about the need to encourage more young people into engineering and more people into learning skills of that sort. That is why we established the non-vocational qualifications some time ago. In engineering and manufacturing generally exports are growing and employment is increasing; that has not happened in manufacturing generally for many years.
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March. [13275]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: I welcome the Government's decision to provide £1 million for the clearing of anti-personnel mines in Cambodia. Is the Prime Minister aware, however, that there are 100 million anti-personnel mines strewn around the world, and that there have been 1 million casualties and fatalities, especially among children? Does he agree that the time is ripe for an international moratorium that would bring within its scope the area-denial mines that are still shipped out of this country? Will he not agree with the terms of the early-day motion, now supported by more than 100 hon. Members of all parties, urging the Government to give a moral lead?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the fact that he wished to raise a detailed question about land mines. We have neither produced nor exported anti-personnel mines for some years, and we have contributed generously to the demining programme. In July we announced an indefinite moratorium on exports from the United Kingdom of mines without a self-destruct mechanism. We shall be hoping to use the review in September of the UN weaponry convention to strengthen the protocol on the use of land mines and to ensure that its provisions gain universal support.
    Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend support a measure to make it a statutory requirement that all local

    143
    authorities declare in their published budgets what is and what is not a statutory requirement and a statutory area of expenditure?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend suggests an ingenious method of ensuring that local authorities' priorities are met. I shall invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to examine it.
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March. [13276]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Prentice: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Home Secretary who is right about the feelgood factor?
    The Prime Minister: The people who have most felt the feelgood factor thus far are the 600,000 people who are no longer on the unemployment register, as a result of the fall in unemployment. In terms of economic management, we are seeking to make sure that we come out of the recession of two years ago in a way that avoids laying the seeds of future difficulties, which were sown on many other occasions since the second world war. Hence we have had to take long-term, difficult decisions; as a result we now have the best prospects of rising living standards, year after year, that we have had for many years. That will produce a very good feelgood factor.
    Mr. Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members share the qualms about land mines expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), but that none of us will accept the fact that Liberal Democrat county councillors are not funding education as they can—particularly in East Sussex, where they resisted and voted against a Conservative amendment to the budget that would have provided the necessary funds for education in the county?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the example to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention, but the rather cavalier use of taxpayers' money by Liberal Democrat authorities is no new phenomenon.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March. [13277]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not true, from what we have seen and heard, that there is no policy area apart from Northern Ireland about which the people of this country believe anything that you, Prime Minister, have to say? In education, the parents and teachers are against you. In health, the midwives have been moved to militancy. Is not the best thing that could happen to this Government who cannot agree among themselves that you should resign and that we should have an immediate election?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing the House and the Prime Minister correctly. Would he like to try again? He has another minute.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I apologise, Madam Speaker, if I have not spoken in the language of the House, but I am expressing what I think the majority of British people feel.
    The Prime Minister: Had the hon. Gentleman been in the House longer, he would have heard remarks like that put to me before the last general election.
    Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend publish all the evidence, some of it garnered in response to hostile questions from Opposition Members, which shows beyond any doubt whatever that a reduction in the top rate of income tax has increased the proportion of tax paid as a total from the top 10 per cent., and that any proposal to increase the top rate of income tax will produce a shortfall in revenue which can then be obtained only from middle-income earners?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend sets out a matter that has been well understood for many years. I will certainly invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to lay that information out in the House of Commons Library. It might be very instructive for the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is giggling on the Front Bench because he does not understand it.
    Madam Speaker: Time is up. We now have a statement from Mr. Secretary Gummer. [Interruption.] Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving please do so quickly, as we have a statement on local government reorganisation to deal with?

Local Government Reorganisation
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the review of local government in England.
In my statement on 2 March, I set out my aims for the local government review. I announced my decisions for 20 counties, and I also announced that I intended to invite the Local Government Commission to carry out further reviews of a small number of individual districts.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked me to consider adding a small number of other districts to the list; he particularly pressed me to consider Norwich and The Wrekin. I have now decided to add those two districts to the list of those that I shall consider for fresh reviews.
At the time of my statement on 2 March, I was not in a position to announce the name of the new chairman of the commission. I am now pleased to say that Sir David Cooksey, currently chairman of the Audit Commission, has agreed to become chairman of the Local Government Commission for England. Sir David's appointment will be for one year initially, by which time we expect the programme of shire district structural reviews to have been completed. Sir David will take up his post in early July.
My statement on 2 March left just 12 counties on which I had not yet announced my decisions. I am pleased to be able to do so today.
I have decided to accept the commission's recommendations for the counties of Derbyshire and Staffordshire. The former county boroughs of Derby and Stoke-on-Trent will become unitary authorities; the rest of the county will, in each case, remain two tier.
Similarly, I accept the recommendation for Wiltshire, that Thamesdown—that is, Swindon—should become a unitary authority, and that the two-tier system should be retained for the rest of the county.
For East Sussex, the commission recommended a new unitary authority, to incorporate the existing boroughs of Brighton and Hove. I know that that recommendation has aroused strong local feelings—for and against. On balance, however, I agree that the combined authority is the right solution for the area. The rest of the county will retain the status quo.
I also propose to accept the commission's recommendations for Devon. The former county boroughs of Plymouth and Torbay will become unitary authorities. Elsewhere in the county, the two-tier system will be retained, except that, as I announced on 2 March, I am considering including Exeter—which is, of course, another former county borough—on the list of districts to be referred to the commission for fresh reviews.
Similarly, I accept the commission's recommendation that Nottingham should become a unitary authority and that the rest of Nottinghamshire should remain two tier, subject to possible further reviews of the districts of Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe.
For Essex, I propose to accept the recommendation that Southend should become a unitary authority.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gummer: The independent view of Southend is pretty well known to the House.
146
The commission also recommended that the boundary of Southend should be extended to include Southend airport. [Interruption.] It has a large number of European services. That needs further exploration and I may want to ask the commission in due course to look at the matter again.
With regard to elsewhere in Essex, I have already announced that Thurrock and Basildon will be subject to further reviews. With that in mind, I do not intend to act on the commission's recommendation for a major boundary change involving Basildon, Brentwood and Rochford. The rest of Essex will remain two tier.
In Hereford and Worcester, I agree with the commission that the historic county of Herefordshire should be restored on its former boundaries as a single unitary authority, and that Worcestershire should be restored as a county in its own right, retaining the two-tier system throughout the county. The district of Malvern Hills, which was created at the time of the 1974 reorganisation, will be split as recommended by the commission.
For Leicestershire, I am minded to agree that the city of Leicester should be given unitary status. I am also minded to agree that the historic county of Rutland should regain its independence as a unitary authority. That is one case where the arguments based on local identity seem to me to be particularly strong.
I recognise, however, that there are likely to be particular problems with the effective and convenient delivery of local services in that area—particularly with regard to Rutland, whose population is just 33,000. Before I introduce the order to implement these decisions, therefore, I shall want to be satisfied that good practical arrangements can be made for local services. I expect that, at least for some services, some form of joint working with neighbouring authorities may be needed. I shall also want to be satisfied that that can be paid for on the same basis, and within the same financial constraints, as for other reorganised authorities, and without imposing unacceptably high costs on the people of Rutland.
I now come to three counties where I have decided to depart from the recommendations made by the commission.
For Hampshire, the commission recommended that Portsmouth, Southampton and the New Forest should become unitary authorities. I agree with the recommendations for Portsmouth and Southampton. In the case of the New Forest, however, I have concluded that the case for unitary status is not sufficiently made out in a district that has more in common with the many districts recommended to remain in a two-tier structure. I have decided therefore that in the New Forest, as in the rest of Hampshire, the two-tier structure should be retained.
Similar considerations have affected my decision for the neighbouring county of Dorset. I agree with the commission that the boroughs of Bournemouth and Poole should be given unitary status. But elsewhere in Dorset I note that the existing authorities are not enthusiastic about the commission's proposals. On balance, I have concluded that the rest of Dorset will be better served by the two-tier system.
Finally, for Berkshire the commission has recommended the replacement of the county council by a structure of five unitary authorities. I agree that the county council should be abolished. But I disagree with the commission's recommendation that the districts of Bracknell

147
Forest and Windsor and Maidenhead should be combined. I am satisfied that each of the existing districts in the county is capable of operating as a unitary authority, and I propose to modify the commission's recommendations accordingly. The county area of Berkshire will be retained together with the Lord Lieutenancy, but it will no longer have a county council.
Although my decision for Berkshire follows a different pattern from other counties, I am satisfied that the difference is justified. I note that it has the support of all the district councils concerned, and that until recently the county council also favoured a unitary structure for the county. I have said before that different structures may be appropriate in different areas to meet different local circumstances; Berkshire is a case in point.
I have given a full explanation of the background and reasons for the decisions today, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). There are copies in the Library and the Vote Office.
My officials will now start work on drafting the orders that are needed to put the decisions into effect. The local authorities and their associations will of course be consulted. I hope that the first orders will be ready to bring to the House soon after the local elections on 4 May; in the meantime, we shall also be consulting on draft guidance to be given to the Local Government Commission for the fresh district-based reviews.
In my previous statement, I announced that a small number of districts would be referred to the commission for further review, and that I was considering whether to refer a limited number of others. Given the need to minimise uncertainty—and for there to be a clear end to the review process—I should perhaps repeat that, apart possibly from the two districts that I mentioned at the beginning of my statement, I am unlikely to want to add to the list.
The decisions that I have announced today reinforce the pattern that has emerged from the review. In broad terms, it constitutes abolition of the unloved "artificial" counties created in 1974, which have never commanded the loyalty of local people; creation of unitary local government in many large non-metropolitan towns and cities that will be well placed to benefit from the extra coherence and effectiveness that unitary local government can bring; and, elsewhere, the two-tier system retained, but with improved co-operation between the tiers.
I remind the House that I made it clear in my earlier statement that I would hold the counties to their promises of better co-ordination, greater subsidiarity and keenness to listen to the attitudes of local people in both parish and district councils in achieving the kind of government whose retention they sought.
I hope the House will agree that, with those changes, local government will be in better shape to meet the challenges that undoubtedly lie ahead.
Mr. Frank Dobson: I welcome the statement, as far as it goes. It has the singular merit of being in line with the principles that the Secretary of State set out in his statement of 2 March, which we welcomed. What it boils down to is a recreation of county boroughs that should never have lost their county borough status in the first place. I especially welcome the decision to give county borough status to Derby, and to retain two-tier local government in the rest of Derbyshire. I hope
148
that that means that the Government and their supporters will now abandon their continuing mean-minded attacks on the county.
The Government's proposition rights the glaring anomalies that arose from the review. I refer in particular to the recommendation of independence for Rutland, which contains 33,000 people, but not for places containing 180,000. Apparently, even the Secretary of State now has some doubts about the Rutland decision; but we shall see what happens about that.
I welcome the Secretary of State's acceptance of the inclusion of The Wrekin and Norwich in the list of districts to be, as it were, reconsidered for reconsideration, but I was serious in regard to the other councils that I mentioned when we last discussed the matter. Since then, other districts have submitted themselves for consideration. I realise that the Secretary of State must draw the line somewhere, but I hope that he will not automatically rule out the districts that neither he nor I mentioned on the previous occasion. I do not think that we should proceed on the basis that the Department of the Environment is the fount of all wisdom in this regard. The right hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that it should be open to other districts to put themselves forward for independence if they can make a rational case.
I expect that the new Local Government Commission will make what may be described as a more structured, consistent and sensible approach to the task that it has been given than its predecessor did, that the criteria that it applies will be applied to each district and that there will be proper and consistent consideration of people's views. Also, if polling is to be done, I hope that it makes propositions clear, so that people know on what they are voting.
County boroughs and the districts that have been named will have the opportunity to demonstrate to the commission that they are entitled to independence, that their independence will be workable and popular and that they will be able to provide decent services for local people. That is to be welcomed because a council that can draw on civic pride and a sense of place is more likely to be able to provide decent services.
I welcome the appointment of Sir David Cooksey to chair the commission and I look forward to him conducting an orderly, sensible and consistent review. I welcome the undertaking from the Secretary of State that we shall be consulted about the remaining membership of the commission and the guidelines.
Although it may seem churlish, I must confess that I am, from time to time, a churl. I therefore remind the House that this whole review started with a statement from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, who said:
"most local authorities want unitary status and we believe that such status will provide a better structure for the future in most areas."—[Official Report, 20 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 37.]
As a result of that, we have had a protracted, ill-considered, expensive and acrimonious review of local government across England, during which large numbers of staff in counties and districts have been deployed to present arguments for or against change, and in some areas, for two or three years, vast amounts of resources have been used and money has been paid out in court action. The review has simply distracted attention and

149
diverted resources from the councils' proper job of providing local services. It has been very unsettling for the staff.
In the new circumstances, I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that what is proposed in some areas prolongs uncertainty. In other areas, the staff will have to go through the process of change. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that they are entitled to some protection and help over compensation, transfer, detriment and the implementation of compulsory competitive tendering. I am glad that in his previous statement he accepted my suggestion that he should meet the unions. I know that that meeting has now been arranged. I hope that he will find it possible to accept some improvement because the changes are not the fault of the staff—they have been forced on them by the Government.
I hope that the new commission will get on with its job and carry out the task in a proper and sensible way, and that this time it will do a decent, consistent job. All this could have been done two to two and a half years ago, and the county boroughs could have been recreated two years ago if the Government had recognised common sense from the start.
All these changes are being proposed to councils that were set up and had their boundaries established by a previous Tory Government. They are changes to things that the Tories got wrong in the past and I hope to God that they will not get things wrong again.
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the part of his comments that supported what we are doing. I am sorry for his lapse into churlishness, and I shall return to that. I was also surprised that he should start by suggesting that there were those who were mean minded about Derbyshire. The county of Derbyshire could have done with a little more meanness itself and then it would not have been one of the most disliked local authorities in the history of mankind. The fact of the matter is that Derbyshire, both under Mr. Bookbinder and with Mr. Bookbinder still in the wings, did not and does not set an example of county government that most of us would like to follow. That is why I have some sympathy with those of my hon. Friends who wish that we could have gone further with unitary authorities in Derbyshire.
As for the other matters that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras raised, I too am concerned for the staff. That is one of the reasons why I want to restrict the number of councils being considered. The period is significantly shorter than the period originally announced, because I shortened it myself from the six to seven years that looked likely at first. None the less, staff will still be uncertain during that shorter period, and I should like to reach solutions as quickly as possible.
However, the staff are the servants of the local authorities, and if in the end we want to achieve the best local authorities that we can, there are bound to be difficulties occasionally. We must accept the fact that in private business most people have to cope with change all the time, so I am not quite so enthusiastic about suggesting that every local authority member of staff should have the kind of protection that is not available to everybody else who has to deal with difficulties such as making a profit, selling goods, providing services and being directly at the behest of customers and the public.
150
I was also a little concerned by the hon. Gentleman's attack on the fact that the process had led to so many court actions. He should ask the Labour members of the former Cleveland county council what they were doing when they spent all that money on such court actions. They lost every one, as almost everyone could have told them in the first place that they would. Nevertheless they were prepared, as Labour councils always are, to spend other people's money in the defence of their particular—I was about to say "dogma", but I shall not.
The same is true of Lancashire; I shall watch carefully to see whether that county council carries through its considerable promises to the districts and parishes of Lancashire as to how it will operate in future.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that we were changing structures set up by a previous Conservative Government. I remind him that the original changes were made 20 years ago. If he really thinks that local authorities stay in the same place and are absolutely perfect after 20 years, he has a curious view of the pace of change, and little grasp of the fact that we no longer have local authorities that think that they should run everything. We now have enabling local authorities, with a different view of how they should operate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I seek to call as many Back Benchers as possible, but I shall not be able to call many unless questions and answers are brisk. This is a day not for votes of thanks, but for one question, and one only, to the Minister and for a brisk reply.
Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as so frequently in the affairs of Southend, all respectable Conservative opinion will be thrilled and delighted by the decision that he has announced, which will restore to Southend the unitary status that it had for more than 50 years, with which it governed its affairs with remarkable success? Is he further aware that the only people who, for some mysterious reason, will oppose the decision are the Liberal and Labour members of the town council? For the sake of clarity, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the elections will take place in 1996 and the new authority will start in 1997?
Mr. Gummer: There will be elections next year and the new council thereafter. I thank my right hon. Friend for what he said. I would have expected nothing else from the Liberals and the Labour party in Southend—especially the Liberals, who find it difficult to maintain the same view for two days running.
Mr. David Rendel: What does the Secretary of State mean by consultation? Although I welcome the appointment of Sir David Cooksey, I remember that during his previous announcement the right hon. Gentleman said that he would consult the Opposition before making the appointment, whereas in fact he simply told me whom he had asked to do the job, without any consultation whatever. What does he mean by consultation in the case of Berkshire, which he has announced will be given six unitary authorities—a solution proposed by nobody, and on which no consultation whatever has taken place? What does he mean by consultation when he announces that Rutland, which will be a small unitary authority, gets through on a

151
60 per cent. popular vote while New Forest, which also achieved a 60 per cent. popular vote, has been refused the same status although it would be much larger?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman sat in my office for 10 minutes and was asked to give his opinion on what should happen in Berkshire. At every moment, he refused to give his opinion and the councillors who were present became more embarrassed and got redder because he would not give his opinion. The Liberal Democrat party gives an opinion only when it has decided that it will get one extra vote by going one way rather than the other. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) is worse than most Liberals in that way, and I must say that consulting the hon. Gentleman is almost impossible.
I consulted the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras about the person who was to be appointed, and I am perfectly happy to consult widely, as I have done in the past, about the members of the commission. I hope that that can also be done on the guidelines. The hon. Member for Newbury was given every chance to speak about his own county, and he could not manage it.
Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the main reasons why many of my constituents expressed opposition to a merger of Hove with Brighton was their understandable fear at the thought of their well-run Conservative council being joined with a borough whose socialist council is notorious for its inefficiency and extravagance? My right hon. Friend mentioned the incorporation of Southend airport in the borough of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). Is he aware that the western boundary proposed for my local unitary authority is unsatisfactory both economically and geographically, and that it divides the port of Shoreham? Can he assure me that he will look at the earliest possible moment at that boundary, which ought to be extended to the River Adur?
Mr. Gummer: I am happy to assure my right hon. Friend that when we come to look at the boundaries, which will not be immediately, I shall make sure that that particular boundary is carefully looked at early on. One of the real objections that I have heard widely in Brighton and Hove is the fear that the present Brighton town council would become dominant in the new authority. That council is so forgetful of the interests of its ratepayers and is so rude to incoming conferences that it forces the conferences to choose other towns to go to. That is because of the inability of Brighton council to keep its extremist left-wing views to itself. The answer is for the citizens of Hove to continue to vote Conservative and to make sure that the new borough is run by sensible people.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that we have had three Etonians in a row, could I ask the Minister whether he thinks he has come to the hard part now? The Government have gone back to the 1974 regime of Derby city and two-tier status for the rest of the county. Does he understand that one of the problems in local government—apart from the boundaries—is the fact that this Government have withdrawn £50 billion in grants over the past years? What local government really needs is the money to provide work, to do the jobs and to reduce the class sizes—to the same as those at Eton if
152
necessary—and to get more teachers. The Government must stop the rate capping of local authorities and let local democracy thrive.
Mr. Gummer: Year in, year out the Government have provided more money to local authorities, and year in, year out Derbyshire has wasted large sums of money, both from this Government and from its own ratepayers. Derbyshire has an appalling record, and the fact that the hon. Gentleman should still be defending it shows just how appalling his judgment is.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend explain to me how it is that last week he called Derbyshire county council incompetent and the chairman of the Conservative party called it corrupt, but that today he has brought forward proposals that will re-establish a Labour majority in that area for many years to come? How does he expect me to support the proposal?
Mr. Gummer: I fear that I must say to my hon. Friend that I have to distinguish between the council and the councillors. The only answer in Derbyshire is to get rid of those who are at the moment mis-running the local authority and replace them with people who can run it. I understand my hon. Friend's frustration, but he must accept that—however bad the councillors may be—it would be quite wrong for me to make a judgment for all future generations. I have to judge on the basis of the councils.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: While I join my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in welcoming some of the points that the Secretary of State has made today, may I press him on the timetable? He says that he is minded to add The Wrekin to the list. When does he expect to reach a decision on that? If he decides to add The Wrekin to the list, what will be the time scale within which the commission will work?
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Between now and July, when the new commission will come into operation under the new chairmanship, I intend to hold discussions with the county councils, district councils, parish councils and other people who are involved to decide whether it seems sensible to offer The Wrekin as one of the names on the list to be considered. If I decided that it was, it would be for the incoming commission to make its timetable, but I hope that the matter would be considered as soon as possible after July.
Mr. David Martin: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision about Portsmouth? Will he and his Department do everything possible to persuade the Liberal Democrat-led Hampshire county council to co-operate from now on with the new arrangements? That would be in stark contrast to the expense and wasted time of the abortive attempt to keep the Liberal Democrats' county empire as intact as possible.
Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly seek to do that. The order will insist that the county council take on its shoulders the responsibility for proceeding as rapidly and conveniently as possible. I agree with my hon. Friend that,

153
as in other parts of the country, no one whom I have known has been so assiduous in tending their own interests as Liberal Democrat-dominated county councils.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Minister aware that he has now left north Nottinghamshire in limbo-land? While he has announced unitary authorities for the four districts in the south, he has not made any announcement as yet about the four districts in the north. Is he aware that all eight district councils wanted unitary status and that the only fair solution is to grant it to all of them? Will he have a look at what he now proposes to do for the north?
Mr. Gummer: I have the problem that the commission retreated from its original views. I do not have the powers to denominate any of the extra authorities—certainly not the three plus the four. I have said that I shall consider whether the three authorities that I mentioned ought to be looked at again by the commission.
I have a problem with the decision on Nottingham city. I maintain my view that Nottingham city should become a unitary authority, although I find it particularly difficult as I read today in the Daily Mirror that Nottingham city council has banned the use of the words "ladies and gentlemen" in any of its properties. People will not be able to say, "My lords, ladies and gentlemen" at the beginning of a dinner in any property owned by Nottingham district council because that is thought to be in some way sexist.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the profound disappointment that his statement will cause in my constituency? Will he look again at Eastbourne's former county borough status and its profound local identity, which even the Local Government Commission managed to spot, and send it for further review under the newly constituted Banham-free commission?
Mr. Gummer: I understand the particular difficulties with Eastbourne. As my hon. Friend says, it was historically a county borough. It is not one of those areas that naturally fit the suggestions that I have made. I do not think that it appeared in my original list. There has not been pressure from outside, but I understand my hon. Friend's point. I shall, of course, look at it again.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does the Minister accept that the decision to give Nottingham unitary status, which I welcome, cannot move forward positively until decisions have been made on the surrounding unitaries—Gedling, Broxtowe and Rushcliffe? Clearly, that creates uncertainty. Can the Minister give me an idea of the timetable that he and the commission have in mind to resolve that problem?
Mr. Gummer: That does not need to hold things up. The elections could not take place in any case for a further year. In the course of that year, I am sure that we shall come to an understanding about the other authorities. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have found unsatisfactory the comment that I made about Nottingham city council. The reason why I made it is, first, simply that it is true. I have checked with the city council that it is true. Secondly, it reminds us that unitary authorities
154
have a responsibility to act in the interests of everyone and not to press the particular ideas of political correctness that are damaging and downright silly.
Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Southend airport, to which he referred, used to be RAF Rochford and is within the Rochford district council area? Does he know that it is a large piece of undeveloped land that separates urban Southend from semi-rural Rochford? Does he agree that, if the airport is included in a unitary Southend with its own planning authority, it is likely, should the airport fail, that that land will be built up, to the great detriment of both Southend and Rochford?
Mr. Gummer: That is precisely why I felt that it would not be proper to take the commission's recommendation on board, but that the matter should be considered further in the future.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sure that the Minister is aware that there will be great disappointment in my constituency of Carlisle, a fine historic city, that he has not designated it for unitary status today. Will he explain the reasons briefly? Does his statement mean that he has closed his mind to giving Carlisle unitary authority status?
Mr. Gummer: The district of Carlisle contains significant rural parts that were not in the original county borough of Carlisle. I have considered Carlisle carefully; it is unlikely that I would want to add it to the list as it fits none of the reasonable proposals and it would stand out rather surprisingly if did.
Mr. Eric Pickles: My right hon. Friend's announcement that he would not accept the Local Government Commission's recommendation on the boundaries between Brentwood and Basildon is welcome. He will be aware of correspondence between us about the funding of the proposed merger, but he will not be aware of a recent statement by Liberal Democrats in Brentwood that, somehow, they could make a profit from such a merger. Does he agree that local government reorganisation on that basis would be ludicrous and that the best thing would be to base it on a locality? Does he further agree that Brentwood council should now look for civic pride for the people whom it represents in Brentwood, not for empire building elsewhere?
Mr. Gummer: We shall certainly look at all the figures that have been put forward, but, on the surface, the argument put forward by the Liberal Democrats seems pretty specious. It is important that Brentwood and places like it should seek to increase the civic pride that arises from people's sense of place.
Mr. Mike Hall: Will the Secretary of State confirm that Halton borough council is now on his list for review and that, when Halton and Warrington are reviewed, there will be strict guidelines on what county councils can spend on the campaign because, during the previous review, Cheshire county council threw its cheque book away, which was a waste of ratepayers' money?
Mr. Gummer: I remain of the opinion that Halton should be considered for a possible review. I shall look at

155
it in the way that I have said to others and decide before July whether it should be reviewed. A good case has been put forward, so it is worth looking into it carefully.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: On Norwich, given that my right hon. Friend appeared to restate the assurance that he gave the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) earlier this month, will he consider carefully the following points when he refers the matter for further consideration? More than 70 per cent. of people in Norwich rejected unitary status in a MORI poll; any change would cost the taxpayer millions of pounds; and proper consultations must be undertaken with the county council and the other district councils in Norfolk, which have strong views on the matter. Will he bear all those concerns in mind?
Mr. Gummer: I did not immediately suggest that the commission should consider a range of local authorities, precisely because I want time to look into them, in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. It is clearly necessary to establish that, even where a town—in this case, a city—fits the general criteria that we sought to use, there is local support for the proposition of a unitary authority. It would be wrong to deny people the opportunity to give that local support, but it is necessary to try to gauge it in some way, and I shall certainly talk to all the authorities to which my hon. Friend referred.
Mr. Jamie Cann: Does the Minister accept that there are many similarities between Norwich and Ipswich, not only our ability to prop up the rest of the Premier league, along with Leicester—
Mr. McLoughlin: Not for long.
Mr. Cann: Does the Minister also accept that we are both towns of about 120,000 people in rural counties of 600,000 or 700,000 people, which had county borough status for hundreds of years and ruled their own lives for hundreds of years? Yet the Minister proposes, against the wishes of people in Norwich—as I understand it from the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson)—to give unitary status back to Norwich, but to deny it to Ipswich. I am sure that he cannot possibly mean that, and I hope that he can assure me that he will review the matter.
Mr. Gummer: If I may dare say so to the hon. Gentleman, it is a pleasure to see him dealing with his own constituency rather than with matters that relate to other people's constituencies, as is usually his wont. I am his neighbour, and I say that because, over Bentwaters, he is busy dealing with a matter that is no business of his and is causing my constituents considerable trouble as a result.
Mr. Cann: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way. I am answering the question. The hon. Gentleman must have some courtesy. He has given me the opportunity to answer his question and he has also given me an opportunity that the rules of the House do not usually give me, because I am not able to have an Adjournment debate on a matter of that type.
The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that I have read the local newspaper carefully and I found that the Labour party is extremely reticent about whether it wants Ipswich to be a unitary authority. I have detected no widespread
156
feeling that Ipswich should be a unitary authority. It is not the same as Norwich. As a matter of fact, it is a smaller town, and it has a declining population. There are reasons to believe, therefore, that perhaps the same condition does not apply. However, I shall consider the points that the hon. Gentleman brings me, should he wish to.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that the people of Swindon will be pleased and proud at the first opportunity ever to be wholly responsible for their affairs? However, will he and his hon. Friends continue to hold a watching brief on the relationship that will now begin to develop between the unitary authority in Swindon and the rest of Wiltshire, to ensure that there is a co-operative spirit between the two new sets of authorities?
Mr. Gummer: I shall do my best to ensure that that happens.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Secretary of State sweep away the hideous title, Greater Manchester council, restore the ancient Lancashire boundaries and put the city of Salford, the borough of Wigan and the borough of Bolton—all three standard authorities—back into the title of Lancashire?
Mr. Gummer: There will be boundary reviews of the mets when there is a big demand but, in the meantime, no.
Mr. Alan Duncan: The county of Rutland is, as it were, at the starting gate. If it can show itself to be a runner and a safe bet, my right hon. Friend will fire the starting gun. Does he accept that nothing could be fairer than that, and does he accept the gratitude of those who live there for the way in which he has handled that matter? Will he further confirm that the city of Leicester will not be allowed to continue to expand its boundaries?
Mr. Gummer: That is not a matter of boundary review at the moment. I cannot control whatever may happen in future, but at present it is a matter of deciding which areas should have unitary authorities, and I very much hope that Rutland will rise to the challenge.
Mr. Andrew Miller: The Secretary of State referred three times, I think, in his statement to questions of history. Against that background, and given the fact that that opinion is supported by the Labour party, the Conservative party and the chamber of commerce, will he review his decision in respect of Chester and, if he is prepared to do that, the consequential effects elsewhere in Cheshire?
Mr. Gummer: I have looked at Cheshire generally and Chester specifically, and I do not think that Chester meets the requirements so that we could reasonably envisage it as a unitary authority. I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in terms of size and other matters, it would probably be better if it remained part of a two-tier system. I do not at the moment intend to review that opinion.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the great majority of people in Southend-on-Sea, including my family, will be delighted that the Secretary of State has decided to restore local government independence to Southend-on-Sea, will he seek, after that excellent decision, to advise his Cabinet colleagues that there is huge merit in avoiding the centralisation of decision

157
making, and that one cannot obtain more efficiency and better value other than by having decisions made locally and democratically?
Mr. Gummer: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The great advantage of subsidiarity is that one does at the lowest level that which is best done there. The other part of subsidiarity, however, means that one does at other levels where things can be done what can be done only there. I am happy to say that Britain takes that view. We do at Westminster what is best done here and we do at European Union level the things that otherwise we would not be able to do at all. That is why subsidiarity is such a sensible idea.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend has made it absolutely clear that he expects county councils to live up to the promises that they have given to him. His ministerial team will know that Dorset has been extremely forthcoming in saying that it would accept an external audit—tough auditing—of its functions and expenditure. Who will carry out that function? Will my right hon. Friend appoint someone with the authority to carry out that audit on a six-monthly basis to make certain that Dorset is making the right progress?
Mr. Gummer: The Audit Commission has that particular role. I shall certainly draw to its attention the point that my hon. Friend made. I should also mention to him another serious matter. The proposals that were made by county councils in regard to their intention to change their methods of operation will be codified and brought together. They promised to be more co-operative and to be more full of the spirit of subsidiarity, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir. T. Taylor) rightly raised in the House. Those lists of promises will be passed on to every parish council and district council in each county area, so they will know precisely what has been promised. I hope that, perhaps after a year or so, we shall then be able to review whether those promises have been met.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, when he looks at the borders of the new unitary authority of Brighton and Hove, he should not expand them eastwards, as there is no desire among people in my constituency suddenly to find themselves within that unitary authority? When he reconsiders that boundary, in the light of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), will he be able to give the reassurance that many people have requested, about funding of county council services once Brighton and Hove have been extracted from the county?
Mr. Gummer: I very much hope that we shall be able to see a sensible use of money in the remaining county once Brighton and Hove are removed from it. I also hope that Brighton and Hove will be able to run themselves effectively and efficiently, particularly if they make the political decisions that I suggested earlier. I believe that the people of Telscombe will be able to rest easy in their beds, because there is no intention to change the boundaries. I promised my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir. T. Sainsbury) that when the boundary commission considers boundaries—some boundaries need to be looked at—his question about the division of
158
Shoreham harbour will be considered. That is all that I have promised and I certainly do not intend to look for any wholesale change.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that prima facie evidence exists to cast doubt upon the ability of Leicester city council to manage its affairs impartially in the interests not only of its own citizens but of those in the wider county of Leicestershire? Will my right hon. Friend do nothing to alter the present system of local government throughout the area currently run by Leicestershire county council until a full judicial inquiry has been held into the evidence to which I referred?
Mr. Gummer: One has to make such decisions irrespective of the activity or the action of a particular council in a particular town at any one time. Otherwise, one would have to say about a number of places that we are considering, that the efficiency of the council is such that one must question whether a particular group can be trusted. One must accept that it is necessary to try to look at matters impartially and not deal with the people who happen to be in charge at the time. If my hon. Friend feels that there are matters relating to Leicester city council that should be given a wider airing, he will have the time to present that evidence. I do not believe that the decisions that I have announced today will be formed in law for a little time, because we need to leave Rutland with the chance to discover how it will proceed.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be satisfaction and relief in Staffordshire as a result of his decision? However, will he clarify the position regarding elections next year? I understand that there will obviously have to be an election for the new county authority, but must elections be repeated next year in the areas where boundaries remain the same and where elections will be held this year?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The elections will be conducted exactly as one would expect; they will not be repeated. The only difference will be in Stoke, where a shadow authority will be elected.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Under the new arrangements, South Hams in Devon will be wedged between the unitary authority of Plymouth in the west and that of Torbay in the east—both of which have well-known territorial ambitions for expansion. When my right hon. Friend meets the Conservative leaders of South Hams district council tomorrow, will he consider seriously referring back to the commission the issue of unitary authority status for South Hams? In the recent referendum, more people voted in favour of making South Hams a unitary authority than voted in favour of unitary authorities in any other part of the country where referendums were held. Will he consider that matter very seriously?
Mr. Gummer: Of course I take the matter seriously. I acknowledge what my hon. Friend said; he has been assiduous in pressing the case on behalf of both South Hams district council and, as usual, his constituents. It is one of the smallest authorities in the country.
Mr. Steen: One of the best.
Mr. Gummer: Indeed, it is a very well-run authority. However, if we were undertaking reorganisation entirely

159
on the basis of well-run authorities, we would not even consider the case of Norwich, for example. That is a different issue altogether.
With regard to my hon. Friend's district, I shall listen very carefully to the views of council leaders. However, I think that it is fair to say that, given the enormous strength of Devon county council, if it were better run—I have high hopes that that will happen very soon—it could assist South Hams in resisting territorial pressure from its neighbours. I do not wish to see it become another Danzig corridor.
Mr. Robert Key: Despite the fact that my right hon. Friend's decision will come as a disappointment to Salisbury district council, will he take it from me that we shall do our best to work with the new unitary authority? However, does he agree that it is not helpful to imply or to state that the reorganisation will mean no change for the rest of the county outside Swindon? When a third of the population is removed from any county, those who are left in the old county must face completely new challenges and perform new tasks.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. I apologise if I gave the impression that there is not a great deal of work to be done in counties whose composition has changed.
The reorganisation presents an opportunity to run the show much more effectively, efficiently and co-operatively than has occurred until now. For example, county social services departments must work more closely with district council housing authorities. Their operations can be conducted jointly. In my hon. Friend's case, I have looked very carefully at the points that the county council made in fighting for its cause and I shall expect it to carry them through to the letter and in the spirit that it suggested to both my hon. Friend's district council and the parish councils.
Mr. Peter Luff: I believe that I speak also for my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), when I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the recreation of the historic counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire will be very welcome in Worcestershire. However, we are disappointed that my right hon. Friend has not gone one step further and implemented the original recommendations of the Local Government Commission for two unitary authorities in Worcestershire.
Mr. Gummer: Unfortunately, that was not the commission's final recommendation and I have limited powers as to what I may or may not modify. I have some real sympathy for my hon. Friend's point, but he must accept that I am restricted by the terms decided upon by the House. I have done my best within those restrictions.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that there was a fierce argument in rural Dorset outside Bournemouth and Poole as to whether there should he one council or two. The county council said that it would be much more expensive to have two. My right hon. Friend has chosen the county's second option of establishing seven councils in that area. How much extra will my constituents have to pay for those councils, or will additional Government grants pay for them?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is discussing a county much of which is retaining the system that we have had
160
up to now, although not the status quo, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) would remark. The change provides the opportunity for the Liberal-dominated county council to begin to run the council properly, and that will mean a good deal of change from its present activities. The county council can perfectly easily make it a cheaper alternative if it is prepared to ensure that the county council services are run in conjunction and in co-operation with the district councils concerned. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will look carefully at the promises that were made. We shall certainly do so, and perhaps together we can get even the Liberals to realise that efficiency provides money that can be used more effectively or that can reduce council tax bills. The difficulty for the Liberals in my hon. Friend's part of the world is that they promised everything and have suddenly discovered that they have to pay for it.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is my right hon. Friend aware that eastern and East Sussex have a low tax base and will find it difficult to sustain two tiers of government? Is he considering any change to the standard spending assessment for Hastings and Rother, or will the council tax go up?
Mr. Gummer: I see no reason why either of those things should happen if local authorities improve their services. It will be necessary for officers to recognise that it is not a process of defending their particular empires, but one of ensuring that they are able to operate much more effectively in conjunction with the district councils, to provide better services at a lower price. My hon. Friend mentions another county council that has not had a good reputation in recent years and I shall be looking carefully to see that it provides services at the lowest possible price, with decent services provided for the people and not for the empire-building propensities of some departments.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the changes that were proposed in the original commission's document for Basildon, Brentwood and Rochford were extremely popular with people in my constituency? In view of his remarks today, will he assure them that Sir David Cooksey and possibly one of his ministerial colleagues will meet some of my constituents, so that they can explain the reasons for their decision, which were that my constituency is geographically contiguous with Rochford and Brentwood, but is separated from Basildon by a major roadway? They also face the possible prospect of being tied in with a new unitary authority, two councils in which are notorious for their high rates in the past.
Mr. Gummer: I can assure the hon. Lady that we shall of course make sure that every opportunity is given to her constituents and those in neighbouring authorities to put their points to Ministers and to the commission. As I hope she has been pleased to hear, I have already promised that those areas will be referred to the commission again. I hope that in the course of that, a solution will be found that will be beneficial to her constituents and those of her neighbours.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while many in Chester and Cheshire will be relieved that the continuing uncertainty about the future of local government is coming an end, others in the unique city of Chester are dismayed that our district is not to be included in the review? Does he

161
understand their disappointment at not being able to press their case, and does he agree that it is incumbent on all those who continue in two-tier systems to make those two-tier systems work more effectively, to deliver better-quality services more cost-effectively and efficiently?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has honourably put forward the fact that in Chester and some parts of Cheshire, there have been significant differences of opinion on how best to proceed, but he must also be right that the purpose must now be to complete the review as rapidly as possible and to ensure that the authorities that are set up and those that remain carry forward the main purpose, which is to provide the best possible services at the most cost-effective price.
Mr. Matthew Banks: My right hon. Friend read a list of fine historic former county boroughs, but omitted one of the finest—Southport, which as a result of a little local difficulty in 1974 was swallowed up by the metropolitan area of Merseyside. My right hon. Friend and his Ministers have been particularly helpful to me and to my constituents. In the light of his statement, I ask him to give me one further assurance this afternoon. When the Local Government Commission reviews the shire counties, will it take the opportunity to examine metropolitan areas where a strong desire has been expressed for change, so that my constituents can put their case to the commission and that once and for all, we can get out of Merseyside and back into Lancashire—where my constituency rightly belongs?
Hon. Members: Greater Bootle.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will have noted that there were cries of "Greater Bootle" from Opposition Members. Perhaps my hon. Friend will make sure that his constituents recognise that in him, they have the only real bulwark against such a concept. I cannot widen my promise as he wishes, but I repeat my earlier promise to him that when the review is complete, Southport will be the first authority to be examined by the commission, so that the clear indications that he and his constituents have given may be given due weight in establishing whether Southport ought to be differently governed in future.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: While I cautiously welcome confirmation of the status quo for Worcestershire, how does my right hon. Friend propose to ensure that the new Worcestershire county council, in working closely—one hopes—with district councils, slims down its operations consistent with its lessened responsibilities under the reorganisation?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend knows that SSAs will be reworked according to the new characteristics. We shall monitor the activities of county councils and measure them against their own promises. We shall seek to ensure that we get the best value for money, and I shall endeavour to encourage the professional organisations to recognise that it is not a satisfactory way of maintaining particular old forms, not only to insist on empire growing, but not to empire prune. In my view, there is a great need among county councils to reassess the traditional structure, to ascertain whether there are ways of improving it now that county councils are obviously meant to be enabling authorities—rather than constantly seeing themselves as doing authorities. A distinction must be drawn between policing and providing services in many areas, which county councils often forget.

Point of Order
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the way in which the House deals with Scottish legislation. You may be aware that the Leader of the Opposition said on Sunday:
"All Bills that affect Scotland now, I mean a lot of people don't actually know this, go through a Scottish Grand Committee. There's a separate procedure altogether for it."
Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman is completely and utterly wrong and showed amazing ignorance of how the House deals with Scottish legislation?
Madam Speaker: Some Bills go to one Committee, others to another Committee. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come to see me, I shall explain the situation to him.

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Safety)
4.32 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to specify more stringent safety standards for heavy goods vehicles and to increase the penalties for failure to comply with those standards.
There are 400,000 lorries in this country, and the Department of Transport says that, over 10 years, 17 per cent. of those lorries have been involved in fatal crashes. In 1993, 681 out of 5,935 fatalities—more than 10 per cent—involved lorries. It is important to understand that there is a real problem throughout the United Kingdom.
I want to ensure the safety of heavy goods vehicles by asking for increased staffing in traffic area offices, in the Vehicle Inspectorate, and in the police traffic divisions responsible for much of the enforcement. I want to impose a maximum of 11 hours on each driver, with a statutory rest period of 30 minutes in every three hours worked. It is important to set up a register of HGV driver training schools, and to have a nationally approved course for lorry mechanics. I should like also to widen the procedures for appeal to the traffic commissioners, so that we may include the rights of bereaved families to appeal against the decisions of the traffic commissioner.
The reason for all this is very simple. In December 1993, near Mold, Jane Gregory was killed when a lorry crushed her car on the Queensferry bridge. The lorry plunged off the bridge into the river, where the 26-year-old lorry driver was drowned. An inquest was told that the driver had not taken his rest breaks; and over the previous 10 days, from Northern Ireland to France and back to the United Kingdom, he had gone without his weekly rest periods, and on two occasions had gone without the minimum daily rest period. For one period there were no records at all, and the accident investigator, PC Gareth Owen, said that the high visibility at the time meant that the lorry driver should have been able to avoid crashing into the car.
In July 1993, four nurses died in their car in a tragedy on the M50, when a lorry tried to jump a queue of traffic by switching lanes, and ran over their Ford Fiesta. A passenger in another car was also killed. The lorry driver was jailed for 15 months, but Hereford Crown court heard that he was running late on the day of the tragedy because he had overslept.
University lecturer Susan Williams was crushed to death when a lorry with defective brakes and steering and other dangerous parts careered out of control down a hill, toppled on to her car and crushed her to death. The company involved, H G Pheasey and Son of Bakewell, which operates three lorries, was found guilty in September, in the magistrates court, on several counts of failing to maintain the lorry and comply with the tachograph rules. Mr. Pheasey was fined £2,300, most of it payable in £20 instalments. Despite previous convictions for mechanical defects and for one of his vehicles being found unroadworthy, he was allowed by the traffic commissioner to stay in business.
I have not yet mentioned the appalling case of Sowerby Bridge where six people were killed by a lorry with defective brakes. So we do not even have to think about the need for changes of the kind that I suggest: we know that it exists.
164
I must make it clear that I do not assume that all road haulage firms run vehicles that are substandard or dangerous; but there are certainly a large number of vehicles on the road which constitute a considerable danger to their drivers and to anyone who should have the misfortune to cross their path.
The Department of Transport, through the Transport Research Laboratory, did some work in 1988 and 1990 and decided that 7 per cent. of lorries had mechanical defects. It also stated that one in six of the lorry drivers involved in accidents was partly to blame, and that 2 per cent. of the accidents were due to insecure loads.
There have been repeated calls both from the traffic commissioners and from the industry—and often from police forces and various arms of the Department of Transport—for changes in the law. It is clear that greater punishment should be imposed, and that there should be far more frequent checks on substandard vehicles. It is even clearer that those who do this work must be fully trained and must have behind them suitable back-up services to ensure that they can find out what really is going on with heavy goods vehicles.
The reality, however, is that the Government, while paying lip service to such changes, are moving smartly in the opposite direction. Far from increasing fines, they are making it clear that they will not carry out the same checks in future. Ministers will deny that. They will say that although it is true that they are asking for a 20 per cent. cut across the Vehicle Inspectorate, including front-line services, that that will not in any way impair the ability of the Ministry to check adequately on road transport. I am afraid that no one will believe any such assertion.
Ministers will say that it is their intention to encourage the road haulage vehicle industry to produce higher quality. But they must know that, sadly, because of the competitiveness and the number of small firms that are running close to the uneconomic edge, there will be constant pressure on road haulage firms to seek to undercut one another. That will inevitably mean more pressure on drivers to drive for longer hours. There will be more cutting of corners and far less support for the responsible firms who seek in every way to run proper businesses in a responsible and intelligent manner.
There are a number of things for which the House should be asking. We should be asking the Ministry to liaise closely with the Home Office, to ensure that traffic divisions of the police forces, many of which are staffed by people who have specialised knowledge, are not run down throughout the United Kingdom. The Ministry should insist that police officers are available to carry out more spot checks, preferably six-monthly. It should insist above all that there should be no cuts in the front-line services of the Vehicle Inspectorate. The Ministry should be giving greater powers to traffic commissioners to insist on a rapid hearing of cases where fatalities or bad injuries have been involved, to take action against many of the firms concerned. I believe that the traffic commissioners are not only aware of the position, but have called increasingly for action to be taken and would welcome the support of the Ministry to ensure that that happens.
There are many simple changes for which the Ministry should be asking and which it should bring to the House to put on the statute book. In Japan, it is possible, because of a series of lights that are fixed to the front of any heavy goods vehicle, for anyone to tell the speed at which the

165
vehicle is travelling. Three sets of automatic lights give the onlooker a clear indication of the running speed of the vehicle. One light is illuminated if the vehicle is running at 40 kph or less; two if the vehicle is running between 40 kph and 60 kph; and three if the vehicle is travelling at more than 60 kph, which is the legitimate rate for vehicles in Japan. The speed indication lamps are quite clear—
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Paul Tyler, Mr. Norman Hogg, Ms Joan Walley, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mrs. Alice Mahon and Sir Donald Thompson.

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Safety)
  HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES (SAFETY)
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody accordingly presented a Bill to specify more stringent safety standards for heavy goods vehicles and to increase the penalties for failure to comply with those standards: 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 84.]

Agricultural Prices
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the official Opposition and that there is a 10-minute restriction on speeches between the hours of 7 pm and 9 pm.
4.44 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5097/95, relating to agricultural prices for 1995–96 and related measures; congratulates the Government on its robust negotiating stance on the Common Agricultural Policy since 1979, its leading role in achieving reform of the CAP, its continuing pressure for further radical reform and its determination to ensure that EU agricultural spending is effectively restrained; welcomes the Government's key role in the negotiations which secured an effective agreement on agriculture in the GATT Uruguay Round; endorses the Government's drive to spearhead urgent and continuing efforts to combat fraud and illegal state aids throughout the EU; notes that UK farm incomes rose by 6.9 per cent. over the last year and that Government spending on hill livestock compensatory amounts and agricultural research and development has been maintained; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome on the 1995–96 price proposals which takes account of the interests of the United Kingdom, producers, consumers and taxpayers alike.
The debate has come over the years to have two separate but equally valid functions. First, the House has before it the latest proposals for the annual price fixing in the European Community, so that it can advise the Minister of its views before he or she goes to Brussels to negotiate. Secondly, the occasion fulfils the need for an annual general debate on agriculture, and gives the Minister the chance to give an account of what has happened in the past 12 months or so in this important industry. Any such report and statement of policy must inevitably deal with European agricultural policy issues wider than just the price fixing, since so much of agricultural policy is determined by the common agricultural policy, and so many of the improvements that we want involve changes to the CAP.
It is logical, then, to start by restating what we would like for British agriculture, British consumers and the British food and drink industry, and by setting out what we have been doing to enable those objectives to be met, both domestically and in Brussels.
Briefly, we believe that British farmers could do an even better job for our consumers and for the food and drink industry, which uses their raw materials, if they could compete more freely in a world in which there were fewer subsidies, fewer constraints on production and trade and more freedom for enterprise and efficiency to be rewarded. That means that we need a radical change in attitudes to agricultural trade, not just in Europe but in the United States, Japan and in many other countries, too. We want freer trade, the dismantlement of state aids and subsidies for production, and the ending of quantitative controls over farmers—set-asides, quotas and the rest—not just here but around the world.
We know perfectly well that that cannot be achieved overnight, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) rightly told the Financial Times today, and that unilateral gestures, even when they are available, do little good if they just disadvantage our people. We believe that clarity about where we are going and in what time scale

167
is vital if damage and disruption are to be avoided to an industry that has been led in a different direction since Labour's Agriculture Act 1947.
We also believe that there must be a growing recognition of the importance of the environmental role of farmers, and proper incentives for them in this field. We should recognise that good stewardship of the land is a valid output of our farming industry, which no one else can deliver, and that, in some cases at least, they should be paid for it.
It is these objectives, domestic, European and worldwide, that have formed our policy since 1979. In 1979, we inherited a CAP with few constraints on expenditure or on its potential to create food surpluses. Since then, very important steps have been taken to begin to get the situation under control. The super-tanker has begun to respond, very slowly, to a change in course.
Mr. Tony Banks: Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, is not it a fact that we are now spending more money on the CAP than we were in 1979? To what extent does he believe that the absurdities of the CAP are undermining the whole concept of the European Union?
Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Gentleman waits just a moment, I shall give him some figures that might give him some pause, but I agree that sorting out agricultural policy, which must be sorted out, will do more to restore sensible support for the European Community than almost anything else.
Here are some figures. It is pretty useless nowadays, I have to say, to challenge the Labour party on its record in government. It is such a long time ago that half the population was not born when the Labour party were in government. I have woken up the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, and that may be a good thing, but it may not be entirely to his advantage.
There are some exceptions. Most of the people who brought this country to a halt in 1979 are safely grazing in lush pastures down the Corridor, in another place, mooing and lowing gently, weighed down with honours. However, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has not been allowed to escape. He was there throughout the period from 1974 to 1979 in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He has been kept in his crate and there he remains to this day.
I shall not bore the House with too many figures. I have just three sets. Between 1974 and 1979 expenditure from the CAP budget—this is the point in which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was interested—in real terms increased by 61 per cent. or, on average, by 10 per cent. a year. From 1979 to 1994, expenditure from the same budget has increased in real terms by 38 per cent., or 2.2 per cent. a year. But far more to the point, from 1988 to 1994, expenditure has hardly increased at all—by 1 per cent. or virtually nothing in average terms each year. That represents a huge shift in policy terms. The ship is starting to change its direction.
It may be tempting for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, hearing those figures, to defend his record by attempting one of those somersaults that have been a feature of Labour policy recently. Perhaps when he was arguing for all those subsidies all that time ago he was working for the farmers; he was the farmers' man. Unfortunately, that argument does not work. Total income
168
from farming in real terms fell between 1974 and 1979 by 32 per cent.—an average drop of 7.5 per cent. per annum. Since 1979, total income from farming has gone up by 10 per cent. In fact, since 1988, it has gone up by 21 per cent.
Most remarkable of all—I know that the House does not care for figures, so I simply give this third set—is the statistics on food prices. Between 1974 and 1979, food prices went up by 4 per cent. in real terms. That is, they went up that much faster than general inflation. In contrast, between 1979 and 1994, food prices have fallen by 20 per cent. in real terms. To put it another way, since we have been in power, food has become one fifth cheaper relative to other goods.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Has not the right hon. Gentleman missed out some of the most important facts in his biased view of history? Is it not true that between 1973–74 when we joined, and 1979, we were in the transitional period of the CAP, so food prices of course went up, as did expenditure? Did not the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) take people into the Common Market without telling them clearly that we would lose control of our own agriculture, our own agricultural prices and the use of our own soil?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman unwittingly makes my point for me. The Labour party, of which he was a loyal and redoubtable supporter—
Mr. Elliot Morley: Distinguished.
Mr. Waldegrave: That is correct. The Labour party took the agricultural policy and did nothing whatever about it. Through those years there were no controls on overall budget or on the growth of stockpiles and food mountains. Now, we sometimes have to listen to lessons from Opposition Members about how they would change it all overnight. They did nothing about it whatever.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I hope that in reviewing agricultural prices my right hon. Friend will refer to the system of quotas and area payments, which is another way of considerably benefiting the farmer. My right hon. Friend will certainly know, but the House may not know, that the milk quota is now worth something approaching £2,000 for each cow in milk, that even sheep quota is valuable, and that area payments for arable farmers are now running at about £105 an acre. Those are all ways in which the distortions of the CAP indirectly benefit the farmer to the disadvantage of the taxpayer.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am in some difficulty because my hon. Friend is making somewhat eloquently a later section of my speech. He is entirely right. We must get rid of such distortions. The best of our farmers would far rather be allowed to compete in a world market without those constraints, even if it were in exchange for lower prices.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Waldegrave: Many of my hon. Friends are rising, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) was the first.
Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend began his excellent speech with the assertion that we needed radical reform, which he defined in terms

169
of abolishing state aid and protectionism. Is not that an argument not so much for reforming the CAP but for its abolition?
Mr. Waldegrave: No. I shall explain why in a moment. I should proceed because so many of these excellent points fit well with the structure of what I am about to say. However, I cannot resist my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell).
Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend was comparing the records of the previous Labour Government and this Government, but he omitted one crucial fact. To suggest that food prices rose by 4 per cent. in real terms between 1974 and 1979 obscures the huge rate of inflation during that period. Food prices in the shops rocketed then, as every housewife knows.
Mr. Waldegrave: That is true. There was no supply side policy; it was a policy of cartels and incompetence in the management of the economy in general which led to that situation.
Sir Ralph Howell: My right hon. Friend has given us some interesting figures going back to 1974. However, would not he be able to prove his point even better if he went back to 1960, when we were spending 1 per cent. of GDP supporting agriculture, since when it has fallen. Only one quarter of 1 per cent. was spent on total support for agriculture in 1988 and even now it is less than half of 1 per cent. from both the EC and in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We should remember that the concept of agricultural support was not invented with the CAP. We have had agricultural support in Britain since the beginning of the second world war. It was formulated in the Agriculture Act 1947. It is worth reminding people that we should compare the costs of that deficiency payment system with the current system if we are comparing the overall cost of things. My hon. Friend makes a fair point.
Dr. Gavin Strang rose—
Mr. Waldegrave: I give way finally to the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Strang: I have a genuine inquiry. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. However, I cannot understand the figures that he quoted earlier in relation to the costs of the CAP. I mention in passing, and I shall repeat it later, that CAP spending in Britain in real terms has increased by more than 180 per cent. since 1979. I do not want to make great deal of that now, but I cannot understand why he is talking about no increase or an increase of 1 per cent. when, as he knows, the effect of the MacSharry changes was hugely to increase much of the expenditure—all the expenditure on set aside and the arable payments. The right hon. Gentleman's figure is inexplicable, unless he is referring to agriculture as a proportion of the total European Union budget, which I do not think that he is. That is quite a different figure. Other sums are going up there as well.
Mr. Waldegrave: If I may make one digression, I am reminded of the famous story of an American professor
170
who said to Professor Durac that he did not understand the connection between x and y in a particular equation that Durac had written on the board and Durac continued with his lecture, thinking that that was a statement of fact which required no answer. The point is that expenditure went down in 1994. The figures are correct. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's figures go up to only 1992 or 1993. If he looks at the latest figures which are all published—
Dr. Strang rose—
Mr. Waldegrave: This is unprofitable. The figures are in the Library. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures that I have given are correct.
On the other hand, since 1979, and more particularly since 1988, the figures reflect the beginning of a huge shift in the cost and direction of the CAP in which no one, either here or in Europe, would deny for one moment that Britain has been the prime mover. As a result of our efforts, the monster has stopped moving. Now we must start a radical programme of slimming.
The change has not been caused only by the valiant battles of my predecessors as Ministers in the Agriculture Council. A turning point was the imposition of overall control on agricultural spending in 1988, an achievement led by Lady Thatcher. The agricultural guideline ensures that agriculture expenditure will fall progressively as a proportion of the European Union total. It cannot be breached except by unanimity, and we will not sanction such a breach.
Mr. Budgen: The proposal relating to the overall proportion sounded very good at the time, but considerable additional expenditure on other items—particularly the regional and social fund—was then envisaged: as long as the other expenditure rose nicely, it was inevitable that agriculture expenditure would decline as a proportion of the total.
Mr. Waldegrave: That is true—and expenditure that is declining as a proportion is not the end that I want to achieve. Let me use my analogy of the big ship changing direction: this ship is changing direction. Before, agriculture was driving the budget up; that is no longer the case. We have much more to do, however. I am not arguing with my hon. Friend about that.
Incidentally, the pledge that I have just given—that we will not allow the guideline to be breached—is not one that the Leader of the Opposition could give. That would imply that he was vetoing a European Community measure; that he was alone—and he keeps saying that he will not be isolated in the Community. That strikes me as a weakening of the negotiating position that is essential to this issue and many others.
The second watershed was the inclusion of agriculture in the general agreement on tariffs and trade for the first time in the Uruguay round. Britain was a leader in what was originally a minority group in calling for that. If it had not been achieved, we would not have secured the 1992 reforms of the common agricultural policy—which are now being phased in over three years, of which this is the last. Those reforms were driven by the need for European agriculture not to bring the GATT round to a halt.
I am far from saying that the mechanisms used in the 1992 reforms were wholly right; they were not. We wanted the price cuts to hold back over-production, but

171
not the quotas or the bureaucracy. But—and it is a big but—those reforms started a process that has helped radically to reduce stockpiles, has reduced the consumer cost of the CAP by about £8 billion—with £1 billion of that gain coming to the United Kingdom—and has, via the so-called peace clause, prevented the EU from increasing support for commodities above the 1992 level in the future.
My party currently seems to be very self-denying in terms of claiming credit for its achievements. I do not believe that without our commitment to controlling public spending we would have got the guideline; nor do I believe that without our commitment to free trade we would necessarily have got agriculture into the Uruguay round, or secured the right outcome from the round itself. Those are our Government's achievements, and we should be proud of them.
As I said earlier, however, this is only the start. I am not asking the House to endorse the CAP today—far from it—but I ask hon. Members to recognise and support our objectives for reform and the success that we have achieved so far in a battle that will move into a crucial phase during the next few years, with a new GATT round in 1999 and the proposed entry of the central and eastern European countries.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I would like also to be able to congratulate the Government on what they have achieved, but it does seem rather difficult to do that at a time when our farmers must take more of their land out of production than farmers in any other European country, and our farmers must pour their milk down the drain while our milk manufacturing facilities are having to close.
Our farmers seem to have to put up with much more bureaucracy. The IACS form is an example. Under the integrated administration and control system, 24 separate documents could have to be filled in in Britain; nothing like that happens in Spain, Portugal, Greece or Italy. Why do our farmers get the wrong end of the stick every time, whereas all the other European farmers seem to get away with murder?
Mr. Waldegrave: The answer to that is that they do not. No one compels any British farmer to set aside any land, but if a British farmer wants to accept large subsidies for arable production, he must do so.
Quotas are a different matter. It is quite wrong for us to be controlling what is still over-production of milk in the European Community by means of quotas; we should be controlling it by means of lower prices. It should not be thought, however, that when that comes—as it must and will—it will be wholly welcome to dairy farmers. Dairy farming is the sector of British farming that is most profitable in terms of pennies per hectare.
I believe that the policy that I am presenting is supported by forward-looking farmers. Indeed, it is supported by the National Farmers Union, which knows what must be done in the long term. My hon. Friend must be a bit careful when seeking a cheer from British farmers: they are familiar with the other side of the coin.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the effect on our farmers would be devastating if we did not secure reform of the CAP before the entry of the central and eastern European
172
countries, to which he referred? Given their huge areas, they will be appallingly difficult competitors if we do not get it right in time.
Mr. Waldegrave: As so often, my hon. Friend has made exactly the right point. Indeed, I was about to deal with it.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Waldegrave: I think that I had better proceed with my speech. Perhaps I shall cover the point that my hon. Friend was about to make.
Our next objective must be to use the time that we have before those central and eastern European countries are ready to join to ratchet down the cost further, to make the policy one that will be affordable after they have joined. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). It is not so much pressure from the financial guideline as currently drawn that will help us in that regard; our first calculations show that the entry of at least the so-called Visegrad Four countries could probably be financed within the guideline on present, post-MacSharry policies. However, there would none the less be a large increase in cost. Moreover, the extra money "affordable" within the guideline would be completely wasted because it could not be used, under the GATT, to do anything other than destroy or permanently store the increased production that an unreformed CAP would produce in the central European countries. It could not be used for subsidised exports, for example.
I believe that the House, and all sane people, would regard such an outcome as absurd and unacceptable. It would be far better to return the money to the taxpayers, and to set prices at a level that avoids over-production in the first place. We must sort out the problem before those countries join. That means steadily lower prices, which in turn will mean dismantling—over time, and with due warning—the superstructure of controls and quotas that MacSharry introduced to restrain production at a time when the Community would not accept the alternative of greater price cuts. I can agree with one phrase in the Liberal party's amendment, among a number with which I disagreed. There must be due warning, so that the industry has time to adjust.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the Minister to depart from his speech for a moment, and take us for a canter around Europe? Could we consider what will be the reaction of other European countries such as Italy, France, Belgium, Germany and Spain to the radical proposals that the Minister is presenting?
Mr. Waldegrave: I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman, as is often the case. I believe that in the next stage, according to the laws of arithmetic, the result of the interaction of the GATT with the CAP and budgetary concerns will demonstrate to other countries that the change is now unavoidable. After all, the same thing happened when both the last two changes to the CAP were made: external pressure on the Agriculture Council led to change.
The other countries that will respond fall into two groups. The group that does not want the change argues that we should postpone all action until after the entry of

173
the Visegrad Four—have transition periods, hope for the best, all that kind of thing. Another growing group that firmly includes Sweden, Holland and Denmark, alongside us—interestingly, there is increasing support in France—holds that European agriculture is efficient enough to live much nearer to the world markets, and that we will head for a cliff edge if we do not act in time. That would be far more destructive to farming, and far more damaging to those who work in the industry. Although I would be wrong to claim that there is a majority in favour of my proposals, there is a significantly influential minority, represented in the Commission and among serious academics who, after some time lag, influence policy in Europe. The battle is not lost, but the battle would not have a chance of being won if it were not for the external constraints driven by GATT and the entry of the other countries.
The next stage will deliver lower prices in return for restored freedoms. But I must urge the House to believe that the slogan "repatriate the CAP"—I return to a point to which several hon. Members have referred—will not help us to get the outcome that we need. We cannot accept British farmers having to face subsidies for production elsewhere in Europe or, indeed, America, which they do not get at home, with free trade dismantling any protection for their goods. That is why we need a continuing CAP, with more not less rigorous action to rule out illegal state aids; a CAP which matches the single market with a single, simpler, cheaper, regime of support, which is, incidentally, increasingly focused not on production aids but on environmental gains.
We do not want repatriation of agricultural subsidies any more than any other kind of subsidies. We want fewer subsidies. We want our industry, which is one of the most efficient in the world, to be able to compete fairly and win prosperity from its own efficiency in the single market which we, after all, fought so hard to create.
In the meantime, as we prepare for the next forward moves, we are in a period in which the consequences of the previous changes are still working through, which makes the Commission's proposals this year fairly uninteresting. They involve very little change over and above those which result automatically from the 1992 reform. They include some welcome small steps further in the right direction, but the Commission should have gone further to reduce support prices across the board. It has missed an opportunity to signal to farmers and growers the intention to continue along the path set by the 1992 reform, as continue it must.
The main proposals affecting British farmers concern milk, sugar and cereals. In the milk sector, the Commission has proposed a 2 per cent. cut in the intervention price for butter, but no cut in quotas. That is welcome so far as it goes. The United Kingdom is only 85 per cent. self-sufficient in milk, so our producers and dairy industry would suffer disproportionately from any quota cut. I have urged the Council to adopt a larger cut in the butter intervention price so as to relieve pressure for quota cuts in the future.
I am also pressing for provision for the milk quota to be leased across member state boundaries. I regret that that suggestion has not commanded widespread support, but I shall stick to it. I shall nevertheless continue to press for measures to relieve the particular difficulties which
174
our shortage of milk quota poses. That will be especially important if the Commission's report on the implementation of milk quotas in Italy and Greece, which is expected shortly, recommends that the quota increases granted to those countries in 1993 and 1994 should be repeated for 1995 and subsequent years.
For cereals, the Commission is proposing to reduce by two months the period during which intervention is open, as well as to cut the monthly increments in the intervention price in response to reduced storage and interest costs. I welcome those measures to reduce the role of intervention and encourage farmers to rely more on market price signals.
The Commission's failure to propose cuts to sugar support prices, which are indefensibly high, is particularly disappointing. I nevertheless welcome the proposal to reduce the level of storage refunds in response to falling interest rates across the Community. We shall seek to get the best deal from this unsatisfactory proposal on quotas for our producers, who are not, after all, the cause of the surplus which the Commission rightly wants to cut.
No change has been proposed in the levels of beef support beyond those determined in the reform, nor in the level of the sheepmeat basic price. I shall be pressing for changes to both those complicated regimes to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. Expenditure on the beef special premium is controlled by overall national quotas, known as regional ceilings. Yet there is also a 90-head limit on claims under the scheme.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would far more satisfactory from everybody's point of view and would certainly encourage a better quality of beef if all the support was given to the suckler herd instead of being spread across all beef production, which includes those dreadful beef—no, they are not beef animals—those dreadful Holstein animals?
Mr. Waldegrave: For a moment I thought that my hon. Friend was getting at the dairy industry and farmers. I know that he speaks with great knowledge. I am not sure that he would be universally supported by the agricultural industry, but he makes the serious point that if a great deal more Holstein-derived beef came on to the market for other reasons, we might see a fall in the beef premium for the specialist beef producers, which would be very unfair.
As I was saying, we do not need the 90-head limit. It imposes a considerable extra burden. We would much rather get rid of the individual quotas on sheep annual premium and suckler cow premium and replace them with regional ceilings, as apply in the beef special premium scheme to which my hon. Friend referred. Such a scheme, which would need to be signalled well in advance to give farmers time to adjust, would remove a significant bureaucratic burden from the industry.
In most other sectors, the Commission has proposed no change in the support prices. As I have said, I think that that is a lost opportunity. It has, however, proposed a cut in the basic pig meat price to bring it slightly closer to market reality, which is welcome.
Meanwhile, however, there is a different area of action to open up: the area of fraud and enforcement of the rules. We have been at the forefront of pushing the Community towards a much more rigorous approach to the control of

175
fraud. That matters, of course, not only in relation to the CAP, but the CAP is particularly vulnerable and still accounts for over half of Community spending.
It was, of course, the British who saw to it that the role of the European Court of Auditors was strengthened and ensured that its reports and recommendations should be properly considered in Brussels. In our previous presidency, we pushed through the integrated administration and control system, which although neither my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) nor anybody else would claim is other than unpopular, is an essential part of ensuring that we can secure fair controls right across Europe. If we did not have such a detailed scheme, there would be nothing for us to press to enforce. I shall be able to give my hon. Friend some examples of where, because that system is in place, the rules are being enforced right across the Community. I do not know how we could do that without such an underpinning structure.
The 1992 reform helped to reduce one kind of fraud at least, by reducing the role of export refunds and intervention, which have shown themselves to be targets for fraudsters. I very much hope that the Council will soon adopt a new proposal—sometimes known as the "blacklist" proposal—which will further tighten controls in that area. We must vigorously sustain the fight against fraud. I particularly welcome Commission initiatives which introduce tough penalties for those who, it has been proved, have benefited from aid to which they are not entitled.
We have also been pressing the Commission to use to the full its powers to disallow—not to reimburse from the Community budget expenditure improperly incurred by member states. As a result, the Commission disallowed a total of 1.5 billion ecu, about £1.2 billion for 1991, which is the last year for which decisions have been taken. That represented about 5 per cent. of CAP expenditure.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that technology is extremely important in combating CAP fraud? I congratulate him on the press conference, which he held in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry, at the British National Space centre on 17 January, where it was announced that the spot satellite was to be used for the first time on earth observation and remote sensing, which will help us to combat fraud throughout the European Union.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend, who is extremely knowledgable about this subject, is entirely right. The results of some of the early remote sensing satellite pictures in some of the southern countries of Europe have been very interesting and much acreage has turned out not to exist. Such a system will turn out to be a very useful weapon in reconciling people's claims with reality.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Some of the remote sensing has to be used with a little care. For example, if one is trying to deal with the output of olive oil, one must know that an irrigated olive tree produces between 10 and 100 times as much oil as a tree which is not irrigated. So one must be a little careful in trying to combat fraud in the production of olive oil.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The use of remote sensing will be most powerful in
176
measuring hectareage, which is mainly linked to cereal production, and in areas where a farmer is claiming subsidies per hectare.
That is a powerful tool that the Commission has for obliging member states to put in place effective controls against fraud. I shall give the House some examples. Greece has been disallowed about £45 million for having inadequate controls on cotton expenditure. Substantial penalties will be applied to Italy and Greece in respect of grain frauds that have been uncovered. Those actions by the Commission—which I wholeheartedly support—send a clear warning to member states that poor controls will be heavily penalised.
Our record in the United Kingdom is good, but we too must ensure that our own controls are effective. There has been some publicity recently about off-contract deliveries of milk designed to avoid attracting super-levy. Although the so-called "black milk" problem is considered to be relatively small, I have instructed the intervention board to ensure that its anti-fraud unit actively investigates any information that it receives. If regulatory offences have been committed those involved will be prosecuted, and will also face a much higher levy bill as a consequence.
Part of the disallowance that I mentioned relates to the past failure by Italy, Spain and Greece to implement milk quotas, and the United Kingdom's action in the European Court resulted in a 50 per cent. increase in the disallowance originally proposed by the Commission. People have criticised my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the deal, but I believe that they are wrong.
Let me remind the House of the facts. We had taken European Court cases against the Commission's original decisions—decisions that would have led to a total disallowance of about £1.6 billion over five years. We thought that far too low. Despite our requests, not one other member state joined us in bringing the case.
There was, of course, no certainty about the outcome of the case; few litigants can ever expect that. Italy and Spain had counter-claimed, taking their own cases to the European Court and claiming that the disallowances imposed by the Commission were too severe. In any event the case would not have come to a conclusion for a considerable time.
In those circumstances the "out of court" settlement amounting to a total disallowance of £2.5 billion—about £1.2 billion more than the countries concerned received under the milk regime during the same period—was a good outcome. The deal also established the vital principle that the Commission could act only in accordance with the regulations adopted by the Council, and establishing that had been a major objective of the court proceeding.
Mr. Budgen: My right hon. Friend will agree that it was disgraceful that three of the countries in the European Union were found to have made no attempt whatever to impose the agreed milk quotas. Will he now tell us whether, after all the Chancellor of the Exchequer's generosity on behalf of the British taxpayer, those three countries have now set up a proper system for reducing milk production, as they agreed to do?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is unfair, for once, in that he says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was

177
generous in that business. As a lawyer who has practised for many years, he would have advised his client to accept such a deal, because it was a good one.
Mr. Budgen: What has happened now?
Mr. Waldegrave: On my hon. Friend's second point, the Commission must now come to the Council. It has not yet put the proposals before the Council, although I believe that they will be put before us at any moment. The Commission will have to convince the other members and myself that the proper arrangements are in place. I suspect that there will be a difference between the three countries, and that Spain will be better prepared than the others.
Mr. Budgen: How long will all that go on for?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend must restrain himself. The proposals will be before the Council in time for the proper decisions to be made, and we shall consider them. I shall certainly bear in mind the need to convince my hon. Friend and other Members of the House that we have taken the right decision.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Waldegrave: I must press on. Other hon. Members will be able to make speeches in due course.
It is essential that we press the Commission to fulfil its responsibilities to ensure that each and every member state obeys Community rules. As a result of our efforts the Commission declared illegal state aids by the French and Irish Governments—"Stabiporc" pigs aid in France, and the market development fund aid to mushroom growers in Ireland—and required that they be repaid. I shall let the House know of one or two other anti-fraud cases now in hand.
In one case "high-quality" beef was exported, with high export refunds, from two member states to the United States. The consignment passed customs but was never delivered, because the United States food health authorities declared part of the consignment unhygienic. It was then purchased at a very low price by an associate of the exporters and sent with false health certificates to two other member states as offal, with minimal import duty. After passing through a fifth member state, it was then exported to Africa as high-quality beef, once more with high export refunds. The organisation of the fraud involved companies in four of the member states through which the consignment passed.
Secondly, consignments of butter, sugar and milk powder en route from the Czech Republic to Morocco and Algeria via Spain, with Czech transit documents, were cleared as having reached the Spanish quayside for export, using a fake Spanish customs stamp. In fact they had been sold in various places inside the Community, avoiding import duty of about 20 mecu.
Thirdly, in September 1994 the Commission identified serious irregularities in the compensation paid to hill farmers in Corsica. All payments to Corsica under the heading involved have been suspended while the Commission and the French authorities make further inquiries.
178
Fourthly, a mission to Italy the same month revealed a fraud worth 2 mecu concerning fruit and vegetable processing enterprises and Community funds. Legal proceedings have been opened in Rome. I give those examples, which are merely the latest, to show that at long last the battle against fraud is beginning to make some real headway.
Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Waldegrave: I think that I had better press on, because I am almost at the end of my speech.
At the beginning of my speech I promised to report on the other main agriculture policy events of the year, but I fear that I must do so very briefly.
On farm incomes, as I said earlier, the news remains good. The latest 6.9 per cent. rise in total income from fanning came on top of substantial rises in the previous two years.
Deregulation of the milk industry last autumn has opened up an over-regulated market to real competition. The same is happening with agricultural tenancies, and the Agricultural Tenancies Bill is currently before the House, to the delight of all parties in the industry—almost the only carping voice comes from the Labour party. As for the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, I concluded that we should heed the advice that we received from most people in the industry and keep it. In the latest public expenditure round—a very tough one—we protected research and made no further cut in hill livestock compensatory allowances.
We have secured a 3 per cent. cut in set-aside, while our long-running campaign to ensure that land put into forestry and agri-environmental schemes can count towards set-aside has at last reached the point where firm proposals are on the table. We have widened yet again the range of our domestic agri-environmental schemes, with six new environmentally sensitive areas, a new habitat scheme and a new countryside access scheme. Total expenditure on those schemes will rise to about £100 million by 1996–97. We have also begun the consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment that will lead to a new White Paper on the rural economy later this year.
We have, of course, faced the difficult and emotive issue of live animal transport, which we have debated several times in the House recently and may debate again soon. Work to secure a proper outcome, with the abolition of veal crates and tougher rules on transportation, continues.
It is always rash to say to a farmer that things are going well. When my father was a junior Minister in the Department that I now represent, he had on his desk a cartoon of two farmers leaning on a gate with a sheet of water in front of them. One fanner was saying to the other, "If the floods recede as fast as this we're going to have a very nasty drought on our hands." I have learnt not to say to farmers that things are going well. None the less, they are.
There remain huge tasks ahead of us, above all in securing the change that we need in the CAP and in securing it in an orderly way that does not make life impossible for the industry. But I believe that the Government have every right to ask the House to reject the Opposition amendment, which, incidentally, for the second year running, forgets to mention the words

179
"farmers" and "agriculture", and to endorse our agriculture policies with some pride—pride in what we have achieved, and confidence that our direction for the future is the right one.
5.27 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, to leave out from "measures" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"but believes that the CAP continues to fail consumers, taxpayers, the rural economy and the rural environment and that the Government is not doing enough to make fundamental changes to an unacceptable policy.".
In opening the debate, the Minister rightly said that it has two purposes. It addresses the common agricultural policy price proposals and it is the traditional annual debate that used to follow the old agricultural price review before we joined the European Community. That was essentially a stock-taking exercise and an opportunity for the Minister to defend the price review and the agreements that he had reached with farmers' unions for the year ahead. I intend to treat the debate in the same way.
Like the Minister, I believe that we must accept that Europe is crucial to agricultural policy. All the major strategic decisions are made in Europe, and of the spending on agriculture in this country, expenditure through the framework of the common agricultural policy is about four times the Government's domestic expenditure on agriculture.
The Minister said that the industry is doing relatively well, and I am happy to agree. In fact, that is an understatement because across the industry there has been a significant rise in farm incomes, which we warmly welcome. That rise occurred against the background of the depressed incomes of the 1980s, and I think that most people in the wider community still do not appreciate how badly agriculture did during the 1980s and how much investment was depressed.
The Minister would probably accept that there are still some sectors which, to put it mildly, we would like to see doing better—the pig sector, the fruit sector and the upland sheep farming sector, which are not doing well enough—but returns for cereals and milk, major commodities, and potatoes are very good.
It is important that we continue to understand that the increase in prosperity is not a consequence of the Government's policy—far from it. The major factor in the increased returns for British farmers is what we still rightly call black Wednesday. It all goes back to that debacle in the autumn of 1992 when the Government were humiliated and had to abandon their policy of trying to stay within the ERM. It is important to dwell on that point so that people fully understand what happened. It was fundamental to the long-term prospects for British agriculture, and it explains why many farmers, who may be doing well now, are still uneasy about the future.
The Minister reminded us today that the 1992 MacSharry reforms produced an agreement to cut the cereal price. Other price changes were agreed, but the crucial decision was to cut the intervention price for cereals. To compensate cereal growers for that, direct payments to farmers were to be introduced along with set-aside and farmers were to have an arable payment scheme, which included set-aside payments. In other
180
words, if a farmer had 100 acres of grain, he would get paid so much per acre of grain and so much for the set-aside, the land left fallow.
What happened in the United Kingdom is very different from what was envisaged under MacSharry, and very different from what happened in Germany. In the UK, the increase in the sterling green rate and the devaluation of the pound meant that we did not have a reduction in cereal prices. By and large—I am happy to be corrected on this—it is fair to say that cereal prices in the past two or three years have not changed for UK farmers, although they have, in the main, been above the intervention price.
There has been a huge change in the incomes of growers as a result of the arable and set-aside payments. The effect of the devaluation of the pound was massively to bump up those payments, and that is the crucial factor. Farmers did not experience a price cut and they received much more enhanced compensation payments than had been envisaged at the time of MacSharry.
The arable area payment for England, which began in 1992–1993 at £140 per hectare, increased to £247 per hectare for 1994–95. The set-aside payment in 1992–1993 was £253 per hectare; in 1994–1995 it was £313. There has been a huge increase of money into the cereal sector.
Mr. Marlow: What is the hon. Gentleman's conclusion? Is he saying that farmers are far better off because of white Wednesday, or that farmers should not have the payments?
Dr. Strang: I shall come to that later. I am not saying that price cuts could be made in Europe without some attempt being made to alleviate their short-term effect. What happened in the United Kingdom was totally different from what was intended by the Council of Agricultural Ministers.
Mr. Budgen: I am trying to understand the general drift of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He says that some sectors of agriculture are doing badly and require more investment. Is he offering more public support in the form of taxpayers' money to sectors of agriculture that are complaining? How is that consistent with reducing financial support for the agricultural sector?
Dr. Strang: I shall come to that. [Interruption.] The Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) will not be disappointed when I do.
The massive boost to British agriculture in the past few years is a direct consequence of black Wednesday. The Government cannot claim credit for the increase in farmers' returns because they and previous Conservative Governments have implemented policy changes that have tended to be inimical to British agriculture. I intend to dwell on some of those changes.
Before I do so, I wish to be fair and to describe two exceptions to those changes. The first is the decision to reprieve the agricultural wages boards. The decision to close them was inspired by Tory dogma, and it was opposed by the whole industry. We know from history, however, that that was not necessarily sufficient to ensure that the boards survived. The Minister decided to reprieve the boards, which were of great importance to the Labour party and it would be churlish not to thank the right hon. Gentleman for that decision.
The second exception is in relation to animal welfare. As I have explained, we do not think that the Government have gone far enough, although we had a constructive

181
debate on the Adjournment on a Wednesday morning recently. I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has adjusted the British Government's position on animal welfare, and has moved us towards a more pro-animal welfare position. There is still some way to go, but I welcome that fact.
Mr. Mark Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Strang: Not on the subject of animal welfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will deal with that matter when he speaks. I will not give way on the agriculture wages boards either, as I merely mentioned the two subjects in passing.
I am grateful to the Minister for making available to us the Department's annual review, which is to be published on Thursday. The major event, as it rightly points out, was the decision to deregulate the milk industry after 60 years and to eliminate the milk marketing schemes. The Opposition do not believe that any of the evidence that has emerged since the abolition of the milk marketing boards justifies any alteration in our stance. We opposed the abolition of the boards, and said that—at the very minimum—the Government would have a responsibility to lay down an appropriate structure that would operate in the best interests of the industry.
The Government have abdicated their responsibility, although I know that that decision predates the term in office of the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We are still concerned about the closure of manufacturing capacity, and we see no evidence that the abolition of the milk boards is resulting in an increase in the production of high-value milk products, as the proponents of the changes on the Conservative Back Benches suggested. On the contrary, we are still worried about the reduction in capacity, which is not in the long-term interests of milk producers, although they are benefiting from the sharp price increase that has resulted from deregulation.
Before I move on to the CAP, I want to say a few words about the damage that the Government have done to the long-term prospects of British agriculture by attacking what I would call the public services, expenditure on which has nothing to do with Brussels. It is wholly funded directly by the British Treasury. It is mainly very positive expenditure that brings great benefit not only to farming but to the British people. I refer, for example, to agricultural training.
Anyone who goes about the country and knows anything about agriculture must be aware of the number of people directly involved in agricultural training who have lost their jobs. Expenditure on the agricultural training board has been slashed. The new ATB Landbase is only a pale shadow of the previous board. In 1992–93 the Government spent £6.7 million on the agricultural training boards. In 1994–95 the ATB Landbase contract was for just £4 million.
The state veterinary service—I hope that the Minister will listen to this—has a tremendous history. It has been peopled by some of the most dedicated vets and civil servants in Britain. It is a tremendous asset to the country. It is in the front line. It is not less important but more important now because of the increased risk of animal
182
diseases coming in from central Europe. The Minister nods his head. Let me remind him what the Government have done to the state veterinary service. The number of vets employed by the service has fallen from 580 in 1979 to 403 in 1994—a 30 per cent. cut. We are talking not about money but about real resources. We are talking about what the veterinary service is about—vets.
Instead of fewer state vets, we should have more. I hope that the Minister will abandon the dogma that has bedeviled the service and demoralised vets. We will pay a price for it if we do not reverse the cuts. The price will be a costly one if some major disease that is prevalent in eastern Europe comes into Britain. Such diseases could easily come to Britain through the European Union.
The Agricultural Development Advisory Service is a great service. Colleges in Scotland and the former national agricultural advisory service in England, which became ADAS, served the industry well. Anyone who has spoken to any employee of ADAS will be aware of the destruction and demoralisation of the service by Government dogma and successive cuts. ADAS is a Government service, not a private consultancy. There are plenty of private consultancies about. We are all for them if they can earn a living. ADAS is a Government service that is supposed to help our farmers and give them independent advice, which they do not get from fertiliser companies or compounders. It is supposed to give them advice on all the things that we should encourage farmers to do. It is now required, according to the latest figures, to recover 63 per cent. of its costs from consultancy. The service has been pushed so far down that we do not know what its future is. I hope that the Minister will try to minimise the damage. He will never reverse the cuts, but I hope that he will not go for complete privatisation of ADAS.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) asked the hon. Gentleman about his demands for further expenditure, which he has failed to answer. We have demonstrated how many billions of pounds flow into British agriculture from consumers and taxpayers. The hon. Gentleman says that, on top of all that, we must add further taxpayers' money. Surely an industry with that amount of underpinning and support can pay for its own training.
Dr. Strang: The valuable state expenditure on services such as state vets, of which the Minister has complete control, is being squeezed, but the expenditure that we want to cut has increased since 1979 by 180 per cent. in real terms. That expenditure is under the CAP in the United Kingdom. We want to slash two thirds of it. I shall explain that to the right hon. Gentleman in a few minutes.
Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman damages himself by getting so over-excited. Let us take the example of a dairy farmer—this may be embarrassing to my right hon. Friend the Minister. Since the introduction of milk quotas, dairy farmers have been given a quota under the common agricultural policy that is worth about £2,000 per cow and rising. Some dairy farmers have retired and simply leased the quota. They have found themselves in a comfortable way of life. Such people do not need further subsidy so that their cowmen can be trained at the expense of the taxpayer, do they?
Dr. Strang: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to digress for too long, but I shall make two points

183
about quotas. First, the United Kingdom share of the total European Union milk quota is too small—I shall not go on about the increases that were given to Italy and Spain, for which I have already criticised the Government and I do not accept the Minister's defence—not because we do not have enough quota to meet our needs but because we are a relatively efficient producer of milk.
Quotas were introduced because there was a surplus of milk as a result of the CAP market support arrangements. We want those arrangements not merely tinkered with but eliminated. Intervention buying of skimmed milk powder and butter still occurs on the continent. Surely the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) understands that. We must have quotas because we have an overarching policy that drives up the price of milk and milk products, whether or not it can be justified by the market.
Mr. Budgen: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that to most people outside the House the common agricultural policy is an utter nonsense and distortion. The hon. Gentleman looks at each point at which some slight reduction in state aid has taken place. He describes such reductions as a gross scandal and as taking the bread from an impoverished section of the community. We are meant to regard farmers in the same way as single mothers in a deprived area of Bristol or Wolverhampton. That is rubbish. The more that we examine the hon. Gentleman's proposals, the more it is obvious that he wants a great deal more money to be spent on agriculture.
Dr. Strang: I think I know what this is about. I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman is one of the Euro-sceptics. I have a document here entitled "Not a penny more". The hon. Gentleman's name is not on it, but two of his leading hon. Friends' names are on it. The document is clear. It makes a frontal attack on the CAP. It says:
"Under the Common Agricultural Policy only £40 out of every £100 reaches them. The rest of the agricultural subsidy is swallowed up by fraud, bureaucracy and huge food surpluses which are dumped on world markets at give-away prices."
I intend to make a proposal that will end that.
If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is to be true to the position that he has taken and vote accordingly, he should vote for our amendment. That also applies to his hon. Friends. They do not agree with me on most things, partly because I am Labour and they are Tory; everyone in the House of Commons knows that. We now understand that all these interventions are an attempt to justify the Euro-sceptics' intention not to vote in the way in which they have argued for the past few months.
The most important cuts are the slashing of expenditure on research and development. I accept that all the cuts took place before the right hon. Gentleman became Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The former Agriculture and Food Research Council has been replaced by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. The number of scientists was cut by 41 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1993–94. If we examine expenditure on research commissioned by the Ministry, we can see that Government-funded agricultural research and development has been slashed. We shall pay a long-term price for that. One of the reasons why we have had such a buoyant and successful agriculture industry over the past few decades is because of the investment that we have been prepared to make in that area.
184
I am disappointed by the way in which the Minister sought to present the figures for expenditure on the CAP and, as a consequence, I shall say a little more about them. In 1978–79 CAP expenditure in the UK was £337 million, and the projected figure for 1995–96 is £2,873 million—an increase of 180 per cent. in real terms. I take the year 1995–96 because the price proposals that we are discussing relate to the coming agricultural year. o suggest that there is some great success story here is misleading.
I shall give one or two more statistics that I had not intended to give, because we must nail this matter. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but he said that the 1994 outturn of the total European Union agricultural budget is lower than the 1993 outturn. In reality, total expenditure under the CAP has been ratcheted up year in, year out. I shall quote one or two statistics that I have converted into sterling from ecus. They are rough figures and I am prepared to concede plus or minus 10 per cent. The total CAP expenditure in 1980 was just over £7,000 million; in 1985, it was just over £12,000 million; in 1990, it was just over £19,000 million; and in 1994, it was just over £30,000 million. That 1994 figure is projected; the actual outturn may be somewhat lower. Even if the 1994 figure were just £27,000 million, it is still a huge ball-park increase. The projected figure for 1995 is more than £30,000 million.
Mr. Waldegrave: There is nothing more sterile than bickering about statistics, but they are important, as the hon. Gentleman says. Between 1974 and 1979, expenditure from FEOGA increased by 61 per cent. in real terms. Between 1974 and 1979, expenditure from FEOGA increased by 38 per cent. in real terms.
Dr. Strang: My final quote is from a letter for which I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). The Minister's figures are flawed and I shall come back to them. The letter, dated 6 February, was from the Minister to my hon. Friend, and it said:
"You request confirmation of the rate of increase in CAP expenditure between 1991–92 and 1995–96. Expenditure at 1991 was 31.9 billion ecu"—
so let us say 32 billion ecu, to round it up—
"while the 1995 CAP budget has been set at 37.9 billion ecu"—
so we could say roughly 38 billion ecu, an increase of 6 billion ecu. [Interruption.] Those are huge figures. Do not hon. Members realise that the expenditure was a fraction of that a number of years ago? The right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) sought to argue in his letter that that was no longer a problem and that CAP expenditure was under control.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): Oh, no.
Dr. Strang: Oh, yes. That is the impression that he sought to give.
Mr. Waldegrave rose—
Dr. Strang: If the right hon. Gentleman is about to qualify that, I shall be delighted.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am not about to qualify it other than to say that that is not what I said at all. I pointed out—the oil tanker is shifting—that there was a 61 per cent. increase in real terms under Labour and a 38 per

185
cent. increase over the whole period of this Government. What is significant is that between 1988 and 1994, it has increased by only 1 per cent., so the change is moving in the right direction.
Dr. Strang: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might like to rephrase that.
Dr. Strang: I accept that he is inadvertently misleading the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The use of the word "misleading" is not acceptable.
Dr. Strang: No problem; I withdraw it.
I do not dispute the increase in expenditure between 1974 and 1979. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) pointed out, that was a period of transition. I do not say that it was satisfactory, but we were moving from not being in the CAP to being fully in it. I challenge the Minister's figures for the real-terms increase in CAP spending, but he may have tried to exclude some countries and compensate for the enlargement of the European Union. If so, he should say so.
Mr. Waldegrave indicated dissent.
Dr. Strang: Let me move on.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman help the House by saying exactly where his figures come from?
Dr. Strang: My figures have only two sources: first, Government documents—the Government publish figures not just on their own spending but on European Union spending—and most of the figures that I quoted are from that source, including the letter from the Minister of State; secondly, the last two figures that I gave are from a European Union document and I converted those from ecus to sterling.
Mr. Waldegrave: I have given the hon. Gentleman and the House figures derived from the Ministry in good faith, and I believe that they are right. If, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's amateur arithmetic, he turns out to have accused me wrongly—he backed down from accusing me of misleading the House only under pressure—will he apologise to me?
Dr. Strang: If the figures that the right hon. Gentleman gave are a fair representation of what has happened in relation to CAP expenditure, of course I shall apologise. I cannot understand this exchange because everyone sitting in this House of Commons knows that CAP expenditure has increased massively in the past few years. There is no dispute about that.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is slowing down.
Dr. Strang: It has slowed down for only one year. Even the hon. Lady must understand that the MacSharry proposals reduced the price effect of the CAP on the continent—less in the UK because of devaluation—but it did not alter the cost of the CAP to the taxpayer. On the
186
contrary, MacSharry would always have increased the cost of the CAP to the taxpayer and everyone acknowledged that at the time.
I am happy to make it clear that the Labour party wants an end to state intervention buying of agricultural commodities. We want an end to subsidising agricultural exports, which is some two thirds of CAP expenditure. The Minister spoke a great deal about fraud. Anyone who knows anything about fraud knows that the vast bulk of it derives from surpluses and the huge quantities of agricultural produce in store. Above all, it derives from the huge payments that are made to traders when they move produce across international frontiers. Interestingly, the examples of fraud that the right hon. Gentleman gave all related to the payment of export refunds and some related to agricultural commodities that had been taken into intervention. I emphasise that we want an end to that system of market support. We do not want an end to supporting our agricultural industry, but intervention buying and export subsidies should go.
I want to deal with the relationship between those subsidies and fraud, because if we ended that relationship we would tackle fraud. I must ask the House to put up with a long, important quotation from the head of the division of the audit guarantee section of FEOGA. He is a senior official of the Court of Auditors and is involved in the audit of all the market support money in relation to the CAP. He gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, which, like our own Select Committee on Agriculture, provides a lot of valuable information to everyone interested in agriculture. That senior official was interviewed about fraud and he said:
"Another example deals with agricultural expenditure. When considering export refunds (the export refund total amount this year would be about 8–10 billion ecu, which is substantial) the background of spending this money is the surplus of agricultural production in the European Community. To simplify, you could say that one wants to get rid of those surpluses; of course, not at any cost, but the Commission is pushing to get rid of the surpluses. Now we go in the same direction: the Commission wants to get rid of the surpluses; the Member States try to execute a policy to pay for the export refund; and the beneficiaries, the traders or manufacturers, play their role. It all gears into the same direction: spending the money. Of course, it does not mean that all traders would manipulate it. Not all transactions are fraud, but the problem is you create a kind of climate where, let us say, a little bit of a fiddle is more or less accepted. One should not be too critical of the traders because it could hamper trade; it could make it difficult to get rid of the surpluses. In such a climate you stimulate fraud, and that is a structural problem."
Let me repeat that final sentence:
"In such a climate you stimulate fraud, and that is a structural problem."
The Minister may appoint as many bureaucrats as he likes to tackle fraud and we may have all the satellite surveillance to which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) referred, but one will never end that fraud when such huge subsidies are paid on large volumes of produce that are traded across international frontiers. That is why the Opposition believe that we should get rid of agricultural export subsidies and state intervention buying. The Opposition have enunciated that policy for some time.
The Government's motion takes the biscuit. After all the fraud and the record of wasteful expenditure, it calls on the House to congratulate

187
"the Government on its robust negotiating stance on the Common Agricultural Policy since 1979, its leading role in achieving reform of the CAP, its continuing pressure for further radical reform"
and so on. That is an insult to the intelligence of the House. That is a criticism not of the right hon. Gentleman but of his predecessors. We all remember what his predecessor but one, now Secretary of State for the Environment, said when the Labour party attacked the MacSharry reforms as being hopelessly inadequate. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) he said:
"The hon. Gentleman has not grasped the fact that British Ministers have won their battles in the European Community and that the CAP reform is designed on what Britain wanted. There was no single major element of our negotiating list that we failed to secure in those negotiations."—[Official Report, 25 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 1228.]
That is what the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said less than two years ago.
What about the current Minister's immediate predecessor, now Secretary of State for Education? As I said last year, she had a great reputation as the voice of the Norfolk barley barons in the Agriculture Council. She tinkered with and argued about little concessions on set-aside, but made not the slightest attempt to reform the CAP radically.
The right hon. Gentleman has been in office for only a few months. He has appointed a committee of intelligent men and women—no doubt they are enlightened people—to consider the CAP. We will need a lot more than that if we are to tackle the enormity of the wasteful expenditure inherent in the CAP.
The Opposition's amendment to the motion is quite clear, because it states:
"that the CAP continues to fail consumers … and that the Government is not doing enough"
to change it. I have spelt out the radical changes that we would like to be made to the CAP, so the choice is clear. I urge this honourable House to vote for our amendment.
6.4 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) is right that the terms of the Opposition amendment are clear. But what did he say in his speech, which lasted for about 40 minutes, about how the Opposition propose to reform the CAP? I made a few notes of his speech and although he argued that radical reform was necessary, his only attempt at reform was to launch a diatribe on fraud.
We all agree that fraud should be tackled, but the hon. Gentleman devoted the rest of his speech to an arcane argument about various figures and criticised the Government for abolishing the Agricultural Trading Board, the state veterinary service and so on. My hon. Friends and I had expected the hon. Gentleman to provide us with some details of what the Opposition propose to do to reform the CAP—some of my hon. Friends might even have agreed with him. Apart from his attack on fraud, however, we were not offered one Opposition reform.
Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend is rather unfair. Surely it is plain that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) proposed to make the CAP even more expensive. He offered considerable aid from the taxpayer to large sections of the agricultural community, many of which are doing quite well.
Mr. Atkinson: I agree entirely.
In recent months, we have had several debates on agriculture. Farmers throughout the country will listen to today's debate and I am sure that they thought that they would, at last, learn about what the Opposition propose for British farming. I suspect that other hon. Members are as baffled as I am about the Opposition's intentions.
The Government deserve congratulations on what they have done to turn the titanic CAP around. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is early days."] I accept that, but the farming community can live with the Government's measured approach. We marched the farming sector up the hill in 1947 to make it farm in a particular way, so if, towards the end of the century, we are to march it down again, we must do it in a way that does not bankrupt farmers and ruin British agriculture. Farm incomes have improved and although not all sectors of farming are prosperous, farmers have been able to invest properly to restructure in order to face the full rigours of moving closer to the world market in future years.
The Government deserve credit, because my right hon. Friend has done a great deal to make the CAP more workable and has made it easier for farmers to adjust to the new regime.
It will be enormously complicated for British farming to move closer to world market prices. The proposed United States Farm Bill is important because we must be aware of what is happening in other parts of the world. GATT has become much more significant to Britain, in addition to the CAP, so we can no longer say that we are alone in Europe. We must bear in mind overseas pressures and the further developments in other countries.
Agra Europe magazine has considered the implications of the United States Farm Bill. If the Republican Senate is successful in removing set-aside from American farms, the amount of cereals produced in America will increase to such an extent that it could lead to 25 per cent. of British cereal farmers going out of business. British agriculture must be in a strong position to face such world competition.
One issue on which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East did not dwell, on which I hoped that he would dwell more fully, was that of hill farms, which is important for me as I have a hill farming constituency. He did talk for a second about the problems that confront hill farmers, of which there are many, but he did not discuss the issue of animal welfare and animal exports; he said that he would leave it to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who will sum up for the Opposition. That issue is of extreme importance to hill farmers and livestock farmers because any unilateral decision to do anything about the export of animals or the transport of animals will have a devastating effect on their income.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) asked what would happen if a great many dairy bulls came on to the market to be raised for meat. He called them horrible Holsteins, which I think is extremely unfair, but it gives an idea of the problems that could confront hill farmers who rear, as it were, proper beef, in all those markets if those dairy bulls were not exported and instead came on to the market to be fattened. That is of enormous significance to hill farmers, yet not a word did we hear about what the Labour party proposed to do about that.
Mr. Streeter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) said three times during his speech that he would come to a certain issue later, and failed each time to get anywhere near that issue?
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Surely he always does that.
Mr. Atkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), and that is why I was disappointed with the speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. He was very good. He whizzed around the Dispatch Box and shouted and became quite excited at one stage, but we did not hear that he proposed to do anything radical.
Mr. Gill: I am grateful that my hon. Friend listened to my intervention in the Minister's speech. Does he recognise that the fact that so many of those animals are undesirable for the beef industry, and much else that goes on in the agricultural industry, is as a result of the regime? It is not as a result of a farmer taking a proper commercial decision in terms of supplying a real market or of supplying a customer. So much of the decision-making by the farmer is influenced by the intervention regime and the common agricultural policy, rather than by the customer. We have to return to consideration of the customer.
Mr. Atkinson: I agree entirely with that. I believe that we cannot get to where my hon. Friend wants to go, which is where I think that most Conservative Members want to go, unless we do it in a slow and measured way. That is why I argue in support of the Government and the way in which they have tried to restructure the common agricultural policy; I hope and believe that that is the way to get to where the hon. Gentleman wants to go.
Repatriation was mentioned by one of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Back Benches. I believe that a repatriation of those decisions would be extremely damaging for British farming. Although it is superficially attractive, it would succeed in closing off an important market, especially an important export market for livestock, which is important to hill farmers such as those in my constituency.
Mr. Budgen: That depends, does it not, on the overall relationship that we are likely to achieve with Europe if we achieve, at the next intergovernmental conference, a significant loosening in our relations with the European Union. We hope that we will be able to loosen the common agricultural policy and at the same time retain our right to trade with the countries in the European Union. The hill farmers in my hon. Friend's constituency should be all right in a well-negotiated settlement of that type.
Mr. Atkinson: I am always rather worried about giving way to the hon. Gentleman because I know that he will lob something complex at me, as I suspect that he has done this time. Currently, as far as hill farmers or livestock farmers throughout the United Kingdom are concerned, the European Community is an important source of exports, one hopes of deadstock, but also of some livestock. Therefore I fear that to move to a policy of repatriation would erect more barriers to free trade because other European Union countries such as France and Spain would spend more money subsidising their agriculture than the United Kingdom would and therefore we would be at a competitive disadvantage.
Mr. Marlow: I am sorry. My hon. Friend is a very intelligent man, but he has been misled by our right hon. Friend the Minister.
Mr. Tyler: Misled!
Mr. Marlow: I apologise. I withdraw that remark. He has drawn the wrong conclusion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw it formally.
Mr. Marlow: I have certainly formally withdrawn it. I am afraid that my hon. Friend has drawn the wrong conclusions from what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. There is this great fear that, if we had a level playing field in Europe—if we traded in agricultural commodities, as in everything else in Europe, without let or hindrance—the other Europeans would subsidise what we would not subsidise. The fact is that at the moment we make a net contribution of £3 billion to the European Community each year. If we were not part of the common agricultural policy, we would be able to keep £2 billion of that cash in our own pockets. That would be more than enough to keep our farmers in the way to which they have become accustomed.
Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the word, "misleading" an unparliamentary word, because it does—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the question. [Interruption.] Order, the question was quite clear. The answer, in the context in which it was given, is yes.
Mr. Atkinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am obviously becoming a target for a different debate. It brings me to my last argument, because I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
We must continue to push for reform of the common agricultural policy because, by the end of the century, we must allow our farming industry to become more ready to meet the world market that it has to meet.
Listening to my hon. Friends firing shots at me about Europe, I am reminded of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said. He said, in an appeal to Members on the Conservative side of the House, that perhaps they should vote for the Labour amendment. When he said that, it revealed the intention behind the amendment because it is not about British farming; it is not about a Labour policy for British agriculture. It is trying to set a little snare—if that is not an unfashionable word, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to catch a few votes from the Conservative side of the House in order to make some cheap party political points in the debate that will follow tonight. I believe that such a serious debate about the future of British agriculture should be treated more seriously by members of the Opposition.
6.16 pm
Mr. George Stevenson: The hallmarks of the European Commission proposals that we are debating are complacency in action and chronic uncertainty. Having listened to the Secretary of State's speech, I am afraid that the Government appear to have taken the same attitude. However, while we have that

191
complacency, inaction and uncertainty we have remorseless cost increases. I shall return to that subject later.
The 1995–96 price proposals from the Commission are best described as the "no change proposals". Nothing is proposed for the sugar regime; nothing is proposed about milk quotas; nothing is proposed about beef; nothing is proposed about sheep; nothing is proposed about wine. One could go on and on. Yet we are asked by the Government to give our support to the general thrust of the Commission's proposals.
We have here a classic European Commission ploy. It paints a rosy picture overall, but when one gets down to the detail and the fundamentals of the position confronting us, one obtains a different picture altogether.
Indeed, so complacent is the Commission—and, apparently, the Government—that it says in the documentation that accompanies the proposals that it has no intention of promoting further fundamental reform. I find that staggering. It is, at the very least, a cause of disappointment that the Secretary of State did not even mention tonight the fact that apparently the European Commission has no intention of making further fundamental reform. In other words, he was saying that the MacSharry reforms were successful—I do not really think that there is a Member of the House who would accept that—and that that is the basis on which agriculture in the European Community should proceed into the next century. That is not only nonsense, but very dangerous nonsense.
The Secretary of State spent some time discussing agricultural issues in his speech. He mentioned consumers and I will check Hansard to establish whether he mentioned taxpayers. However, I am absolutely sure that during his 45-minute speech—even taking into account interventions—he did not once mention rural areas. That is a significant omission to which I shall return later.
It is apparent to everyone—except presumably the Commission and Her Majesty's Government—that, if for no reason other than the future enlargement of the European Union, the CAP as it is presently structured simply cannot survive. That very important point must be underlined in the debate. I agreed with the Secretary of State when he said that the current CAP proposals represent a serious lost opportunity.
The issue of cost has so far occupied much time during the debate. The Commission's attitude towards CAP costs, speeches by Government Ministers, and documentation and letters that hon. Members have received from the Ministry reveal that the agricultural guidelines, of which much mention has been made, started out as a mechanism for exercising at least some control over the runaway costs of common agricultural expenditure. It was thought that, allied with other instruments, it would be an effective means of exercising some control.
The agricultural guidelines were viewed in that way for the first few years of their existence. Although I believe that they are far too generous, they were set in the main by member states who had a vested interest in ensuring that they were set at a high enough level so as not to prevent the remorseless increases in agricultural expenditure.
I suspect—and everything that Government spokesmen have said justifies my concern—that the agricultural guidelines have shifted from being a control mechanism
192
to being viewed as a target. No matter what we do, if we stay within the agricultural guidelines we are okay. Thus, by some magical wave of the wand, agricultural expenditure is "controlled". That appears to be the European Commission's attitude and the Government have swallowed it whole. I intend to produce information to substantiate that claim.
According to that logic, massive cost increases are justified if they fall within the outrageously generous guidelines. People emanate smug satisfaction when they say, "Why do you criticise increases in CAP expenditure when we are within the guidelines?"—guidelines which are extremely generous and which I suspect are being treated as a target. The Government have adopted the Commission's view and I believe that we should challenge it.
Mr. Paul Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect a little on his own experience in the European Court. He knows that our Minister is responsible for only a small amount of the annual expenditure on agriculture in this country and that any reductions in expenditure elsewhere must be arranged in co-operation with our European partners. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could draw on his experience and, rather than criticising the current arrangements, tell us how the Minister could constructively arrange a better deal than the present one.
Mr. Stevenson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and I will return to that point later in my contribution. However, I must set the record straight: I have never been a member of the European Court; nor have I appeared before it. Unfortunately, the Government hold the record for the number of times that they have been dragged before the European Court over a variety of issues.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) recognises that we must not be fooled by the siren voices which say: first, agricultural expenditure is under control when it clearly is not; and, secondly, because it is within the guidelines, it is all right. We must challenge those views and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in doing so.
Mr. Gill: Is the hon. Gentleman confident that his views will be supported by other Agriculture Ministers in the Community? In asking that question, I am mindful of the words of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer in this place who said that, when he raised the question of fraud in the Economic and Finance Council, everyone reached for their newspapers; they were not interested in reducing the amount of money that is lost through fraudulent practices.
Mr. Stevenson: I am not sure what support my views may enjoy among other members of the European Community. I have not yet tested my views to that extent; although I floated them during my term in the European Parliament. I am not even sure whether my views have widespread support on these shores. However, I am certain that the present British Government's attitude stands no chance of gaining the support necessary to secure fundamental reform of the common agricultural

193
policy. While the attitude of smug satisfaction prevails, the consumer and the taxpayer will continue to be subjected to financial mugging.
Mr. Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stevenson: No, I would like to make a little progress. How are the Government responding to the situation? I would describe their response as nothing short of incredible. The Government motion refers to the Government's
"determination to ensure that EU agricultural spending is effectively restrained".
It goes on to say that the House should note that
"UK farm incomes rose by 6.9 per cent. over the last year".
The implication of the latter claim is that Government policy was responsible, through some mechanism, for that rise in UK farm incomes. If the Minister intends to say in his reply to the debate that farm incomes have increased as a result of Government policy rather than the disaster of black Wednesday and devaluation, I shall be interested to hear his reasons. The claim that the Government have "effectively restrained" expenditure beggars belief.
Many statistics have been cited in the debate so far and I do not wish to add to them. In a letter to me, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has referred already, the Minister sells the pass. Between 1991–92—the year in which the MacSharry reforms were agreed—and 1995, agricultural expenditure increased by 6 billion ecu. That works out at about £4.5 billion. I do not understand how the Government can claim that they embarked on policies that "effectively restrained" agricultural expenditure in light of their own figures which show that the cost of the common agricultural policy increased by 25 per cent. over three or four years. According to the report published by MAFF, CAP costs will continue to increase. So not only do we face massive current increases, but, by the Government's own admission, we shall face even greater increases.
I should like for a moment to examine the Government's plans as set out in the MAFF report to which I referred. According to that report, United Kingdom expenditure on agriculture is due to increase by £466 million next year to a figure approaching £2.9 billion. The report states quite openly that most of the increased costs are due to devaluation. The term used was "currency alignment", but it comes down to devaluation. That devaluation has been responsible for increases in farmers' incomes over the past year or two.
If those costs result mainly from devaluation, I wonder what will happen to them as a result of the current turmoil in the European Union monetary markets. In recent months, there have been further devaluations and crises in the exchange rate mechanism. Those factors affect costs, therefore, when he replies to the debate, can the Minister give us some idea of what the additional costs will be as a result of devaluations over recent months?
Between 1990 and 1997, the Government expect United Kingdom expenditure on the CAP to increase by no less than £1.2 billion—so much for restraining expenditure. The motion is nonsense. The facts simply do not bear out the Government's claims. I know that that has not stopped hon. Members supporting the Government in the past, but I hope that on this occasion they do not fly
194
in the face of the facts as presented and support the motion. We have heard much talk about fraud tonight. I believe that the Government motion is equally fraudulent.
There have been other changes in agriculture to which the Secretary of State referred. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East in welcoming some of those changes, but let us not be blind to the other changes and retreats by the Government over recent years that have disadvantaged British agriculture.
The arable area payments and the direct income support are skewed in favour of small producers—in other words, they are against the interests of the larger more efficient producers in the United Kingdom. The sheep premium agreement, which imposed a limit of 500 in lowland and 1,000 in less-favoured areas, affected British flocks because of their relative size. The sugar quota regime continues to be a scandal. The milk quota regime is another example, whereby in 1984 the Government enacted to the letter a swingeing 9 per cent. cut in quota when countries such as Italy never implemented their quota. The beef premium, which imposed a 90-head limit, and the livestock unit restrictions were against the best interests of United Kingdom agriculture and, of course, the common fisheries policy has been mentioned already.
I now turn to the point to which the intervention by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) referred.
Mr. Marland: I simply want to put the record straight. I did not mean that the hon. Gentleman had been a member of the European Court but a member of the European Parliament and I was hoping that his experience in that role would prove useful in this afternoon's debate.
Mr. Stevenson: I realise that the hon. Gentleman was trying to make a useful intervention, and I am grateful to him.
We need to recognise that the 1992 reforms are at best misnamed. They were forced on the European Community by budgetary crises and the GATT negotiations. Inevitably, the future will force on us further reforms, but they will be for different reasons. There is no doubt that unless firm action is taken, there will be budgetary problems. Not only will we have to consider the budgetary problems and the results of the GATT requirements, but there will also be enlargement issues, particularly involving eastern Europe.
Any future reform must take a number of issues fully into account. First, there are inherent contradictions in the common agricultural policy that recent changes simply have not addressed. How can we be engaged in a policy that tries to equate growing olives in Greece with producing milk in Staffordshire? It is clearly a contradiction, so much greater flexibility needs to be brought into the system.
Repatriation has been mentioned. I am not arguing for repatriation, but for much greater flexibility so that we can remove some of the contradictions that are inherent in the common agricultural policy. Mention has been made of subsidiarity. What is wrong with greater flexibility that brings with it greater subsidiarity?
The second consideration that is absolutely essential in any future renegotiation of the reform of the CAP is that agriculture is an important industry; it is extremely important for our rural areas and rural communities.

195
However, it is only one factor; many other aspects of our rural areas and communities must be taken into account, not least, of course, the environment.
Three points need to be taken fully into account. First, flexibility is not just desirable, but essential because it is clear that if we continue down the present path, as outlined by the MacSharry reforms, United Kingdom agriculture efficiently operated will increasingly face problems.
Secondly, agriculture support needs to be decoupled from production and we should be removing the artificial restrictions imposed by quotas. Thirdly, agriculture policy should be seen as part of a wider rural policy. We should no longer accept that if agriculture is doing okay, then by some magical definition our rural communities are doing all right. We have enough evidence that that is simply not so.
According to the Government, farm incomes have increased by 6.9 per cent. over the past year, yet our rural communities continue to decline. Therefore, agriculture support must be seen as part of a wider rural policy framework.
It is now time to lay the foundations for that reform so that we can secure the future. The European Union will be enlarged and that enlargement will not bring not only opportunities but immense challenges, and potentially serious problems. Unless we are prepared to challenge the complacency of the Commission which sees fit to argue that no further fundamental reform of the CAP is required, that future will be compromised to the detriment of us all.
6.29 pm
Sir Ralph Howell: Attacking the common agricultural policy is a popular sport, but I do not intend to play it. I welcome the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister, who said that the CAP is an integral part of the European Union and will remain so. It must remain. However, there is no doubt that changes are necessary. In the context of my constituency, it is obvious that we should not be penalised by having to reduce our sugar beet acreage when Britain is nowhere near self-sufficient in sugar. Neither should milk production be reduced when this country has a big shortfall. Both issues must be pursued with vigour. Some way must also be found of helping our pig industry, which is in serious trouble. It is wrong for Britain to be importing so much pigmeat.
I was concerned when my right hon. Friend the Minister described the CAP as a monster. Perhaps it needs controlling, but I will return to that point later. I was worried most by my right hon. Friend's reference to cutting prices. The European Union is fortunate in having ample food at reasonable prices. The cost of the CAP is often attacked. In the 1960s, as I said in my intervention, we spent 1 per cent. of our gross domestic product on support for agriculture. The figure subsequently fell, but it was always more than half of 1 per cent. until we joined the European Community. The figure is now less than half of 1 per cent. The people who imply that, if Britain left the CAP, agriculture would not have to be supported have got it wrong and they are being mischievous.
In 1960, the people of Britain spent 25 per cent. of their net disposable income on food. That figure has regularly decreased and today it is only 10 per cent. We spend less
196
on food than any other EU member state and about the same as the Americans—but their GDP per head of the population is higher.
Mr. Budgen: When a country enjoys a long period of peace and steady, albeit irregular, growth it is bound to spend less on food and more on other consumer items. My hon. Friend merely points out the advantages of economic progress.
Sir Ralph Howell: My hon. Friend makes an interesting comment. This country has enjoyed 50 years of peace and prosperity, and the common agricultural policy probably did more to bring that about than NATO. The CAP was the first policy adopted by the six original members of the EEC. One purpose of being generous to the small farmers and to the peasant population of Europe was to stave off the threat of communism which was about to sweep across the whole of Europe at that time. By being generous to the small farmers, especially those who were working for firms such as Volkswagen and continued to live in the rural areas, communism was checked and did not get a hold in France, Germany and Italy. When the history of that period is written, the CAP will be held responsible for that success.
The fact that there have been no food queues in the EC when people east of the iron curtain were suffering from shortages of all basic foodstuffs is also a great success story, and it is about time that somebody said so.More misinformation is put around on this subject than any other, especially by the Eurosceptics or Euroseptics—I am not sure which it should be. The claim has been made that the CAP costs every British family £28 per week, but there is no substance in that or in the OECD report itself, which gave a figure of £20 per head. I challenged the Treasury, which does not seem to be very good at figures these days.
Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend is attacking everybody. He must try to find some friends.
Sir Ralph Howell: The other day, a Treasury Minister said that the CAP was costing every family £28 a week. That was too much for me to tolerate, so I went to see him. By the time I arrived, he had reduced the figure to £20 a week—and by the time I had finished with him, he had cut it to £15. But even that is not the right figure. The true UK and EU subsidy amounts to less than £3 per family per week. Part of the rest is supposed to be accounted for by food prices rising more rapidly than they would otherwise, but there is no proof of that either.
Mr. Waldegrave: Someone said from a sedentary position that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell) does not have any friends, but that is not true: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North in giving a strong health warning about such figures. They are all based on the idea that world prices would not change if agricultural support were abolished in Europe, which presumably that would not happen without its also being abolished also in America. World prices would be unpredictable, but they would almost certainly be much higher.
Sir Ralph Howell: I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments. There is no such thing as a world price of food or of wheat. Nobody can give one. The fictitious figure of £20 a week was calculated on the basis of wheat at £50 per tonne, which was available for a short period

197
from Australia. The world cannot live on wheat at £50 per tonne. We would all starve if that policy were adopted. We should consider the issue in a more logical and sensible way. Thorough research should be undertaken to arrive at a cost figure for the CAP which stands up and is not merely guesswork. The people who are trying to damage Britain being in Europe are making great play of the cost of the CAP, and it is time that the Government put some effort into making the true facts known.
6.48 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: As a number of hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not go over old ground but will try to break new ground. I accept the Minister's point that this debate is our annual opportunity to review agriculture and the future of the common agricultural policy. I agree with the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that there is a need to examine not only the European environment but the world context. I know that the Minister and others had some innocent fun at my expense when I spent some time with members of both Houses of Congress to discuss this very question. It is extremely important to open up discussions across the Atlantic. What happens to American agriculture is just as important to British farmers as ensuring that our continental competitors are not given an unfair advantage over us.
I agreed with hon. Members who have said that the so-called repatriation of agricultural policy would be a misguided step, not just for British agriculture but for the British countryside. I accept that in the past year there has been a modest overall increase of 4.4 per cent. in agricultural incomes. But some parts of the industry have not benefited to that extent, and it is important to recognise the difficulties that they have faced. For some of them it is a bit early to start celebrating just because they have progressed from near disaster to mere crisis. Even more unfortunately, some of the recovery happened because of black Wednesday: it had nothing to do with what the Government have done—the recovery has been despite what the Government have done.
The reform of the CAP has to take place at two levels. Strategically, we must try to persuade our colleagues around the table in the European Union that reform is inevitable, necessary and desirable, and we must maintain that pressure. That much is agreed throughout the House. That is the long-term goal. As the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends states, however, in the shorter term there are things that we can do in this country and it is important to think about that aspect today as part of the review of what is happening in the industry.
In the short term, there can be no doubt that MAFF is making a right old pig's ear of its implementation of the CAP. Compared with those in other member states, our farmers are all too often uniquely burdened by bureaucracy and entangled in red tape. Even when they can find a way through the administrative jungle there is always some ministerial ineptitude waiting to trip them up—delayed payments, lost forms, and so on. In short, all too often Ministers have made good measures bad, and bad measures worse.
Mr. Streeter: How would the Liberal Democrat proposal for a countryside management contract help with
198
red tape and bureaucracy? What the hon. Gentleman is really suggesting is that local authorities should have a say in what farmers can and cannot do. Will that not burden them even further?
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. He is always a bit premature and he is particularly so today. If he will be patient, I shall come to that point.
The three watchwords for any improvement must clearly be reform, simplification and targeting. We must certainly reform the unnecessary regulations which have been imposed—uniquely—in this country and which have put our farmers at a competitive disadvantage. Reforms must simplify the elements of EU legislation which have been taken in comparatively simple form from Brussels and have been expanded as they passed through the Whitehall mincing machine until they have become unintelligible and largely unmanageable. The Government must target resources at specific, good-value objectives, whereas up till now they have squandered cash and imposed inadequate controls.
Rural policy objectives of the right sort are widely supported inside and outside the House. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), representing an urban constituency, is perhaps not aware of the support in all the agricultural organisations—the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and others—for reform measures of direct benefit to the environment and the rural economy. Across parties we should aim for a common rural policy. Clearly we must enable the farmer to have some real flexibility and choice—hence our idea of the countryside management contracts.
Parts of the industry have had a particularly difficult time in the past 12 or 24 months. The hon. Member for Hexham shares my concern about hill farmers. Over the past few years the hill livestock compensatory allowances have been reduced by one third, so hill farmers have been especially hard hit. The annual statement that the Minister put before us today states that the incomes of hill livestock farmers are expected to fall in 1994–95. They have already fallen in the past few years, and they will be falling again. That causes widespread concern in the House. Incidentally, the same statement makes it clear that the incomes of lowland livestock farmers in England and Wales are expected to drop in 1994–95. There will also be an impact from the livestock problems that were mentioned earlier.
All this comes at a time when the public are clamouring for more targeted investment in our uplands and hills, to maintain the landscape and to ensure that it is properly farmed. That is the sort of targeted investment that the public are anxious to preserve; yet these are the very payments that have been cut. Instead of maintaining a vibrant and living landscape, attractive to man and beast alike, many areas are being reduced to semi-dereliction.
When I challenged the Minister of State in Committee over the HLCA cuts in real terms, he said that I had not taken into account off-farm incomes. Perhaps he can explain today what he meant, but I hope that he has subsequently noted how his suggestion has been laughed out of court by the industry. There are not a great many openings for hill farmers to become ice cream salesmen, for instance. The hon. Member for Hexham will know that there are not many diversification opportunities in his constituency. It therefore seems absurd to build such a calculation into the equation for the first time.
Mr. Jack: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I want to make it abundantly clear that, when speaking about non-farm income—not off-farm income—I in no way implied that when hill farmers' incomes are calculated and the HLCAs are determined that type of income is taken into account; it is misleading of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that such a formula is being followed, because it is not.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear, but his comments in Committee have been widely misunderstood, as he will have seen in the farming press. He said in Committee—I hope that he will be careful about what he says today—that whenever farm incomes go up, the HLCAs will fall, as happened in the past two years. But whenever hill farm incomes drop—I note that the hon. Member for Hexham is nodding—there is no compensating increase. So for the hill farmers it is, "Heads you win, tails we lose."
MAFF is all too eager to save a penny or two when such cuts can be made, and the Chancellor can get the princely sum of £30 million—very small in terms of the overall agricultural budget. This is a gesture by the Ministry to display its financial rectitude to its colleagues—a small fish thrown to the sharks. For many comparatively small and vulnerable farm businesses, however, it represents the difference between viability and bankruptcy.
The pig sector has been mentioned already, and I should like to spend a moment on the subject. It, too, has been subjected to the most bizarre treatment. When Ministers decided to ban sow stalls and tethers, they claimed that they had examined each area of the UK to see whether farmers needed grants to help them make the change. First they looked at Northern Ireland; yes, they decided, the change would clearly impose intolerable costs during the transition, so Northern Ireland's farmers needed help to get through it. Then they looked at Scotland, Wales and England; no, they decided, the change would not cause farmers here any problems—they could be left to fend for themselves. So Northern Ireland gets special treatment, while the rest of the United Kingdom is left to its own devices.
What is the justification for that? No one has said. I do not want to jeopardise improving relationships with and in Northern Ireland, but this clearly is not an essential part of bringing peace to the Province. I suspect that the Northern Ireland Office used its arm-wrestling techniques to extract money from Whitehall and Brussels, even though other areas of the United Kingdom would also qualify for the grants concerned. Once again, this is no aberration on the part of Brussels: it is a product of Whitehall's double standards.
As hon. Members have said, all too often in the past huge sums have gone to those in the industry who are well off, while targeted investment in the form of farm conservation grants, waste water projects and HLCAs, to maintain livestock farming, has been neglected and rural communities, the rural economy and the rural environment have suffered as a result.
In the past, the Ministry has spent a great deal of time centralising the slaughtering capacity of this country. The number of abattoirs has halved in England, Wales and Scotland in the past 15 years, during the lifetime of the Government. Significantly, in Northern Ireland there has not been anything like the same reduction because there
200
the same notorious hygiene regulations have not been introduced. As a result of that centralisation, not only are there additional costs to the industry but many farms are now stranded great distances from the nearest abattoir, exacerbating the problems of long-distance transport of livestock.
I am amazed at the complacency with which the Government congratulate themselves in their motion today. I do not think that dairy farmers in particular would regard this as the right moment for such self-congratulation. The chaos over milk quota has nothing to do with tight-fistedness: it has resulted from a lethal cocktail of irrationality, ineptitude and pigheadedness—irrational in the way in which the quota was set up in this country, not taking account of the full needs of our market, and making it very difficult to ensure that it was a tradeable commodity; inept in the way in which the new arrangement has failed to process quota transactions on time; and pigheaded in the way in which the Ministry has refused to use a bit of discretion and common sense in the resolution of disputes.
On the tapes this afternoon it was suggested that some 15,000 British dairy farmers will face fines of some £75 million for excess production in the current year—an average of some £5,000 per head. I do not know whether that figure is correct, but I hope that by the end of this debate the Minister will be able to tell us what sort of figures are involved.
All those factors seem to be unique to the United Kingdom. Everywhere else in the EU, competitor countries use their quota in a way that seems to be better controlled and ensure that it is not a speculative commodity. It seems to be reasonably administered. But above all, in most other member states there seems to be a system for providing new entrants and developers—the subject of the worst ministerial injustices here—with additional quota.
As Members of Parliament, we receive far more complaints about the inadequacy, incompetence or misdirection of the Ministry or its minions in the executive agencies than we do about the framework of the CAP itself.
Mention was made earlier of the integrated area control system forms. Of course they have a function, but it is extraordinary that the Ministry itself can make mistakes with IACS. The example field data sheet included in the 1995 IACS explanatory booklet, which is intended to show farmers how to do the job, itself contains two basic errors. The south-west National Farmers Union has pointed that out, but I do not think that the Ministry has yet been able to make the necessary corrections.
Then there is the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce. I bet that not one Member here who represents a rural constituency has not had problems with the intervention board. Again, I see Conservative Members nodding in agreement. The old example that we used to give of a barefaced lie was the promise, "Your cheque is in the post." The alternative now has to be the intervention board's assurance, "Your quota forms are being processed urgently." Dairy farmers all over the country are now finding that that simply is not true. I have a memorandum here from a firm of chartered surveyors and agricultural valuers, who tell me that they

201
sent a batch of 19 transfers to the intervention board in time for the deadline of 12 noon on Saturday 31 December 1994. They report:
"Of the 19 various transfers that were sent to The Intervention Board in this particular batch, it seems that six have not yet been processed and all the parties involved, i.e. the lessors, lessees and ourselves, have been constantly badgering The Intervention Board to confirm the leases.
The Intervention Board contacted me on Friday of last week, March 17th, and admitted that they may have mislaid the forms and were wondering what they could do about it."
That is absurd and very expensive. Other cases have been reported in the agriculture media.
I do not have time to dwell on the Meat Hygiene Service, a new agency to be introduced on April Fool's Day, but I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned that the introduction of the new regulations and this new service takes it out of local elected accountability. A risk-free business is being established with a turnover of some £40 million; the Government are inventing a new monopolistic quango. Is that deregulation, decentralisation, democratic accountability? Is that the clarity to which the Minister referred? What hogwash.
Ministers ask us to believe that they are a safe pair of hands, to be trusted with the long-term review of the CAP. Well, judging from the experience of the way in which they operate the CAP in this country, it is a case of "physician heal thyself". Ministers seem to think that British farmers really will put up with that standard of administration, when their competitors on the continent are obviously benefiting to a far greater extent. Is it any wonder that so many people are leaving the industry? The Minister's own figures show a 15 per cent. drop in full-time farmers in the past decade.
In a perceptive article in The Guardian on 25 February, Martin Kettle was absolutely right to identify the Conservative Government's Euro-wobble as a major obstacle both to the reform of agriculture policy and to animal welfare improvements in the single market. Insistence on dilution of the EU by enlargement—it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say this evening—rather than encouraging cohesion by generic growth, lessens the chance of progress in both directions. Mr. Kettle pointed out that
"the British veto sounds fine until your realise that it also means a Greek veto".
For as long as the most retrograde countries are allowed to block even the most cautious of reforms, the CAP will remain an expensive nightmare, the scale of fraud will continue, and animal welfare will be swept under the Council of Ministers' carpet. Further expansion eastwards, as the Minister hinted, where conditions are even more primitive, would simply make conditions worse. The more that Conservative politicians in this country pretend that these issues can be resolved unilaterally, the more our farming competitors on the continent will laugh all the way to the bank.
As though all those obsessions were not enough, let us consider the difficulty of the Minister and the Minister of State when they attend Council of Ministers meetings. How can they persuade their opposite numbers of British good intentions? Contrary to popular belief, Ministers in the 14 other member states are capable of reading what
202
the Prime Minister and his colleagues think, not just about the need for European Union joint initiatives but about the personalities of those national leaders. People read what is said here in London.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) is surely too astute to ignore the consequences of his own party colleagues' blinkers, and I am relieved to see that he has not joined in their recent xenophobia, but they done nothing to help him or his ministerial team to achieve Europe-wide progress on these fronts. By investing sacred calves with purely British significance, the Minister's party has increased the problems that he now faces, not diminished them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a limit of 10 minutes on speeches made between 7 pm and 9 pm. That will still apply even though the clocks have not been too helpful.
7.7 pm
Mr. John Greenway: Previous debates on the agricultural price proposals have usually been characterised by rows about price changes proposed by the European Commission, and the round-the-houses view of agriculture. With the exception of the something-for-everybody speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the debate tonight—I suspect that it will continue in this vein—seems radically to have changed. It now seems that the CAP is wasteful and that there are calls for abolition, for repatriation, for dismantling price support. What I find astonishing is that, through all the debates that we have had in my eight years in the House, we have been trying to argue that if only the United Kingdom farmer could compete on fair and equal terms, the United Kingdom farmer would do well. Now that he can and is doing well, everybody wants to abandon it, in a spirit of knocking Brussels, of Euro-scepticism. I regard myself as a Euro-sceptic on these Benches, but we have to have a balanced view on just what is happening within the European Community.
I have long wanted to say that what really makes me angry is the way in which an argument is developed in order to take an anti-Brussels line. When, recently, we had a row about Spanish access to the Irish box to fish, everyone said, "Pity the poor fishermen. Isn't it dreadful that Brussels is allowing this and we are powerless to stop it?" Now we have the argument about the transport of live animals and the export of livestock, so crucial to the well-being of farmers in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), as he mentioned. People say, "It's dreadful that Brussels is stopping us banning such exports."
I would ask hon. Members to have the same concern for farmers as for fishermen. If they did, they would recognise that we are right to say that we must continue to support livestock exports and to argue in Brussels and in other member states for the opportunity to improve welfare standards across Europe. That is the right and consistent approach.
I do not have time to deal in detail with all aspects of the CAP which concern us. But it is clear that change and reform are needed. I intended at a fringe meeting with the

203
National Farmers Union at the Conservative party conference last autumn to call for a CAP policy review, but my right hon. Friend the Minister did exactly that in his speech that morning to the conference. A proper review of the CAP and our options is long overdue. I have 10 suggestions about how we should go about it.
First, the reform must be properly thought out. In the past, too many changes have been a quick fix. Milk quotas are a good case in point. They were introduced to cut the cost of supporting milk when the Community would not cut the price. Now we have sheep quotas, which are causing immense problems in my constituency where some long-established flocks have no quota because there was not enough to go round. Please, let us have no quick fixes. Let the policy be properly thought out so that we have a structure which will last us for another 40 or 50 years.
Mr. Budgen: Ah.
Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend thinks that I have let the cat out of the bag by referring to another 40 or 50 years. I imagine that in that time we will remain committed members of the EC, but we will have shaped it in a way that suits Britain, not the rest of the EC alone, which often seems to many of us to have been the case in the past.
Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Greenway: No, I shall not give way because I have only 10 minutes.
Secondly, the change must be gradual and there must be a transitional period because things cannot be changed overnight. Farmers need to know where they stand. Growing crops and keeping livestock requires a one, two, three, four or five-year cycle. Politicians cannot change things overnight.
Thirdly, we must move closer to the market. That will bring three benefits. First, as I have said, it will help to end artificial restrictions on production; secondly, it will mean that the United Kingdom's greater efficiency will count for even more; and, thirdly, it will reflect our obligations to GATT and to the third world, which farmers themselves recognise are important.
Fourthly, the CAP must be non-discriminatory. Too often in the past, as I have already said, we have been discriminated against. I do not accept, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) said earlier, that the only reason why our farmers are doing well is what happened on a Wednesday in September 1992. Another fundamental reason why our farmers are doing well is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, went repeatedly to Brussels and said no to MacSharry discriminating against United Kingdom farmers. That must remain our watchword. We must say no to the ridiculous idea of modulation and the belief that because a farm is large it does not need support. Large estates like those in my constituency and the people who work on them are just as important as the small farm structures on the continent.
Fifthly, price support must be more closely linked to environmental benefits. One could make a speech on that alone. Clearly, much more needs to be done on that. If there were time I would make further suggestions. I agree with the concept of trying to decouple support from
204
production to having some kind of contract in terms of the environment in our constituencies. Farmers themselves recognise how important that is.
Sixthly, any reform must have regard to the needs of the food and drink industry. We have talked about agriculture and the CAP, but I have yet to hear anyone mention in any detail just how vital the food and drink industry is to Britain. In many respects we are market leaders. After the huge devaluation in 1992, the price of raw materials for many manufacturers rocketed overnight and they have had a great battle in coming to terms with it. Therefore, we need fairness for them as well.
Seventhly, reform must tackle all commodities. Too many, particularly Mediterranean crops, have not yet been tackled. I want Ministers to go to Brussels and be more determined about that. There is scope for much greater reform in those areas.
Eighthly, we must reduce the overall cost of support. If I have time, I might say a few more words about that because I do not think that the cost is anything like as bad as people think. As has been said, progress has been made. But reducing the overall cost of support is essential if the central and eastern European countries are to be brought into the Community. Without that, the cost of the CAP will explode and we shall have serious problems.
Ninthly, we must retain the security of food supply, not only for now but into the future. That means not prohibiting our opportunity to grow crops and keep livestock in years to come.
Tenthly, the CAP must be less bureaucratic and we must tackle fraud. Those two objectives may appear contradictory but they are not. Much of the fraud is a result of too much paperwork.
Two phrases highlight the current situation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
7.17 pm
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: It is worth reminding ourselves of the history of the CAP and national subsidy in Britain which predated the CAP. They arose at the end of the second world war when starvation was a reality in many European countries and when rationing was a reality in Britain. However, what began as a good project, solving that problem, has grown enormously and now desperately requires to be cut.
The CAP accounts for more than half the entire EU budget. There have been arguments about the total amount, but about £30 billion—£91 million a day—is being spent on subsidising agriculture throughout the EU, and that simply to build grain mountains of 16 million tonnes, beef mountains of 250,000 tonnes, butter mountains of 250,000 tonnes, wine lakes and so on. We are paying farmers large sums of money not to farm. It is a surreal system which should have been invented by Salvador Dali. As much as £2.5 million a day is being spent on growing tobacco that no European wants to smoke. More money is being spent on growing tobacco that no one wants than is being used by the European Union to improve our transport network. CAP spending is equivalent to the total of the rest of the EU's budget.
Fundamental reform is clearly long overdue: no party in the House should argue about that. The Government's efforts to secure changes in the package did not benefit consumers at all, but added to the level of spending. Two

205
achievements of the Government's negotiation on the MacSharry package were the securing of compensation for cereal growers irrespective of the size of their farms, and the securing of annual sheep premiums on larger flocks. I am sure that those two achievements were very worthy, but they did not help to reduce the total budget.
The CAP stops farmers being more productive. Its objective should be to ensure that the true market prices of commodities are reflected in the value that the farmer gets for his product, and that efficient farmers are suitably rewarded.
A number of hon. Members mentioned enlargement of the European Union. Enlargement will double the likely bill that British consumers will have to pay: huge sums will go to Hungarian, Czech and especially Polish farmers if the present system continues. But, even without enlargement, CAP policies are bound to be challenged by future GATT settlements. Export subsidies and border tariffs are not defensible now, and certainly will not be defensible in the medium or long term. As I have said, we need to change the CAP fundamentally, if not get rid of it altogether.
I do not agree that repatriating subsidy payments is any real solution. It will only mean the absence of a real single market in agricultural goods—and it will hardly constitute an attractive solution to countries such as Ireland, France, Portugal and Spain, which are net beneficiaries of the system. If subsidies must be paid, they must not be related to production: they must be decoupled from it. They must be paid to the individual farmer, rather than being dependent on the total level of production. The market must be allowed to determine the price of the commodity. Only in that way can overproduction be tackled without the imposition of a huge bureaucracy involving quotas, form-filling and a continuation of the inefficient and endemically fraudulent system that currently operates.
Let me say a little about the environmental impact of the CAP, and of direct subsidies to farmers based on acreage used for agriculture or on guaranteed prices for their products. The policies implemented in Britain and other European countries since the war have devastated what was a diversity of wildlife and habitat. During the past 50 years, half Britain's remaining broadleaf woodland has disappeared, as have 40 per cent. of our lowland heath, 90 per cent. of raised bogs and 60 per cent. of wet meadows. A third of our reptile and amphibian species are now in serious decline; and 50 per cent. of skylarks—a common species—have disappeared in the past 20 years.
As signatories of the biodiversity convention at Rio, we have an obligation not just to halt that trend but to reverse it. The CAP, as currently implemented, does not address the issue; temporary set-aside is no solution. The present system rewards farmers for being inefficient. It should be a laudable aim for farmers to produce the maximum amount of food on the minimum amount of land, but our system does precisely the reverse. Producing more food on less land would release land for other uses—in particular, marginal land that should never be brought into production. The release of that land would allow its use for recreation and the restoration of wildlife habitats.
Marginal land can be allowed to return to its natural state. If draining stops, marshland and wetland will return; if grazing stops, scrubland will return on pasture and open
206
woodland—and, eventually, mature deciduous woodland—will reappear. The process of succession, perhaps aided by farmers, will restore many of our natural habitats. We shall be able to reintroduce species that are long lost, locally and perhaps nationally.
Our national policy advocates the retention and development of wildlife to third-world countries. Why do we not have such a policy in this country? It would not have to be expensive; indeed, without our current system of agricultural subsidies, it would be cheaper to remove marginal land from production and to develop national eco-systems that could well prove economically beneficial in the promotion of tourism. Moreover, we would not have the current daft system of subsidising farmers for doing nothing.
We should have a radical agenda. We might be the first European country to discuss that agenda, but I hope that others would follow our example. Why should we not reintroduce the beaver to parts of Britain? Why not reintroduce the wild boar? Why should those suggestions be considered unreasonable? If we want African countries to set aside land on which lions can roam, and Indians to set aside land on which tigers can roam, why should we not reintroduce some of the species that have been rendered extinct in this country? It would not require a great deal of Government intervention; it would simply require, initially, the withdrawal of Government subsidy from land that is not productive and not needed. Modern farming methods allow—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
7.27 pm
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments. In the 10 minutes available to me, I shall not have time to argue with him as I should have liked to.
Let me begin by declaring an interest. I represent an urban and suburban constituency, but I am also a small farmer. During my years in the House I have rarely attended debates such as this and have usually abstained in the Lobbies, regarding the CAP as perhaps no more than the price that taxpayers and consumers must pay for being part of the free trade area which is what I wanted Europe and the common market—as I saw it—to be. Tonight, however, I intend to support the Government and my former party: I shall vote for the main motion, and vote against the amendment tabled by the official Opposition—a far less effective opposition than we are, I might add.
I shall do that for openly political reasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "You want to be reselected."] I do, and I also want to be re-elected. I believe that a Back Bencher should be as much nuisance as possible to his party when his party is doing well and is arrogant with success. On the whole, I was as rude as possible to Lord Lawson between 1986 and 1988 and I regard him as being the proximate cause of many of our present difficulties. Now that my former party is doing badly, it seems to be a very proper time to come to the aid of my former colleagues.
I intend to vote along the party line tonight for the reasons that I have given, but I make it absolutely plain that I still regard the CAP as being a very high price to pay for our membership of the free trade area. The CAP is certainly very expensive. I agree that no one can be

207
absolutely certain of how expensive it is because we do not know what the effect of reducing all the subsidies and distortions would be on the world market place. It is certainly bad for the environment, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central pointed out. It certainly creates gross distortions, such as the quota system. I shall say a word or two, however, about fraud, which I contend is an inescapable part of these European programmes.
I commend to the House two documents from the Library—a document on the European Communities (Finance) Bill, which was published on 22 November, and a document on fraud in the European Community, published on 2 December. It seems clear that fraud in the CAP is running at about 10 per cent. of overall expenditure. The European Community is a half-formed federal structure, which makes it essential for us to understand the cost of further federalisation. It is not a fully formed federal structure such as in America. In the European Community, laws and regulations are made by the Commission with some input—arguably—from the Council of Ministers, but the enforcement is left to member states. The result, of course, is that the enforcement is, at the least, very uneven. Look, for instance, at the way in which the common fisheries policy is dealt with by Spain. Consider the system of transporting animals. Again, regulations are laid down by the Commission, but enforcement by member states is very uneven.
The common agricultural policy is, of course, especially bad. I invite the House to look at the very useful reproduction of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said on 21 October about how the Italians and, to a lesser extent, the Spaniards and Greeks, had failed to implement a quota system for the production of milk. That failure goes back to 1989. The House kicked up a bit of a row about it before it considered the European Communities (Finance) Bill. Now, when we ask our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is happening in those three countries, we are told that they were let off most of the fine, they were given a great big rocket, they said that they would do something about it and they have done nothing.
Italy, particularly, has a different attitude towards the implementation of law; a rather more Italian attitude towards the rule of law; a rather more relaxed and sophisticated attitude towards fraud than we have in this country. Fraud and non-enforcement of European regulations are an absolutely inescapable part of any European programme. It would apply especially to a single currency. We would have to have a vastly enhanced regional and social fund.
I shall vote for my former party tonight and I hope that some of my hon. Friends will do so as well.
Mr. Gill: Not a chance.
Mr. Budgen: Well, I hope that they do so for openly political reasons. The Tory party needs to unite before the local elections—[Laughter.] I think that my party is in some difficulty—[Interruption.] The time to be unpleasant to one's party is when it is arrogant and successful. The time to come to its aid is when it is in difficulty. I hope that we may be able to unite in future in believing that what we want is a less federal structure in Europe. We do not want any of these fraudulent and wasteful European socialist mechanisms such as the common agricultural policy. We do not want a single
208
currency and we do not want an enhanced regional and social fund. We want an enhancement of the role of the nation state and the resuscitation of my former party, the Tory party.
7.35 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I hope that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will forgive me for not pursuing his line of argument. I am sure that we all enjoyed his mental contortions in telling the House that he was prepared to throw away his principles on the basis of self-preservation. We thoroughly enjoyed the way in which he justified that to his own conscience. We shall see which Lobby he goes through eventually and whether it is with a smile or a frown on his face.
The price proposals in the common agricultural policy this year represent the final stages of the implementation of the MacSharry proposals. Although they do not greatly change prices or other matters, we must address a number of concerns. I shall do so from the point of view of farmers in Wales. I stress, however, that although the MacSharry proposals were highly criticised because they did not go far enough and because they preserved many of the old common agricultural systems, at least they recognised, in their final form, the importance of maintaining the structure of small family farms and of ensuring rural employment.
I accept, as some hon. Members have said, that it is important to consider agricultural policy in the wider context of rural policy, but it is also important to recognise that people live in rural areas and that if we are to maintain a viable rural economy farmers, who play such an important part in that economy, must be properly supported. I am not saying that they should be supported at whatever cost, but certainly we must maintain a measure of support for farmers who have to farm difficult terrain, in circumstances such as high rainfall and so on, to ensure the viability of our rural communities. That is why I felt that the MacSharry proposals, especially since MacSharry came from such a rural background, understood the effect of significant changes.
We need to look at some of the difficulties that have arisen, especially in the milk sector. Milk quota regulations have been very strictly enforced in the United Kingdom. Year after year—not every year, but for many years—the milk quota allocation has been cut, even though, as several hon. Members have said, the United Kingdom is not self-sufficient in milk and milk products. We know, however, that other countries, such as Italy, are still struggling to implement milk quota regulations. The fact that while we are facing cuts in milk quotas other member states have not yet implemented the quota regulations upsets a lot of farmers. I urge the Government to ensure that there are no further cuts in milk quota allocations in the countries of Britain, at least in the next few years, and perhaps even occasionally to make the case that we should be entitled to even more quota allocation than we have had in recent years.
There are arguments, of which I am sure the Minister is aware—in Wales, for example—that if there are to be more cuts in milk quotas, at least small milk producers should be protected from them. I ask the Government to give some thought to mechanisms to allow that to happen when the matter is discussed in the Agriculture Council.

209
In Wales there is concern about Government pressure to replace individual sheep and suckler cow quotas with regional ceilings. In a country such as Wales, with a predominance of small and medium-sized family farms, such a policy would benefit larger producers at the expense of others. It is important to remember that when considering any change.
The theme has been echoed across the Chamber again tonight, and I too must tell the Minister that we were disappointed that the Government could do no more than maintain hill livestock compensatory allowance payments—indeed, they congratulated themselves on that achievement. I am a member of the Agriculture Select Committee, and when those allowances were introduced the Committee was told by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that they were compensatory amounts, so that when incomes went up the payments would go down.
The converse must also be true: when incomes go down the compensatory amounts should go up, but the Government have not done that. I urge them not to congratulate themselves on maintaining payments at their current level but to accept the case for increasing them when incomes fall.
As we have already heard, the 1992 reforms must also be seen in the context of the conclusion of the GATT round. Although the impact of the GATT changes will not be significant in the next few years, they will bring about significant and profound changes thereafter. We must recognise that when the GATT agreement was reached it was a major achievement for the industry when it was decided that the compensation for price cuts and set-aside within the CAP reforms would not be subject to further reduction but would be counted as green box subsidies within GATT.
The question remains, however, whether the CAP must face further reforms before the budget is overwhelmed in the event of expansion of the membership of the European Union to the east. There is no doubt that further reform is essential, if only to ensure that support is channelled to those who need it. Far too much within the CAP directs support to farmers and large institutions that do not need it. Instead, the CAP should be used to maintain the fabric of our rural societies.
If any one feature gives the CAP a bad press it is the fact that a handful of farmers seem to get large subsidies while small farmers go to the wall from time to time. We must ensure that farmers who need support get it, even if there is reduced support for others. What farmers in Wales support is better deployment of budgetary resources both in direct support for farmers and in relation to distribution between farmers.
The debate has been interesting, partly because we have heard how much support there is for a decoupling system, moving away from direct aid for production and towards aid in the form of environmental payments. That idea has been greatly welcomed throughout the industry in Wales, and I believe that that is the direction in which the CAP reforms should move. Farmers are the custodians of the countryside, as is recognised on both sides of the House and outside it, and they should be adequately compensated for the work that they do.
210
I strongly object to the principle of repatriating policy, because if that happened distortions would reappear. Other member states would support their industries at different rates and at different times, and the market would be distorted again. We should at least retain the integrity of one policy throughout the European Union, even if it has to be much reduced because of expansion to the east. That will be vital if we are to ensure that our farmers can compete effectively and continue to succeed in the markets that they have won over the past few years.
I shall briefly confirm another point that has been made tonight. If farmers are to face great changes as a result of further reform of the CAP, it is crucial that they be given the opportunity to adjust to those changes. I hope that the Government will take on board many of the constructive contributions that have been made tonight.
7.45 pm
Mr. Paul Marland: I start, as others have, by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his predecessors on the progress that has been made towards reform of the common agricultural policy. Such changes are never easy, and it takes some time for the wheel to turn.
When milk quotas were introduced I went with my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) to the Three Counties show. Farmers had hired an aeroplane that was flying overhead pulling a banner saying, "Jopling turns the milk sour". However, farmers have now turned the quotas to their advantage and made them into a great opportunity, so I am sure that now they could think of another slogan to tow behind their aeroplane. My right hon. Friend has been making life a little sweeter for us in this place recently, so how about, "Jopling makes life sweeter"? I am sure that if we tried to separate farmers from their milk quotas now, they would have something ferocious to say.
I believe that the success of the gradual change in policy can be measured by the enormous reduction in the storage of surplus stocks, even this year. Stored wheat has been reduced by 57 per cent., beef by 80 per cent. and butter by 61 per cent. The good news in that development is that the money is no longer going to the owners of intervention stores but to farmers, who in turn recycle it in the rural community, and that was discussed at length earlier.
Time is the great thing; farmers need time to adjust. How horrendous was the Opposition idea that intervention buying should be stopped overnight. Can we imagine the effect that that would have on farmers' incomes? I hope that all farmers will hear what the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), said about that idea.
When the Labour party was in office, in four and a half short years it had reduced farmers' incomes by 32 per cent.—but that is nothing compared with what Labour's proposals would do this time. Not only do farmers need time to adjust and to take advantage of new opportunities, but the Government should seek to give them opportunities, which we have done through the introduction of the Agricultural Tenancies Bill, which is now before Parliament, grants for diversification and marketing schemes.

211
How much better and more constructive that all is than what I can only presume was the politically correct waffle from the Opposition Benches—[Laughter.] I was obviously right; I have obviously scored a hit if what I say is met with such agreement on the other side of the House, especially by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
There is no doubt that agriculture must continue to move closer to the marketplace and become less reliant on subsidy. That is a sea change for farmers, and in many ways it is a nerve-racking process to have to go through, but it provides new opportunities.
Farmers undoubtedly operate at the very beginning of the food chain; indeed their work is an essential part of it. It is their business, in partnership with the food manufacturers, who add value, and the retailers, who sell food to consumers, to satisfy demand in this country. As others have said, food manufacture and retailing constitute one of the biggest businesses in the country.
I shall reflect on a couple of aspects of the debate, the first of which concerns milk and the setting up of Milk Marque. Again, there has been some anxiety among farmers and manufacturers about exactly how that would work out. Was Milk Marque set up to establish a free market in milk, or not? Most thought that it was, and saw it as an opportunity and—up to a point—that is how it has turned out, but it is not quite as clear as that.
Farmers relish supplying a commodity that is in short supply, and they should have every opportunity to exploit that to the full. However, the shortage of supply has given rise to a situation in which manufacturers' difficulties have been compounded by Milk Marque playing its cards close to its chest in the initial stages of bidding. How much milk does it have to sell? How much should such manufacturers bid for, in view of the uncertainty of supplies? How should manufacturers pitch their bids to farmers who are wanting to sell direct? They offered such farmers 1p per litre more because they could save on the bureaucratic costs of a running a brokerage, which Milk Marque is.
If the manufacturers underbought, there was no way in which they could pick up the extra supplies that they needed in a free spot market. That begs the question—how free is this market in milk? We are getting there, but there is some considerable way to go. It is not a genuine free market, because Milk Marque is not acting as a genuine broker. It is seeking to draw to itself extra responsibilities, rather than allowing the market to find its own level.
For example, Milk Marque is acting in that way with regard to transport, milk balancing and service levels. On transport, there is not a free market as manufacturers cannot collect direct from the producer. If people want to collect beer direct from a brewery they can, as it is a free market, but that does not happen with milk. Manufacturers have their own transport and want to use it, but Milk Marque will not let them.
Traceability is also very important to milk manufacturers, who want to know precisely what is in their milk and how it has been handled between the farmer and their depots. They cannot know that unless they use their own transport. With more pressure being applied on the quality of production, it is extremely important that milk manufacturers are able to use their own transport.
212
There are serious difficulties for manufacturers who are vital long-term partners of farmers, and the interests of both parties are closely linked.
The imposition of conditions on the purchase of milk is known as bundling, and is an offence under competition law. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of that, and will not simply say that milk manufacturers should go to court. He must look at the matter closely, and take an active part in unbundling this market. If it is to have a proper future as a free market, it is essential that bundling is undone.
Before leaving transport matters, may I reassure isolated small farmers and milk producers who feel that they may be left out in the cold as a result of the changes that they will not be? No dairy farmer in the country is more than 40 miles away from a processing plant. In south-west England, there is a plant at St. Erth; in west Wales there is a plant at Haverfordwest; in the Lake District there is a plant at Appleby; and in Aberdeen, local manufacturers must compete with dairies in Glasgow to get their milk supplies. There is no way in which any milk producer in this country will be left out in the cold.
Milk is in short supply, and manufacturers and distributors want every drop that is going. It is a home-produced product which cannot satisfy the demand, so a good price is obtainable anywhere. The price is, of course, dependent on transport costs, but that is understandable.
I mentioned that Milk Marque is doing its own balancing. That destroys the free secondary market, which can be a vital fall-back for milk manufacturers. Why should not there be a genuine spot market in milk, as there is in so many other commodities? What currently happens to surplus milk? We have heard today about shortages of milk as farmers cut production to avoid possible fines, but what happens when there is a surplus?
Milk Marque is selling its surplus to Ireland without offering that milk to UK producers, who would have paid more for it than the Irish. Why did not Milk Marque offer it to United Kingdom producers? Why is it so adamant about doing its own balancing?
I also mentioned the different service levels offered by Milk Marque that do not allow for a free spot market and all that goes with it. Why does Milk Marque insist on fixing the price of milk a year in advance with no reference to supply and demand? That is done in Ireland, where manufacture is keyed into supply so that the two are linked. Both parties are then able to take advantage of the least expensive system of production—farmers, because they produce when the grass has grown, and manufacturers because they produce when the milk is available.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to look at Milk Marque's method of operation before the next price round, and to look again at the possibility of having an independent regulator in the market. I do not mean a price regulator, but a regulator who would make sure that the market is operating in a true and fair manner.
There were other matters which I wanted to speak about, including the export of live animals, but in view of the time—I can see that you are fidgeting to get to your feet, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I will stop there.
7.55 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: It is with great regret that I notice that not one Scottish Conservative Back-Bench Member has been present in the Chamber throughout the debate, and no Scottish Tories at all are present now. Given the importance of agriculture to Scotland, that explains why the Tories stand at 12 per cent. in Scottish opinion polls, and why that figure is falling. It may be appropriate that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is here, as it seems that that Ministry is now determining Scottish Office policy. Perhaps the Minister can answer the Scottish points that I hope to raise.
Mr. Garnier: I could make the same point about the hon. Gentleman's Scottish National party colleagues. Where is the remainder of the Scottish National party?
Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friends will be here to vote. The point I am making is that the Scottish National party is represented here, whereas not one Scottish Conservative Member is in the Chamber. It is a valid point, and I would like to have seen a Scottish Office Minister. [Interruption.] I do not wish to digress, but Conservative Members are indicating the Minister of State, who is an English Member of Parliament.
The main objective of agriculture policy must be to maintain supply and demand in balance, while ensuring the economic viability and prosperity of the rural economy. I seek an absolute assurance from the Government that they will not use price pressure or unchecked free market forces as the main determining factors for producing structural change in the agriculture industry. Such a dogmatic policy would decimate the industry, destroy living standards and massively depopulate rural areas in one fell swoop.
Sensible management for change should make use of a sensible mix of supply control measures, environmental improvements and a widened range of income-creating alternatives to supplement straightforward food production. Agriculture is the backbone of Scotland's rural economy, and it must be given every opportunity to retain employment and finance among rural populations. An overall rural area strategy is required to meet the specific needs of agriculture, and that must be combined with the provision of infrastructure designed to raise rural living standards and to keep people in viable and thriving communities. The alternative is continued rural depopulation and poverty of both incomes and opportunities.
What is the Government's commitment to Scotland's rural communities, which dominate the nation's geography? The warnings are clear. If Tory free market dogma is applied in the form of uncompensated price pressure, it has been estimated by the NFU that as many as 40 per cent. of Scottish farmers could be forced out of business.
Mr. Jack rose—
Mr. Welsh: The Minister will probably point out that the Scottish Office Minister has returned, and I am happy to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate, most of which he has missed.
If up to 40 per cent. of farmers are forced out of business, with them will go the agriculture supply industries, transportation, vets and others. There would
214
also be the inevitable school closures and the exodus of people, and that must not be allowed to happen. I would seek an outright assurance from the Government that uncompensated price pressure will not be the chosen means for agricultural restructuring. Can the Government guarantee that future European Union measures will not simply follow French agri-politics and target support measures towards smaller farms? Scottish farmers have created larger, more efficient production units. They have a right to expect a clear declaration of support and understanding from the United Kingdom Government in their negotiations within Europe. The success of Scottish farmers in creating larger, more efficient units should never be used as an excuse to discriminate against them or for the United Kingdom Government's failure to recognise their needs and fight for Scottish interests.
Will the Minister ensure that Scottish pig producers are not placed at a continuing disadvantage in the face of illegal state aid to their French direct competitors? What is the Minister doing to ensure that the reduction in European Union agricultural output required by the GATT agreement is spread fairly throughout the EU?
What reassurances can the Government give about the effect on Scottish farmers of the entry into the European fray of central and eastern European countries? Past problems, for example, for Scottish raspberry growers, will be as nothing compared with the unfettered effect of those countries' low-priced, less sophisticated agriculture industries on European countries. What strategy do the Government propose to adopt to deal with those exact problems? I hope that the steps taken will raise central and eastern European farm incomes and not lower Scottish and EU levels of income and affect methods of production.
Will the beef special premium scheme, with the ceiling on claims in Scotland, be reassessed to reflect the increased number of cattle eligible for the premium? What steps are the Government taking to reduce the bureaucracy and time wasting inherent in the cattle control documentation system? I know from my constituency that the sheep quota rules pose problems for partnerships. Will the Minister consider attaching the quota to the partnership rather than to the individual, as happens with the Buckler cow quota?
Although, thankfully, farm incomes have risen this year following a series of poor years, major problems nevertheless remain for pig farmers and hill farmers. I ask the Government to end their complacency about the hill livestock compensatory allowance. No change this year must be put in the context of the 29 per cent. cut in HLCA values in the past two years. There is a past income deficit to be made up in a section of the industry that is very vulnerable.
I deeply regret that the Government killed off the marketing boards, which have served both consumer and producer well in past decades. I especially regret the end of the potato marketing board, given the importance of the seed and ware markets to Scotland. Short-termism has replaced long-term thinking. The unique, world-renowned Scottish system of agricultural research is in danger of being broken up and managed from research councils based in the south of England.
Scottish Office Ministers can only sit and watch, as is happening tonight, while the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food takes decisions at European level. In European negotiations, I expect the Government to argue

215
more strongly for specific Scottish interests, although that could be guaranteed only by independent Scottish representation in Europe in our own right. In addition to ensuring that specific Scottish interests and the distinct structure of the Scottish industry are fully registered, it is important that the strongest possible case be made for the extension of objective 1 status to the whole of Scotland. I wonder whether the Government are prepared to argue for that.
It is clear that Europe now decides the future of agriculture policy. Without independent Scottish representation, our industry is vulnerable. The Minister added injury to insult by ignoring the Scottish Office in the formation of the United Kingdom CAP policy advisory group. In creating a United Kingdom CAP group that does not include anyone who has an active role in the Scottish farming industry, the Government have excluded Scotland from the CAP policy group in spite of the significantly greater importance of agriculture to the Scottish economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): The hon. Gentleman will know perfectly well if he reads the press or has heard any of the statements that I have made that decisions on the CAP are made by Ministers, not by any CAP advisory group.
Mr. Welsh: Even the Minister in his complacency cannot ignore the fact that no Scottish farming interest is represented on that advisory group. I presume that it was formed to advise the Government, so its views will be taken into account. It was formed without any Scottish input. That cannot be a sensible way in which to treat the Scottish industry.
Mr. Jack: In view of the hon. Gentleman's interest in submitting his party's views on CAP reform, will he submit a paper to my right hon. Friend's group in due course?
Mr. Welsh: I am sure that that will happen. We shall be happy to let the Minister know our views. The important point is that the Government, acting on behalf of the United Kingdom, formed an advisory committee on CAP reform without including anyone who was active in Scottish agriculture. That is no representation and no way to treat one of Scotland's most important industries. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is making noises. I regret that he did not make more noise when the arable acreage in Scotland was settled. The Minister has not explained how the Scottish Office reached its figures or why it took the east Germans and the German industry to reduce the penalty imposed on Scottish cereal farmers. The Minister has a great deal of answering to do. He has not given answers in the House. If policy is determined—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
8.5 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I disagree with the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who seems to want agricultural policy to be decided at the European level. I feel that the best place to decide it is at home.
I have an interest to declare. I have an interest in land. I am also in receipt of European subsidies. I believe that the vast amount of money that is given by this country to
216
Europe makes it almost a patriotic duty for those of us who can claim it back to get as much as we can. Why do I want to repatriate our agricultural policy? It is simple. It is because the common agricultural policy is bad for Britain. It is bad for the consumer. One aspect of the CAP that is mercifully being reduced is the threshold price. That means that if we want to import feed or foodstuff from elsewhere, we have to pay more for it. So the housewife has to pay more than she would otherwise have to pay.
Secondly, the CAP is bad for the British taxpayer. Our net contribution to the European Union will be about £3,000 million a year. About two thirds of European expenditure is on agriculture. Therefore, the CAP costs this country £2 billion a year net. That is money—cash—down the drain into a fraudulent hole somewhere in the centre of Italy.
Thirdly, the CAP is bad for the British farmer because he is probably the most efficient farmer in Europe. Many people would say that the British farmer is the most efficient farmer in Europe. The rules and constraints of the CAP mean that if the British farmer is to receive the same levels of subvention as his European cousin, he has to set aside, thereby not farming more of his land than any other farmer in Europe.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, the British farmer is allowed to produce only 85 per cent. of the milk that is required for consumption in the United Kingdom. The most efficient milk producer in Europe is not allowed to produce enough milk even to satisfy his own public. Britain is the most natural environment for producing sheepmeat—lambs, ewes and the rest of it. Yet we are quota-restricted. If we are to compete on level terms, we are restricted by the quota. So we are discriminated against. The best farmers in Europe are the most heavily discriminated against.
The CAP rips off the housewife, plunders the taxpayer and discriminates against the British farmer. Any red-blooded British Government would seek to get out of it and would do so now.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has pointed out that the farmers are hooked on the CAP. They are hooked on milk quotas. It is absurd that that artificial creation is worth more than farmers' land, livestock, house and business put together. Milk quotas are not going to last. They are an agricultural version of the dock labour scheme. They cannot endure. I warn my farming friends that they will not exist for ever.
Secondly, British farmers are hooked on the power of the so-called French peasant. They are sure that if French farmers want more money, they will go on to the streets and stop the traffic and prices will go up. But little by little, the interests of the French peasant will diverge from the interests of the British farmer. Small farmers in France, bigger farmers in Britain. The Union is moving towards giving relatively higher payments to the smaller farmers. The British farmer will again be left on one side.
There is distrust of British agricultural policy controlled by Her Majesty's Treasury. Look what is happening to the European budget at the moment and what is likely to happen to the direction of that budget if Europe enlarges towards the east. I would rather put trust in my Government and the British taxpayer than I would long term in the European taxpayer.

217
My right hon. Friend the Minister said that British farmers had done well recently. Since 1979, farm incomes have risen in real terms by 10 per cent. If the income of any other section of society had risen by only 10 per cent. since 1979, would not those people now be on the streets rioting? British farmers have not done as well as the rest of the British community.
All the fear about having our own agricultural policy and coming out of the CAP is misplaced. People say that there would be no subsidies, but if we controlled our own affairs, we would have at least as generous a system of support for agriculture. First, in a free market in Europe, which we would still have, everybody else would have such a policy and it would be politically unacceptable not to support our farmers if everyone else's farmers were being supported. Secondly, for any business to thrive and prosper requires an element of predictability. With agriculture, the climate is an additional element of unpredictability, so unless we have a support mechanism for agriculture, we shall not have sustained output. Thirdly, one of the jewels of Britain—the reason why so many people come here—is the beauty of our countryside. Even the hard-hearted mandarins of Her Majesty's Treasury would want to ensure that our countryside was properly maintained. Without adequate support for agriculture and the villages in our countryside, that could not continue.
Let us look back at the track record and the times before the CAP. British agriculture was more prosperous then than now. We spend £3 billion net a year on the European budget, two thirds of which goes on agriculture. That is £2 billion that the Treasury could retain within the United Kingdom, part of which could be used to subsidise agriculture, on top of the subsidies that we are already getting—if necessary. Instead of going to the Mafia in Italy or low-grade and fraudulent Greek tobacco producers, that money could be used for people in this country.
How do we move to a British agricultural policy within Europe? First, it goes without saying that we believe in free trade, so the raw materials for agriculture could come in without a threshold price. Secondly, we would have a single market within Europe, as we have at present. That allows free trade within Europe and a single price throughout Europe. Thirdly, we would return to the old system of deficiency payments. Cereal is the basic commodity of agriculture. It is used as foodstuff and feedstuff, which is then moved on to the livestock sector. If we keep world market prices low and have a standard quantity for cereals, we can tell farmers that, for that standard quantity, they will get whatever price is necessary to sustain agriculture. If the world price goes down, farmers receive a deficiency payment that makes up the difference, and if they go beyond that standard quantity, the surplus is sold off at world market prices. That has the great advantage that, as British farmers are efficient, they do not have to take land out of production. People are concerned about that great obscenity. Farmers can then produce as much as they efficiently can.
The same applies to milk. We should have a standard quantity of milk with a price attached to it and farmers would receive a guaranteed price for that. But over and above that quantity, the milk could be usefully used by
218
our manufacturing industry, so that the output of British agriculture and the British food industry could be increased greatly to the benefit of Britain.
Mr. Jack: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Marlow: I really have not enough time. I wish that that were not so.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, the CAP is absurd. It is European money of which national Governments regulate the expenditure, and it is a recipe for fraud. The only sensible policy for Europe as well as Britain is to repatriate agricultural policy, which would be better for consumers, housewives, taxpayers and British farmers. It can be done. All that is needed is for my right hon. Friend the Minister to have the willpower to do it.
8.14 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: For the past 16 years I have had the privilege of representing in the House Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, a large rural area of 800 square miles.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Too long.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman was named by Madam Speaker earlier. He would be better advised to keep quiet.
During that time, I have come to understand the importance of farming to the rural economy and the rural environment in general. I have also come to realise the need for a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy. To take just one example, it is immoral to pay millions of pounds in set-aside to farmers not to produce food while 24 people in the third world die every minute from hunger. That fact alone argues the case for fundamental reform. With enlargement and the entry into the European Union of eastern European countries, we face further problems.
May I tell the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that I am a long-term supporter of the European Union but that does not mean that I support every aspect of it—quite the reverse. I feel much more able to criticise it as a supporter. Criticism that comes from enthusiasts for the European Union is regarded as much more genuine than criticism by people like the hon. Members for Northampton, North and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), which always seems to have an underlying motive. I am always suspicious of their motivation as they seem to seek to undermine the European Union as a whole rather than make a genuine point.
There is no point in my repeating the excellent arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and others on the general issues, with which I concur. In the minutes available to me, I shall raise one or two specific issues that have been raised with me by my friends in the executive of Cumnock National Farmers Union, whom I met a week last Monday. I hope that the Minister of State will reply. If he cannot do so when winding up the debate, I shall understand and look forward to a letter subsequently.
The first issue is waste disposal, about which farmers are understandably concerned because of increased requirements from the European Union. In my area, the Clyde river purification board is, understandably,

219
imposing those regulations strictly. Yet while those new stricter regulations are being imposed, the Government have removed grants for improved waste handling facilities for farmers. That seems absolutely crazy to me and my constituents.
When I visited Auchincruive agricultural college in my constituency recently, with my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who happen to be former students of that distinguished college, it was pointed out to me that agricultural waste is extremely toxic compared with domestic waste. It seems sensible that the Government should help farmers to dispose of such waste and it is crazy to withdraw the grants.
Secondly, I want to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), is in his place. I have great respect for him as he has the interests of agriculture at heart, even if he cannot always implement them because of pressures from elsewhere. I am concerned about the beef special premium scheme. As the hon. Member for Angus, East said, the regional ceiling on claims in Scotland needs to be reassessed as more cattle are now eligible and there is an overshoot. I understand that Italy and Greece have been granted an extra allocation and I do not see why Scotland should not be granted one, too.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) raised the question of hill livestock compensation allowance payments. He pointed out that, in the past couple of years, the real value of HLCA payments has gone down by 8 per cent. and this year farm incomes on the high hills are less than £10,000 on average. That is appalling.
As the hon. Member for Ynys Môn said, the idea of HLCA was that, when farming incomes decrease, compensatory allowances should, by definition, increase. I hope that the Ministers will consider that further, especially as that has resulted in changes in environmental conditions that have created special problems on wetter and more exposed land. As the hon. Member for Dumfries will know, in the past few months the south-west of Scotland has been especially exposed and especially wet. I hope that special consideration will be given to that.
Fourthly, I want to discuss milk, not the aspects of marketing that were dealt with earlier, but the milk intervention board, which is in a shambles, as I was told by the Cumnock branch of the National Farmers Union of Scotland. Scottish farmers experience problems—delays—in quota transfers. I hope that the hon. Member for Dumfries might whisper in the ear of the Minister of State, to mention with approval the possibility of a Scottish intervention board, which would deal with Scottish applications. I know that that would find favour with the hon. Member for Angus, East, and that would bring decisions much nearer to the farmer.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: The milk marketing board.
Mr. Foulkes: Not the milk marketing board; this is the intervention board. That would bring decisions much nearer to farmers in Scotland.
Fifthly, I want to ask a question about the licensing of heavy goods vehicles. I know that that is perhaps more the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or
220
the Secretary of State for Transport, but the Agriculture Minister should have a special interest in that. I am worried that the hugely increased costs of licensing HGVs will result in farmers choosing not to license their heavy goods vehicles, and using tractors and trailers instead. As the hon. Member for Dumfries will know, as we both drive on roads in the south-west of Scotland, there are already enough tractors and trailers to hold up all the traffic. It would create special difficulties if there were increasing numbers of them on the roads. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will make representations in relation to that.
Those were the arguments made to me. An additional matter was mentioned at the end of the meeting, and it has been mentioned subsequently. I know that it is not the direct responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but there is great disquiet in Scotland that the BBC has stopped its Scottish farming programme. I notice the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland nodding. I hope that the Government will make representations to the BBC to restore that vital service for farmers, which was very much appreciated.
I greatly respect the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is probably enjoying his dinner at the moment, but unfortunately he made a gratuitous attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East earlier. All those of us who are genuinely anxious about the reform of the CAP, the improvement of the countryside and the development of the rural economy look forward to the day when my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East is installed in Whitehall place. It cannot come too soon, and until it comes I look forward to joining my friends in the Lobby tonight to vote against this discredited Government.
8.22 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I shall not insult the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), because he might not buy me a drink again, and that would never do. However, I shall thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his team for the work that they have done so far in achieving reforms of the CAP in a measured and sensible way. There is no need for hysterics, but there is a need for firm and sensible negotiations in Europe, and I think that we have had evidence of those in the past few years.
I also congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team for the way in which they have persuaded the Treasury to allow the capital taxation regime to be equalised so that let land is dealt with in the same way as land in hand. That, together with the reform of the agricultural tenancy system under the Agricultural Tenancies Bill, on the Committee of which I was sitting a few minutes ago, will do a great deal to ease the letting of land in rural parts of our country.
I want to draw on one or two of the arguments that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). It is a technical subject, but it is worth emphasising the arguments for modulation of agricultural support payments. There has been some discussion of the subject, but I wish to give one or two reasons why the Government should resist any movement towards that type of reform of the CAP.

221
It has been suggested that there are good reasons why agricultural support payments should be "modulated", as it is called—adapted—to reduce the amount of support being paid to large farms and to increase the amount of support to small farms. I suggest, however, that there are very good reasons why that policy should not be supported and is certainly not advantageous to farmers in our country. It is important that the issue is closely examined, and I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will do precisely that. I want to suggest one or two reasons why that type of adjustment is not good.
First, owing to the farm structure in our country, any modulation of support payments would fall much more heavily on our country than on any other European Union member state. The average size of farm buildings here is about 69 hectares, that is to say, about four times the European Union average. Any policy of so-called modulation would cause a redistribution of support away from the northern member states, and especially from the United Kingdom, towards the southern member states, such as Greece and Italy, where the farm structure is, as we all know, hardly the same as it is in this country.
Secondly, it is strongly arguable that employment will be affected if modulation were introduced. In our country, large farms employ more labour per hectare than small farms. If we are anxious to sustain rural employment, and I am, and to ensure that providers of labour are properly paid, and I am, the European Union must not discriminate against larger farms. Concentrating resources on smaller farms will serve only to reduce employment opportunities and may also stimulate a demand for off-farm employment, for which there is currently very little supply, as small farm operators seek to supplement their incomes from non-farm sources.
Thirdly, the development of farming enterprises may be hindered by modulation. A farm that becomes aware of the opportunity to expand into a new market may be discouraged from doing so if it means that the farm is no longer eligible for subsidy payments or receives substantially reduced subsidy payments. Any economic gain would therefore be lost. Artificial farm division may also be encouraged, which would undo any economic gains based on past decisions.
Fourthly, small farm businesses do generate lower net farm incomes when compared with larger farms. However, some small farm operators are vulnerable to variability in farm income. When other sources of income are taken into account, their position is greatly improved and can often be at a level comparable to, or greater than, that of larger farmers. I speak as a Member of Parliament whose constituency contains, not only large estates, but some small farms.
However, there is no direct relationship between farm size and efficiency which would support the argument that small farmers could not exploit economies of scale and should therefore have favourable treatment under the CAP. One only has to consider the Danish and Dutch farming position, where there are smaller holdings but high production levels, to realise the force of that suggestion.
Sixthly, there is no evidence to suggest that small farms are more environmentally friendly than larger ones. I suggest that a farm's impact on the environment has much more to do with the objects, style, techniques and outlook
222
of the manager than with farm size. As smaller farms tend to have smaller incomes than larger farms, the resources available to smaller farms to produce environmental benefits are much smaller than those available to larger farms, so the introduction of any modulation against larger farms will severely disadvantage them and have a bad effect on their ability to devote resources to environmental management. That is a narrow argument, but it is worth making in the context of the debate.
I ask the Government to lose no time in forcing our opinions on our European counterparts. We have witnessed the expansion of the European Union into the EFTA countries which entered on 1 January 1995, and we shall shortly, in the next 10 or so years, consider applications from the Visegrad four—Poland, Hungary, the Slovakian Republic and the Czech Republic.
The financial impact on the CAP and the cohesion and structural funds will be enormous. The impact upon our funding will be about 50 billion ecu, of which 15 billion ecu will go on the CAP expenditure and 35 billion ecu will go on structural funds and so on. The applications from the Visegrad four and other eastern and central European countries to join the Union will be the source of considerable tension within the United Kingdom among taxpayers and throughout the current member states of the European Union. I do not want that to happen and we should anticipate that by ensuring that the CAP is reformed now to meet the best farming interests of the northern Europeans. We will, of course, meet strong arguments from the southern Europeans, who currently benefit from the cohesion and structural funds—the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Greeks and to some extent the Irish—but we must resist complaints from them. We must make sure that any reform of the CAP takes into account the future difficulties from which we will suffer as a result of the enlargement of the Community to take in the former Soviet Union and its former areas of influence. In that way, the financial strains of enlargement will be anticipated well in advance.
It is argued that the period of transition to encourage those new countries to join the Union is expected to be about 20 years. That is far too long. A negotiating arrangement whereby the Visegrad four have up to 20 years to come to terms with their financial responsibilities is simply too long. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to produce a policy that takes that into account.
My hon. Friends have already spoken with great feeling and knowledge of the British farming industry. I wish to put on record my support for our farmers. I find it extremely sad that in every debate on rural and agricultural matters in the past few weeks the Labour party has put forward either some fellow from an inner-city area, who knows precisely nothing about the subject, but is prepared to lecture us all about it, or someone who is damaging to the interests of the rural economy.
Mr. Morley: What on earth is the hon. Gentleman talking about?
Mr. Garnier: I urge the Government to play the strongest possible hand in supporting our farmers, who have been the greatest supporters of the Conservative party for many years. [Interruption.] I urge my hon. Friend on the Front Bench to ignore the rather tiresome and silly sedentary remarks from the Opposition. That is typical of the Opposition's stance on the issue. They will

223
barrack, complain, whinge and nag, but they fail to produce one positive policy. All they do is complain, whinge and carp. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to stand up for British farmers.
8.32 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: In introducing the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister made an excellent speech from his perspective as a Minister of the Crown. Of course he joins a long list of Ministers who have stood at the Dispatch Box and assured the House that fraud will be dealt with. I do not wish to dwell on that point now, but I hope to speak equally well from my own perspective on agriculture. The House will appreciate that I do so without the benefit of a central office brief.
I shall oppose the Labour party amendment for the very good reason that it is pie in the sky to believe that a Labour Government would be any more successful than a Conservative one in negotiating a better deal for Great Britain within the constraints of the existing CAP.
I am pleased to take part in the debate, which would be an important one if either the arguments deployed or the vote could change anything. The reality is that nothing that is said or done in this Chamber changes the CAP one iota, unless there is a qualified majority of Ministers in the farm Ministers Council. The insanity of the CAP is exceeded only by the absurdity of the situation that we face this evening as a result of which the CAP will be totally unaffected by the outcome of the 10 o'clock vote, yet that same vote is seen to have deep significance for the future of our Government.
Before I proceed further, I should like to declare my interests. First, as a butcher and a farmer, with a lifetime's experience on both sides of the farm gate, I declare an interest in the subject of the debate. Secondly, as a lifelong Conservative, I declare my interest in the substance of the debate and the contradictions that it poses for my right hon. and hon. Friends.
If I was asked whether the CAP has assisted me as a craftsman, the answer would be an emphatic no. If I were asked whether the CAP had helped me as an independent business man, the answer would be, "Most certainly not". If those same questions were put to other craftsmen and other entrepreneurs and elicited the same response, where is the comfort for the Conservative party? If the Conservative party chooses to accord greater importance to the institutions of the European Union than it does to the interests of its natural supporters in the food and farming industries, it will get its just desserts.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench not to dismiss out of hand the terms of the amendment standing in the name of a number my hon. Friends and myself, four of whom are, incidentally, farmers. My right hon. and hon. Friends should recognise that the CAP is unsupportable, unsustainable and incapable of sensible reform.
The failure of the CAP to date is characterised by several features—the incalculable damage that it has done to the pastoral economies of the third world; the damage that it has done even to the agricultural industries of some member states of the European Union; and the massive fraud perpetrated within it, to which several right hon. and hon. Members have already alluded. Nearer to home, anyone with his feet on the ground knows that the average age of our farmers is increasing well beyond 55 years,
224
which is not a healthy sign, nor is it indicative of a healthy industry. We have an unprecedented suicide rate among farmers; low incomes in the farming industry; a minefield of rules and regulations; and we are suffering from abattoir closures. Perhaps the House will bear with me if I draw on my own experience.
My company used to slaughter hundreds and thousands of cattle and sheep. We gave that up a few years ago and no longer slaughter any cattle or any sheep because no one in my business was clever enough to best-guess the whims of the intervention board and the other aspects of political interference in cattle and sheep, which suddenly altered the whole buying and selling equation.
Even the pig sector is not entirely immune to such interference. The president of the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers recently wrote to the European Commissioner for Agriculture and said:
"We would be grateful for an explanation of the Pigmeat Management Committee decision … to introduce a private storage aid scheme for pigmeat, with effect from Monday 6 February.
This seems an extraordinary decision to take as pig numbers continue to fall, and as the market is beginning to improve after last year's difficulties.
That the Commission should act in a way that so strongly conflicts with the instincts and experience of industry appears to us as incomprehensible".
A civil servant from the Ministry replied:
"We entirely agree with what you say. The scheme will take supplies off a tightening market and distort the market again in three months time when the meat is released. I pressed your points at the Pigmeat Management Committee on 30 January and voted against the proposal. But all too to no avail."
That is rather like the other report that I read in the briefing paper that we received from the European Commission dated 23 February. In the context of the Agriculture Council meeting that week to discuss animal welfare conditions for the transport of animals, it said:
"After lengthy consultations, however, the meeting ended without agreement".
I am afraid that that is all too typical of what happens when we argue our case at the heart of Europe. In the intervening period, hundreds of abattoirs have closed and we face the prospect of hundreds more closures in the very near future. That fact of life is being accelerated by the plethora of rules and regulations—not all of which have emanated from Brussels; they have been assisted by our own MAFF—which are putting the craftsmen and the master butcher on the scrapheap. The House should ask itself how that helps the welfare of animals, the future of the independent business sector, consumer choice or the risk of cross-contamination, as slaughtering is concentrated in fewer but larger abattoirs.
Conservative Members should ask themselves how that squares with the principles and philosophies of the Conservative party. To avoid any doubt, I remind the House that I am a lifelong Conservative and a capitalist. I believe that capitalism is the most effective means of identifying, supplying and satisfying markets. The House is being asked to support socialism in the form of the common agricultural policy. Any regime which determines centrally what should be produced, in what quantities, to what standards and at what price cannot be described otherwise.
The irony of the present situation would be laughable if it were not so desperately serious. A Conservative Government are apparently prepared to go to the stake for

225
a socialist principle. They are prepared to turn their back on their own values and beliefs in order to keep faith with other members of what has become the world's most expensive club. The Government are buying their enemies at the expense of selling their friends.
More and more people are concluding that if they must have socialism they would rather have it from socialists than from Conservatives. That is not to say that there is no market for true Conservatism. I hope that my right hon. Friends will recognise that fact and start to deliver it before it is too late.
Finally, on the question of live exports, will the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that mass protests which seek to prevent the industry from going about its lawful business will be met in future with the same response as they would get in other countries—the water cannon?
8.42 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: I am inclined to say, "Well, follow that." However, I am delighted to make a contribution to the debate. I was heartened by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who I believe is widely respected in all sectors of agriculture and the food industry. He is doing an outstanding job.
I was deeply disappointed by the contribution of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). He had his chance to reform the common agricultural policy in the 1970s when he was Minister for Agriculture. He failed miserably then and he wants to have another attempt. Why does he think that he would be more successful now? I think that the House would conclude otherwise.
I was even more disappointed by the contribution of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is the king of the cliche in hot pursuit of a soundbite. I intervened during his speech to talk about the countryside management contract. He responded by saying that my remarks were premature and that he would return to that subject. Sadly, he did not do so.
No doubt the hon. Gentleman was wriggling with embarrassment at the thought of imposing a system on our farmers which would be regulated by local authorities and linked to Liberal Democrat proposals for regional government. The farmers of Devon and Cornwall would be dictated to by Liberal Democrat councillors in Bristol. That is not a recipe for attracting the farming vote in the far south-west.
Very few people like the CAP or the common fisheries policy. There are those who would advocate that they be torn up, abolished or abandoned. Many of us might be attracted emotionally to such terminology, which we may find appealing superficially. In this world of tabloid values, I am sure that many people would support that approach.
However, there are at least two fundamental flaws in such an approach. First, the common fisheries policy—I will refer to it only briefly—is largely about conservation. If it did not exist, we would need to introduce some other national policy in order to conserve our fish stocks. If the common agricultural policy did not exist, we would need a national price support mechanism to support our agricultural industry.
226
Before Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1972, I remember how my father, who was a dairy farmer, enjoyed what was then called a "Channel islands premium" for breeding and milking Jersey and Guernsey cows and selling their milk, which had a certain cream content. Those sorts of support mechanisms were in place well before we got anywhere near the then European Economic Community.
We need to subsidise and support agriculture for many reasons which have been referred to this evening. If the countries with which we compete continue to support their food industries financially—in the way that America supports its cereal, beef and sheep industries, for example—what chance will our farmers have when low-priced imports flood into this country? Our industry would be wiped out. The only alternative would be to raise tariffs and turn our back on the free single market that we are moving towards gradually.
The second fundamental flaw in the all-too-easy argument for tearing up the CAP and the CFP is that they are part of our treaty obligations. They are part and parcel of our membership of the European Union. If we were to tear up the CAP or the CFP we would be tearing up the treaty of Rome also.
If we are pushed into artificial political integration in Europe faster than we would like or further than we are prepared to go, the time may come when, as a nation, we must consider the issues sensibly. I am mindful of the Bible verse which says:
"How can two walk together unless they be agreed?"
Agreed on what? We should be agreed on the destination, route and pace of change. There are times when we should examine our relationship with our European colleagues and ask ourselves whether we have agreed on the destination for Europe; have we agreed on the route and the pace of change? Perhaps there are occasions when we conclude that that is not the case.
The time may come when we must consider the issues very carefully. However, I argue passionately that that time is not yet here. The argument in relation to the CAP, CFP and Europe generally hangs in the balance. We have the opportunity to shape and to embrace the future of the European Union. We have the opportunity to reform the CAP and the CFP by working from within. Therefore, I believe that it is a pragmatic and sensible policy to continue the drive to reform the CAP.
We have had some success in that regard. It is encouraging to note that intervention stocks are falling. Between December 1993 and December 1994, surplus wheat stocks fell by 57 per cent., surplus beef stocks fell by 80 per cent., and butter stocks fell by 61 per cent. Those figures show that we are heading in the right direction. The overall cost of the CAP has fallen. There have been real savings for our consumers based on reduced support prices. We have taken some very sensible initiatives on fraud which should be welcomed. It is a modest start, but it is an important one. We must recognise that working from within the CAP affords us the best opportunity of entering the longed-for single market in farm goods and agricultural products.
The greatest opportunity to reform the CAP comes from the enlargement of the European Union, particularly the inclusion of the central and eastern European nations, which will drive us inexorably to the conclusion that the CAP must be reformed.

227
One of the greatest opponents of CAP reform is France, which is involved in the European Union primarily for reasons of defence. There is no doubt that continual enlargement of the Community helps defence. The day must come when the French must choose between the overwhelming need to create a union of states in which there is security and the decision always to kowtow to the agricultural lobby.
The process of enlargement affords a great opportunity to reform the CAP. We should be in no doubt that if we take on board the central and European nations, the CAP will be unaffordable.
I had lunch recently with a former colleague at one of the largest law firms in the city. He is in charge of its eastern European department and spends much time in the eastern European nations. Those countries are getting their act together to overcome the technical and legal difficulties that they have encountered as a result of being involved in the Soviet Union. They are beginning to work their way through those problems and produce more agricultural foodstuffs.
The basis of intervention policy is that the more one produces, the more one is paid. The cost of more countries coming into the CAP makes it unaffordable, yet the political momentum for enlargement is irresistible. It is the irresistible force meeting the immovable object and something has to give. I suggest that what will give will be the common agricultural policy as we currently know it.
I have no doubt that the changes will be hard fought and in true Community fashion there will be cliffhangers and last-minute decisions, but the momentum is in the right direction for reform and enlargement is the single greatest incentive for change.
There is now an opportunity—the greatest for many years—to see the unwieldy monster that we have created the in past few years reformed in a sensible and welcome manner.
8.52 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) asked whether the nations of the European Union have agreed on a route forward for both the common agricultural policy and the future of the European Union. The answer to that important question is no, we have not, and it is not reasonable to expect us to do so, but that is the excitement and the challenge of the European Union of which the CAP is such an important and sensitive part.
One of the sad things about the present state of British politics generally is that we have lost the vision of the creation of the European Union as a totally new structure. It is not the United States of America written on a European scale, nor is it a new-style British or German commonwealth. It resembles nothing that previously existed, so my hon. Friend was certainly right to ask that question. However, we must also understand that there are any number of answers or no answers, but that should be the excitement and the challenge to which Britain responds positively. Sadly, however, not all Members of Parliament on the Government or Opposition Benches respond in that manner.
More often than not, our regular debates on the common agricultural policy turn into a ritualistic moan and carp at the CAP and the European Union. We have
228
had at least four or five examples of that from both sides of the House today. It is time we started to throw more light on the subject and certainly to bring more honesty to the problems and the success of the much-reviled common agricultural policy. In particular, we should bring much more honesty to our own attitude and that of all right hon. and hon. Members to our continued membership of the European Union. As those of us who regularly participate in the debates on Europe are painfully aware, we are treated in one speech after another to a litany of criticisms. The Christopher Booker monologue is trotted out time and again—be it the CAP, fisheries policy, or whatever alleged iniquity has been inflicted on us by those wicked gentlemen and ladies from Brussels. The benefits of the European Union—and even the dreaded common agricultural policy—are deliberately obscured.
This is a take note debate. It should not be a great party political battle, but a careful examination of the problems, what has been achieved and what remains to be achieved.
Mr. Budgen: It has been made up to be a great debate because the Conservative Whips have tried to describe it as a test of loyalty. That is how the debate was introduced to the public. As usual, it is a gross distortion.
Mr. Whitney: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's invention. As a former Whip, he will know a great deal more about the ways of the Whips Office than I would claim. I could not rival him in expertise in the ways of Whippery.
No right hon. or hon. Member would deny that there are serious problems to be solved with the common agricultural policy, but I should point up one danger, or pitfall into which we are in danger of falling—and, dare I say it, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) may be leading the charge to fall into the next pit. It is widely accepted that one of the reasons why we have been wrestling with the problem of the CAP for so many years is that we in Britain denied ourselves the possibility of being in at the beginning to devise and design a sensible structure for agricultural support in the then European Community, and so the CAP emerged as the bane of all our lives thereafter. If we followed the advice of some hon. Members, and of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and denied ourselves the opportunity to be in at the beginning of what may or may not be the emergence of a single currency, we would make yet another mistake—and one that we might rue even more bitterly than we have, over many years, rued not having been in at the start of the CAP's construction.
It is important to keep in perspective the origins of the problems and the terrible gloom to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West cheerfully contributes whenever he has the opportunity and which is shed on all things European by a handful of people—reinforced and amplified in geometric proportion by the media's avid attention. We all know the game that is being played, although I am not sure whether the media understand the game that they are playing.
Ever since Britain became a member of the European Community—late, but we finally made it—we have been pressing for reform of the CAP, and progress has been made. I was a diplomat at the Foreign Office for most of the time of the last Labour Government. They tried—feebly and not very successfully, but they tried. I invite the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), in

229
view of the remarks that he makes now, to look back on his own record and that of his former ministerial colleagues when they were in office. If he did,0 silence might reign thereafter on the Labour Front Bench.
Times change and things improve. In 1988, the CAP was costing 70 per cent. of the EC budget. Thanks largely to pressures exerted by Conservative Ministers, the cost has reduced to 50 per cent. We should rejoice in that progress, and I am sure that I carry my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West with me in that.
Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend is making an amusing, interesting and vastly self-confident speech, but all that happened was that other aspects of the budget were enhanced. That had the effect of reducing the proportion accounted for by the common agricultural policy. My hon. Friend is wrong to make the assertion that he does. He used to be a distinguished commentator. Not only have the Whips tried to hype the debate, but they have introduced my hon. Friend at a time when he is ill prepared.
Mr. Whitney: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's flattery, but flattery from that quarter makes one rather nervous. I repeat that if anyone knows the ways of the Whips' Office, it is my hon. Friend. Admittedly his sojourn—
Mr. Budgen: The Whips should have given my hon. Friend more time to prepare.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The House knows my views on sedentary interventions, and that applies to all hon. Members.
Mr. Whitney: I allowed myself to be distracted from the CAP and I will endeavour to return to the strait and narrow.
As my hon. Friend said, the budget is increasing and we are doing our best to keep it under control. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister achieved much in that regard at Maastricht. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and the House acknowledges the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The cost of the CAP is 50 per cent. of a greater sum, but that overall aggregate is steadily being brought under control—as is CAP spending.
I remind the House that significant progress was made with the 1992 reforms and that much of that success was contributed by British Ministers. There were reductions in support prices and in incentives for overproduction, and much greater transparency in agricultural support payments. We should not allow ourselves to think that no progress was made. Since the Government came to office, considerable progress has been made, not least because of the success of the GATT negotiations. The British Conservative Government can take great credit not only for what they achieved for agriculture but for bringing the whole enterprise, after many long and difficult years, to a successful conclusion. In that successful venture great tribute is due to our friend Sir Leon Brittan, the Commissioner in charge of the negotiations.
The other impact of the GATT agreement was that, for the first time, agriculture was brought within the rules on multilateral trade. I certainly hope that people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West,
230
attached as he is to free trade, would accept that bringing agriculture, difficult though that is, within the realms of normal trading arrangements is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
That excellent record of achievement should be acknowledged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell) said, neither Front Benchers nor anyone else should continue to make these highly exaggerated claims about the cost of the CAP to British families. I would accept the figure that my hon. Friend suggested of about 15 per week per family. As the Minister rightly pointed out, however, world prices also have an impact on this highly complicated equation. It might be argued that it is not even susceptible to serious analysis.
The fact is that, whatever system applies, some sort of agricultural price support would be needed in any country. So the claims and criticisms made by those who continually attack the European Union, to the effect that the CAP is hugely costly to our constituents, are ill founded. Most people agree that there is a need for a CAP of some nature. By all means let us improve its nature, but the alternative would be to break up the world once again into competing and distorting systems of national agricultural subsidies. Anyone who knows what happened in the 1920s and 1930s will know the sort of dangers to which such systems led.
The CAP has been reformed and must be reformed significantly further. Many hon. Members have pointed out that the enlargement of the EU, with the entry of the Visegrad countries, will lead to new opportunities in that regard. I do not say that progress will be easier, but it will perhaps be less difficult to achieve the sort of reforms that most of us want. Let us not fool ourselves, however, that the process can be painless.
I believe that there is a strong case for adopting a much more free-market approach to agriculture. I know a number of farmers in my constituency who are increasingly of that view, so we should be open-minded about it. Instead of spreading more gloom, we should acknowledge that the entry of the Visegrad countries offers fresh opportunities to us all. Certainly, the Germans are as interested as we are in ensuring that change moves in the direction that we want. That, at any rate, is the challenge.
We need an end to the negativism and destructiveness with which we have become so familiar. Often the people who spread these criticisms have no great interest in the CAP as such. They probably also recognise that the burden of agricultural support payments is well nigh inescapable, whatever the means adopted. That type of criticism comes from people who want us out of the European Union but do not have the guts to say so. I offer this challenge to any right hon. or hon. Member on either side of the House: let them for goodness sake nail their colours to that particular mast if that is where they are. It is not, of course, a colour that I personally would strike, because I believe in the future of the United Kingdom and I am sure that this country, our industry and our agriculture can live and survive in a positive and constructive co-operation with our European partners. I believe that those who wish to walk away from that, far from being nationalists or patriots, are little Englanders who do not have the national self-confidence that all the other 14 members of the European Union have.

231
I urge the whole House to take a positive and constructive approach to understanding what has been achieved in our reforms of the common agricultural policy, while recognising that we still have a long way to go.
9.10 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: It has been an interesting debate. Every year, many hon. Members highlight the problems of the CAP, yet depressingly little progress seems to be made with it. Although we have heard some sensible speeches, much nonsense has been spoken, and doubtful figures have been bandied about with regard to the CAP. A quite amazing attempt has been made to blame the excesses of the CAP on Labour Governments of more than 16 years ago. That is going it a bit.
It was somewhat unreasonable and bad mannered for the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) of being an inner-city Member of Parliament who has been put up to represent the Labour party. My hon. Friend was born and raised on a farm. He is a distinguished agricultural scientist and was an agriculture Minister serving in Governments when the hon. Member for Harborough was probably throwing bread rolls around at a Young Conservatives' dinner.
The wording of the Government motion is amazingly complacent. It congratulates the Government
"on its robust negotiating stance … since 1979".
That is going it a bit, quite frankly.
The cost of the CAP is still rising and is expected to reach £32.4 billion in 1999—a huge increase, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) quite rightly pointed out. There has not been much evidence of any control in bringing the CAP to heel. There are still fundamental objections to the CAP in its present form. The costs to consumers are still artificially high. The consumers in Europe group estimates that between £16 and £20 per family per week is spent on supporting the CAP.
The CAP puts a block on the future expansion of the European Union to embrace eastern Europe. It is quite clear that we could not possibly expand the European Union and take the eastern European states into the CAP in its current form.
The CAP is still open to massive fraud, and we have seen examples of that. Indeed, the Minister gave some examples. It is fair and reasonable, however, to pay tribute to the European Court of Auditors, which has been astute in identifying and tracking down those frauds. The CAP still distorts world trade and has a negative effect on developing countries. Far too much is still spent on intervention, storage and transport. Again, the more one spends on those aspects, the more scope there is for fraud.
The CAP, by its very nature, its scale and the way in which it operates, is an extremely bureaucratic structure. I have a document here that lists all the publications that have been written on the European Union in the past year. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) is not here, as it is the type of document that he likes to read out in debates, particularly during private Members' Bills, as he is so addicted to publications such as telephone directories.
232
Even the MacSharry reforms, which were meant to move away from product price support, have not been as successful as we were led to believe. Set-aside and quotas have not been popular and have provided only short-term relief. Milk quotas are traded and leased. Some 70 per cent. of milk quotas are in the hands of people who are no longer producing. A large amount of money is being given to people for nothing. Quotas distort the market. Those who have quotas are in a fortunate position.
Arable payments have inflated land values and assisted the larger farmer at the expense of the smaller farmer.
Mr. Budgen: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about quotas. Would an incoming Labour Government be in favour of abolishing quotas, presumably without compensation?
Mr. Morley: We certainly favour phasing out quotas. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. Budgen: Without compensation?
Mr. Morley: People within the quota-controlled market know very well that it is likely that the day will come when the quota regime will end. It is not so much a question of compensation but of the need to give adequate notice. The various forms of support and intervention methods cannot simply be switched off; they must be phased out.
Mr. Budgen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that for the average dairy farmer, for example, the quota may be worth as much as £200,000. They would very much like to know whether—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to say something very carefully—on taking office a Labour Government would immediately give notice that quotas were to be phased out, say, within two years without compensation. [Interruption.] I do not have any milk quota.
Mr. Morley: I shall certainly not be drawn on such issues, but in the past the Government have cut quotas without compensation.
The levels of various forms of support are enormous. Income from oilseed production is 64 per cent. subsidy. About 40 per cent. of arable farmers' net incomes comes in subsidy. Despite that, about 20,000 farmers are expected to leave farming by the beginning of the next century. Therefore, the CAP is not altogether successful at keeping people on the land.
There is an argument for support for small farmers and for keeping people in farming and it will have to be considered in the future. Some Conservative Members have argued for limits to the amount of subsidy paid to farmers. That is an interesting idea, but it has disadvantages for individuals. However, the argument is worth considering.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: With respect, in the European context it is dangerous to refer to small farms because what is a small farm in Britain is a large farm on the continent. One must be careful to define what one means by such terms.
Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am aware of the average size of United Kingdom farms compared with European farms. I shall say a word about European farmers later.

233
There have been problems with headage payments, which have led to overstocking and distortions within the livestock sector.
It is also hard to justify the fact that some agricultural sectors are heavily subsidised while others are not. That again distorts the market and means that there is no free market in agricultural products. It is hard to justify subsidies for the dairy, beef and sheep sectors while the pig and poultry sectors receive no subsidy.
Such subsidies also influence the debate on the transport of live animals for slaughter. It is a scandal that continental veal producers are often linked to dairy producers. The unnatural liquid diet on which veal calves are force fed comes from generously subsidised milk powder from surplus milk production. Such distortions and abuse should be stopped. I hope that the Minister will argue for such changes within the CAP regime.
Producers such as Welsh sheep farmers who have been so unfairly critical of the NFU in recent months should remember that up to 75 per cent. of the net income of those in the less-favoured areas comes from subsidy.
Some people have called for disruptive action in response to the demonstrations about live exports. They should stop and think about what that would do to their image, and about the support that they receive from taxpayers—some of whom are demonstrating against live exports. They should heed the wiser counsel of organisations such as the NFU, which know the most effective ways of lobbying and putting the farmers' case.
The same applies to the dairy sector, which the CAP supports to the tune of about £230 per year per cow. As has been pointed out, those who have received milk quotas have received a substantial free capital asset. I am not saying that farmers should not have the right to demonstrate and to put their point of view—or, indeed, that fishermen should not have the same right, although I have every sympathy with the Minister.
The unsubsidised pig sector has had a difficult couple of years. It currently faces the cost of phasing out stalls and tethers. The sector should be congratulated on the positive way in which it has approached animal welfare, but it would not be unreasonable to give it some support at this difficult time. Grant aid is being offered to Northern Ireland producers; why cannot that aid be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom?
Why should we not consider 100 per cent. first-year tax allowances for the cost of replacing stalls and tethers? Why should we not consider enabling capital allowances for buildings with a short lifespan to be written off over their useful lives? Why should we not consider allowing losses to be carried for three years for income-tax purposes, in line with the arrangements for corporation tax? I hope that the Minister will raise those points with the Chancellor, and that they will be dealt with in the Finance Bill.
I must comment briefly on the export of live animals for slaughter in the context of CAP reform. CAP regimes distort the livestock sector, as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) pointed out. I must take issue with the hon. Members for Hexham and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway): the export of live animals for slaughter exports jobs from the rural economy, quite apart from the attendant welfare problems.
234
Of course problems are involved in, for instance, calf production. If we are to restrict the export of calves in veal crates, we must consider supporting the production of rose veal in this country, and providing marketing aids. We must consider the production of lightweight beef, and selective breeding. The Labour party has discussed those issues with the Meat and Livestock Commission, and with the industry.
There is less of a problem with sheep exports. Currently 80 per cent. of the sheep trade is carcase trade, and I am sure that the remaining 20 per cent. could be absorbed by further carcase exports. In its recent report "UK Live Animal Exports: the Implications of a Significant Reduction in the Trade for the UK Meat and Livestock Industry", the Meat and Livestock Commission considers the issue of live exports in some depth, and from the producer's point of view.
The MLC examined the effect on lamb prices of reducing the number of exports, and found that prices at market had generally been rising as a result of reduced lamb slaughtering following this year's reduced lamb crop. There have been some improvements in the French market price, possibly as a result of fewer live sheep imports, and a 3 per cent. fall in the value of sterling. The MLC said that there were
"real opportunities for the expansion of the export market for lamb and there is scope for extending the home market. These will be major challenges for the industry and will require the maximum amount of support from MLC and Government."
Mr. Stevenson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the ability to develop a home market in meat is compromised by the lack of licensed abattoirs? According to the MAFF report there are about 1,400 licensed red-meat abattoirs, approximately 800 of which are on temporary derogations and could close at the end of the year unless they are brought up to structural standards. The Government seem oblivious to the problem
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The closure of abattoirs is certainly linked to the problem to which he refers. Although, overall, there is spare capacity in abattoirs in this country, the major problem is where they are. A regional policy should certainly be considered. We can and should be adding value and concentrating on the first-class meat export business trade, not on a second-class live animal for slaughter trade.
There seems to be a case for arguing that there should be a European fund to provide capital grants for moving towards high-welfare production systems. That would include the pig and poultry sectors. I recently visited the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service experimental farm at Gleadthorpe, looked at various systems of egg production and talked to United Kingdom egg producers. It is only fair that I put on record the tremendous work that the poultry sector is doing in developing a more welfare-friendly system. It is, of course, concerned that, in Europe, little progress seems to be being made in comparison to this country in the development of welfare-friendly production schemes.
One way to deal with that problem would be to argue for the establishment of a European fund, to which any producer in any member state could bid for capital assistance. I am quite confident that, given their excellent record, British producers would make the majority of applications to that fund. Again, the Minister may care to consider that in any reform of the common agricultural

235
policy. A number of budget headings could be diverted to fund such a scheme—scrapping the tobacco regime would certainly be one of them. I am sure that better options for rural employment can be provided than the tobacco scheme.
We in the Labour party believe that much of the support schemes, quota arrangements and intervention buying is expensive and wasteful and is damaging the development of a strong agricultural market. We want to phase those schemes out in an orderly and structured way—not overnight, as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) said. It has to be done sensibly and, of course, by negotiation in the European Community.
We also want to ensure that production matches demand. We have already heard examples of the proposed reforms for the sugar regime. It would be quite unacceptable if our quota was cut even though the UK is not self-sufficient in sugar production.
The idea of decoupling support from production and intervention is supported and accepted by most of the main farming organisations such as the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and other countryside organisations. Indeed, as far as I can remember, every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate supports such reform of the CAP. Questions lie in the form, application and speed of that reform. If we can achieve that decoupling, there is great potential for redirecting the savings towards a more constructive use in the countryside.
We want progressively to increase support for environmental land management schemes, as we progressively reduce support for production. It is quite unacceptable that the agri-environmental package in the CAP accounts for a paltry 1 per cent. of the total UK CAP budget. We need to move towards a more integrated land management policy. We need to support research and development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East rightly pointed out, especially on non-food crops.
We need to identify socio-economic factors, such as upland and isolated communities. Farming in the rest of Europe, such as that under the cork forests, in eastern Europe, especially in Poland and Czechoslovakia, on the Spanish steppes, which are threatened through ploughing and open irrigation, and in the Greek olive groves are part of a very rich bio-diversity. If we are to have a CAP structure, I for one would much rather that it supported that range of European bio-diversity and the many communities that farm with such methods than the move towards large-scale farming that we seen over recent years.
We need to have basic environmental protection, which should be an obligation on all land users. Important areas should be protected by statute, but where there is a need for management such agreement should be available on a voluntary option basis. There must be co-ordination between European schemes and GATT. Set-aside should have a clearer environmental role, including a forestry role. I have said before that I very much welcome the progress that the Minister has made in negotiating that. We need to ensure that environmental conditions apply to all support payments in all agricultural sectors. The treaty of Rome should, indeed, be amended at the 1996 intergovernmental conference to reflect that.
236
Diversification should be encouraged within a rural and land use policy framework, and we need to encourage a sustainable and prosperous rural economy, recognising the important role of agriculture as a principal land user.
There are several ways of achieving those objectives, but repatriation is not really one of them. That would simply distort any agricultural market within the European Union and lead to unfair competition. If the individual elements of CAP contributions were given to member states what control would there be, for example, of France's support for its pig industry and Holland's support for its dairy sector? It would be impossible for there to be any kind of fair agricultural market on that basis.
We could have repatriation only within a strict framework of environmental support agreed through the European Union, so that support for the agricultural sector was based on land management objectives and not used as a production subsidy.
There is widespread recognition of the failures and distortions of the CAP, and our amendment reflects the mood of the House and of the country. I was sorry to hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) about why he feels that he must vote for the Government. At least he was honest when he said that this was not the time to attack the Government. According to him, the time to attack them is when they are arrogant and popular—so presumably, according to his argument, when they are arrogant and unpopular it is not the time to attack them.
The hon. Gentleman seems to offer us one of the first cases on record of a rat jumping back on to a sinking ship instead of deserting it. How will he be able to hold his head up again when he talks about the European Union, after voting for a motion that
"congratulates the Government on its robust negotiating stance on the CAP since 1979",
and on
"its leading role in achieving reform of the CAP",
although we know that prices have increased, fraud continues, farmers are still leaving the land and consumers are still paying far too much?
The hon. Gentleman intends to vote for that Government motion and not for our amendment, although our amendment stands not only for what we have argued for but for what he has publicly argued for. He is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to argue one thing and vote for another, which is not what some of his hon. Friends have said they will do. I do not think that we shall take what he says about Europe very seriously any more.
It is time for a constructive debate on Europe, such as we are trying to have on CAP reform. It is not good enough constantly to attack Europe in a negative and damaging way, as the hon. Gentleman does. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) was right to say that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West should publicly say that we should leave the EU. He should campaign for that instead of constantly sniping and fuelling the civil war in his party, because all that is affecting public perceptions of the EU and of the positive aspects that we in this country should support.
There is a case for criticism and for arguing for reform, and we have been making that case tonight, but there is also a case for recognising the benefits of the EU for the agricultural and food sectors and for the rest of the

237
economy, and we should think about that when people embark on xenophobic, irrational and ill-considered attacks. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West intends to support the Government tonight, I hope that in future we shall hear less of those attacks and more of his defence of the European Union and of the Government's position.
9.33 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): This has been an interesting debate, and I am grateful for the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell), for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) and for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who in their own ways all touched on the many dimensions and aspects of the common agricultural policy as seen by Conservative Members.
I shall deal with the remarks of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) in due course, but we also heard some comments from the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I shall have more to say about those hon. Members in a moment.
The problem for some Conservative Members is that there is perhaps a temptation to give some credibility to the amendment tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Anybody with the type of analytical skills displayed in this debate who reads the thin diet which stands for an Opposition policy on agriculture will see that the Government are truly addressing the issues of reform and modification of the common agricultural policy in the interests of the food industry, consumers and farmers, while the Opposition are out on a fishing trip for some kind of short-term political gain. We have credible policies, as outlined in the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow, for Northampton, North and for Wolverhampton, South-West have their own way of looking at the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow says that the common agriculture policy cannot be reformed, and says that he talks as a craftsman and a farmer. I would say to my hon. Friend that I earned my living in the horticulture industry before coming to the House. I also have first-hand experience of what it is like to operate in a sector that effectively has no direct intervention. I know what it is like to live on my wits to serve the needs of customers. But I also know what it is like to operate within a European market where having, for example, common standards in terms of grading means that I can operate Europewide and worldwide in agri-food products. The reality of the debate is that we cannot instantaneously change the common policy.
238
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow has a unique view of the matter, and he knows that, at the end of the debate, we will not be able to trigger the type of reform that he seeks. The ideas which we have put forward provide a solid and sensible way of dealing with some of the problems of the common policy, and I hope at least that he will see favour in the line that we are taking. He is right that we must make the common policy more responsive to the needs of the marketplace. He also mentioned the pig meat regime. We voted solidly against that proposal—the regime has now ended—as it was not something with which we could agree.
My hon. Friend also talked on the subject of abattoirs, the problems of which are affecting a number of my hon. Friends. At a time when the consumption of red meat is under pressure, when matters of hygiene and quality are of uppermost concern and when meat is being dominated by the supermarkets which seek the highest standards, some of the enormous investment that has been made to ensure the highest possible standards must be supported by those in the meat trade to safeguard an important industry for our farmers.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Northampton, North is not in his place. [Interruption.] He has shifted places. I see that he has put his hand up at the back of the class, and I recognise him. Unfortunately, I cannot sustain the same benevolence to him as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow for his arguments on the subject of repatriation. His argument would cause significant problems of distortion, and that view is shared by Members on both sides of the House. Nobody seriously supports repatriation because of the potential for distortion and unfairness which could creep in.
In discussions on the common policy, one often hears people seeking reassurance that things will be fair and that the rules will be implemented. Repatriation is a short route against that. I do not understand my hon. Friend for Northampton, North who, on the one hand, was advocating a free market approach, but, on the other, started to talk about standard quantities of milk and some form of intervention system. That did not seem entirely consistent with the freeing up of the market that he wanted.
Many hon. Members have tried to put the matter into perspective. Let us consider the costs of the common policy. If we convert into 1993–94 prices the amount of money that we spent on agricultural support in the financial year 1958–59, the figure is £2.8 billion. We spent £2.7 billion in 1994–95. That is not an excuse not to reform. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, one of the great drivers of change will be the expansion of the Community and the pressure that enlargement will put on the budget. However, I ask my hon. Friend to keep the amounts in perspective.
Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has made various points—
Mr. John Greenway: He is not your hon. Friend.
Mr. Marlow: Of course he is my hon. Friend. He is all right. My hon. Friend said that there had been no great change in agricultural support. May I remind him that we contribute net to the Community budget a further £3 billion, some of which could be spent on agricultural support. My hon. Friend said that what I suggested would be unfair to the British farmer. Is it fair that the British

239
farmer can produce only 80-odd per cent. of the milk required in the United Kingdom, that we cannot produce as much lamb as we possibly could because of quotas and that we have to take more of our land out of production than any other Community country?
Mr. Jack: The Government understand those frustrations. We seek in the long term to remove the barriers to letting the excellence and efficiency of our farming operation have its particular way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe adduced in his remarks, had we been a member of the Community at the beginning, we could have designed a system that did not have the restrictions to which my hon. Friend refers. Now is the time to back the Government, who take reform seriously in a properly presented way.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, in his own forensic style, intervened in the debate on several occasions. He was right when he talked about the need to make the CAP more market-driven. On that point, we agree with him. I was delighted with his comments because he reflected well on what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about our desire to reform.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asked some specific questions about the implementation of the milk quotas. Spain has now fully implemented milk quotas. There will be a report from the Commission by 31 March on Italy's efforts to implement the quotas. If it has not done so, it will face further penalty. My right hon. Friend will have an opportunity to raise those matters in the Agriculture Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale set an example for the House in his speech. He did what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East singularly failed to do. He worked out a plan of campaign. Opposition Members shake their heads as if they had not heard his sage words. Let me remind the House what my hon. Friend said. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn could perhaps associate himself with it. My hon. Friend said that change needed to be well thought through. He was right. He said that if we were to change from one thing to another we should not tip the baby out with the bathwater. He was right. He said that change should be gradual. He was also right about that.
This morning the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East told the Financial Times what a mess the CAP was. Then, as he sought instantaneous change, he also told us that we needed gradual reform. He is possibly one of the most inconsistent people. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale is entirely consistent. My hon. Friend went on to talk about the need to move the CAP closer to the market. On that point again, he was right. He said that the CAP should be non-discriminatory. Absolutely. If there is to be fairness, all the talk of repatriation must be set aside. Otherwise, we shall fall on to a discriminatory track.
My hon. Friend mentioned environmental benefit. Given that in the financial year 1996–97, when our full agri-environment package is up and running, we will spend about £100 million, I agree with him.
One of the areas for reform that must be explored is that to which the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe alluded in his speech. At least he had some ideas that we can debate. I searched for them in the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, but could not find any. Environmental cost compliance is an important area for the future of the CAP. Those prepared to debate
240
reform sensibly yearn to see the common policy develop more environmental credentials. That will be an important theme as we develop the debate on reform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said that we should have regard for the food and drink industry. I could not agree with him more. One of the great missing elements on the Opposition Benches is a regard for the purpose of the agricultural industry, which is about producing the raw materials for our competitive food industry. If it is to remain competitive, Conservative Members' idea of dispensing with the unnecessary burdens and costs of the social chapter will allow our food industry to triumph in Europe, rather than fail as it would under Labour policies.
Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that we should do everything that we possibly can to export excellent produce from this country? Furthermore, does he agree that the Food From Britain campaign has had tremendous success? Will he tell the House how much he has invested in that programme?
Mr. Jack: We are putting some £6 million into Food From Britain, which is an excellent organisation. For example, I am about to announce an export seminar to encourage tremendous development in horticulture. My hon. Friend is entirely right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale went on to discuss matters connected with retaining the security of food supply, which is also important to the food industry. His plan was a blueprint that should be listened to by hon. Members across the House—[Interruption.]—despite the carping voices opposite.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West drew attention, in his unique style, to some of the problems of Milk Marque and invited me to comment on those. The Office of Fair Trading and the European Commission can be used if questions of abuse of competitive position arise. That was made clear during the passage of the Agriculture Bill and subsequently. Milk Marque will have noted carefully what my hon. Friend said, as will others in the milk industry, because commentary at this stage is particularly valuable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton recognised an important point when he said that some form of agricultural support is inevitable. In a perceptive speech to the Oxford Farming conference, my right hon. Friend the Minister reminded the industry that any change would inevitably be gradual and that the rest of the world, with the possible exception of New Zealand, would not easily give up its present support because it knows that it is an important negotiating tool when it comes to further rounds of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. My hon. Friend also pointed his finger at enlargement, which I shall discuss in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough paid tribute to our pioneering work on the inheritance tax changes in the context of the Agricultural Tenancies Bill. It is notable that such a pioneering measure, which is designed to bring new blood into the farming industry, should be so vehemently opposed by the Opposition.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jack: No, I do not think that I will—not to the hon. Gentleman. I want to talk to my hon. Friend the Member

241
for Hexham, who asked what Labour was all about in this debate. We are still searching for the answer. He developed the theme of world competition, and agriculture is a world competitive activity. We have a great deal of good techniques that are much demanded outside the shores of this country, and we support the industry's export activities.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way, so the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham also discussed animal welfare, to which I shall return in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe provided us with a useful background, giving us the context in which to regard the subject, which is the wider debate on Europe. I think that he is right to try to do so, to place in perspective the important agricultural matters that we are considering.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North took us through some important parts of the discussion on the subject of—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House again about sedentary interruptions and what I would call running commentaries.
Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North takes a considerable interest in the costs and expenditure of the common agricultural policy. However, the latest figure that we have—we have deposited a report in the Library to that effect—is that the cost of agriculture per person in this country is £4 per week. That is the most authoritative and definitive figure that we can have. My hon. Friend was right, however, to caution the House not to place too much weight on some of the figures about relative savings that could result if there were no common agricultural policy, because it is extremely difficult to predict what the shape of world prices would be compared with European prices if there were no common agricultural policy. He did the House a service with his arguments in that respect.
Mr. Welsh rose—
Mr. Jack: I want to comment on the speeches of several hon. Members and, in fairness, I shall comment on the arguments of the hon. Member for Angus, East in due course.
It is quite nice to see the hon. Member for North Cornwall in the Chamber this evening. Your absence was noted, you are quite right, in the debate on the Agricultural Tenancies Bill, and your absence from the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Your absence from the animal welfare—
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman's absence.
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman's absence. I appreciate that. The absence of the hon. Member for North Cornwall from the Agriculture Tenancies Bill debate and from the animal welfare debate and parliamentary questions was duly noticed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Having suffered 31 minutes of him in the debate on hill livestock
242
compensatory allowance, only for him to be ruled out of order by the Chairman, I think that he probably did us a service by not being there to give us his opinions.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall agreed with us about repatriation, and I was grateful for that support. He also spoke on the subject of a common rural policy. His is an over-bureaucratic approach to that. Ours is the suggestion of having a rural White Paper. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my noble Friend Earl Howe and I have chaired a series of seminars throughout the country to listen carefully to all those who have an opinion about the development of the rural economy in this land.
The Conservative Government are consulting as widely as possible. We have received about 300 submissions already about that matter. There is overwhelming interest in the way that we are developing a rural approach to policy.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall chastised me on the subject of hill livestock compensatory allowance and the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and for Angus, East discussed that. I draw their attention to the fact that we do have to take into account the total position of the subsidy incomes that will be paid in terms of hill farmers.
Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jack: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to answer the arguments that he made in his speech before he comes back?
In 1994, the total subsidy going to hill farmers was about £550 million. That increased to £600 million. In its third report the Agriculture Select Committee said that it did not see anything sinister in a switch in the source of funding from the United Kingdom Government to the European Community. It noted that we could rightfully take those matters into account. I discussed the hon. Gentleman's other argument in my remarks about non-farming incomes.
Mr. Tyler: Does the Minister now deny the facts that he has laid before the House this evening—that hill farmers had reductions in their income last year and will have a further drop in the current year? If the compensatory allowances are to mean anything, surely he will compensate for those reductions?
Mr. Jack: I am adverting to the fact that there is an increase in moneys going into the hills, not necessarily from the hill livestock compensatory allowance, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food held constant against last year. I have told the hon. Gentleman that there are other subsidy increases. He also seeks to ignore the support that we are able to give as a Government through objective 5b status—about £620 million—to help strengthen those difficult parts of the country. We understand the problems of the hills. We will continue to consider those problems carefully and we are trying to strengthen the economy in those areas.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall, in common with other hon. Members, spoke about pigs. The Ministry has held a seminar with leading members of the pig industry to try to find a way forward. The hon. Member for North Cornwall spoke about Northern Ireland. I should say that, under objective 1 status, Northern Ireland has the ability to use some of its moneys for a limited scheme of help

243
with investment in sow stalls and tethers, but only for the smaller pig herd. The important point to remember is that 60 per cent. of our pig herd is already in loose accommodation. Those who have made that change may be rather worried about the possibility of funding those who have not already done so.
I was somewhat surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. He took us on a statistical magical trip around the CAP, but all Conservative Members were left desperately searching for some indication of Labour party policy on agriculture. None of us was able to find one iota of Opposition policy.
The hon. Gentleman was continually probed about that by my hon. Friends, but he failed to come up with any suggestion of Opposition policy. Having listened to his remarks, that is not surprising. He has, after all, singularly opposed the sensible changes that we have made. When it came to developing the future of agriculture with the Agricultural Tenancies Bill, the hon. Gentleman led the charge against it. He does not acknowledge the thinking on how to review the CAP, but my right hon. Friend has appointed a group to do that. Where is the Labour party's policy?
The hon. Gentleman has failed to acknowledge the lead that we have given to the reform of the CAP. He fails to understand the dynamics of the enlargement of the CAP. My right hon. Friend was right when he pointed out that it is external pressures on the CAP which are the main driver to change. The hon. Gentleman fails to give any weight to the efforts that the Government made to ensure that the MacSharry proposals have led to a 30 per cent. reduction in cereal support prices; a 15 per cent. reduction in beef support prices and a greater move towards the market driving the CAP. Those are Conservative achievements, but the hon. Gentleman offered us not one iota of similar Opposition policy. In every way he has tried to frustrate sensible debate on change to the CAP.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe had the nerve to start talking about animal welfare. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has already put before the House a six-point plan on ways in which we are trying to safeguard the meat trade in this country; safeguard a European solution on animal welfare as well as safeguard the veal industry by developing rose beef in this country.
I should point out what the hon. Gentleman said recently about bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the export of animals. His comments were reviewed in Farming News, which said that he made irresponsible remarks and that his contribution represented
"good political point scoring perhaps, but the tempting conclusion has to be that politicians would do better to concern themselves with Britain's agricultural economy than the minuscule threat to the welfare of European consumers."
Because of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman put the meat trade at risk. He has also done a great disservice to the Government's efforts to deal sensibly with issues connected with the welfare of animals.
Mr. Morley rose—
Mr. Jack: No, I will not give way, because every hon. Member should appreciate that it is the Conservative party that takes reform seriously. We have seen from tonight's debate that the Labour party is not the farmer's friend. The Opposition have little understanding of rural life and no clear agenda for the future shape of the CAP, as their
244
amendment shows. It is Conservative Members who have the ideas about renegotiating the CAP and who live in the real world of food and farming. We are taking forward new thinking and new ideas about the rural economy. We are moving forward in the fight against fraud in the context of the common agricultural policy, and we are seriously considering the question of enlargement as the key to the much-needed reforms that we advocate. I urge all hon. Members to support us in the Lobby tonight.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 305.

Division No. 106]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cousins, Jim

Adams, Mrs Irene

Cox, Tom

Ainger, Nick

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Allen, Graham

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Alton, David

Dafis, Cynog

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Dalyell, Tam

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Darling, Alistair

Armstrong, Hilary

Davidson, Ian

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Ashton, Joe

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Austin-Walker, John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

Barron, Kevin

Dewar, Donald

Battle, John

Dixon, Don

Bayley, Hugh

Dobson, Frank

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Donohoe, Brian H

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Dowd, Jim

Bell, Stuart

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Benton, Joe

Eagle, Ms Angela

Bermingham, Gerald

Eastham, Ken

Berry, Roger

Etherington, Bill

Betts, Clive

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Blunkett, David

Fatchett, Derek

Boateng, Paul

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bradley, Keith

Fisher, Mark

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Foulkes, George

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

Fraser, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Fyfe, Maria

Burden, Richard

Galbraith, Sam

Byers, Stephen

Galloway, George

Caborn, Richard

Gapes, Mike

Callaghan, Jim

Garrett, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

George, Bruce

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Campbell-Savours, D N

Godsiff, Roger

Cann, Jamie

Golding, Mrs Llin

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Gordon, Mildred

Chidgey, David

Graham, Thomas

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Church, Judith

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clapham, Michael

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Grocott, Bruce

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Gunnell, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hain, Peter

Clelland, David

Hall, Mike

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hannam, Sir John

Coffey, Ann

Hanson, David

Cohen, Harry

Hardy, Peter

Connarty, Michael

Harvey, Nick

Corbett, Robin

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Henderson, Doug

Corston, Jean

Heppell, John

245

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Hinchliffe, David

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hodge, Margaret

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hoey, Kate

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Mudie, George

Hood, Jimmy

Mullin, Chris

Hoon, Geoffrey

Murphy, Paul

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Hoyle, Doug

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Hara, Edward

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Olner, Bill

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Parry, Robert

Hutton, John

Patchett, Terry

Illsley, Eric

Pearson, Ian

Ingram, Adam

Pendry, Tom

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Pickthall, Colin

Jamieson, David

Pike, Peter L

Janner, Greville

Pope, Greg

Johnston, Sir Russell

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jowell, Tessa

Radice, Giles

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Randall, Stuart

Keen, Alan

Raynsford, Nick

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Redmond, Martin

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Reid, Dr John

Khabra, Piara S

Rendel, David

Kilfoyle, Peter

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Kirkwood, Archy

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Lewis, Terry

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Rogers, Allan

Litherland, Robert

Rooker, Jeff

Livingstone, Ken

Rooney, Terry

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Rowlands, Ted

Loyden, Eddie

Ruddock, Joan

Lynne, Ms Liz

Salmond, Alex

McAllion, John

Sedgemore, Brian

McAvoy, Thomas

Sheerman, Barry

McCartney, Ian

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Macdonald, Calum

Short, Clare

McKelvey, William

Simpson, Alan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis

McLeish, Henry

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Maclennan, Robert

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

McMaster, Gordon

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

MacShane, Denis

Snape, Peter

McWilliam, John

Soley, Clive

Madden, Max

Spearing, Nigel

Maddock, Diana

Spellar, John

Mahon, Alice

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Mandelson, Peter

Steinberg, Gerry

Marek, Dr John

Stevenson, George

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Straw, Jack

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Martlew, Eric

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Maxton, John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Meacher, Michael

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Meale, Alan

Timms, Stephen

Michael, Alun

Tipping, Paddy

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Touhig, Don

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Tyler, Paul

Milburn, Alan

Vaz, Keith

Miller, Andrew

Wallace, James

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Walley, Joan

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Morgan, Rhodri

Wareing, Robert N

Morley, Elliot

Watson, Mike

246

Welsh, Andrew

Worthington, Tony

Wicks, Malcolm

Wray, Jimmy

Wigley, Dafydd

Wright, Dr Tony

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Willams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wilson, Brian

Mr. John Cummings and

Winnick, David

Mr. Dennis Turner.

Wise, Audrey

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Alexander, Richard

Day, Stephen

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Delvin, Tim

Amess, David

Dickens, Geoffrey

Ancram, Michael

Dicks, Terry

Arbuthnot, James

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Dover, Den

Ashby, David

Duncan, Alan

Atkins, Robert

Duncan Smith, Iain

Atkinson, David (Bour'nmouth E)

Dunn, Bob

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Elletson, Harold

Baldry, Tony

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bates, Michael

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Batiste, Spencer

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bendall, Vivian

Evennett, David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Faber, David

Body, Sir Richard

Fabricant, Michael

Booth, Hartley

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Boswell, Tim

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fishburn, Dudley

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Forman, Nigel

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Bowis, John

Forth, Eric

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Brandreth, Gyles

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Brazier, Julian

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Bright, Sir Graham

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

French, Douglas

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Fry, Sir Peter

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gale, Roger

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Gallie, Phil

Budgen, Nicholas

Gardiner, Sir George

Burns, Simon

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Burt, Alistair

Garnier, Edward

Butcher, John

Gill, Christopher

Butler, Peter

Gillan, Cheryl

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Carrington, Matthew

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Carttiss, Michael

Gorst, Sir John

Cash, William

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Churchill, Mr

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Clappison, James

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Coe, Sebastian

Hague, William

Colvin, Michael

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Congdon, David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Conway, Derek

Hampson, Dr Keith

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hannam, Sir John

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hargreaves, Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Harris, David

Cran, James

Haselhurst, Alan

Critchley, Julian

Hawkins, Nick

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

Hawksley, Warren

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Heald, Oliver

247

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Nelson, Anthony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hendry, Charles

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Hicks, Robert

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Norris, Steve

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Horam, John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Page, Richard

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

Paice, James

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Pawsey, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hunter, Andrew

Pickles, Eric

Jack, Michael

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Powell, William (Corby)

Jenkin, Bernard

Rathbone, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Richards, Rod

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Riddick, Graham

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Robathan, Andrew

Key, Robert

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Knapman, Roger

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

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

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Knox, Sir David

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sackville, Tom

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shaw, David (Dover)

Legg, Barry

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Leigh, Edward

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shersby, Michael

Lidington, David

Sims, Roger

Lightbown, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lord, Michael

Soames, Nicholas

Luff, Peter

Speed, Sir Keith

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spencer, Sir Derek

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

MacKay, Andrew

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Maclean, David

Spink, Dr Robert

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sproat, Iain

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Madel, Sir David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Maitland, Lady Olga

Steen, Anthony

Major, Rt Hon John

Stern, Michael

Malone, Gerald

Stewart, Allan

Mans, Keith

Streeter, Gary

Marland, Paul

Sumberg, David

Marlow, Tony

Sweeney, Walter

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mates, Michael

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Thurnham, Peter

Merchant, Piers

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mills, Iain

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Tracey, Richard

Moate, Sir Roger

Tredinnick, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Trend, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Trotter, Neville

Moss, Malcolm

Twinn, Dr Ian

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

248

Viggers, Peter

Widdecombe, Ann

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Walden, George

Wilkinson, John

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Willetts, David

Waller, Gary

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Ward, John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Waterson, Nigel

Yeo, Tim

Watts, John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Tellers for the Noes:

Whitney, Ray

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Whittingdale, John

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put forthwith the main Question, pursuant to Order [17 March].
The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 277.

Division No. 107]

[10.15 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Coe, Sebastian

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Colvin, Michael

Alexander, Richard

Congdon, David

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Conway, Derek

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Amess, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Ancram, Michael

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Arbuthnot, James

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cran, James

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Critchley, Julian

Ashby, David

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

Atkins, Robert

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Day, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Baldry, Tony

Devlin, Tim

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dicks, Terry

Bates, Michael

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Batiste, Spencer

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bendall, Vivian

Dover, Den

Beresford, Sir Paul

Duncan, Alan

Booth, Hartley

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Boswell, Tim

Dunn, Bob

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Elletson, Harold

Bowis, John

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Brandreth, Gyles

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Brazier, Julian

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bright, Sir Graham

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Evennett, David

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Faber, David

Browning, Mrs Angela

Fabricant, Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Budgen, Nicholas

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Burns, Simon

Fishburn, Dudley

Burt, Alistair

Forman, Nigel

Butcher, John

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Butler, Peter

Forth, Eric

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Carrington, Matthew

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Cash, William

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

French, Douglas

Churchill, Mr

Fry, Sir Peter

Clappison, James

Gale, Roger

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gallie, Phil

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Gardiner, Sir George

249

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

McLoughlin, Patrick

Garnier, Edward

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gillan, Cheryl

Madel, Sir David

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Maitland, Lady Olga

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Major, Rt Hon John

Gorst, Sir John

Malone, Gerald

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Mans, Keith

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Marland, Paul

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mates, Michael

Hague, William

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hampson, Dr Keith

Merchant, Piers

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Mills, Iain

Hannam, Sir John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Moate, Sir Roger

Harris, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Haselhurst, Alan

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hawkins, Nick

Moss, Malcolm

Hawksley, Warren

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Heald, Oliver

Nelson, Anthony

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Neubert, Sir Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hendry, Charles

Nicholls, Patrick

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hicks, Robert

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Norris, Steve

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Horam, John

Ottaway, Richard

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Page, Richard

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Paice, James

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

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hughes, Robert (Harrow West)

Pawsey, James

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Pickles, Eric

Hunter, Andrew

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Jack, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Rathbone, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Jessel, Toby

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Richards, Rod

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Riddick, Graham

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Key, Robert

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Knapman, Roger

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

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

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Knox, Sir David

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Sackville, Tom

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Legg, Barry

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Leigh, Edward

Shersby, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Sims, Roger

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lidington, David

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lightbown, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Soames, Nicholas

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Speed, Sir Keith

Lord, Michael

Spencer, Sir Derek

Luff, Peter

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spink, Dr Robert

MacKay, Andrew

Sproat, Iain

Maclean, David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

250

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Walden, George

Steen, Anthony

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Stern, Michael

Waller, Gary

Stewart, Allan

Ward, John

Streeter, Gary

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sumberg, David

Waterson, Nigel

Sweeney, Walter

Watts, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Whitney, Ray

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Whittingdale, John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Widdecombe, Ann

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Thurnham, Peter

Willetts, David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Tracey, Richard

Wolfson, Mark

Tredinnick, David

Wood, Timothy

Trend, Michael

Yeo, Tim

Trotter, Neville

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Viggers, Peter

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clelland, David

Adams, Mrs Irene

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ainger, Nick

Coffey, Ann

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cohen, Harry

Allen, Graham

Connarty, Michael

Alton, David

Corbett, Robin

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Corston, Jean

Armstrong, Hilary

Cousins, Jim

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Cox, Tom

Ashton, Joe

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Austin-Walker, John

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Barron, Kevin

Dafis, Cynog

Battle, John

Dalyell, Tam

Bayley, Hugh

Darling, Alistair

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Davidson, Ian

Berth, Rt Hon A J

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Bell, Stuart

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Benton, Joe

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

Bermingham, Gerald

Dewar, Donald

Berry, Roger

Dixon, Don

Betts, Clive

Dobson, Frank

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Donohoe, Brian H

Blunkett, David

Dowd, Jim

Boateng, Paul

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Bradley, Keith

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Eagle, Ms Angela

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Eastham, Ken

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

Etherington, Bill

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Burden, Richard

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Byers, Stephen

Fatchett, Derek

Caborn, Richard

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Callaghan, Jim

Fisher, Mark

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Foulkes, George

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Fraser, John

Campbell-Savours, D N

Fyfe, Maria

Cann, Jamie

Galbraith, Sam

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Galloway, George

Chidgey, David

Gapes, Mike

Chisholm, Malcolm

Garrett, John

Church, Judith

George, Bruce

Clapham, Michael

Gerrard, Neil

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Godsiff, Roger

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Golding, Mrs Llin

251

Gordon, Mildred

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Graham, Thomas

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Martlew, Eric

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Maxton, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Meacher, Michael

Grocott, Bruce

Meale, Alan

Gunnell, John

Michael, Alun

Hain, Peter

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hall, Mike

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Hanson, David

Milburn, Alan

Hardy, Peter

Miller, Andrew

Harman, Ms Harriet

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Harvey, Nick

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Morgan, Rhodri

Henderson, Doug

Morley, Elliot

Heppell, John

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hinchliffe, David

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hodge, Margaret

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hoey, Kate

Mudie, George

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Mullin, Chris

Hood, Jimmy

Murphy, Paul

Hoon, Geoffrey

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hoyle, Doug

O'Hara, Edward

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Olner, Bill

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Parry, Robert

Hutton, John

Patchett, Terry

Illsley, Eric

Pearson, Ian

Ingram, Adam

Pendry, Tom

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Pickthall, Colin

Jamieson, David

Pike, Peter L

Janner, Greville

Pope, Greg

Johnston, Sir Russell

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jowell, Tessa

Radice, Giles

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Randall, Stuart

Keen, Alan

Raynsford, Nick

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Redmond, Martin

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Reid, Dr John

Khabra, Piara S

Rendel, David

Kilfoyle, Peter

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Kirkwood, Archy

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Lewis, Terry

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Rogers, Allan

Litherland, Robert

Rooker, Jeff

Livingstone, Ken

Rooney, Terry

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Rowlands, Ted

Loyden, Eddie

Ruddock, Joan

Lynne, Ms Liz

Salmond, Alex

McAllion, John

Sedgemore, Brian

McAvoy, Thomas

Sheerman, Barry

McCartney, Ian

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Macdonald, Calum

Short, Clare

McKelvey, William

Simpson, Alan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis

McLeish, Henry

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Maclennan, Robert

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

McMaster, Gordon

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

MacShane, Denis

Snape, Peter

McWilliam, John

Soley, Clive

Madden, Max

Spearing, Nigel

Maddock, Diana

Spellar, John

Mahon, Alice

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Mandelson, Peter

Steinberg, Gerry

Marek, Dr John

Stevenson, George

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

252

Straw, Jack

Welsh, Andrew

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wicks, Malcolm

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wigley, Dafydd

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Williams Alan W. (Carmarthen)

Timms, Stephen

Wilson, Brian

Tipping, Paddy

Winnick, David

Wise, Audrey

Touhig, Don

Worthington, Tony

Tyler, Paul

Wray, Jimmy

Vaz, Keith

Wright, Dr Tony

Wallace, James

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Walley, Joan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Tellers for the Noes:

Wareing, Robert N

Mr. Dennis Turner and

Watson, Mike

Mr. John Cummings.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5097/95, relating to agricultural prices for 1995–96 and related measures; congratulates the Government on its robust negotiating stance on the Common Agricultural Policy since 1979, its leading role in achieving reform of the CAP, its continuing pressure for further radical reform and its determination to ensure that EU agricultural spending is effectively restrained; welcomes the Government's key role in the negotiations which secured an effective agreement on agriculture in the GATT Uruguay Round; endorses the Government's drive to spearhead urgent and continuing efforts to combat fraud and illegal state aids throughout the EU; notes that UK farm incomes rose by 6.9 per cent. over the last year and that Government spending on hill livestock compensatory amounts and agricultural research and development has been maintained; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome on the 1995–96 price proposals which takes account of the interests of the United Kingdom, producers, consumers and taxpayers alike.

PETITION
10.31 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: It is my pleasure to present a petition from the members of the governing body of Pentrehafod school, the Pentrehafod Association, and staff, parents and friends of Pentrehafod school, Pentremawr road, Hafod, Swansea.
The petition shows that the school opened in 1976, with the promise that the third phase would be built in 1978 or 1979. That plan included the provision of a drama hall, music rooms and other key facilities.

In later years Swansea City Council promised to extend the community provision in partnership with West Glamorgan County Council and the Arts Council. This provision was to include a multi-purpose sports, Drama and Recreation Hall. Neither of these promised and intended necessary extensions have been built—
to the great frustration of the 892 signatories.
In March 1992 the Lower School was destroyed by fire. The Director of Education, other officers and County Councillors promised publicly those who attended the various meetings that the final phases of the school were to be built within eighteen months to two years.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will request the Secretary of State for Wales, and the County Councillors for the County and City of Swansea to expedite the necessary proceedings to ensure that this work is undertaken and completed within two years of the establishment of the new Unitary Authorities. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Habitual Residence Test (Newham)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
10.33 pm
Mr. Stephen Timms: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring the habitual residence requirement for income-related benefits before the House. Ten days ago, I received a letter from the Newham docklands citizens advice bureau which expressed its alarm at
"clients who we think have acted in a reasonable way but who are in danger of becoming destitute as a result of the habitual residence test".
I share its alarm. I am deeply concerned that the habitual residence test is lacking a coherent basis at any level, is being implemented in a haphazard and arbitrary way and is in danger of driving into destitution dozens of British citizens living in the London borough of Newham. I think that the test will have to be scrapped, but I urge the Minister at least to give immediate consideration to making available urgent payments to people who are awaiting the outcome of an appeal against failing the test.
There is one far-sighted member of the Government who accurately predicted the impact of such a test and who rejected it in 1986 on the basis of
"all our habits and history".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 February 1986; c. 537.]
That was the present Prime Minister speaking as a Social Security Minister. It is a tragedy for Britain that the Prime Minister's warnings were not heeded by his Ministers before they introduced the test last year.
The habitual residence test was introduced at the beginning of August. In the first six months of its operation, 15,564 people were refused benefits because of it, 2,599 British citizens were among them and 73 were in the London borough of Newham. Welfare organisations across the country have been making representations about the chaos which has resulted, but it was not until last month that the House had the opportunity to discuss it, other than through questions.
A serious constitutional point must be considered when the Secretary of State can, for the first time, exclude British citizens in this country from access to benefits, without any serious deliberation in the House, until almost seven months after the event, and only then as one of six separate orders which were allocated less than two and a half hours of parliamentary time.
The Government have said that the habitual residence test was introduced to end the mischief of "benefit tourism", but they have failed to provide any evidence that that is a significant problem. The Prime Minister said in his speech in 1986 that the number of people involved was a "tiny minority" and I believe that he was right. Certainly, the Government have conspicuously failed to provide any evidence of the scale of the problem other than on two occasions in Parliament, on which they resorted to quoting from an article which appeared in Time Out magazine. That is no basis for formulating a policy which is driving hundreds of people towards destitution.
In any case, before the test, had young Europeans claimed benefit when they were not economically active, they would have been excluded on the basis of
254
existing law. Why was it not possible to proceed on that basis? As the Prime Minister pointed out in 1986, the appropriate remedy was already available. Why not use it and save the distress which is now being caused to thousands of others?
Newham rarely enjoys visits from European tourists. A benefits administrator in my constituency told me rather sadly:
"We do not have benefit tourists in Newham."
Instead, we have people in genuine need who are being refused benefits.
The problem is not only that there is no basis for the introduction of this test, but matters are being made much worse by the chaotic way in which it is being implemented. Consider, for example, successive Department of Social Security estimates of the administrative costs involved. Originally we were informed that the cost would be £368,000 a year. Earlier this month, I was told in a written answer that the costs were now expected to be substantially higher than £800,000 a year.
The result of it all in Newham is that advice agencies are overwhelmed and the Benefits Agency, which in Newham is admirably ready to respond to the problems raised by the advice agencies with which it deals, and which has been getting on top of its previous administrative problems, seems to be losing ground again as habitual residence tests and appeals clog up the system.
Had the Government been willing to listen, they would have anticipated the crisis. The Social Security advisory committee warned that just such a situation was likely. It said about the test:
"The costs of administration and the aggravation and anxiety caused for the many claimants who would be required to face the test, but who were never the target of our proposals, may well turn out to be too high a price to pay in order to provide a solution to a relatively small issue."
Perhaps the clearest evidence of the chaotic reality of the test is provided by the appeals process—and it appears that almost all the failed applicants are lodging appeals. The Minister has not been able to tell my hon. Friends or myself about the results of appeals against the test, but it appears that at least half and perhaps three quarters of all appeals are being upheld. That must be a reflection of the fact that the benefits staff implementing the test in the first place do not know what criteria they are supposed to apply.
The Stratford office of the Benefits Agency tells me that the average length of time between failing the test and the date of the appeal hearing is approximately four months. That is four months during which people, over half of whom are ultimately found to be habitually resident in the United Kingdom, are deprived of all means of subsistence. That is a shambles on a national scale, and I urge upon the Minister the fact that it requires a response from him.
In Newham the burden of a new income maintenance function has fallen on to the council's social services department, which is making payments to needy families under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Those are families with children, who, because they have failed the habitual residence test, would have no means of subsistence at all, so the local authority has no alternative but to step in so that at least the children can be fed.

255
However, the section 17 system is not designed for payments to families over a long period; and social services departments are hard enough pressed already, without having to set up new functions duplicating those of the Benefits Agency. The care of children, which is the proper responsibility of social services departments, will inevitably suffer as a result.
I shall concentrate tonight on the unprecedented plight of British citizens subjected to the habitual residence test. In a debate on the issue in another place, eloquently initiated by Lord Russell, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on behalf of the Government, conceded that the Government had been forced to broaden the regulations to include British nationals so as to avoid conflict with European legislation. So it seems that it had not been the Government's intention to include British citizens within the scope of the test.
What I find extraordinary, however, is the complacency with which the Government nevertheless embarked on what the Child Poverty Action Group described as the effective downgrading of British citizenship. British citizens are being left destitute in their own country by their own Government. No other European Union country makes its own citizens destitute by excluding them from subsistence benefits in that way. The British Government maintain that they have had to do so in order to avoid breaching European law. How is it, then, that no other European Government have deprived their own citizens of the means of subsistence within their own country?
If the numbers from the first six months of the habitual residence test are projected forwards, more than 5,000 British citizens will be refused income support in the first year of the test. The Government tell us that those people belong in a new category of scrounger—the undeserving British national with little or no contact with this country. Canadian or Australian backpackers were recently cited as examples. However, again the Government have not been able to tell us how many such people there really are. The policy is based on anecdote and prejudice, not on fact.
Let me describe for the Minister the position of a real-life victim of the test who lives in my constituency. Mr. Pierre Bevis, a British citizen whose father was a British service man, went to live in Germany when his father was posted there in the 1970s. Since 1983 Mr. Bevis has had spells working both in Germany and in the United Kingdom, and he obtained a heavy goods vehicle licence in the United Kingdom.
In 1994, after three visits to seek work in the United Kingdom, he moved back to take up permanent residence in London, bringing with him his wife, all his belongings and a letter inviting him for an interview with a London construction company. When that job fell through Mr. Bevis applied for income support in October, and in November, having taken a habitual residence test, he was told that he was not deemed habitually resident in this country. Mr. Bevis was absent from this country for a time because his father was serving in the British forces overseas. Is it really the policy of the Government now to penalise people because their parents served in the forces overseas? How have we come to this?
When Mr. Bevis sought an explanation for the shabby treatment which he received, all he could find were profoundly offensive references on the part of the
256
Secretary of State for Social Security to him and others like him as "benefit tourists" or, on 23 January, as "Canadian backpackers". What have the families of British service personnel done to deserve being insulted by their own Government in that way?
Mr. Bevis is not an isolated case. The cases of many British citizens in similar situations—none of whom are Canadian backpackers—have been brought to my attention. There is evidence that British citizens from the ethnic minority communities have been disproportionately affected, and such cases must cause deep concern to all hon. Members. The result is that hon. Members are, for the first time, being faced with constituents who have literally no means of subsistence.
Mr. Bevis has been given food by a reporter on the Newham Recorder who has been covering his plight. Was that the Government's intention in introducing the measure? I understand that Mr. Bevis's appeal was due today, but on arriving at the appeal he was told that a decision had been made by somebody last week that he was habitually resident—some four months after his benefit was stopped—and that his appeal therefore did not need to proceed.
On 12 December the Minister told the House that someone in extreme circumstances had the right to apply to the social fund for a crisis loan, and it appeared to me that that might be an answer. I investigated, but found that crisis loans are available only to those with the capacity to repay them, which someone with no means of subsistence clearly does not have. I have asked the Minister how many people failing the test have been given crisis loans, but he does not know. In Newham, the Stratford Benefits Agency tells me that
"there have only been a handful of crisis loan applications and they have been unsuccessful".
That is why welfare organisations and citizens advice bureaux are in despair. Experienced workers say that no other change has caused so many real cases of hardship. Even people whose appeals were later upheld have been left destitute for months.
Last week, I received another despairing letter from a constituent whose appeal was upheld five weeks ago, but who has still not received a penny in benefit. The Newham Docklands citizens advice bureau has written to me, saying that even if clients get income support as a result of winning appeals, they still have to survive for two to three months without any money after the appeal.
In 1986, the present Prime Minister said:
"What is clear from all our habits and history is that when people are in desperate need it has never been the fashion in this country … not to provide assistance that is sorely needed."
But that provision has not been made. The Prime Minister's implication—made, as he said, on the basis of all of our habits and history—that not even a Conservative Government would be willing to see their own citizens pressed into destitution, has been cast aside by this measure. The Prime Minister's confidence in habits and history has proved valueless.
The Prime Minister—who was then a Social Security Minister—also said:
"A costly administrative system would have to be set up to deal with people who failed to qualify for benefit, yet who were in need, that we would not in practice ignore".

257
I am sad to say that that need has, in practice, been ignored.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that the problems which I have raised are real, and that they have been raised with the desire to see positive action taken for those in real need. In particular, I ask him to address two immediate proposals to mitigate the damage being caused by the test.
First, urgent payments should be made available through the Department for those awaiting the outcome of an appeal against failing the habitual residence test. Secondly, the Government should seek thorough information about the impact of the test, and that information should be made public. In future discussions, Members on both sides of the House should not have to rely on anecdotal evidence—as we do now—nor on articles in Time Out, which have been relied upon by Ministers. I believe that in due course the legislation will be scrapped, as other errors in the past have been scrapped. The poll tax and the flaws in the Child Support Act 1991 come to mind.
It is astonishing that all the problems to which I have referred were foreseen by the now Prime Minister in his remarkably prescient speech in 1986. He said that such a test would be too rigid, too cumbersome and perhaps too unfair. He said that it could penalise British citizens returning from abroad, United Kingdom citizens on work contracts returning home and missionaries who had been abroad for a long time. He said that the test would have enormously disproportionate administrative costs and could become an administrative nightmare. He said that it would be contrary to all our habits and history not to provide assistance that was sorely needed. The Prime Minister was absolutely right.
Of course the test that was being debated in 1986 was slightly different from the one which has been introduced now, but the Prime Minister's warning about that test are all being fulfilled now in reality in a remarkable way. I commend the Prime Minister's speech to the Minister and urge that, for all the reasons that he spelt out in 1986, the Government repeal the test now rather than wait for months or years until the damage to thousands of our citizens is beyond repair.
10.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) on raising important points about what is undoubtedly a most serious issue. It obviously affects the particular constituent whom he mentioned and other constituents and it is an issue of general concern.
I begin by dealing with a theme that ran throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech, that is, the observations made in 1986 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. The hon. Gentleman has taken my right hon. Friend's words out of context. The proposal that was rejected in 1986 was that none of the benefits should be paid to anyone who had not been resident for at least 12 months. That is a very different creature from the habitual residence that we now contemplate.
258
The hon. Gentleman quoted in his closing remarks the example of people returning from abroad, bringing their families and all their possessions with them. On any basis, such a case is much more likely to become immediately or very shortly a case of habitual residence than that of someone who was subject to an arbitrary ban of 12 months.
The test that we have implemented was introduced because before 1 August last year work seekers from the European economic area could claim income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit for up to six months. Estimates made at the time suggested that about 5,000 EEA nationals did exactly that. I do not wish to swap stories of the type that the hon. Gentleman dismissed, but clearly there was considerable concern about the matter. It must be appreciated how difficult it is to tackle such an issue.
The hon. Gentleman fairly asked why the British Government had taken a course that appeared to be different from the situation that he described in other European countries. Perhaps he has not focused on the unique nature of the benefits system that we have in the United Kingdom, compared with arrangements in other European countries. For example, if a country has a benefits system based on an insurance or contributions principle, the issue does not arise because people have to be resident for some time to make the contributions or pay the insurance.
Mr. Ian McCartney: The Government are abolishing the contributory benefits system.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), even from a sedentary position, occasionally causes me to laugh. Whether it be an insurance or contributions-based benefit, which classically the Bismarckian systems on the continent involve, the issue does not arise. The nearest equivalent of income support in the other European countries is locally administered and highly discretionary in character. Income support is a direct descendant of what the Labour Government did in 1966. They made supplementary benefit, now income support, a matter of legal entitlement, provided the conditions were met. That is a unique feature of income support. Prior to 1 August 1994, people coming from the European continent could make a claim and, provided that the conditions were met, they were treated on exactly the same basis as people who had resided in this country all their life.
That problem was unique to Britain. It was not faced by other European countries. The question that faced the British Government then and still faces us—it would face any Government who sought to introduce an alternative proposal—is how, in accordance with European law, we could alter that classic situation. I suppose that we could go down the radical road, which I cannot believe the Opposition would want, of scrapping legal entitlement to income support. One way or another, however, if the measure is to be consistent with article 6 of the treaty of Rome, we must introduce a proposal that does not discriminate on grounds of nationality. At first blush, it would be attractive. It would be powerfully attractive as a matter of rhetoric to say: why not exclude returning British citizens from abroad entirely from the test? One can understand why that question seems so straightforward to constituents faced with that problem.

259
They feel that there can be only one answer to that question but, regrettably, the answer is the converse: that cannot be done under European law.
So the point that faced the Government at the time and still faces us is how to introduce a rule that prevents this country from being the honeypot of the world for people who come here and accept our benefits as a matter of legal entitlement, while introducing some moderation to that excess, which most British taxpayers perceive to be excessively generous. The logic of the habitual residence test is that it does not discriminate on grounds of nationality but, to a great measure, meets the question fairly and reasonably. Clearly, returning British citizens, because of their connections with this country, will find it much easier either immediately to establish the links that amount to habitual residence or to establish those links over a much shorter period than somebody arriving from Spain, Canada or Australia with no immediate links with this country.
Mr. Keith Bradley: If the habitual residence test is so soundly based, will the Minister answer the question which he failed to answer when we debated the regulations and which the Secretary of State failed to answer yesterday at Social Security questions: how many people have won their appeals against refusal of benefit for habitual residents, and what were the reasons for winning those appeals?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman knows the global figures full well as his question has been answered on a number of occasions. We have broken it down into the different categories concerned. As the system is computerised, without a disproportionate manual exercise of checking every appeal, we cannot tell him the reason in each specific case. I appreciate that he wants that information, but it is not possible to produce it by ordinary practices.
This is not a case of downgrading British citizenship. To prevent an unsatisfactory state of affairs, some action had to be taken and we believe that, within the limited constraints of European law, this test is a fair and reasonable way to do it. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East made a powerful appeal to British citizenship, but we have already seen in the Immigration Act 1971, which was not repealed by the Labour Government of 1974–79, that British citizenship does not necessarily involve all the incidents and privileges that people associate with that status, a classic example being the right of abode. We must take the matter issue by issue in a practical way.
Obviously, I accept that British nationals who have failed the test are a matter of concern, but taxpayers generally and the people of Newham would not be content with a system that simply swept away the test, as the hon. Gentleman contended. He has not proposed, and I am not aware of anyone else proposing yet, what might be described as a plausible alternative arrangement.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The rules as used by the appeal panels.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman spoke from a sedentary position. I did not hear precisely what he said.
The key is that there must be a principle that can be practically applied. It is true that we know a certain amount, but we do not know a great deal of detail on the
260
merits of individual appeal cases. However, it appears that, contrary to the anxieties that were expressed, those people are in general not returning business men coming home after the end of contracts, or students who have done admirable voluntary service overseas, or people returning home who have been nursing elderly relatives. We have simply had to draw the line here and, classically, sadly, some of the people who have turned up on our shores are those who have arrived with their children, who are penniless and who do not appear to have given a thought to their responsibilities, but have expected that the British taxpayer will bail them out.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East, with his usual courtesy, gave me notice of Mr. Bevis's case. Obviously, a system of deciding benefits claims such as ours puts great reliance on the quantity and expertise of our benefit and adjudicating officers, but it also has a long stop by way of an independent appeal system, which is there to ensure that people obtain what the law passed by Parliament entitles them to. Inevitably, with such a process of adjudication, which we believe generally has the confidence of the country and of the people who run the system as the best way of doing that, an appeal will take some time.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East made much of the workings of the scheme. That administrative system matches staff to work load, which has led directly to the marked increase in spending from £368,000 to £800,000. That is a result of sensible management planning and of dealing with the matter properly and efficiently.
Obviously, Mr. Bevis was ultimately held under that process to be, as he believes that he is entitled to be, habitually resident. I appreciate that there was anxiety about delay, but the story of Mr. Bevis has at least that satisfactory conclusion.
I am slightly surprised that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East has been worried about the lack of information held by the Department of Social Security. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) also mentioned that to me.
I have been asked specifically by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East about the proportion of people who have failed the test who are students or pensioners. He also asked how many of the British nationals who have failed the test have one parent who is a British national and one parent who is a national of another country. He asked many further detailed and perfectly proper questions.
The difficulty is that the system is nowadays computerised, and in order to find the answer, a clerical check would have to be undertaken, because the Benefits Agency collects only information necessary for its purposes. To collect more costs more, and there is no justification in collecting information about a claimant's antecedents or occupation when the test depends on individual circumstances.
I sum up by saying that we believe that there was an abuse. That abuse had to be dealt with; otherwise it would obviously increase. It was a serious problem that we were an attractive place for benefit tourism. I have explained that, although it appeared attractive at first blush to introduce an arrangement that gave British citizens a guarantee that they would pass the test, under the arrangements that we have come up with, we have a system in which the test is passed by the vast majority of

261
British citizens because they can demonstrate a commitment to the country. At the same time, it has stopped what was clearly becoming unsustainable.
I end with this. It is attractive to say, when first considering the matter, that there should be special arrangements for urgent payments in those cases, but the Government's opinion is that it would be wrong in
262
principle to single out one class of claimants in the benefits system for special status or special treatment. There are a variety of arrangements—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TREASURY

  Somerset House (Security)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the bid by the private company awarded the contract for security at Somerset house was more expensive than the rival in-house bid; and what assessment he has made of the value for money achieved by the awarding of the contract.

  Sir George Young
  The tendering process in this, as with any market test, sought best value for money and so considered not only price but also quality and ability to deliver. The decision was not made on cost alone. The contract commences on 1 March 1995, so it is too soon to evaluate delivery of the service.

  Civil Servants' Pay
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average increase in real terms of civil servants' salaries since 1979.

  Mr. Aitken
  Between April 1979 and April 1994 civil servants' average earnings increased by 26 per cent. in real terms, based on data from the New Earnings Survey and deflated by the all items retail prices index.

  Home Care Services (VAT)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual VAT income from VAT levied on private home care services provided by VAT-registered companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is not possible to provide a separate figure for VAT levied on private home care services.

  Polling and Public Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the employment of polling or public survey organisations by his Department during the current and previous financial years, on the organisations employed by his Department, on the values of individual contracts for these services, on the total amounts of money spent and on the purposes of the research undertaken by these organisations. [14503]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: In 1993–94, International Survey Research Limited was employed to carry out a staff attitude survey. Market and Opinion Research International Limited is currently carrying out a survey of members of the Government Accountancy Service.

  Disclosing details of the cost of individual contracts would breach commercial confidentiality. The total cost of the above contracts is expected to be some £60,000.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the projected earnings in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 from the tax on medical insurance premiums 1994–95. [15000]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: Annex A to chapter 4 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report shows that receipts for IPT on all types of insurance is forecast to be £0.2 billion in 1994–95 and £0.7 billion in 1995–96. Data from the Family Expenditure Survey suggests that around 8 per cent. of this is due to medical insurance.

  VAT Threshold
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to increase the VAT threshold for small businesses to £100,000. [13717]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. The Government are obliged, under the EC sixth VAT directive, to restrict increases in the threshold to those which maintain its value in real terms.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list all the visits by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members, without prior warning to those hon. Members, for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities; [15027]

  (2) if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members, without prior warning to those hon. Members, for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15014]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I always do our best to give prior warning to hon. Members when we visit their constituencies in an official capacity.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Commissioner for the Holding Centres
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he hopes to publish Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's second annual report as Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres. [15600]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have today arranged for copies of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's annual report for 1994 to be placed in the Library.

  I welcome the report, which provides a valuable examination of custody procedures in the police offices. I shall be studying it carefully.

  I am most grateful for the work carried out by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper. The role of the commissioner remains important even in the changed circumstances since the PIRA and loyalist paramilitaries' cessation of violence. The Government remain committed to the principle that the emergency legislation will remain in force no longer than is necessary. However, for as long as the paramilitaries retain the capability to resume violence, and

  109
  for as long as the police require to interview persons suspected of involvement in terrorism, there is a need to maintain special provisions for detaining suspects in police custody. While this is the case, all the present safeguards designed to ensure the rights of those held in custody will remain in place, including the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres. As Sir Louis Blom-Cooper states in his report, an immediate impact of the ceasefires was a dramatic drop in the numbers detained in the police offices.

  I am glad to note that, after a total of 26 visits of his own and 88 by his deputy, Sir Louis has been able to report that he can again find no cause for concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in the custody of uniformed officers of the RUC. I share Sir Louis' satisfaction that his terms of reference have been changed to permit him to be present, if he wishes, throughout interviews with terrorist suspects. This will further increase the level of independent supervision of procedures in the police offices.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members without prior warning to those hon. members, for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities [15023]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  It is standard practice, when I intend to visit any hon. Member's constituency, to inform the hon. Member concerned. I am aware of no occasion when I have departed from this practice.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Polling and Public Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the employment of polling or public survey organisations by his Department during the current and previous financial years, on the organisations employed by his Department, on the values of individual contracts for these services, on the total amounts of money spent and on the purposes of the research undertaken by these organisations. [14504]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: My Department has employed the following polling and public survey organisations during the current and previous financial years:
  The Historic Royal Palaces Agency used CC and C Research Limited during 1994–95 to carry out summer visitor surveys at Hampton Court palace, the tower of London and Kensington palace, at a cost of £10,325. In the same year it employed Vital Statistics to carry out an attitude survey cross all of the historic royal palaces, at a cost of £9,150.
  The Royal Parks Agency employed the Centre for Leisure and Tourism Studies at the university of North London to collect information on the use of, and visitor attitudes towards, the Royal Parks. The cost in 1994–95 was £70,125.
  All prices are exclusive of VAT.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total number of civil 110
  servants employed by (a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1992, divided into (1) full-time equivalents, (2) overtime, (3) casuals and (4) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisation, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for the Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [15099]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The civil service covers the permanent staff of central government departments and "next steps" agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by my Department and its agencies, including full-time and equivalent staff and casuals (from 1993 onwards) and of staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "civil service statistics".

  Details of running costs and civil service pay bill for my Department can be found in figure 9.4 of my Department's annual report, Cm 2811.

  Copies of all these publications are available in the Members' Library.

  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Television Reception
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of the land area of the United Kingdom was unable to receive terrestrial television in each year since 1985. [14920]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Television coverage estimates are made in terms of population rather than land area. The broadcasters estimate that their terrestrial television coverage had reached all but 0.6 per cent. of the UK population by 1985. they have continued to build about 25 new transmitters a year but this programme has not measurably reduced the estimate of the percentage of unserved population.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will consider granting concessionary TV licences to(a) residents of Bradely village, Stoke on Trent, over pension age and (b) residents under pension age; and if he will make a statement. [15131]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under section 180 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, administration of the television licensing system, including determining eligibility for concessionary licences, passed to the BBC with effect from 1 April 1991. I have no power to intervene in respect of entitlement to the concession in individual cases.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  East Timor
  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 any officer of the Indonesian national police force who has received any form of training paid for by his Department has subsequently gone on to serve in East Timor. [15432]

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

PRIME MINISTER

  Consultants
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the consultancy to which he referred in his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown),Official Report, column 140, on 7 March as having achieved savings of tens of millions of pounds; and what were the savings and consultancy fees involved. [13241]

  The Prime Minister
  The example related to a Welsh Office roads project. On one particular five year project the final certificate for the main contract was substantially greater than the original tender price because of the effects of inflation and unforseen conditions encountered during construction. A consultant quantity surveying firm was employed in assisting departmental staff to consider the appropriate price for the overall contract. This work cost around £50,000, but the advice helped to inform the negotiations with the contractor, which led to a settlement £80 million less than the contractor's claim.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March. [13541]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March. [13542]

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

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will hold discussions with the United States Government about the action of the CIA in arresting Juval Aviv, former agent of the Israeli intelligence service, and on Mr. Aviv's report of September 1989 for Pan Am. [15397]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Teachers and Administrators
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to oral answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 1021, concerning the ratio of teachers to administrators or other staff within the ambit of local education authorities, what are the statistical bases and arithmetical calculations on which his statement was based. [15342]
  112
  The Prime Minister
  Figures collected by the Local Government Management Board show that in June 1994 local education authorities in England employed 376,665 full-time equivalent teachers and lecturers and 316,244 full-time equivalent other manual and non-manual staff involved in education, making a ration of around 2.5 non-teaching staff to every three teachers.

  Ministerial Committees
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Prime Minister what new Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet have been established since the updated list of membership and terms of reference of Cabinet Committees and Sub-Committees was published on 22 November 1994. [15648]

  The Prime Minister
  I have established a new Ministerial Committee to consider the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy. A copy of the terms of reference and membership is in the Library of the House. The details are as follows:

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE COORDINATION AND PRESENTATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY (EDCP)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Chairman)

  Lord President of the Council

  Lord Privy Seal

  Minister without Portfolio

  Other Ministers will be invited to attend when necessary.

  Terms of reference

  "To consider the coordination and presentation of Government policy".

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (i) full-time equivalents, (ii) overtime, (iii) casuals and (iv) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service jobs due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for his department of its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditure in 1994 prices. [14769]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 20 March.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Abduction Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the cost of the child abduction unit; and how many staff are involved in the unit, fall and part-time.
  113
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cost of the child abduction unit for the year ending 31 March 1995 will be £130,000.

  There are four staff involved in the unit: two full time and two whose employment on unit work forms only part of their duties.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Computer Networks
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international agencies exist to maintain and promote standards concerning the content of international communications via computer networks.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No such international agencies exist.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international agreements exist to set and maintain standards concerning the content of international communications on computer networks.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No such international agreements exist.

  Fishing Disputes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support of any kind was given to the United Kingdom by(a) Spain, (b) the EEC and (c) other individual EEC Governments between 1972 and 1976 in the United Kingdom's fishing dispute with Iceland.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The EEC made the tariff reductions on certain Icelandic fish imports provided for under protocol No. 6 of Iceland's 1972 free trade agreement with the Community dependent on a satisfactory resolution of the fisheries dispute with member states. The Council of the EEC implemented the protocol only after the UK settlement with Iceland on 1 June 1976, the last to be concluded by an EEC member. There was close consultations with the German federal Government, whose dispute with Iceland ended in 1975. This consultation included the handling of the British and German cases on the issue before the International Court of Justice. A German proposal for tripartite negotiations in 1972 was rejected by the Government of Iceland. Spain was not a member of the EEC at that time and I am unaware of any bilateral support.

  Philippines
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with the Philippines Government.

  Mr. Goodlad
  President Fidel V. Ramos has just completed a successful visit to the United Kingdom, the first by a Philippine President.
  114
  The visit served to strengthen further our already excellent bilateral relations. It confirmed Britain's role as a leading trade partner for the Philippines in Europe—many important commercial agreements were signed during the visit—and reinforced the position of the Philippines as an important partner for the UK in Asia.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions the situation in Sierra Leone has been raised at a forum of the United Nations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not collated. However, Sierra Leone was raised on 25 January 1995, during informal consultations of the Security Council and on 10 February 1995 when UN Secretary-General addressed a donors' meeting.

  Social Development Summit
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the world summit for social development; and if he will list the changes in(a) policies and (b) expenditure to the United Kingdom Government as a result of the summit.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The declaration and programme of action of the world summit for social development were adopted on 12 March in Copenhagen.

  The summit outcomes do not require changes in policy or expenditure unless the Government decide that this is necessary. The Government will consider the outcomes of the summit carefully in the light of national circumstances and priorities.

  Import Quotas (China)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if at its meeting on Monday 6 March the General Affairs Council of the European Commission took account of the use of Laogai labour in approving an increase in quotas on imports of Chinese goods, with particular reference to shoes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  The increases agreed by the Council of Ministers on 6 March were primarily to take account of Community enlargement: there was no discussion of the nature of the quota regime as a whole.

  Visa Application Fees
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the recent changes in the application fees for a visitors' visas and settlement visas; and what are the reasons for these changes. [14881]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on 16 December 1994,Official Report, column 863.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members, without prior warning to those hon. Members, for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15017]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs always does his best to give prior warning to hon. Members when he visits their constituencies in an official capacity.

  Hong Kong
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual report on Hong Kong will be laid before Parliament. [15581]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The report is being published and laid before Parliament today. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Army Vehicle Storage
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to rationalise Army vehicle storage facilities; and if he will make a statement.
  [15645]

  Mr. Soames
  Following the "Front Line First" announcement on 14 July 1994, proposals to rationalise Army vehicle storage facilities were outlined in a consultative document issued on 19 August 1994. Some 50 responses were received from trade unions, local authorities and other interested parties, all of which have been considered with care and sympathy. Understandable local concerns were expressed about the effects on employment and the local community but no significant new defence-related arguments emerged, nor have any new suggestions been made which have caused us to alter our original proposals for the rationalisation of vehicle storage.

  Having carefully considered all the points raised, I can therefore confirm that we shall now begin work on rationalising vehicle storage, concentrating on a single site at Ashchurch; the vehicle depot at Ludgershall will be closed for operation by 31 March 1997. I am confident that this change can be achieved without detriment to operational capability.

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Civilian

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  1990–91

  146

  43

  406

  27

  1,019

  186

  —

  —

  1991–92

  152

  35

  389

  25

  987

  158

  —

  —

  1992–93

  80

  15

  362

  23

  659

  126

  —

  —

  1993–94

  148

  40

  303

  27

  974

  178

  —

  —

  1994–95

  134

  33

  291

  43

  740

  166

  570

  90

  Notes:

  Figures for the Royal Air Force are for applications for bursaries and cadetships. It is not possible to provide separate figures.
  116
  We will continue to consult with staff and the trade unions about the detailed implementation of this rationalisation.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of military service houses and flats that were empty on 1 March.

  Mr. Soames
  As at 31 December last year, which is the latest date for which figures are available, my Department owned 9,992 vacant service married quarters. A further 2,160 former married quarters were vacant and in the process of being sold.

  Discussions are being held with the Housing Corporation on an enhanced programme of short term leasing to housing associations for married quarters which are temporarily surplus to our requirements. The majority of the vacant married quarters are not surplus, however, but are undergoing or awaiting major maintenance, held for future deployments or form part of the management margin needed to ensure that accommodation is available for entitled service families.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what co-operation he is offering to Dr. Roger Sutcliffe of the department of human genetics at the university of Glasgow for his proposal of a pilot study into miscarriages, still births, respiratory problems or low resistance to infection among babies born of Gulf war veterans.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department wrote on 7 March to the department of medical genetics at the university of Glasgow seeking clarification of Dr. Sutcliffe's views and further details of his proposal for a study. We also set out figures of service birth rates and information which indicates that the incidence of miscarriages, still births, birth defects and infant morbidity among families of Gulf veterans is no greater than the national average and has not changed since the Gulf conflict. My Department continues, however, to assess all available information and will give full consideration to Dr. Sutcliffe's views.

  University Students
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the number of applicants for bursaries awarded to university students, by gender, under his Department's arrangements for officer entry, in each year since 1990–91. [15108]

  Mr. Soames
  A breakdown by gender of the number of applicants for bursaries awarded to university students in each financial year since 1990–91 is as follows:
  117
  Information for civilians is available only for the present financial year.

  Ministerial visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members, without prior warning to those hon. Members, for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15028]

  Mr. Soames
  In accordance with the guidance contained in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" it is the practice of MOD Ministers to inform hon. Members in advance of any visits to their constituencies.

  There has been one case in the current parliamentary Session, however, where due to an administrative

  TCHD Mark 2 Operational Convoy unscheduled stops (29 January 1994 to 13 March 1995)

  Cause

  Serial number

  Date

  Location

  Fault

  Quality

  Design

  Rectification

  Delay time

  1

  6 June 1994

  M1, Tibshelf near Mansfield

  Knocking sound from tractor unit

  —

  —

  Precautionary stop, no fault found

  33 minutes

  2

  7 June 1994

  A696, South of Otterburn

  Air pressure warning buzzer sounded

  —

  —

  Air pressure found satisfactory

  34 minutes

  3

  2 August 1994

  A68, SE of Edinburgh

  "Clonking" sound when turning

  —

  —

  Precautionary stop, no fault found

  26 minutes

  4

  21 September 1994

  A696, near Ponteland

  Discharge from sump oil connecting pipe

  X

  —

  Tractor unit changed

  11 hour 10 minutes

  Note:

  1 The fault developed shortly after departure. After replacement of the spare tractor unit the convoy returned to await arrival of a substitute spare unit. Movement therefore suspended for 24 hours.

ENVIRONMENT

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on expected levels of activity in the construction industry; and what action his Department intends to take.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Construction output increased by 3 per cent. last year and modest yet sustained growth looks set to continue. My Department continues to work with the industry to monitor activity levels in the different sectors, and to promote competitiveness and success in export markets.

  Emissions
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the standards for hazardous waste incinerators and for cement kilns of emissions of(a) particulates, (b) oxides of nitrogen and (c) sulphur dioxide.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, existing hazardous waste incinerators and cement kilns are required to meet the following limits for emissions to the atmosphere:
  118
  oversight not all hon. Members whose constituencies were affected by a particular ministerial visit were informed in advance. Immediate action was taken to rectify this, however, when the error became apparent.

  Cargo Vehicles
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many unscheduled stops there have been involving truck cargo heavy duty mark 2 vehicles since January 1994; and if he will provide a breakdown of the circumstances which resulted in these incidents.

  Mr. Soames
  Between January 1994 and 13 March 1995 there were four occasions on which truck cargo heavy duty mark 2 vehicles were obliged to make unscheduled stops to deal with technical problems. The circumstances are set out in the table.

  Plant

  Sulphur dioxide mg/m3

  Oxides of nitrogen mg/m3

  Particulates mg/m3

  Hazardous waste incinerators

  50(1)

  350(1)

  20(1)

  Cement kilns

  750(2)

  Wet kilns = 1800(2)

  50(3)

  Dry kilns = 1200

  (1) To be met by 1 December 1996. (2) To be met by 1 April 1997.

  (3) To be met by 1 April 1998.

  These limits are set out in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution guidance notes.

  So far as cement kilns are concerned, the figures in the table relate to operations where conventional coal/petroleum coke is being used as fuel. If cement kiln operations using substitute liquid fuel to replace a portion of coal/petroleum coke are authorised under the Act, then that part of the emissions that originates from the substitute fuel will be controlled to the above incinerator limits, while that part of the emissions which originates from coal/petroleum coke will be controlled to the above cement kiln limits. Taking sulphur dioxide as an example, if all of the conventional fuel is replaced with substitute fuel, then a limit of 50 mg/m3 will apply. If however, the replacement is only 30 per cent., then 30 per cent. of the emissions, those generated from the substitute fuel, will

  119
  be required to meet 50 mg/m3, while the rest will be required to meet 750 mg/m3.

  Housing Construction, London
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each London borough(a) the numbers of applicants currently on the council housing waiting lists, (b) the total central Government funding for new rented housing association homes for 1995–96, excluding TIS, DIYSO and major repairs or sale programmes, (c) the sum which would have been available if original funding intentions as set out in the

  Local authority

  Allocations £'000s

  Related units

  1992 Autumn statement estimated allocation £'000s

  Related units

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,415

  46

  3,561

  116

  Barnet

  3,610

  81

  9,084

  204

  Bexley

  1,159

  68

  2,916

  171

  Brent

  5,827

  117

  14,663

  294

  Bromley

  1,997

  92

  5,025

  232

  Camden

  7,722

  146

  19,432

  367

  Croydon

  4,457

  138

  11,215

  347

  Ealing

  8,020

  166

  20,180

  418

  Enfield

  3,682

  114

  9,265

  287

  Greenwich

  4,712

  126

  11,856

  317

  Hackney

  12,054

  296

  30,332

  745

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6,945

  137

  17,475

  345

  Haringey

  9,788

  179

  24,629

  450

  Harrow

  2,123

  50

  5,343

  126

  Havering

  1,235

  49

  3,107

  123

  Hillingdon

  8,137

  241

  20,475

  606

  Hounslow

  4,386

  103

  11,036

  259

  Islington

  7,028

  136

  17,685

  342

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5,701

  151

  14,345

  380

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,941

  91

  4,884

  229

  Lambeth

  8,382

  158

  21,091

  398

  Lewisham

  4,870

  109

  12,255

  274

  Merton

  2,125

  303

  5,347

  762

  Newham

  8,149

  241

  20,506

  606

  Redbridge

  2,648

  82

  6,664

  206

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,057

  61

  5,175

  153

  Southwark

  4,784

  137

  12,038

  345

  Sutton

  1,347

  32

  3,390

  81

  Tower Hamlets

  3,976

  91

  10,005

  229

  Waltham Forest

  4,288

  121

  10,790

  304

  Wandsworth

  5,826

  80

  14,661

  201

  Westminster

  11,242

  252

  28,288

  634

  Further social lettings will also be made available through vacancies in local authority and housing association properties; through the Housing Corporation's home ownership initiatives; through housing association developments funded by local authority housing association grant; and through the cash incentive scheme.

  The number of households on local authority housing waiting lists in London on 1 April 1994 is given in section B of the "1994 HIP1 All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current estimate of the total value of tenancies sold under the right to buy.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Prior to 1993 figures for receipts resulting from council tenants exercising their right to buy from local authorities were not separately collected by the Department. However, between the introduction of the 120
  1992 Autumn Statement had been maintained, (d) the estimated number of homes that will be built with the money now available and (e) the estimated number of homes that could have been built if funding had been provided at the original proposed funding level as set out in (c); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 16 March 1995]: Allocations made to London boroughs from the Housing Corporation's 1995–96 approved development programme for the provision of new rented housing are listed below together with the Housing Corporations's estimate of what the allocations may have been if funding plans in the 1992 Autumn Statement had been maintained.

  right to buy in 1980 and the end of September 1994, the total value of council dwelling sales to sitting tenants, net of discounts is estimated to be £19.0 billion.

  The number of sales to local authority sitting tenants during this period was almost 1,300,000, and 92 per cent. of such sales resulted from tenants exercising their right to buy.

  Information on the value of right-to-buy sales to sitting tenants of new towns and housing associations is not available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority owned houses and flats have been sold, to date, since the introduction of the right to buy in each local authority area in England. [14714]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Tables showing the available information on total right-to-buy sales for each English local authority for every financial year since 1980 and a cumulative total to March 1994 are in the Library.
  121
  In addition, the tables also give data on total sales and on the number of flats sold.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 London boroughs with

  1993–94 council taxes received as a percentage of annual net collectable debit1

  Uncollected council taxes as at 31 March 19942£000

  Political control as at February 1995

  Lambeth

  48.4

  25,597

  Noc

  Hackney

  67.5

  12,824

  Lab

  Islington

  69.3

  310,300

  Lab

  Southwark

  73.1

  7,693

  Lab

  Newham

  73.4

  7,703

  Lab

  Haringey

  74.0

  10,917

  Lab

  Camden

  81.4

  8,742

  Lab

  Waltham Forest

  82.2

  7,043

  Noc

  Lewisham

  82.5

  5,617

  Lab

  Tower Hamlets

  843

  32,600

  Lab

  1 Based on information supplied to the Department in May 1994. 2 Based on information published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) in its Revenue Collection Statistics 1993–94 publication.

  3 No information was published by CIPFA for these two authorities: the figure shown is the Department's estimate based on information supplied in May 1994.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much is owed to the London borough of Lambeth in(a) domestic rates, (b) community charge and (c) council tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Information on uncollected domestic rates, community charge and council tax for each local authority is not available centrally. However, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy regularly publish estimates for individual authorities: figures for 31 March 1994 are available in their Revenue Collection Statistics 1993–94 publication, and are as follows:

  Arrears outstanding at 31 March 1994 for Lambeth (£000)

  Domestic rates

  12,917

  Community charge

  84,895

  Council tax

  29,597

  Council Tenancies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority housing tenancies were available in(a) England, (b) Yorkshire and Humberside in 1994.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local authorities housing investment programme—HIPI—returns for 1994 show that on 1 April a total of 3,615,504 local authority dwellings were occupied or available for letting in England. Of these, 451,112 were within the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to implement the recommendations of the panel on sustainable development.
  122
  lowest record on collecting council tax, the cash and percentage owed and the political control of each authority.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Atkins
  We will shortly issue a response to the recommendations made in the first report of the Government's panel on sustainable development.

  Neighbour Noise
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress has been made regarding the working party looking into noise from neighbours; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The working party has completed its review of the effectiveness of current neighbour noise controls. We hope to consult in the near future on its conclusions and recommendations.

  Detergents (Phosphate Content)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to reduce the phosphate content of domestic detergent products. [13715]

  Mr. Atkins
  There has been a reduction of the order of 40 per cent. in the use of phosphates in detergents since the early 1990s, due to the presence in the market place of phosphate-free detergents. The imminent inclusion of detergents in the EC ecolabelling scheme will give an incentive to manufacturers to reduce the content of phosphates in detergents still further. There are some unresolved questions about replacement of phosphates in detergents and the Government have no plans to require substitution.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members, without prior warning to those hon. Members, for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15018]
  123
  Mr. Gummer
  My practice is to ensure that hon. Members have prior warning of all departmental visits that I make to their constituencies; so far as I am aware, this has been achieved for all the visits that I have made in the current parliamentary Session.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce decisions on the future structure of the remaining shire counties for which he had final reports from the Local Government Commission. [15646]

  Mr. Gummer
  I can now announce my decisions on the remaining 12 shire counties as follows. In all cases I have considered the commission's reports and the representations I have received. In the process I have taken into account the transitional and ongoing costs and the viability of the structures—both of unitary authorities and remaining two-tier arrangements—which will result from my decisions. In each case I am satisfied that on balance my decision will best reflect the identities and interests of local communities and will best secure effective and convenient local government.

  Derbyshire

  I have decided to accept the Local Government Commission's final recommendations for Derbyshire that Derby city be given unitary authority status and that the existing two-tier structure be retained in the rest of the county.

  The case for a unitary Derby city is compelling. Derby is a former county borough and was responsible for the broad range of local government services prior to 1974. It has a population of 227,000 and is larger than many metropolitan boroughs and London boroughs. The commission found that about two thirds of local people identified strongly with the city area.

  Staffordshire

  On Staffordshire, I have accepted the commission's recommendation that there should be a unitary authority for Stoke-on-Trent, with the addition of a small area of Barlaston from the Stafford borough area, and that elsewhere in the county the status quo should be retained.

  The case for a unitary Stoke is strong. It is a former county borough with a large and concentrated population in excess of 250,000, and the commission has identified a strong sense of community identity within the city council area. I agree with the commission that the remainder of the county outside Stoke, with a county council and eight districts, will continue to be fully viable.

  Wiltshire

  In the case of Wiltshire, I have decided to accept the commission's recommendation that there should be a unitary authority for the present borough area of Thamesdown (Swindon) and that there should be no change to the existing two-tier arrangements in the rest of the county of Wiltshire.

  The case for a unitary Thamesdown is strong. It is a significant urban area, with a population in excess of 170,000, where the commission identified a strong and distinct sense of community identity and an independent economy. I agree with the commission's conclusion that a unitary authority for Thamesdown would offer the opportunity to improve the co-ordination, effectiveness and delivery of services and facilitate the co-ordination
  124
  of these services with other public bodies, the business community and the voluntary sector.

  East Sussex

  For East Sussex I have decided to accept the commission's recommendation that a unitary authority should be created by merging the present borough areas of Brighton and Hove, and that there should be no change to the existing two-tier arrangements in the rest of the county.

  While I recognise the feeling in Brighton and Hove of separate identifies, in practical terms they form a continuous conurbation. I agree with the commission's conclusion that the balance of advantage lies with the establishment of a single unitary authority, which would have physical coherence, be of sufficient size and compactness to be self sufficient and accessible, and have a good infrastructure. I am satisfied that such an authority would be well placed to deliver the full range of local services.

  Devon

  On Devon, I accept the commission's recommendation of unitary authorities for Plymouth and Torbay, with the continuation of the two-tier structure elsewhere in Devon, subject to any review of Exeter which I might ask the commission to conduct.

  Both Plymouth and Torbay are former county boroughs which have previously been responsible for the broad range of local government services. Plymouth, with a population of over 250,000, is the fourth most populous non-metropolitan district. It is a significant and well defined urban area which is distinct from the neighbouring rural areas.

  For Torbay, while its population is smaller—around 120,000—it is one of the largest resorts in Great Britain. Like Plymouth, it has a distinctive identity from the surrounding rural areas, reflecting its relatively self-sufficient economy and low level of interdependence with the rest of Devon. The commission found strong local support for a unitary authority for Torbay, including from business and other local bodies. I consider that the remainder of the county will retain its viability.

  Nottinghamshire

  I have decided to accept the commission's proposal that Nottingham city should gain unitary status.

  The city has a substantial population of 285,000; it is the third largest non-metropolitan district in England and is larger than most existing metropolitan and London boroughs. It was formerly a county borough. The city is distinct from most of the rest of the county and has specific needs which I believe could be more effectively addressed by a unitary city authority. The commission found that the majority of local people in Nottingham identify strongly with the city.

  As I announced on 2 March, some of the arguments the commission put forward in favour of a unitary authority for Nottingham could equally be applied to the neighbouring districts of Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe. I am considering whether to refer these three districts to the commission for a further review so that the case for unitary authorities in the greater Nottingham area can be thoroughly explored. Subject to this consideration, I accept the case for retaining the existing two-tier structure in the rest of the county.
  125
  Essex

  For Essex, I have decided to accept the commission's recommendation that Southend-on-Sea should become a unitary authority, with the rest of the county remaining two-tier. The commission also recommended that Southend's boundaries should be extended to include Southend airport. I think this needs further exploration and I may ask the commission in due course to look at the matter again.

  There is a strong case for a unitary Southend, given its population size and density, the high level of community identity with the borough council area which the commission found, and its former status as a county borough. I accept the commission's view that a unitary Southend could provide the broad range of local government services within its area in a way which is effective, convenient, accessible and responsive to local needs.

  The commission also recommended significant boundary changes between Basildon, Brentwood and Rochford. In my statement to the House on 2 March, I said that I had in mind to include the districts of Thurrock and Basildon among those where I shall be asking the commission to carry out fresh reviews. I have accordingly decided it would not be appropriate to reach a decision on the proposed boundary changes affecting Basildon until the outcome of those reviews is known.

  Hereford and Worcester

  In the case of Hereford and Worcester, I have decided to accept the commission's recommendation that there should be a unitary authority for the area of the "traditional" Herefordshire, and that the existing two-tier structure should be retained in the "traditional" area of Worcestershire. The "traditional" area of Herefordshire comprises the areas of Hereford city, South Herefordshire, the western part of Malvern hills and Leominster except for the Tenbury area. The "traditional" area of Worcestershire comprises the districts of Wyre Forest, Bromsgrove, Redditch, Worcester city and Wychavon, with a new district to be established covering the eastern part of the Malvern hills and the area of Tenbury.

  Prior to the reorganisation of local government in 1974, Herefordshire and Worcestershire were two separate counties for both administrative and ceremonial purposes. The merger in 1974 has proved to be very unpopular and the evidence presented to the commission suggests that the merger have not earned the loyalty of the local people.

  I consider that the Worcestershire element of the present county, with approximately 77 per cent. of the existing county's population, would be viable. I also agree with the commission about the viability of a unitary Herefordshire. A number of services such as education and social services are currently run on the basis of the "Herefordshire" boundary and the commission is satisfied that the full range of services can be provided by a unitary Herefordshire.

  I also accept the commission's recommendation for new electoral arrangements for the new unitary Herefordshire and the remaining county and districts in Worcestershire.

  Leicestershire

  I am minded to accept the commission's recommendation that there should be a unitary authority for the city of Leicester. It has a long history of unitary government and there seems to be strong support for a
  126
  return to that status. Leicester is the second largest of the non-metropolitan districts and I believe that it will be able to fulfil the functions of a unitary authority effectively and conveniently. I also believe that the reduced county council will be viable.

  Having weighed all the arguments, I am minded to accept the commission's recommendation that there should be a unitary authority in Rutland. The strength of local identity is very clear and there is definite support for a unitary authority.

  There are, however, understandable concerns about whether Rutland could provide effective local government, given its small size, and about the financial implications of reorganisation. Before an order implementing change for Rutland is introduced, I shall want to be satisfied that the authority has been able to make good practical arrangements for local services; that the authority have fully assessed the overall financial implications; that the costs can be paid for within the same financial arrangements and constraints that apply to other reorganised authorities. I expect that at least for some services, some form of joint working may be needed.

  Hampshire

  Having weighed all the arguments, I have accepted part of the commission's structural recommendations—namely unitary authorities for Portsmouth and Southampton—but rejected the recommendation for the New Forest so that it, and the rest of the county of Hampshire, will remain two-tier.

  There is a strong case for unitary authorities for the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton. Both are former county boroughs with a history of unitary local government and are amongst the largest, and most densely populated, non-metropolitan district councils. Portsmouth and Southampton, with populations of around 180,000 and 200,000 respectively are comparable in this respect with the urban unitary authorities in London and the metropolitan counties. There is support for unitary status locally, and the city councils are confident about their ability to deliver services, establishing where necessary joint arrangements with each other and with the county council.

  However, the position in New Forest is much less clear. Whilst it is one of the larger non-metropolitan districts in terms of population (around 160,000), it is a largely rural area. It has no tradition of unitary local government and popular opinion is finely balanced. Doubts have been expressed about the fragmentation of services in a strongly rural district which has no large town to give it focus and identity. I have decided, therefore, not to accept the commission's recommendation for a unitary authority for the New Forest.

  Dorset

  Having weighed all the arguments, I have accepted part of the commission's structural recommendations—namely unitary authorities for Bournemouth and Poole—but rejected its proposal that there should be two unitary authorities in the rest of the county. Outside the two boroughs, the county will remain two—tier.

  There is a strong case for unitary authorities in Bournemouth and Poole, which is now also accepted by the county council. The two boroughs are distinct within the largely rural county and each has a strong sense of community identity. The population of each is already large and I have little doubt that they would each be able

  127
  to provide all local authority services, especially with further growth expected in Poole.

  The position outside Bournemouth and Poole is much less clear. Community identity in the area tends to have a very local emphasis and popular opinion is finely balanced. Doubts have also been expressed about the viability of the two largely rural authorities.

  Berkshire

  On Berkshire, having weighed all the arguments, I have largely accepted the commission's final recommendations for the county's future structure, but with a modification. I accept the recommendation that Reading, Newbury, Slough, and Wokingham should become unitary authorities on the boundaries of the present district areas. However, I propose to modify the recommendation that a unitary authority be created based on a merger of the district areas of Bracknell Forest and Windsor and Maidenhead, and instead create two unitary authorities based on the existing district areas. The present two-tier structure in Berkshire will therefore be replaced by six unitary authorities based on existing district areas.

  The commission found a strong and well supported case for an all unitary structure in Berkshire from the outset of the review. The case for unitary status for
  128
  Reading, Newbury and Slough is particularly strong; Reading is a former county borough with a predominantly urban and district character; Slough is a densely populated urban area which is a significant industrial and retail centre with an infrastructure to reflect this; Newbury is a predominantly rural area quite distinct from the rest of the county, relating more to areas in neighbouring counties. While there was less unanimity about the best structure for the rest of the county area, on balance I consider that unitary status for each of the remaining districtsWokingham, Bracknell Forest and Windsor and Maidenhead—will on balance best serve the needs of community identity and effective local government, and that unitary authorities based on the existing districts are capable of delivering the full range of services. The county's geography, coupled with the marked diversity across its area, give it a particularly strong case for an all unitary structure.

  The county area for Berkshire will be retained, but it will no longer have a county council.

  I have now considered my decisions on all the commission's structural recommendations. I am still considering a number of outstanding recommendations on other matters, and will announce my decisions on these in due course.

HEALTH

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage of patients currently covered by GP budget fundholders in(a) the Dartford constituency,(b) the Dartford and Gravesham Health Trust area, (c) the county of Kent, (d) the South Thames regional health authority, (e) England and (i) the United Kingdom. [14566]

  Mr. Malone
  Information available from the enhanced general practitioner census of 1 April 1994 is shown in the table. Information is not collected below family health services authority level.

  Area

  Population coverage Area Per cent.

  Kent FHSA

  53

  South Thames RHA

  37

  England

  34

  Information relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Secondary Fuels
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evidence she has collected from other countries of ill health caused by the burning of secondary liquid fuels in cement kilns or incinerators; [14425]

  (2) what evidence her Department has of ill health caused by the burning of secondary liquid fuels in (a) the kilns of cement industries and (b) waste incinerators; and if she will make a statement. [14428]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is not aware of any evidence that the burning of secondary fuels has caused ill health.

  In England and Wales, cement kilns and waste incinerators are authorised under the integrated pollution control regime of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Under this Act, the operator of the plant is required to use best available techniques not entailing excessive costs to prevent, minimise or, where that is not practicable by such means, for rendering harmless any releases.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing for each local health area in England(a) the number of general dental practitioners and (b) the number of general dental practitioners per 1,000 population, for each year since 1986. [14723]

  Mr. Malone
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  Industrial Discharges
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all industries the processes of which 130
  discharge dioxin or heavy metals into the atmosphere together with details of illnesses directly or indirectly attributed thereto; and if she will make a statement. [14427]

  Mr. Sackville
  The main industrial processes which discharge dioxin and/or heavy metals are incineration plants, power stations and other combustion plants, metal industry processes and chemical plants.

  The health effects of emissions from the burning of any fuel cannot be determined unless the specific components of the fuel and the method and temperature of its combustion are known. Discharges of dioxins and heavy metals must be kept within levels whereby no harm to health should occur. No illnesses are known to be directly or indirectly caused by such discharges in the United Kingdom.

  NHS Complaints Procedures
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will make an announcement on the Government's response to the report of the review committee on NHS complaints procedures, "Being Heard". [15644]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I shall publish tomorrow a booklet entitled "Acting on Complaints". This will set out our plans for a speedier, simpler and more effective national health service complaints procedure in England. Copies will be placed in the Library. Similar systems are being introduced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I will also be responding tomorrow to the recommendations in the First and Sixth Reports of the 1993–94 Session of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, which relate to NHS complaints procedures in Great Britain.

  Family Health Services Appeal Authority
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Eastbourne of 22 November 1994,Official Report, column 88, what arrangements she has made to create a special health authority to undertake the functions of the family health services appeal unit. [15647]

  Mr. Malone
  Statutory Instruments were laid before this House on 8 March 1995 to come into effect on 1 April 1995 creating the Family Health Services Appeal Authority. The authority is to he located in Harrogate. The chairman of the authority will be Mr. Alan Crute and Mrs. Hilda Harvey, Mr. John Goss and Mrs. Josephine Larbie have been invited to be non-executive members.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the number and percentage of emergency ambulance calls in London that took(a) 14 minutes and (b) for each subsequent minute up to 70 minutes in February 1995. [14773]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 25 January at columns 251–52.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the visits she has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the
  131
  constituencies of other hon. Members, without prior warning to those hon. Members, for any purpose connected with her departmental responsibilities. [15016]

  Mr. Sackville
  Ministers always do their best to give prior warning to hon. Members when they visit their constituencies in an official capacity.

  Ethnic Origin
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people of(a) Turkish origin, (b) Turkish Cypriot origin and (c) other Turkish origin, including Kurdish origin, were resident in (i) each of the London boroughs and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole at the latest available date. [15104]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available as these categories were not listed in the 1991 census ethnic group question. However, there was a space for people to enter their ethnic group if they felt that none of the printed, pre-coded, categories, was appropriate. Counts for the London boroughs of these "write-in" answers for the category of "Turkish", without any sub-division, are included in the 1991 Census Report for Ethnic Group and Country of Birth (table a), copies of which are available in the Library. The ethnic origin question was not asked in Northern Ireland and this table relates to Great Britain.

  Sarah Varley
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish the report submitted by the city of Bradford metropolitan council concerning the circumstances leading to the death of Sarah Varley, together with the response of her Department's social services inspectorate; and if she will make a statement. [15441]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for the Bradford area child protection committee to consider publication of the report. The review, completed in 1993, made a number of recommendations to the area child protection committee. The social services inspectorate has asked the Bradford director of social services to report on action taken to implement the recommendations.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if patients given definite dates for treatment and operations are then removed from the waiting list. [15185]

  Mr. Malone
  No.

EMPLOYMENT

  Remploy
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the work of Remploy as clothing suppliers has met his quality control standards.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  132
  Letter from R.M. Phillips to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 21 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your question about whether the work of Remploy as clothing suppliers has met his quality control standards.
  Although Remploy receives substantial financial support from Government (£92.1 million for 1994/95), and operates within an Annual Performance Agreement setting targets in relation to the employment of disabled people, in every other respect it operates as a normal commercial company. As such, any quality control standards are a matter for Remploy and its customers.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many contracts have been awarded to Remploy since the special contracts arrangements were introduced.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Peter Thurnham, dated 21 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about how many contracts have been awarded to Remploy since the special contracts arrangements were introduced.
  To date Remploy has received orders in excess of £20 million since the introduction of the Special Contracts Arrangements on 29 November, 1994.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of whether the special contracts arrangements are working effectively.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on 15 March,Official Report, column 624.

  Industrial Workers' Salaries
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the average change in real terms of industrial workers' salaries since 1979.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The average real weekly earnings of an industrial worker rose 32 per cent. between 1979 and 1994.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 143, if he will identify the six employer associations which, in the consultation process, expressed a view in favour of exempting small firms from the requirement not to discriminate against disabled employees and the three employer associations which were against this.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No. As I made clear in my answer of 7 March 1995, it is not our policy to publish particular responses to the consultation and this includes identifying the views that particular organisations expressed in those responses.

  Forth Railway Bridge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Health and Safety Executive will make a complete independent assessment of the Forth railway bridge. [15101]
  133
  Mr. Oppenheim
  I understand the director general of the Health and Safety Executive, Mr. Rimington, has asked Her Majesty's railway inspectorate to undertake an assessment of the Forth bridge.

  A time scale for the completion of this work has not yet been confirmed.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members without prior warning to these hon. Members for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15024]

  Mr. Portillo
  I always do my best to give prior warning to hon. Members when I visit their constituencies in an official capacity.

  Unemployed People (Study Courses)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to reinstate a scheme along the lines of learning for work for unemployed people who would benefit from full-time study. [15336]

  Mr. Paice
  Learning for work will not be replaced by another scheme. The Department, through training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service, provides a range of programmes and services to help unemployed people prepare for work. Training for work, career development loans, job clubs and restart courses all play an important part of this package of help.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if part-time study by unemployed people will be a positive outcome of restart interviews. [15339]

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is appreciated that undertaking part-time education can enhance some clients' prospects of finding work in the longer term, so advisers will give advice and guidance on part-time education opportunities available and the implications for benefits. However, a client who starts part-time education following a restart interview is not counted towards the positive outcome targets unless he also leaves the unemployment register.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if a course of study being undertaken by an unemployed person by the Employment Service is not exceeding 16 hours of guided learning will be disregarded in any further tests of availability for work. [15335]

  Miss Widdecombe
  People claiming jobseeker's allowance will be able to take part-time courses provided that they remain available for, and actively seeking, employment.

  Courses of part-time study will not be disregarded by the Employment Service in availability for work tests.

  After three months unemployment, the course will not of itself be grounds for finding someone unavailable for work, but it will continue to be the case that a jobseeker may not turn down or refuse to apply for a vacancy notified to him merely because it conflicts with his course of study.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the new rule on hours of study will apply during the first three months of unemployment. [15337]

  Miss Widdecombe
  People claiming jobseeker's allowance will be able to take part-time courses provided 134
  that they remain fully available for, and actively seeking, employment. After three months unemployment, attending a part-time course will not of itself be grounds for finding someone unavailable for work, but it will continue to be the case that a jobseeker may not turn down or refuse to apply for a vacancy notified to him merely because it conflicts with his course of study.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if people who were studying part-time while employed may be required under the rules for jobseeker's allowance to give up their courses on becoming unemployed. [15343]

  Miss Widdecombe
  People who become unemployed will be able to continue to study part-time within the rules of jobseekers allowance and receive benefit, so long as they remain available for, and actively seeking, employment.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if study for a skill or qualification will be taken into account by the Employment Service under the rules for jobseeker's allowance, in judging the suitability of a job which an unemployed person may be directed to take. [15334]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Service does not set out to offer claimants unsuitable jobs, and employment officers may take into account a range of factors before notifying claimants of vacancies. However, jobseeker's allowance, like current unemployment benefits, will be for people whose first priority is to find a job. Study must not conflict with claimants' availability for work and active jobsearch and they will be liable to sanction if, without good cause, they refuse or fail to apply for a job that has been notified to them by an employment officer as vacant or about to become vacant. This does not mean that they must necessarily leave their course: it may be possible, because of the increasing flexibility of modern courses, to combine work and study. But it will continue to be the case that claimants may not turn down or refuse to apply for a vacancy notified to them merely because it conflicts with their course of study.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if courses for the long-term unemployed funded from the European social fund and provided at present by training and enterprise councils, further education colleges, local authorities and voluntary organisations will be made exempt from the 1 6–hour limitation and the actively seeking work requirement brought within the training for work programme or in some other way. [15338]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Courses part-funded by the European social fund and run under training for work will be subject to the rules of that programme. People undertaking part-time courses part-funded by ESF while claiming jobseeker's allowance will be subject to the rules of JSA, which will include an upper limit of 16 guided learning hours per week in Further Education Funding Council funded courses and a requirement to be available for, and actively seeking, employment.

  South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was paid in grants from any section of the European Union budget to the South Thames TEC for each year since 1992. [14730]
  135
  Mr. Paice
  Payments to South Thames training and enterprise council under objective 3 of the European social fund for 1993 and 1994 are shown in the following table. The TEC had no applications approved for support in 1992.

  Year

  ESF grants paid £

  1993

  308,770

  1994

  166,100

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members without prior warning to these hon. members for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15013]

  Mr. Howard
  On 16 February 1995 when, at short notice, I visited Wormwood Scrubs prison, and my office tried but was unable to contact the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).

  Television Licences
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were prosecuted for not having a television licence in the latest year for which figures are available; what sentences they received; and how many people eventually served a period of imprisonment.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: Information held centrally by my Department on the number of court proceedings under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1949 to 1967 cannot separately identify the offence of TV licence evasion. I understand from the national television licence records office that the number of prosecutions in the last two years was as is shown in the table. Over 97 per cent. of people found guilty were fined. A total of 845 people in 1993 and 754 in 1994 were imprisoned for default on fines imposed for using a TV without a licence.

  Offenders prosecuted and found guilty of television licence evasion

  England and Wales

  Year

  Prosecuted

  Found guilty

  1993

  243,025

  212,952

  1994

  223,985

  199,970

  Source:

  National television licence records office.

  Parole
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 375, what is the length of the delay beyond their parole eligibility dates in the cases of each of the 569 prisoners mentioned in his answer.
  [15194]
  136
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regret that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Bookmakers
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the request from the British Betting Office Association for a seat on the bookmakers' committee to the levy board and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: My right hon. and learned Friend has decided to review the composition of the bookmakers' committee in the light of representations from the British Betting Office Association.

  We have written today to the BBOA, the Secretary to the bookmakers' committee and to the levy board to inform them of this decision. Officials will be writing to the BBOA and the associations represented on the committee in order to undertake the necessary consultation.

  A decision on whether the BBOA will be granted representation on the committee and the size of any such representation will be taken following the consultation.

  Armed Response Units
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police authorities have permanently staffed armed response units; and how many second officers from other duties for short periods. [14841]

  Mr. Maclean
  On 31 December 1993, 34 police forces in England and Wales had armed response vehicles. A complete breakdown of this figure between forces which maintain a 24–hour armed response vehicle service, and those which do not, is not centrally available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Victim Support
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the level of financial support provided to Victim Support and the total number of victims so supported since 1989. [14396]

  Mr. Maclean
  Details of Home Office funding of Victim Support since such funding began in 1979 were given in a reply to a question from the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 22 February at column 236.

  Victim Support does not record how many victims have actually been helped, but its records show that in the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1994 it made more than 3.9 million offers of support to victims of crime.

  Crime Prevention
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those local authorities which have established designated units with a specific responsibility to reduce the fear of crime and improve crime prevention measures, reporting direct to the chief
  137
  executive, by party of control. [14397]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally.

  Police
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of uniformed officers with a commitment to a specific geographical area by police authority, in each year since 1989; and what these figures are as a percentage of uniformed officers in each area. [14299]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice his Department issues to police authorities about the account taken of community liaison work when considering the career progression of individual officers. [14400]

  Mr. Maclean
  Guidance on best practice in operating career development and staff appraisal system does not specify how particular aspects of police work should be treated. It is for chief constables to take decisions on the career progression of their officers, taking into account the skills and abilities of the officers concerned, the long-term and short-term needs of the individual, and the needs of the force and the police service as a whole.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of medium and high-level community liaison posts by police authority, in place for each year since 1989. [14401]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not held centrally. Each police force in England and Wales has a community liaison department, generally headed by an officer at superintendent or chief inspector rank. Officers at various levels in forces will have community liaison responsibilities, exercised locally as circumstances require.

  Retailers (Prosecutions)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions of retailers for the sale of(a) alcohol, (b) tobacco and (c) 18–classified video products to people who are under age were undertaken in the last year for which figures are available; and what advice his Department issues to the police regarding such offences. [14713]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information held centrally shows that in England and Wales in 1993, 156 defendants were prosecuted for the illegal sale of alcohol on licensed premises to persons under 18. In 1993, 143 defendants were prosecuted for offences related to the illegal sale of tobacco to children under 16.

  The Video Recordings Act 1984 does not differentiate the supply of a video recording of classified work for hire from other forms of commercial supply, such as the supply of a classified video for sale. In 1989, there was one prosecution under section 11 of the Act relating to supply of a video recording in breach of the classification awarded. Information collected centrally from 1990 to 1994 does not identify individual offences committed under this specific Act from other summary offences. However, from 1995 onwards the information is being recorded separately. Home Office guidance to the police and local authorities in 1992 on the law relating to the
  138
  sale of tobacco to children indicated that enforcement action was primarily a matter for the latter.

  Metropolitan Police Committee
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations underlay his rejection of nominations for the Metropolitan police committee made by local authority associations. [14442]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 February to a question from the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker),Official Report, column 757–58.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many meetings he has scheduled with the Metropolitan police committee; and how frequent those meetings will be; [14446]

  (2) what sanctions the Metropolitan police committee has if he ignores its advice on policing the capital; [14447]

  (3) how many times he has so far met the Metropolitan police committee, how many letters he has received from it; and to what extent he has acted on any advice received from it. [14449]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to a question from the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 11 January at column 139–40. The Metropolitan police committee is not yet formally in operation. From 1 April 1995 it is expected to advise the Secretary of State on a range of matters concerning the policing of the Metropolitan police district but it will be for Ministers to decide whether or to what extent they should accept the advice put forward. The question of sanctions does not arise.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he took to establish that members of the Metropolitan police committee demonstrated knowledge of the workings of the Metropolitan police; [14805]

  (2) how many people were interviewed for membership of the Metropolitan police committee. [14441]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 20 February,Official Report, column 19.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many full-time and part-time staff will be allocated to the Metropolitan police committee; and what will be the cost of those staff; [14444]

  (2) what will be the annual cost of the Metropolitan police committee. [14445]

  Mr. Maclean
  The estimated cost of the Metropolitan police committee for 1995–96 is £399,000. This includes the cost of eight full-time and two part-time staff who comprise its Secretariat, accommodation costs and other expenses.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many members of the Metropolitan police committee are members of a political party; and if he will list those parties; [14443]

  (2) how many of the members of the Metropolitan police committee (a) are and (b) have been, councillors; and which party they represented. [14451]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information about past or present political affiliations, if any, of members of the
  139
  Metropolitan police committee is not collected by my Department. However, I understand that of the two serving councillors appointed to the committee, one is a member of the Conservative party and the other is a member of the Labour party.

  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many overseas domestic workers are currently working in London; [14450]

  (2) how many overseas domestic workers there are currently in Britain. [14448]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not available.

  Entry Clearance
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage of(a) husbands and (b) wives seeking to join their spouses initially refused by entry clearance officers in India in 1994; what were the reasons for the differences; and if he will make a statement. [14831]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  In India in 1994, 45 per cent. of husbands and 20 per cent. of wives were initially refused entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom. Some of these applications may be subsequently granted on appeal. Immigration rules for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom apply equally to husbands and wives. Differences in the percentage initially refused reflect differences in individual applications.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage of(a) husbands and (b) wives seeking to join their spouses initially refused by entry clearance officers in Pakistan in 1994; what were the reasons for the differences; and if he will make a statement. [14739]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  In Pakistan in 1994, 60 per cent. of husbands and 25 per cent. of wives were initially refused entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom. Some of these applications may be subsequently granted on appeal. Immigration rules for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom apply equally to husbands and wives. Differences in the percentage of applications initially refused reflect differences in individual applications.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the need for a police authority for London; [14440]

  (2) if he will establish mechanisms whereby London council tax-payers can influence expenditure on the Metropolitan police. [14454]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is the Government's view that the Secretary of State should remain the police authority for the Metropolitan police district. Like other police authorities, the Secretary of State has overall responsibilities for the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. He answers to Parliament for those responsibilities.

  Prison and Escort Contracts
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the full names of those private companies which have tendered for, or have been invited to tender for, each individual contract to(a) design, construct, manage or finance any of Her Majesty's prison establishments or (b) manage court or prison escort services, together with the contract involved;
  [14452]

  (2) if he will list the full names of those private companies which have been awarded individual contracts to (a) design, construct, manage or finance any of Her Majesty's prison establishments or (b) manage court or prison escort services, together with the contract involved and its costs. [14453]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. George Howarth, dated 21 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about the private companies that have tendered for, been invited to tender for or awarded contracts to design, construct, manage and finance prisons or to manage court escorting and custody services. You also asked for details of the companies awarded each contract and the cost of these contracts.
  Invitations to tender have been issued to five companies or consortia for two prisons (at Bridgend and Fazakerley) to be designed, constructed, managed and financed by the private sector. They are, Securicor Seifert Atkins Consortium, UK Detention Services Ltd, Premier Prison Services Ltd, Securer Care Services Ltd and Group 4 Tarmac Ltd. The closing date for receipt of tenders is 20 March 1995. No contracts of this kind have been let in the past.
  To date, tenders have been invited for court escort and custody services in five areas in England and Wales. The first of these tenders was for the East Midlands and Humberside area (Area 7). Six companies bid: Securicor Custodial Services, Securiguard Services Ltd, Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd, Group 4 Court Services Ltd, Wackenhut (UK) Ltd and Reliance Security Ltd. Group 4 Court Services Ltd were appointed, the estimated cost of the contract is £41 million over five years.
  Four companies bid for the contract for the Metropolitan Police District (Area 3); Group 4 Court Services Ltd, Reliance Custodial Services, Securicor Custodial Services Ltd and Pinkerton Court Escort Services Ltd. Securicor Custodial Services Ltd were appointed, the estimated cost of the contract is £96 million over five years.
  Five companies bid for the contracts for East Anglia (Area 4); Group 4 Court Services Ltd, Premier Prison Services Ltd, Reliance, Securicor Custodial Services Ltd, United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. Group 4 Court Services Ltd were appointed, the estimated cost of the contract is £47 million over five years.
  Four companies bid for the contract for the North West (Area 6); these were Group 4 Court Services Ltd, Premier Prison Services Ltd, Reliance and Securicor Custodial Services Ltd. Group 4 Court Services Ltd were appointed, the estimated cost of the contract is £69 million over five years.
  Five companies bid for the contract for the North (Area 8); these were Group 4 Court Services Ltd, Premier Prison Services Ltd, Reliance, Securicor Custodial Services Ltd and United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. A contract was not awarded. It is still our intention to award a contract as soon as possible. We will be considering how best to re-organise the size and scope of the contract so as to ensure it is both operationally effective and good value for money for the taxpayer.

  Prison Contracts
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the net operating cost per prisoner place for each contracted-out prison in England and Wales from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995. [14572]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. George Howarth, dated 21 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the net operating cost per prisoner place for each contracted out prison in England and Wales.
  The net operating cost per prisoner place for each contracted out prison in England and Wales from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 will be contained in the Prison Service Annual Report, which for that period will be laid before Parliament later this year.

  Fear of Crime
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to conduct evaluative research into the fear of crime following the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention's report of the working group on the fear of crime, dated 11 December 1989. [14402]

  Mr. Maclean
  The research and planning unit, crime prevention unit and police research group of the Home Department conduct and sponsor a wide range of research into the problem of criminal behaviour, the effects of which will influence people's fear of crime. More specifically, the Department has conducted a number of pieces of evaluative work on fear of crime, which bear on the recommendations of the fear of crime working group report.

  Details are as follows:

  (i) "Special constables: Issues for the management and organisation of volunteer police"—research and planning unit paper 88;

  (ii) "Lagerland Lost?" An experiment in keeping drinkers off the street in central Coventry and elsewhere—crime prevention unit paper 22;

  (iii) "The Influence of Street Lighting on Crime and Fear of Crime"—crime prevention unit paper 28;

  (iv) "Closed Circuit Television in Public Places"—crime prevention unit paper 35;

  (v) "Fear of Crime Findings" from the 1992 "British Crime Survey"—research findings No. 9;

  (vi) "Participation in Neighbourhood Watch": Findings from the 1992 "British Crime Survey"—research finding No. 11.

  Further research on special constables, community policing and the safer cities programme is forthcoming.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to combat the fear of crime following the recommendations of the standing conference on crime prevention contained in the report of the working group on the fear of crime, dated 11 December 1989. [14403]

  Mr. Maclean
  Home Office Ministers welcomed the report of the working group which provided a stimulating contribution to the debate on fear of crime. The Home 142
  Office attaches a high priority to tackling crime and the fear of crime, which we recognise can be just as disabling as crime itself.

  The Home Office tackles this problem through a number of initiatives, most recently through the partnership campaign "Partners Against Crime" which was launched by my right hon. and learned Friend in September 1994. The campaign encourages individual members of the public to join the police as partners in the fight against crime. Through neighbourhood watch schemes, the special constabulary, neighbourhood constables, street watch, youth action groups and crime prevention panels, individuals can make a difference and gain a sense of empowerment, which in turn helps to reduce the fear of crime.

  We also welcome the use of technology such as closed circuit television in the fight against fear of crime. Last October, my right hon. and learned Friend announced a competition to set up more schemes across the country and the winners will be announced shortly.

  Partnership is the basis of Home Office crime prevention policy, and we continue to work closely with other organisations—such as the Department of the Environment on the single regeneration budget and the safer cities programme; and the Department of Transport who have commissioned a national review of transport-related crime and perceptions of safety.

  The Home Office produces practical advice on the measures which people can take to help keep themselves, their families and their property safe. The advice is always carefully worded to ensure that it is not fear-inducing.

  Following a specific recommendation made by the working group, crime statistics are now published half yearly, rather than quarterly.

  Most recently, to help forces identify those areas which suffer most from fear of crime, we have circulated to every police force a handbook and computer software package which provides a guide to the process of conducting a fear of crime survey.

  Under-age Drinking
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding extending existing voluntary identity schemes administered by licensed victuallers associations in respect of the 18–year-old public alcohol drinking limit; and what measures he is preparing to increase the take-up of these schemes. [14711]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We have received no such representations. While we welcome these schemes, it would be for the sponsors of such schemes to consider any proposals for their extension.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has announced, however, our intention to publish later in the spring a Green Paper on identity cards. This will set out and canvass views on the options for a national identity card scheme, including the possible benefits of identity cards in helping to combat under-age drinking.

  Criminal Cases (Information)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he is considering for legislation to revise requirements for the disclosure of
  143
  information by the prosecution and the defence in criminal cases.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend is currently considering the requirements for disclosure by the prosecution and the defence and hope to be able to announce proposals quite soon.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the existing guidelines in Wandsworth prison in respect of an inmate regarded as a possible suicide risk; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from A.J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 21 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to our recent Question about the existing guidelines in Wandsworth prison for coping with a prisoner identified as being at risk of self harm.
  The Prison Service has introduced an updated strategy called 'Caring For The Suicidal In Custody' this year. Wandsworth prison was one of the establishments which piloted this scheme. It moves away from treating suicide as a medical responsibility to involve all staff working towards suicide prevention. Personal officer schemes give prisoners a direct link with a member of staff whom they can turn to in times of distress. All prison officers receive suicide awareness training as part of their induction programme.
  Every prisoner who arrives at Wandsworth, as in other prisons, is screened on the initial reception and are interviewed by a medical officer. They are also shown the 'Misadvantages Video' which, using a realistic storyline, deals with the issue of custodial suicide.
  When a prisoner is identified as being at risk of self harm, a standard form known as a F2052 SH is raised. He is then seen by the Residential Unit Manager and a Health Care Officer who make an initial assessment. If appropriate, the prisoner may be transferred to a shared cell where increased contact is used as a preventative measure, or he may be transferred to the Health Care Centre where he will be seen by a doctor. When necessary the prisoner is placed under observation. The desirability of continuous observation must be weighed against any possible psychological damage this may inflict.
  When the standard form is raised a case review is held and a support plan devised. Further case reviews are held as needed. There are regular discussions with the prisoner as part of his daily supervision and to enable him to feel more in control of his situation. The standard form is only closed when the prisoner appears to be coping.
  Wandsworth has established a 'Suicide Awareness Group' which co-ordinates the dissemination of information about best practice, reviews the incidents of self harm and death in custody, and inputs this information into the training programme for staff. This is a multi-disciplinary group which includes a representative of the Board of Visitors. Samaritans visit the prison weekly and have trained prisoners to be listeners. There are also strong contact with the visiting consultant psychiatrists.

  Firearms Licensing
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 840, for what reasons he has made only the executive summary of the Association of Chief Police Officers report on firearms licensing available in the Library; and if he has had access to the full report as prepared by Superintendent Campbell Beattie, including the costings.
  144
  Mr. Maclean
  Superintendent Campbell Beattie prepared his report for the Association of Chief Police Officers and the release of that report is a matter for it. The Home Office has had a copy of it.

  Crime Statistics (Assault)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if all offences of common assault are always recorded as crimes for the purposes of compiling crime statistics; [14472]

  (2) how many crimes of actual bodily harm and how many crimes of common assault were recorded in (a) the six months since 1 September 1994 and (b) the six months preceding 1 September 1994; [14473]

  (3) what proportion of total crimes committed consist of common assault and what proportion actual bodily harm (a) in the last year for which recorded crime figures are available and (b) in the previous two years. [14480]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: Common assault is a summary offence and is therefore not included in the recorded crime statistics.

  The available information relates to recorded offences of "other wounding" of which offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm form part. However, such offences cannot be separately identified and it is not possible to identify what proportion offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm form of the total number of recorded offences.

  The latest available information shows that there were 99,482 recorded offences of "other wounding" in the six months to June 1994. Information after this date is not yet available.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to monitor the recording of crime by separate police forces and to asssess whether guidelines issued on this matter by the Home Department are followed. [14474]

  Mr Maclean
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: Statistics of recorded crime are based on rules for classification and counting which are standard for all police forces in England and Wales. A comprehensive set of counting rules is used by police forces in order to maintain the consistency of recording multiple, continuous and repeated offences. Whilst these detailed rules are issued centrally, many decisions still have to be taken locally about the recording and counting of criminal incidents.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary regularly looks into recording practices during force inspections. the Home Office also has a police statistics liaison officer who regularly visits statistics officers in the forces to discuss current issues and to monitor current procedures.

TRANSPORT

  London Heliport
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the report of the London heliport study will be published. [15755]

  Mr. Norris
  I am placing a copy of the London heliport study report in the Library of the House today. The report sets out appraisal methodology and applies this to a
  145
  number of sites, but makes no site recommendation. It is available for purchase by the public from the Department of Transport.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the result of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 13 and 14 March. [15758]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Transport Council met in Brussels on 13 and 14 March. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council took votes on two proposals. The first was on a mandate for the Commission to negotiate on an air transport agreement with Switzerland. The mandate proposed was more restrictive than the Government would have wished, and accordingly I voted against it, as did my Italian colleague. Other member states voted in favour, constituting a qualified majority. The Council approved a mandate for land transport without a vote. Negotiations under these mandates will begin shortly.

  The Council also voted on a draft directive requiring undertakings involved in the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail or inland waterway to appoint a dangerous goods adviser. The United Kingdom alone voted against the measure, on the grounds that it would not add significantly to existing safety legislation and that no proper cost/benefit analysis had been carried out. Other member states supported the measure. The Council was thus deemed to have reached a common position, by qualified majority.

  The Council reached a common position on a proposed directive aimed at harmonising the certification of inland waterway boatmasters.

  The Council adopted resolutions on the promotion of rail and combined transport within the Community; on working hours and training of goods vehicle drives, calling on the Commission to report as soon as possible on its study of these issues; and on the use of non-EC aircraft and crew within the Community, on which the Commission is also carrying out a study. Council conclusions on relations in air transport between member states and the US were agreed.

  The Council discussed European Community shipping policy, but came to no agreed conclusions. I set out the UK's policy objectives of ensuring open and competitive markets worldwide for shipowners and traders.

  Encouraging progress was made on a proposed regulation to apply the international safety management code for roll-on/roll-off passenger ships to all such ships using Community ports. The measure was referred back to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for further discussion.

  Other issues considered at the Council included trans-European networks, interoperability of the high speed rail network, transport research, airport ground handling facilities, the collection of maritime statistics, and relations with central and eastern European countries in regard to road and air transport.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the timetable for the 146
  consideration of bids for the contract to build the channel tunnel rail link; when he hopes to announce the name of the winning consortium; and if he will make a statement. [14880]

  Mr. Watts
  The four bidding consortiums submitted their tenders on 14 March. The Department and its advisers have begun the process of evaluating the bids. It is our intention to announce a winner in the latter half of this year.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the explanatory documents, other than those that are commercially confidential, submitted by the four consortiums bidding for the channel tunnel rail link; if he will endorse requests for exhibitions in the Upper Waiting Hall to permit those consortiums to display their plans; and if he will seek to ensure that hon. Members with constituency interests in the project may receive briefings from each of the companies that have bid for the contract. [14888]

  Mr. Watts
  When we have announced the winner of the channel tunnel rail link competition, I am sure that the successful promoter will wish to give briefings and presentations, and I shall be happy to support that. In the meantime, however, the four bidders are competing for a Government contract in which very large amounts of public funds are at stake. In those circumstances, it would be improper for Ministers, Members of Parliament, officials or others to be subject to lobbying by any of the bidders. I appreciate that many hon. Members and their constituents have interests and concerns about the rail link; the proper forum in which to advance those is in the proceedings of this House on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. We shall, of course, ensure that all undertakings given by the Government as the Bill progresses are binding upon the successful promoter.

  Channel Tunnel Inspections
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the required inspection levels of channel tunnel vehicles referred to at paragraph 10.2.4 of his Transport report 1995. [14882]

  Mr. Watts
  All vehicles using the channel tunnel are liable to be searched. It would not be appropriate to detail the measures applied on security grounds.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when pulsed fast neutron analysis will be operational in respect of screening freight vehicles using the channel tunnel to the required inspection levels. [14886]

  Mr. Watts
  Pulsed fast neutron analysis technology is currently undergoing further developing work and it is not therefore possible to give a firm operational date at this stage. However, at the satisfactory conclusion of this work, Eurotunnel will be required to put PFNA in place at both UK and French terminals.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how Transec monitors and inspects the channel tunnel system; and if he will make a statement. [14887]

  Mr. Watts
  Under the terms of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994, the channel tunnel security
  147
  inspectors give instructions, offer advice and make both announced and unannounced inspections to ensure that the required security standards are, and continue to be, met. It would not be appropriate to detail their operational methods or their findings on security grounds.

  Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how pulsed fast neutron analysis, referred to in his Transport report 1995 facilitates screening of freight vehicles. [14883]

  Mr. Watts
  Pulsed fast neutron analysis can provide precise information about the composition and location of materials within freight containers. The technique can detect the presence of explosives, for example, by measuring characteristics specific to their composition.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the amount of the contribution from the United Kingdom towards the cost of pulsed fast neutron analysis [14885]

  Mr. Watts
  The British and French Governments have agreed to contribute to the cost of further development work by Science Applications International Corporation on PFNA technology. The total UK contribution is £4.2 million.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members without prior warning to these hon. Members for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15029]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I always do my best to give prior warning to hon. Members when I visit their constituencies in an official capacity.

  Twyford Down Protests
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the total costs incurred to date by his Department in the legal action against Twyford Down protesters. [15118]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Denham, dated 21 March 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what are the total costs to date by his Department in the legal action against Twyford Down protestors.
  The total cost of legal fees to date in connection with action against trespassers on the M3 construction site is approximately £276,000 inclusive of VAT.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations underlie the necessity for road schemes which have been given detailed approval by his Department to be subjected to the same detailed appraisal and approval following their inclusion in the Merseyside objective 1 bid; and if he will make a statement.
  148
  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  Applications for European regional development fund grant under the Merseyside objective 1 programme, including road schemes, are appraised against project selection criteria agreed by the programme monitoring committee. The purpose of these criteria, which include value for money, job creation and economic benefit, is to ensure that only those projects best able to meet the aims and objectives of the Merseyside objective 1 programme receive approval. This assessment for ERDF purposes is necessarily a separate assessment from that carried out by the Department of Transport when evaluating local authority road schemes.

  In any event most of the road schemes seeking funding under the Merseyside objective 1 programme are access roads to proposed development sites which do not fall within the Department of Transport assessment.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number of civil servants employed(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (1) full-time equivalents, (2) overtime, (3) casuals and (4) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for the Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agencies secretarial staff and substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [15098]

  Mr. Norris
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government Departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by my Department and its agencies, including full time equivalent staff and casuals, from 1993 onwards, and of staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains the staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Service Statistics".

  Details of running costs and civil service pay bill for my Department can be found in table 6 of my Department's annual report (CM 2806). Table 7 gives details of overtime from 1989–90 onwards.

  Copies of all of these publications are available in the Members's Library.

  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  149

  Expenditure plans tables Table 6 Running Costs 1989–90 to 1997–98

  £ million

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–946 outturn

  1994–95 estimated outturn

  1995–96 plans

  1996–97 plans

  1997–98 plans

  Department of Transport

  Gross running costs1 Civil Service Pay bill

  185

  206

  201

  215

  201

  211

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  156

  174

  183

  222

  239

  228

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  341

  381

  384

  437

  440

  439

  429

  377

  377

  Related receipts

  -68

  -70

  -44

  -53

  -70

  -39

  -40

  -23

  -23

  Net expenditure

  247

  311

  340

  384

  370

  399

  389

  354

  354

  Running Costs by control area:

  Gross control area:

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  126

  143

  152

  177

  172

  174

  171

  170

  170

  Highways Agency

  37

  50

  54

  71

  81

  85

  88

  72

  72

  Central Transport Group

  117

  125

  141

  150

  154

  160

  155

  131

  131

  Total gross controlled areas

  281

  317

  347

  399

  407

  419

  414

  374

  374

  Net control area:

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Gross expenditure

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Net expenditure

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  DVOIT3

  Gross expenditure

  13

  14

  15

  16

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Net expenditure

  13

  14

  15

  1

  -2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Transport Research Laboratory4

  Gross expenditure

  17

  18

  19

  19

  19

  17

  13

  —

  —

  Net expenditure

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Vehicle Inspectorate5

  Gross expenditure

  29

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Net expenditure

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  Gross running costs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Civil Service Pay bill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  5

  4

  4

  Related receipts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Net expenditure

  1

  4

  5

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  Gross running costs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Civil Service Pay bill

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  6

  8

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Related receipts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Net expenditure

  1

  6

  8

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1The gross figures are net of any VAT refunds on contracted out services.

  2This covers the pay costs, including employers earnings related national insurance contributions, of civil servants in running costs, as given in Table 7 on Department staffing.

  3DVOIT was privatised on 17 December 1993.

  4It is planned to privatise TRL during 1995–96.

  5The Vehicle Inspectorate became a training fund on 1 April 1991. It previously operated under net running costs control.

  6Outturn figures for 1993–94 have been amended since the publication of the Statistical Supplement to the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96, Cm2821.

  150 151

  Table 7: staff numbers

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 outturn

  1994–95 estimated outturn

  1995–96 plans

  1996–97 plans

  1997–98 plans

  Department of Transport (Gross Control Area)

  Civil Service full time

  Equivalents

  11,447

  11,906

  11,253

  9,896

  9,795

  9,389

  8,859

  8,737

  8,766

  Overtime

  177

  171

  183

  162

  103

  148

  130

  142

  125

  Casuals

  206

  183

  208

  319

  323

  331

  267

  267

  267

  Total

  11,830

  12,260

  11,644

  10,377

  10,221

  9,874

  9,256

  9,146

  9,158

  Vehicle Certification Agency (Net Control Area)

  Civil Service full time

  Equivalents

  72

  82

  78

  72

  73

  75

  74

  71

  71

  Overtime

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Casuals

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  72

  82

  78

  73

  73

  76

  74

  71

  71

  Transport Research Laboratory (Net Control Area)

  Civil Service full time

  Equivalents

  4—

  4—

  4—

  659

  590

  417

  —

  —

  —

  Overtime

  4—

  4—

  4—

  0

  12

  6

  —

  5—

  —

  Casuals

  4—

  4—

  4—

  7

  5

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  4—

  4—

  4—

  666

  607

  423

  —

  —

  —

  DVOIT

  Civil Service full time

  Equivalents

  4—

  4—

  4—

  468

  227

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Overtime

  4—

  4—

  4—

  10

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Casuals

  4—

  4—

  4—

  0

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  4—

  4—

  4—

  478

  230

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Driving Standards Agency2

  Civil Service full time

  Equivalents

  2,037

  2,105

  2,192

  1,898

  1,805

  1,793

  1,813

  1,786

  1,754

  Vehicle Inspectorate3

  Civil Service full time

  Equivalents

  1,620

  1,691

  1,817

  1,781

  1,634

  1,589

  1,510

  1,420

  1,420

  Total department of transport

  15,559

  16,138

  15,731

  15,273

  14,570

  13,755

  12,653

  12,423

  12,403

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising6

  Civil Service full time

  Equivalents

  0

  0

  0

  0

  26

  53

  54

  55

  55

  Overtime

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Casuals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  26

  53

  54

  55

  55

  Office of the Rail Regulator6

  Civil Service full time

  Equivalents

  0

  0

  0

  0

  30

  45

  72

  85

  85

  Overtime

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Casuals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Totals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  45

  72

  85

  85

  1DVOIT was privatised on 17 December 1993.

  2 The Driving Standards Agency is non-statutory on-Vote trading body whose current expenses are not classified as public expenditure.

  3The Vehicle Inspectorate became a trading on 1 April 1991.

  4Figures for the Transport Research Laboratory and DVOIT are included within the Department of Transport (Gross Control Area) for the years 1989–90 to 1991–92.

  5The Transport Research Laboratory is expected to be privatised early in 1995–96.

  6 OPRAF and ORR were set up after Royal Assent to the Railway Act 1993 on 5 November 1993.

  152

  Fares, London
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the fares a resident of Hornsey and Wood Green would pay for(a) a one-mile single bus journey, (b) a three-mile single bus journey, (c) a three-mile single London Underground fare, (d) a six-mile single London Underground fare and (e) a five-mile British Rail fare giving the percentage increase or decrease for each change compared with the change in the retail price index and index of average earnings on 1 March and 1 September for each year since 1965. [14439]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 15 March 1995,Official Report, columns 559–63.

  Transport Expenditure
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of gross domestic product was spent on(a) buses, (b) trains and (c) all public transport in (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994. [14816]

  Mr. Norris
  Gross domestic product is a measure of output and for public transport only contains expenditure on personal, non-business travel. However, a separate exercise has estimated users expenditure on various transport modes. For 1993–94, these are as follows:

  Mode of transport

  Users' expenditure £ billion

  Percentage of GDP

  Buses and coaches

  3.2

  0.6

  Railways1

  2.9

  0.5

  All public transport2

  7.6

  1.4

  All GDP

  554.8

  100

  1Excludes Tyne and Wear Metro.

  2Buses, coaches, railways and taxis. The e stimate for taxis excludes business use.

  Lobbying Companies (British Rail)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance his Department has issued to the British Rail Board relating to employment by the shadow rail franchise companies of lobbying firms in the run-up to rail privatisation. [14534]

  Mr. Watts
  None. The employment of lobbying firms is a matter for the British Railways Board.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what lobbying companies are currently employed by the British Railways Board and the six shadow rail franchise companies; and what is the value and duration of these contracts. [14535]

  Mr. Watts
  British Rail currently retains Westminster Communications Group Limited as consultants for strategic advice on political and parliamentary issues but not for the general purpose of lobbying Parliament. Union Railways, currently a BR subsidiary, employs the Public Policy Unit in a similar capacity.

  Contract duration and costs are a matter for the British Railways Board.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmon Stocks
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what access his Department has had to the findings of the Bushmills salmon research station on the impact of cormorant predation on salmon stocks. [13716]

  Mrs. Browning
  Ministry scientists are fully aware of the Bushmills Salmon research station studies on the impact of cormorant predation on salmon stocks. Results of these studies have been published in the international press and discussed at meetings of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas north Atlantic salmon working group.

  Fishery Contamination
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the areas around the United Kingdom where the Government have advised restrictions or prohibitions of the catch of fish or shellfish, including issuing advice against consumption.

  Mr. Jack
  For the protection of public health, shellfish growing areas are classified under EU legislation according to levels of microbiological contamination. There are 12 areas under the coast of England and Wales from which harvesting is currently prohibited; the Truro river is one of them.

  A full classification list for England and Wales is in the Library of the House. One area in Scotland, the Eden estuary near St. Andrews, cannot be harvested. There are no prohibited areas in Northern Ireland.

  Advice against consumption, where necessary, would be a matter for the Government's chief medical officer. Local Food authorities have powers under the Food Safety Act 1990 to take immediate action should any local problem be identified.

  Veal Crates
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which year he expects veal crates to be banned throughout the EC.

  Mrs. Browning
  An EC ban on veal crates would necessitate amendment of EC directive 91/629 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves. It would be unrealistic to expect those member states where veal crates are currently used to agree to any change overnight, but we will be pressing for any transitional period to be kept to a minimum.

  Illegal Fishing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Spanish vessels which were British or Spanish registered have been prosecuted in each of the last two years for illegal fishing in British waters.
  155
  Mr. Jack
  The numbers of Spanish registered fishing vessels and the UK-registered fishing vessels landing in Spain that were successfully prosecuted in the UK in 1993 and 1994 for fishing offences were:

  1993

  1994

  UK registered vessels

  11

  10

  Spanish registered vessels

  4

  5

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) who is responsible for enforcing the 15–hour maximum journey time for animals in transit; [14583]

  (2) what assessment the Government have made of the effectiveness of enforcement of the 15-hour maximum journey time for animals in transit. [14584]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994 which, among other things, sets the maximum interval between the provision of food and water, is enforced by local authorities at county council level, assisted by the state veterinary service. Powers also exist in the order for the Ministry to enforce its requirements in certain cases. The welfare of animals during transport in another member state is enforced by the authorities in the country concerned, and procedures for co-operation between the Governments of member states have been established by the Community. We maintain regular contact on enforcement matters with the enforcement authorities in Britain, and with certain other members states of the EU in relation to exports.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants are available for the building, conversion or refitting of fishing vessels in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EC countries. [14797]

  Mr. Jack
  In the United Kingdom, aid for the modernisation of the fleet is currently available only under the safety grant scheme operated by my Department for certain works necessary to obtain a safety certificate under the Fishing Vessel Safety Rules 1975. I have made it clear before that there is no sense in the Government financing grants to increase fishing capacity and efficiency when we are paying large sums of money to decommission fishing vessels.

  The position in other member states is that they are free to operate aids for fishing vessels provided they comply with the conditions of article 92 of the treaty of Rome and the guidelines on the examination of state aids in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Under article 93 of the treaty, the European Commission has responsibility for keeping all such aids under constant review. They compile a full list annually but it is not published because it contains information supplied by member states on a confidential basis. The UK has pressed for this restriction to be lifted. Some summary information is available in the Commission's periodic surveys of state aids in the European Community. The latest of these covers 1986 to 1990 and is available in the Library of the House. Details of individual measures are, however, published from time to time in the Official Journal of the European Communities following Commission approval, as are
  156
  details of unauthorised aids which the Commission is examining under the procedure set out in article 93(2).

  Bovine Offal
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the proposals concerning the collection and disposal of specified bovine offals are being considered. [14415]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government are currently considering proposals concerning the collection and disposal of specified bovine offal.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date his Department commenced its consideration of the need to introduce a requirement for a specific dye to be used to identify specified bovine offal. [14416]

  Mrs. Browning
  Staining SBO has been required since regulations were introduced in 1989. Until now, the same dye has been used to stain all material unfit for human consumption, whether SBO or not. The Government began considering the need to introduce a requirement for a different dye to be used to distinguish specified bovine offal from other unfit material in the spring of 1994.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he received prior to establishing an inquiry into the need to introduce(a) a requirement for a specific dye to be used to identify specified bovine offal and (b) changes concerning the collection and disposal of specified bovine offal. [14417]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government received representations from a variety of industry organisations and individuals regarding the collection and disposal of specified bovine offal prior to their considering the need(a) to require SBO to be stained with a specified dye and (b) for changes concerning their collection and disposal.

  Polling and Public Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the employment of polling or public survey organisations by his Department during the current and previous financial years, on the organisations employed by his Department, on the values of individual contracts for these services, on the total amounts of money spent and on the purposes of the research undertaken by these organisations. [14505]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The Ministry employs, under contract, a number of survey organisations to undertake research into a variety of areas in pursuance of Ministry business. Before any survey organisation is used, the Department takes full account of the need for economy, efficiency and whether the organisation represents value for money.

  In 1993–94, 27 organisations were employed at a total cost of £4.4 million. In 1994 1,995, 22 organisations were employed at a total cost of £3.9 million. It is not possible, for commercial reasons, to give the cost of each individual survey.

  Details of the research proposals agreed by the survey control unit are published quarterly in statistical news.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members without prior warning to these hon. Members for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15021]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I always do my best to give prior warning to hon. Members when I visit their constituencies in an official capacity.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to reply to the letter of 18 February from the hon. Member for South Hams about John Sanders, a fisherman, of 91 Drew street, Brixham, south Devon; and what assessment he has made of the situation facing Mr. Sanders. [15416]

  Mr. Jack
  I replied to my hon. Friend's letter on 20 March.

  Fertiliser Imports
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to prevent the breaking of fertiliser import quotas. [14925]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following an anti-dumping investigation by the European Commission, the Russian and Lithuanian authorities gave undertakings to restrict exports of ammonium nitrate fertiliser to the UK. It is the responsibility of the Commission to ensure compliance with these undertakings. We have asked it to take immediate action to remedy an alleged breach of the Russian undertaking.

EDUCATION

  Schools (Expenditure)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines her Department issues to head teachers regarding school expenditure on capital projects and the maintenance of capital reserves. [13255]

  Mr. Forth
  It is for local education authorities to decide on the progress of capital projects at county schools. As far as expenditure within the schools' own discretion is concerned, the Department's circular on local management of schools, circular 2/94, makes it clear that they may use their budget shares for capital projects. The circular also makes it clear that such schools may carry forward savings in order to create balances which may be used for capital projects in subsequent years.

  Teachers' Pay Awards
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment concerning the funding of teachers' pay awards. [13261]
  158
  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend is now completing consultations on her proposal to accept the School Teachers' Review Body's recommendations on teachers' pay for 1995–96. She has held discussions with many people, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she proposes to fund future teachers' pay awards.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It will be for local education authorities and schools to fund future teachers' pay awards within available future funding levels.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received in respect of low morale among teachers arising from Government funding of the pay award.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about aspects of the funding of the teachers' pay award during the course of the consultation period following her acceptance of the recommendations of the School Teachers' Review Body.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the proportion of an annual school budget that is a reasonable minimum to be kept in reserve. [13262]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has made no such assessment.

  Exam Results
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will initiate inquiries into the reasons for the variation in the levels of success in GCSE and A-level exams between(a) Southend-on-Sea, (b) the rest of the county of Essex and (c) England as a whole; and if she will make a statement. [13256]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's policies are raising achievement at national level. At school level it is for the headteacher, staff and governors to take appropriate action.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of passes at each grade of GCSE, including ungraded, were achieved by pupils of 15 years for all GCSE subjects in 1993–94 and what was the total number of entries. [15105]

  Mr. Forth
  The percentages of passes at each grade of GCSE, including ungraded, achieved by 15–year-old pupils for all GCSE subject entries in England in 1993–94 were as follows:-

  Percentage

  Grade A

  3

  Grade A

  10

  Grade B

  18

  Grade C

  20

  Grade D

  18

  Grade E

  14

  Grade F

  9

  Grade G

  4

  Ungraded

  4

  Total entries 4,266,900.
  159
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the GCSE average point score of pupils aged 15 years and over, as defined in the DFE performance tables, who(a) achieved and (b) failed to achieve at least five GCSEs at each grade of GCSE from

  Average GCSE point score

  1992–93 Specified result

  1993–94 Specified result

  Achieved

  Failed

  Achieved

  Failed

  At least 5 grade A

  63.1

  30.4

  63.5

  31.6

  At least 5 grade B

  57.7

  26.2

  58.1

  26.7

  At least 5 grade C

  51.6

  20.2

  52.5

  20.6

  At least 5 grade D

  47.0

  14.6

  47.8

  14.6

  At least 5 grade E

  43.0

  9.3

  44.0

  9.0

  At least 5 grade F

  40.2

  5.3

  41.1

  4.6

  At least 5 grade G

  38.6

  3.4

  39.8

  2.8

  Numbers and percentage of 15-year-old pupils

  1992–93 Achieved result

  1993–94 Achieved result

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  At least 5 grade A

  43,884

  8.4

  47,690

  9.0

  At least 5 grade B

  113,820

  21.8

  131,358

  24.7

  At least 5 grade C

  215,068

  41.2

  230,636

  43.3

  At least 5 grade D

  298,536

  57.1

  318,827

  59.9

  At least 5 grade E

  368,929

  70.6

  387,155

  72.7

  At least 5 grade F

  416,574

  79.7

  434,987

  81.7

  At least 5 grade G

  440,416

  84.3

  455,704

  85.6

  Total 15-year-old pupils

  522,447

  532,273

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the GCSE average point score of pupils aged 15 years and over, as defined in the DFE performance tables, who(a) achieved and (b) failed to achieve at least one GCSE at each grade of GCSE from

  Average GCSE point score

  1992–93 Specified result

  1993–94 Specified result

  Achieved

  Failed

  Achieved

  Failed

  At least 1 grade A

  53.7

  24.9

  54.7

  25.8

  At least 1 grade B

  48.3

  18.8

  49.2

  18.9

  At least grade C

  43.0

  11.5

  44.4

  11.8

  At least grade D

  39.4

  5.7

  40.9

  5.6

  At least grade E

  37.1

  1.8

  38.8

  1.8

  At least grade F

  36.0

  0.2

  37.7

  0.2

  At least grade G

  35.6

  0.0

  37.4

  0.0

  Numbers and percentage of pupils aged 15 in each group

  1992–93 Achieved result

  1993–94 Achieved result

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  At least 1 grade A

  149,112

  28.5

  159,729

  30.0

  At least 1 grade B

  252,959

  48.4

  272,981

  51.3

  At least 1 grade C

  357,812

  68.5

  370,475

  69.6

  At least 1 grade D

  424,729

  81.3

  435,554

  81.8

  At least 1 grade E

  463,191

  88.7

  469,727

  88.2

  At least 1 grade F

  480,170

  91.9

  485,895

  91.3

  At least 1 grade G

  485,618

  93.0

  490,893

  92.3

  Total 15-year-olds

  522,447

  532.273

  160
  grades (i) A to G and (ii) A to F, giving the numbers of each group and its percentage of the whole for all secondary schools in 1993 and 1994. [15107]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:

  grades (i) A to G and (ii) A to F, giving the numbers of each group and its percentage of the whole for all secondary schools in 1993 and 1994. [15106]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Higher Education
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of young people are now entering higher education; and what was the figure 10 years ago. [13257]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's policies have led to record participation in higher education. Some 30 per cent. of young people now enter full-time higher education compared with around 14 per cent. 10 years ago.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools in Kent have been given grant-maintained status. [13258]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are currently 87 grant-maintained schools in Kent, the second highest total for any LEA area in England. A further five schools have applications approved or in the pipeline.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much she expects to be paid to grant-maintained schools in special purposes—VAT—grant in this financial year. [13265]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is primarily a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. However, I understand that the agency's latest projected outturn expenditure on special purposes—VAT—grant this financial year is £16.4 million.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children are currently educated in grant-maintained schools in Kent; and if she will make a statement. [13271]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We estimate that over 60,000 pupils in Kent are currently being educated in grant-maintained schools—the second highest total for any LEA area in England. That is clear evidence of the extent to which Kent parents have appreciated the benefits of grant-maintained status for their children's schools.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what further assessment she has made of the demand for nursery education. [13259]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set a target to provide, over time, a pre-school place for all four-year-olds whose parents wish them to take it up. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the official task force have been consulting widely with a view to drawing up detailed proposals on the expansion.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is her policy in respect of the use of a voucher system for under-five nursery provision;
  [15189]

  (2) what plans she has for the funding of nursery education for four-year-olds; and what consideration she is giving to a model based on a split between purchasers and providers. [15190]

  Mr. Forth
  In drawing up proposals to implement my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's commitment to provide, over time, a pre-school place for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take it up, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is examining all the 162
  options for funding, including voucher systems and a purchaser-provider split.

  Truancy
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations she has received about truancy. [13260]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend receives representations about truancy from a variety of quarters. To provide practical help to schools, the Department is currently supporting locally-devised projects to a value of some £14 million in over 80 English local education authorities under the truancy and disaffected pupils programme of the grants for education support and training scheme 1994–95. In December we announced further support for some 90 projects in 1995–96, to a value of £15.6 million.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on progress in promoting the acquisition by school children of basic literacy and numeracy skills. [13264]

  Mr. Forth
  The Government's reforms—notably the national curriculum and testing—are already helping to raise overall educational standards, as recently confirmed by the chief inspector of schools. But the results of the national tests for seven and 14–year-olds in English and mathematics underline the need to continue to raise standards, which is why we have put more emphasis on basic literacy and numeracy in the revised national curriculum.

  Ministerial Visits
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she next expects to pay an official visit to Bedfordshire to discuss funding of local education authority schools. [13266]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to visit Bedfordshire.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list all the visits she has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members, without prior warning to those hon. Members, for any purpose connected with her departmental responsibilities. [15015]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I always do my best to give prior warning to hon. Members when I visit their constituencies in an official manner.

  Education Funding, Sheffield
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions are taking between herself and the Sheffield education authority regarding education funding, [13267]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend and I routinely have discussions about a range of matters with a large number of local education authorities and with the bodies which represent them.

  Schools and Local Industry Links
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to develop closer links between schools and local industry. [13268]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is promoting a wide range of initiatives, both departmentally and with outside organisations, aimed at developing closer links between schools and local industry.

  Government of Schools
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the future government of schools. [13269]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have no plans to change the government of schools.

  Education Funding, Northumberland
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about education funding in Northumberland following the visit to schools in Northumberland by the Minister of State on 9 March.
  [13270]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The education standard spending assessment for Northumberland is based on its spending needs and costs relative to those of other local education authorities.

  Capital Projects
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what guidelines her Department has issued regarding local education authority expenditure on capital projects. [13176]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. It is up to local education authorities to determine local capital expenditure priorities, and to make the best use of the resources available to them in the light of local needs. But LEAs will be aware of the national priority criteria, agreed with them 10 years ago, which the Department uses to calculate credit approvals.

  Engineering
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her response to the representations that have been made to her by engineering bodies and others about the shortcomings of some mathematics teaching in primary and secondary schools, in relation to the education and training of engineers in Britain. [13379]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 10 February,Official Report, column 438, which stressed the Government's commitment to higher standards in mathematics. The national curriculum will improve standards by establishing demanding expectations for both teachers and pupils. The full beneficial effects will only be seen in the medium term, however, as pupils progress through the curriculum: the first pupils to embark on the mathematics national curriculum as five year-olds in 1989 will not complete the curriculum as 16–year-olds until the year 2000, before moving on to further and higher education.

  Meanwhile, the findings of the Engineering Council's review of the changing mathematical background of undergraduate engineers, which was published at the
  164
  beginning of March, will helpfully inform current discussion about the teaching of mathematics.

  School Funding
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if she will make a statement on the future responsibilities of local authorities in respect of the funding of schools which have not opted out; [15186]

  (2) if she is considering removing the responsibility for funding all schools from local education authorities. [15191]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to change the present responsibilities of local education authorities for funding the compulsory years of education in the schools which they maintain. The official task force which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State established to draw up proposals to implement my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's commitment on the provision of pre-school places for four-year-olds in considering funding mechanisms as part of its work. The 1994 competitiveness White Paper announced that the Government would be looking at the practical implications of learning credits for all 16 to 19–year-olds. The Government have commissioned consultants to consider the costs and benefits of various options, and will be considering the next steps in due course.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her policy in respect of transferring the responsibility for funding all state schools to the Funding Agency for Schools. [15187]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice or guidelines she has issued to schools unable to meet the Government funding limits.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is for governing bodies to deploy schools' budgets in the light of their own priorities and within the resources available to them.

  Education Funding (Vouchers)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her policy in respect of the use of vouchers in the funding arrangements for the education of five to 16–year-olds. [15188]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce vouchers for the funding of education for five to 16–year-olds.

  College Staff Pay
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) whether the Further Education Funding Council, England, collects data on the remuneration of principals and chief executives of colleges for which it has funding responsibility; [15271]

  (2) what is the average salary increase of principals and chief executives of institutions funded by the Further Education Funding Council, England, in the years for which figures are available. [15272]

  Mr. Boswell
  FEFC guidelines on accounting policies recommend that colleges should disclose the emoluments of senior postholders in their accounts, which are publicly available. Information on average salaries for senior postholders is not collected by the Department. However,
  165
  the FEFC has some data which might be helpful and has undertaken to write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plan the Student Loans Company has to provide compensation to students who have suffered extensive delays in the processing of their loan applications. [15273]

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for the independent assessor to decide, in line with his terms of reference, whether compensation is appropriate in any case which may be referred to him for consideration. A copy of the assessor's terms of reference was placed in the Library on 19 July 1990.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate she has made of the number of schools unable to find extra funds by redeeming surplus places. [15047]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. We encourage local education authorities to remove surplus places, where that is practicable, thereby redeploying funds to be spent for the benefit of pupils rather than wasted on unnecessary capacity.

  University and Industry Partnerships
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the total spend of her Department on encouraging research partnerships between industry and universities in each of the last 20 years. [14838]

  Mr. Boswell
  Public funds for English universities are distributed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in the form of block grant for each university to spend at its discretion. Since its establishment in April 1993, the funding council has allocated some £20 million a year to reward institutions for income earned from work with external sponsors of research, including industry. Comparable figures for earlier years are not readily available.

  University Contracts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many university academic and research staff are now on permanent contracts and how many on short-term contracts; and what were the figures in 1990 and 1985. [14839]

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Responsibility for employment conditions of academic and research staff, however funded, rests with the universities as employers.

  The Higher Education Statistical Agency, which has now assumed responsibility for collection of statistics on staff, students and finance in all United Kingdom higher education institutions, will identify, in its 1994–95 academic staff record, data on staff numbers in institutions on permanent or other form of contract.

  The Universities Statistical Record has collected staff data on behalf of former UFC-funded universities, but does not distinguish by type of staff contract.

  Small Schools
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to review the legislation preventing educational centres from being classed as independent schools if they have fewer than five children.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The provisions of the Education Act 1944 governing the registration and monitoring of independent schools apply only to those educating five or more full-time pupils of compulsory school age. We have no present plans for legislation to extend those provisions to other independent institutions which are generally subject to separate monitoring arrangements.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in what circumstances Her Majesty's inspectorate is able to inspect schools with fewer than five children.

  Mr. Forth
  All maintained schools, whatever the number of pupils, are required to be regularly inspected under the Ofsted inspection arrangements.

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools also has the power to inspect independent schools. Independent schools are defined as institutions which provide full-time education for five or more pupils of compulsory school age. Independent institutions caring for children under compulsory school age are generally subject to separate monitoring arrangements.

  Major Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total expenditure, in each local authority, for major discretionary awards in the last financial year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested for the academic year 1992–93, the latest for which data are available, is shown in the table. Financial year information is not available.

  Expenditure on Major 1Discretionary Awards—England and Wales 1992–93

  LEA name

  £000s

  Corporation of London

  25

  Camden2

  81

  Greenwich

  385

  Hackney

  659

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  308

  Islington

  444

  Kensington and Chelsea

  622

  Lambeth

  479

  Lewisham

  813

  South wark

  315

  Tower Hamlets

  274

  Wandsworth

  667

  Westminster

  1,306

  London Residuary Body

  389

  Barking and Dagenham

  128

  Barnet

  19

  Bexley

  675

  Brent

  399

  Bromley2

  717

  Croydon

  310

  Ealing

  431

  Enfield

  253

  Haringey

  0

  Harrow

  24

  Havering

  150

  Hillingdon

  223

  Hounslow

  94

  167

  Expenditure on Major 1Discretionary Awards—England and Wales 1992–93

  LEA name

  £000s

  Kingston upon Thames

  780

  Merton

  166

  Newham

  126

  Redbridge

  446

  Richmond upon Thames

  703

  Sutton

  278

  Waltham Forest

  569

  Birmingham

  1,418

  Coventry

  178

  Dudley

  206

  Sandwell

  165

  Solihull

  259

  Walsall

  314

  Wolverhampton

  43

  Knowsley

  1,160

  Liverpool

  2,384

  St. Helens

  175

  Sefton

  645

  Wirral

  1,836

  Bolton

  282

  Bury

  60

  Manchester

  254

  Oldham

  268

  Rochdale

  206

  Salford

  17

  Stockport

  186

  Tameside

  117

  Trafford

  421

  Wigan

  158

  Barnsley

  791

  Doncaster

  286

  Rotherham

  404

  Sheffield

  68

  Bradford

  1,941

  Calderdale

  349

  Kirklees

  1,686

  Leeds2

  2,813

  Wakefield

  789

  Gateshead

  268

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  120

  North Tyneside

  398

  South Tyneside

  430

  Sunderland

  837

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Avon

  4,603

  Bedfordshire

  487

  Berkshire

  1,185

  Buckinghamshire

  880

  Cambridgeshire

  1,265

  Cheshire

  7,184

  Cleveland

  2,935

  Cornwall

  1,435

  Cumbria

  4,387

  Derbyshire

  528

  Devon

  7,753

  Dorset

  4,598

  Durham

  3,801

  East Sussex

  963

  Essex

  5,917

  Gloucestershire

  2,201

  Hampshire

  6,147

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,791

  Hertfordshire

  1,938

  Humberside

  3,655

  Isle of Wight

  265

  Kent

  5,699

  Lancashire

  5,019

  Leicestershire

  6,939

  Lincolnshire

  2,026

  168

  Expenditure on Major 1Discretionary Awards—England and Wales 1992–93

  LEA name

  £000s

  Norfolk

  2,287

  North Yorkshire

  5,631

  Northamptonshire2

  1,060

  Northumberland

  293

  Nottinghamshire

  5,018

  Oxfordshire

  1,097

  Shropshire

  1,676

  Somerset

  1,513

  Staffordshire

  1,148

  Suffolk

  3,001

  Surrey

  1,741

  Warwickshire

  56

  West Sussex

  1,183

  Wiltshire

  1,439

  Clwyd2

  919

  Dyfed

  0

  Gwent

  1,131

  Gwynedd

  688

  Mid-Glamorgan

  1,065

  Powys

  766

  South Glamorgan

  670

  West Glamorgan

  983

  England and Wales3

  153,426

  Source:

  F503G.

  Notes:

  1 Awards made at 50 per cent. or more of the mandatory rate.

  2 Incomplete returns received from Camden, Bromley, Leeds, Northamptonshire and Clwyd.

  3 England and Wales total is grossed to compensate for incomplete returns in 1992–93.

SCOTLAND

  Lanark Blue Cheese
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is known to his Department about the actual health impact of Lanark blue cheese.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is not aware of any reported cases of human illness which have been shown by laboratory investigation to be associated with the consumption of Lanark blue cheese, although not all cases of food poisoning are reported.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on non-contract pharmacies in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: Any registered pharmacy in Scotland can provide pharmaceutical services outwith the national health service. Only pharmacies contracting with a health board and included in that health board's pharmaceutical list can provide NHS pharmaceutical services.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement indicating what guidance the Scottish Office has issued to Scottish health boards in relation to the operation of mixed-sex wards in Scottish hospitals.
  169
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The Scottish hospital planning notes draw together the best current knowledge of appropriate space, performance and cost criteria for health care needs. This guidance also provides advice on the grouping of beds in wards. It emphasises that careful consideration is needed when planning for accommodation within a range of single and multi-bed rooms. The position is being further reviewed.

  The patients charter, published in September 1991, makes clear that patients have a right to be treated with dignity and respect and, in particular, with respect for their privacy.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional funding has been made available by the Scottish Office to Scottish health boards to phase out the operation of mixed-sex wards.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The allocation of resources to accommodation within hospitals falls within the financial freedoms available to NHS trusts.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mixed-sex wards have operated in each health board in Scotland for each of the last five financial years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish health boards relating to the suitability of mixed-sex wards.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: None.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what rights exist under the patients charter for patients to object to being placed in a mixed-sex ward.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: While there are no specific rights at present under the patients charter in Scotland in respect of mixed-sex wards, the charter does state that patients have a right to expect that they will be treated with dignity and respect and, in particular, with respect for their privacy.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much each health board has spent on capital investment on GP practices in each health board area in Scotland for each of the last five years; and how much of this expenditure went on GP fundholding practices.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The information requested is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what discussions the Scottish Office has had with Ayrshire and Arran health board relating to the concluding of its proposed contract with Irvine Care Ltd;

  (2) what delays have occurred in concluding the contract between Ayrshire and Arran health board and Irvine Care Ltd; and if he will make a statement.
  170
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: Contract negotiations between Ayrshire and Arran health board and its providers are a matter for the health board. The board has kept the Scottish Office informed of progress in this matter.

  Delays arose as the board entered detailed discussions with the provider and the Community Health Care Trust on a range of issues including the application of the transfer of undertaking and protection of employment regulations.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when Ayrshire and Arran health board expects to conclude the contract for the replacement of Ravenspark hospital with Irvine Care Ltd;

  (2) when Ayrshire and Arran health board now plans Ravenspark hospital to close; and when it plans the replacement facility for its patients to be opened.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The contract between Ayrshire and Arran health board and the provider is currently with Irvine Care Ltd for signature.

  Ravenspark hospital will remain open until such time as replacement provision is available for present residents. Any formal proposal for the closure of Ravenspark hospital must be subject to a public consultation exercise and the final approval of my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what staffing requirement has been agreed by Ayrshire and Arran health board and Irvine Care Ltd for the replacement facility for Ravenspark hospital; and if he will indicate how this compares with current arrangements.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: This is a matter for Ayrshire and Arran health board. Staff levels and skill mix form an integral part of the contract between the health board and Irvine Care Limited. The levels agreed are broadly comparable with existing provision.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on preparing, publishing and circulating the patients charter.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: Expenditure to date on the patients charter, including printing and distribution costs, is £41,729.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1992, divided into (1) full-time equivalents, (2) overtime, (3) casuals and (4) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for the Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [15092]
  171
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government Departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  Appendix 4 of the Scottish Office departmental report for 1995, CM 2814, gives details of the number of civil servants employed by the Scottish Office, its associated departments and agencies, including full-time equivalent staff and casuals—from 1993 onwards—while appendix 3 of the report gives details of civil service paybill. Equivalent information in respect of the Forestry Commission, for which I am also responsible, is given in table 13.3. of the report.

  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by civil service statistics.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of staff leaving the civil service. Copies of all of these publications are available in the Members' Library.

  31 December 1979

  31 December 1994

  Force

  Police

  Civilians2

  Police1

  2Civilians

  Central

  509

  104

  654

  155

  Dumfries and Galloway

  311

  60

  390

  124

  Fife

  671

  111

  789

  219

  Grampian

  932

  191

  1,191

  385

  Lothian and Borders

  2,342

  640

  2,556

  902

  Northern

  603

  135

  643

  243

  Strathclyde

  6,905

  1,334

  7,003

  1,553

  Tayside

  941

  208

  1,087

  320

  Total

  13,214

  2,783

  14,313

  3,901

  1 Includes officers on secondment to Central Services and Scottish Crime Squad.

  2 Includes Taffic Wardens, Clerical and Technical Staff, but not Cleaning or Domestic Staff, or Cadets.

  Sheriffs
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions the activities of sheriff officers have been investigated under section 79 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 in(a) the Sheriffdom of North Strathclyde and (b) other sheriffdoms in each of the past five years; if any of these investigations led to individuals losing the status of sheriff officer; and if he will make a statement. [13543]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Figures for the number of investigations carried out under section 79 of the Debtors (Scotland) from 1990 to 1994 are set out by Sheriffdom in the table. No sheriff officer has been deprived of his commission as a result of such an investigation.

  Sheriffdom

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  North Strathclyde

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Lothian and Borders

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Tayside, Central and Fife

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grampian, Highland and Islands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  172
  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Maternity Hospitals
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many maternity hospitals in Scotland are located on sites where acute hospital services are also located. [15100]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on Wednesday 15 March, Official Report, column 633.

  Police Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) police officers and (b) civilians are currently employed in each of the police forces; and what were the comparable figures for 1979. [13206]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department has taken to encourage the recruitment of more speech therapists by Scottish health boards. [14537]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My Department has asked those higher education institutes where speech therapists train to increase their intake of students.

  It is worthy of note that the number of whole-time equivalent speech therapists employed in the NHS in Scotland grew from 255.1 to 550.6 between 1979 and 1994, an increase of 116 per cent.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish education authorities in relation to the numbers of speech therapists employed within the NHS. [14539]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many speech therapists have been employed by each health board in Scotland in each of the last five financial years. [14536]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for 1994 is shown in the table. Date for 1990–93 are published in "Scottish Health Statistics", copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.
  173

  Qualified speech therapists by health board: as at 30 September 1994 (provisional)

  Scotland

  Number 659

  Whole time equivalent 550.6

  Argyll and Clyde

  50

  39.7

  Ayrshire and Arran

  34

  31.2

  Borders

  18

  13.9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  24

  21.8

  Fife

  50

  44.8

  Forth Valley

  28

  22.6

  Grampian

  71

  59.2

  Greater Glasgow

  119

  99.3

  Highland

  29

  24.7

  Lanarkshire

  69

  58.6

  Lothian

  99

  79.6

  Orkney

  5

  2.7

  Shetland

  2

  2.0

  Tayside

  55

  45.0

  Western Isles

  6

  5.7

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines have been issued to the staff of Scottish Homes to prevent conflicts of interest in the establishment of housing associations by employees of Scottish Homes; and what safeguards have been established in order to protect the public interest when transfers of housing stock take place to housing associations involving the staff of Scottish Homes. [14576]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend issued guidance to Scottish Homes on the sale of assets and the letting of contracts, including those circumstances where groups of former staff are involved, which covered issues of propriety, value for money and quality of service. Scottish Homes took this guidance into account in determining its procedures for the disposal of its houses which includes a code of conduct for staff.

  Transfer of Scottish Homes stock is subject to my right hon. Friend's approval and he will be concerned to ensure that such transfers will not take place unless he is satisfied that tenants are in favour and that their interests have been fully considered.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what guidance Scottish Homes has given to its staff in order to promote their involvement in the establishment of housing associations; [14546]

  (2) what measures Scottish Homes have implemented to support their employees in establishing housing associations; [14547]

  Patients de-registered by denists in Scotland

  Health board

  April 1991–March 1992 Number of patients de- registered 1

  April 1992–March 1993 Number of patients de-registered

  April 1993–March 1994 Number of patients de-registered

  April 1994–January 1995 Number of patients de-registered

  Argyll and Clyde

  25

  2,241

  42

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran

  14

  1,309

  400

  72

  Borders

  11

  1,432

  683

  41

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11

  4,518

  1,388

  825

  Fife

  —

  295

  417

  492

  Forth Valley

  42

  201

  63

  196

  Grampian

  9

  257

  179

  205

  174
  (3) how much revenue Scottish Homes has raised from the transfer of its housing stock to other landlords; [14550]

  (4) how much revenue has been received by Scottish Homes for each transfer of housing stock by Scottish Homes; [14551]

  (5) which housing associations have been established by staff employed by Scottish Homes. [14552]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member.

  NHS Descriptions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS prescriptions have been issued(a) paid for by patients and (b) in respect of which the patients were exempt from payment in each health board area in Scotland in each year since 1968. [14540]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As the information requested, which is only available from the financial year 1979–80, is rather lengthy, I have arranged for copies of the tables to be placed in the Library of the House. The number of prescriptions for which no charge was made at the point of dispensing includes items dispensed on presentation of pre-payment certificates.

  Scanner
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his Department had with Ayrshire and Arran health board and the South Ayrshire hospitals trust prior to its reaching an agreement with Ayrshire Medical Support Ltd. for the provision of a scanner; and whether the Scottish Office acceded to this agreement. [14542]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is aware of the proposal for the provision of a fixed magnetic resonance imager at Ayr hospital by Ayrshire Medical Support Limited. This is a matter for the South Ayrshire NHS trust and the company. However, officials are in contact with Ayrshire and Arran health board and the trust with a view to continuing to be fully informed about the project.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been deregistered by their dentist since 1992 in each health board area in Scotland. [14819]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information supplied by health boards about patient de-registrations since financial year 1991–92 is contained in the table.
  175

  Patients de-registered by dentists in Scotland

  Health board

  April 1991–March 1992 Number of patients de- registered1

  April 1992–March 1993 Number of patients de-registered

  April 1993–March 1994 Number of patients de-registered

  April 1994–January 1995 Number of patients de-registered

  Greater Glasgow

  41

  579

  339

  946

  Highland

  19

  210

  73

  68

  Lanarkshire

  70

  252

  145

  56

  Lothian

  101

  483

  1,625

  1,009

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  n/a

  2106

  57

  437

  Western Isles

  —

  37

  16

  —

  n/a—Not available.

  1 Patients de-registered by their dentist without their consent. Figures may not include NHS registrations ended either to enter private contract by agreement between patient and dentists, or where a dentist leaves the practice.

  2 From July 1992.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of staff within the NHS in Scotland is currently covered by performance-related pay. [14548]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of employees within the NHS in Scotland he estimates will be covered by performance-related pay at the end of(a) the current and (b) the next financial year. [14549]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The taking forward of local pay arrangements whereby pay is related to performance, whether individual or team-based or otherwise, is a matter for the individual employing authorities.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance the Scottish Office has issued to Scottish health boards relating to the closure of staffed beds for the treatment of mental health and psycho-geriatric patients. [14526]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has issued no such guidance. Guidance has been issued on the role and responsibilities of the NHS in continuing care and on the arrangements to apply for the transfer of resources to local authorities where patients have transferred from the NHS to more appropriate forms of care. The organisation and provision of all mental health services is determined by clinical assessment and local need. It is for the individual health boards to assess the needs for their population and to purchase mental health services accordingly. In so doing they are expected to have due regard for the Government's community care objectives and what is best for individuals.

  Ballochmyle Hospital
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Ayrshire and Arran health board and the South Ayrshire hospitals trust spent on upgrading Ballochmyle hospital during the last five years. [14527]
  176
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of £2.1 million.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many wards are currently lying empty within Ballochmyle hospital; and if he will give a reason for these closures. [14528]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Five wards are currently vacant. The organisation of health provision is a matter for the health board and NHS trust to agree in accordance with their shared assessment health needs for the area.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much it cost the Scottish Office to prepare, publish and distribute its recent information leaflet on the impact of local government reform. [14529]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The total cost for the printing and distribution of the explanatory leaflet "Local Government in Scotland: The New Councils" was £138,660. This works out at less than 7p per household.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce and develop a code of conduct for civil servants.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In "The Civil Service—Taking Forward Continuity and Change", CM 2748, published on 26 January, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee for a new civil service code, to set out with greater clarity and brevity than existing documents the constitutional framework within which all civil servants work and the values which they are expected to uphold. The Government have published a draft code based on the Select Committee's proposal and aims to settle the text of the code after consultation with the Select Committee, civil servants, the civil service unions, and others.
  177
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many vacancies in the civil service or its agencies have occurred since the publication of the civil service White Paper in July 1994; and how many of these vacancies have been(a) filled by internal candidates, (b) not been filled and (c) filled by external candidates. [14690]

  Mr. Horam
  Since the publication of the civil service White Paper in July 1994 there have been 36 vacancies in the civil service and its agencies at grade 3 level and above:

  (a) 22 were filled by internal candidates

  (b) 4 have not yet been filled (competitions are in train)

  (c) 7 were filled by external candidates

  (d) 3 were filled by candidates holding fixed term appointments to which they were recruited from outside the Service.

  Information is not held centrally about all appointments to vacancies in Departments and agencies below grade 3 level.

  Publicity
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total expenditure on(a) all forms of publicity and (b) all publications and pamphlets produced for his Department and for all the agencies and public bodies for which his Department is responsible for each year since 1979, including the budgeted figure for 1995–96, (i) including and (ii) excluding privatisation-related expenditures and expressed in 1994 prices; and if he will supply information for the period from 1 April 1993 to 1

  Table 1: Citizens charter unit—expenditure incurred on employment of polling or public survey organisations

  Project

  Organisation and reason for payment

  Financial year

  Cost £

  Charterline

  Research International (RI): quantitative stage development, set up and pilot

  1992–93

  9,953.00

  RI: questionnaire design and testing for Citizen's Charter survey

  1992–93

  2,126.00

  RI: fieldwork stage

  1992–93

  35,796.00

  RI: processing and computing.

  1992–93

  5,000.00

  RI: delivery of data tables.

  1992–93

  5,000.00

  COI (on behalf of RSGB) Pilot Tracking Research

  1993–94

  43,200.00

  COI (on behalf of Cragg Ross and Dawson) qualitative review

  1993–94

  12,980.00

  COI (on behalf of Cragg Ross and Dawson) Charterline Groups

  1993–94

  17,800.00

  93–94; assistance with planning of campaign and part of assessment of campaign

  Complaints Task Force

  MORI: public's views on how public services handle complaints

  1994–95

  60,720.00

  Customer Survey

  ICM: evaluation of public reactions to Charter

  1993–94

  75,000.00

  Miscellaneous research

  MORI: survey of surveys

  1994–95

  1,350.00

  Charter Mark

  COI (on behalf of Duckworth Finn Grubb Waters/MORI)— research on success of Customer Nomination Scheme. 1994–956,943.00

  MORI: review of 1993 Charter Mark scheme

  1993–94

  29,595.00

  COI: tracking effects of Charter Mark advertising campaign

  1994–95

  9,600.00

  MORI: review of 1994 Charter Mark scheme

  1994–95

  35,485.00

  Total expenditure

  350,548.00

  Notes:

  All figures exclude VAT.
  178
  March 1995 showing (1) the nature and (2) the purpose of each publicity campaign and of each publication involving the expenditure of more than £50,000. [14597]

  Mr. Horam
  Total expenditure information on publicity, publications and pamphlets and details of individual publicity campaigns is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members without prior warning to these hon. Members for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15019]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I always do my best to give prior warning to hon. Members when I visit their constituencies in an official capacity.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much each Government Department has spent on the employment of polling or public survey organisations during the current and previous financial years in connection with the citizens charter. [15192]

  Mr. Horam
  The table shows a breakdown of the charter unit's expenditure on the employment of polling or public survey organisations since its creation in 1991. Information on similar expenditure by other Government departments is not held centrally.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the level of social fund expenditure; and how much will be spent administering the social fund in the 1994–95 financial year. [14685]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Details on the estimated outturn on the social fund for the current financial year are in figure 25 of the departmental report: "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995/96 to 1997/98 (Cm 2813)", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Information on the administration costs of the social fund for 1994–95 is not yet available.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he intends to make to the discretionary social fund; and if he will make a statement.
  [15580]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As in previous years, we have identified from our routine monitoring of the social fund scope for some minor improvements to the Secretary of State's directions and guidance. Details of the amendments and a revised copy of the Secretary of State's directions and guidance to take effect from April 1995 will be placed in the Library. A revised print of the social fund guide will be available from 27 March.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the application for severe disability premium by Miss J. Ellis of Willenhall will be decided by the social security commissioner local ref. ASB/9209: and if he will make a statement on the reason for the delay involved in this case. [14412]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Miss Ellis's application is not yet with the social security commissioners. The adjudication officer has sought leave to appeal to the social security commissioners against the decision of the Wolverhampton tribunal dated 13 December 1994. The application is being considered by the tribunal chairman. I understand that if the application is refused the adjudication officer will seek leave directly from the commissioners.

  The delays in hearing appeals in this case, and others like it, have been caused by various court decisions on the interpretation of the regulations.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of unemployment benefit are excluded from national insurance credits. [14921]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. National insurance credits are generally available to all recipients of unemployment benefit except for those people who work in excess of eight hours in a week. The Government announced in the White Paper on the jobseeker's allowance their intention to extend national insurance credits to those people who are unemployed but work for more than eight but fewer than 16 hours a week.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members without prior warning to these hon. Members for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15020]

  Mr. Lilley
  I make every effort to inform hon. Members when I visit their constituencies on departmental business. Unfortunately, this courtesy was overlooked on the occasions of my recent visits to the Benefits Agency offices in Tottenham and Woolwich.

  Family Credit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have(a) applied for and (b) been granted the child care allowance; of those granted the allowance, how many were already in work and receiving family credit before they applied for or received the allowance how many (ii) applied for and received family and child care allowance on moving from unemployment into a job; and when he expects take-up of the child care allowance to reach 150,000 families. [14884]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In the five-month period to 28 February 1995, the latest date for which information is available, there were 24,600 claims for help with child care charges. Of these, 12,900 families are now receiving higher family credit awards as a result of the new help. Of those families receiving the extra help, 8,800 families were previously receiving family credit and 4,100 are new recipients of the benefit. It will take some time before the new help takes full effect as existing family credit recipients can claim the child care help only when their current 26-week award expires, while many potential beneficiaries need to find work of 16 hours or more and to make appropriate child care arrangements. We therefore expect that it will be several years before the help reaches its full potential.

  Source: Five per cent. sample of Family Credit awards made between 1 October 1994 and 28 February 1995. These figures do not include claims made by 28 February but decided after that date.

  Publicity and Publications
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure on(a) all forms of publicity and (b) all publications and pamphlets produced for his Department and for all the agencies and public bodies for which his Department is responsible, for each year since 1979, including the budgeted figure for 1995–96, (i) including and (ii) excluding privatisation-related expenditures and expressed in 1994 prices; and if he will supply information for the period from 1 April 1993 to 1 March 1995 showing (1) the nature and (2) the purpose of each publicity campaign and of each publication involving the expenditure of more than £50,000. [14603]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: This Department was established in 1988. The information for years prior to April 1993 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  181
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 15 February 1994, Official Report, columns 692–96 and on 1 March 1994, Official Report, column 694, which lists the budget and costs of each of these campaigns in excess of £10,000 conducted by this Department.

  The following figures refer to publicity for external audiences.

  Anticipated total expenditures for 1994–95

  £

  Department of Social Security Headquarters

  5,050,000

  Benefits Agency

  8,544,000

  Child Support Agency

  418,000

  Contributions Agency

  4,135,000

  War Pensions Agency

  19,000

  April 1994–95 purpose and nature of each campaign

  HQ/Agency

  Campaign

  Purpose

  Nature

  DSS/HQ

  Disability

  To increase awareness of discrimination against disabled people

  Mixed media

  Working with Benefits

  To provide information about in-work benefits

  Mixed media

  Child Support

  To inform public of changes to child support maintenance

  Mixed media

  Pensions

  Reminding people of pensions choices

  Mixed media

  Family Credit

  To maintain awareness among advisers and public

  Mixed media

  Incapacity Benefit

  Inform advisers and public prior to implementation of new policy

  Mixed media

  Disability Working Allowance

  To raise awareness and take-up of DWA

  Mixed media

  Benefits Agency

  Disability

  To support the Year of Disabled People

  Mixed media

  Year of the Family

  Supporting the International Year of the Family

  Mixed media

  Incapacity Benefit

  To advise customers and interested parties of the new Incapacity Benefit

  Mixed media

  Adviser newsletter

  To advise intermediaries of current developments and publicity initiatives

  Publication

  BBC Select

  To advise staff and interested groups of current developments and initiatives

  TV programme BA Today

  Contributions Agency

  Direct Debit

  Encourage cost efficient direct debit practices among self-employed

  Mixed media

  Contributions compliance

  Information to employers to facilitate their compliance

  Mixed media

  Child Support Agency

  Lone Parents

  Guide to Employment

  Publications in a variety of formats

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement indicating for each financial year since the introduction of the cold weather payments scheme(a) the total number of payments which have been authorised under the scheme, (b) the number of payments which have been authorised within each parliamentary constituency in Scotland under the scheme, (c) the total value of payments made under the scheme for each parliamentary constituency in Scotland and (d) the value of payments made under the scheme for each parliamentary constituency in Scotland. [14498]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the cold weather payments scheme is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.
  182
  There was no significant expenditure on privatisation over this period.

  Anticipated publicity budgets at 1994 prices for 1995–96

  £

  Department of Social Security Headquarters

  7,532,530

  Benefits Agency

  6,924,340

  Child Support Agency

  3,710,843

  Contributions Agency

  3,848,675

  War Pensions Agency

  24,096

  All publications over £50,000 related to a mixed media campaign. Campaigns listed here included advertising, direct mailing, exhibitions, publications of literature, tapes, braille, and video.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 20 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Cold Weather Payments.
  The new Cold Weather Payments Scheme was introduced in December 1986. Prior to that, payments for cold weather were made at local discretion under Regulation 26 of the Single Payments Regulations and records pertaining to payments made on that basis are not available.
  Statistics are currently collated on the basis of Cold Weather Payments made in the areas covered by each Benefits Agency District Office. Information is not held for Cold Weather payments made in Parliamentary constituencies.
  Details of the total number of Cold Weather Payments made on a national basis since 1986–87, together with the total number of payments made in Scotland during the period 1 November 1993 to 31 March 1994 are held by the Statistical Holdings Section in the Library.

  183
  The Library also holds information on Cold Weather Payments made on the basis of Regional Areas in the years 1988/89, 1989/90, and by Benefit/District Office for the years 1986/87 and 1990/91 to 1993/94.
  The totals for the current year will not be available until after 31 March 1995.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library copies of his correspondence with the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) concerning the Al Fayeds. [14424]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave on 9 March 1995,Official Report, column 286.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 152, regarding public subsidy to the sale of armaments, in what form information on the breakdown of support is collected. [14906]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Information on the support provided is maintained on a basis which enables the annual totals to be broken down by the currency of finance and, since the terms of support are periodically revised, by reference to the amount paid or received under each of the several extant support schemes.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of insider dealing cases for each year since 1980 that have been(a) reported, and (b) prosecuted; and how many resulted in convictions. [14879]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information on cases referred to my Department by the London stock exchange and prosecutions for insider dealing are included in the Companies Annual Reports—Companies in 1993–94—and those for previous years. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members, without prior warning to those hon. Members for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15012]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I always try to give prior warning to hon. Members when I visit their constituencies in an official capacity.

  Guidance to Insurers
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) of 13 March,Official Report, column 395, if he will place in the Library the guidance issued to all United Kingdom insurers in December 1994. [15415]
  184
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of this guidance note together with others which my Department issued in 1994 to insurers on unrelated topics.

  Small Firms, Northern Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small businesses have received assistance in Northern Ireland under his Department's small finns loan guarantee scheme in each of the last 12 months [14835]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  No figures are yet available for February 1995 but the number of loans guaranteed in Northern Ireland under the Department's loan guarantee scheme in the previous 12 months are:

  Month

  Number of loans guaranteed

  February 1994

  5

  March 1994

  2

  April 1994

  4

  May 1994

  9

  June 1994

  3

  July 1994

  5

  August 1994

  3

  September 1994

  2

  October 1994

  2

  November 1994

  3

  December 1994

  2

  January 1995

  2

WALES

  Planning and the Environment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what powers for environmental planning he has transferred from local authorities to non-departmental public bodies since May 1979; and if he will make a statement on the ways in which this has benefited the environment in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No alterations to the arrangements for responsibilities have been made. It is the policy of my right hon. Friend that environmental planning and other planning matters should normally be dealt with locally and that other action would be taken only on the most exceptional basis.

  Learning and Behavioural Difficulties
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how it is planned that emergency and respite care, previously provided at long-stay hospitals for those with learning difficulties and seriously challenging behavioural problems, is to be made available in each county in Wales following the closure of such hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  Local and health authorities are responsible for planning and delivering these services.

  Welsh Office circular 7/95, "Mental Handicap Strategy: Planning Alternative Care and Support for Individuals Living Unnecessarily and Inappropriately in Long Stay Mental Handicap Hospitals", stresses the need for

  185
  authorities to consider how services currently provided on hospital sites will be provided in future years as resources are withdrawn from hospitals. We have made it clear that no long stay hospitals will close until appropriate arrangements for alternative care and support are in place.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will make it his policy that each individual with learning or behavioural difficulties, who has been a long-term resident at a long stay hospital in Wales, will have an individual assessment made of his or her personal, social and economic needs, by an appropriate multi-disciplinary team prior to being re-integrated into the community and that the individual, or an advocate on behalf of that individual, will have an opportunity to comment upon and agree to that plan before it is implemented.

  Mr. Richards
  It has always been the policy, under the Welsh mental handicap strategy, that individuals' needs should be assessed by a multi-disciplinary team. This is reinforced by the requirement to carry out assessments under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Full involvement of the individual concerned has always been a key element of these assessments. This is reinforced in Welsh Office circular 7/95 "Mental Handicap Strategy: Planning Alternative Care and Support for Individuals Living Unnecessarily and Inappropriately in Long Stay Mental Handicap Hospitals", which also urges authorities to consider how to resolve disagreements about plans for alternative care where these differ significantly from the wishes and preferences of individuals and their families.

  Crematoria
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department will provide assistance in establishment a crematorium at Newtown to serve Mid Wales; and if he will make a statement. [15109]

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office funds local authorities through the annual local government revenue and capital settlements and, generally speaking, it is for individual authorities to decide how to apportion those resources between and within services in accordance with their statutory obligations and their own priorities. However, my Department's strategic development scheme could be considered as a potential funding source for a project of this kind provided it fulfilled criteria I have set for the scheme. Indeed my Department contributed £200,000 in 1993–94 to the development of a crematorium near Aberystwyth.

  Number of registered child minders

  Local authority

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Clwyd

  241

  241

  355

  396

  448

  588

  516

  670

  543

  540

  Dyfed

  143

  179

  195

  212

  196

  384

  292

  450

  433

  277

  Gwent

  224

  257

  332

  314

  342

  466

  515

  631

  682

  520

  Gwynedd

  120

  150

  138

  173

  148

  321

  319

  471

  206

  251

  Mid Glamorgan

  527

  387

  442

  485

  484

  547

  743

  765

  874

  660

  Powys

  73

  89

  102

  129

  137

  170

  187

  218

  221

  171

  South Glamorgan

  312

  393

  393

  459

  597

  715

  787

  741

  594

  702

  West Glamorgan

  105

  152

  157

  193

  227

  257

  282

  247

  298

  242

  Wales

  1,745

  1,848

  2,114

  2,361

  2,579

  3,448

  3,641

  4,193

  3,851

  3,363

  Regional Industrial Assistance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the reason for the reduction of £29 million for regional industrial assistance in Wales between the 1994–95 planned allocation of £76.9 million and the 1995–96 plans totalling £47.9 million, as set out at figure 3.01 on page 18 of Cm 2815.

  Mr. Redwood
  As explained in paragraphs 3.06, 3.09 and 3.10 of the Welsh Office Departmental Report, Cm 2815, provision for 1995–96 is based on estimates of demand. Paragraph 3.06 also makes it clear that if the requirement exceeds forecasts than extra money will be made available.

  Child Care
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans he has to support the newly-organised kids' clubs network body in Wales, Clybiau Plant Cymru, from April; [14516]

  (2) what funding the kids' clubs network in Wales received over the past five years from the children and families section of the Welsh Office. [14519]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: Under the Department's support for child and family services scheme, grants were awarded to kids' clubs network to promote out-of-school care provision in Wales as follows:

  £

  1991–92

  24,022

  1992–93

  40,873

  1993–94

  18,240

  An announcement will be made shortly on their application for grant in 1995–96.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in each county council area are receiving financial support from Government funding, at local or Welsh Office level, in obtaining national vocational qualifications to improve the quality of provision in child minding in Wales. [14520]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 20 march 1995]: This information is not currently held.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered child minders there are in each county council area in Wales; and what changes there have been in the numbers over the last 10 years. [14524]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The latest information on the numbers of registered child minders relates to 31 March 1993. Information for 1984 to 1993 is given in the following table:
  187
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further plans he has to support new out of school clubs which have been developed in the past two years by the training and enterprise councils in Wales out of their funding for school child care initiatives. [14518]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: This pump-priming initiative supports the setting-up and early operation of schemes which are expected to become self-sufficient within 12 months of commencement. Development workers will be in place until the end of the Initiative in 1996 and will continue to offer general guidance. A child care scheme, like any other business, can also seek TEC help with business skills training. All schemes have been aware from the outset that they would need to become self-sufficient.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what support he has given towards the funding of the National Childminding Association in Wales;
  [14522]

  (2) what plans he has to provide further support for county child minding services managers in the light of the impending changes in local government. [14521]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: The National Childminding Association has received grant towards the costs of its work in Wales and is shown in the following table:

  Core costs £

  County child minding service managers £

  1986–87

  15,000

  —

  1987–88

  15,560

  —

  1988–89

  16,041

  —

  1989–90

  20,000

  —

  1990–91

  26,776

  —

  1991–92

  29,952

  21,618

  Number of places for children available with registered child minders

  Local authority

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Clwyd

  634

  634

  894

  849

  1,002

  1,315

  1,318

  1,782

  1,945

  2,560

  Dyfed

  269

  456

  487

  522

  465

  761

  684

  963

  940

  754

  Gwent

  357

  415

  468

  494

  572

  777

  931

  1,101

  1,218

  1,180

  Gwynedd

  248

  307

  268

  330

  292

  672

  688

  968

  353

  503

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,724

  1,071

  1,255

  1,367

  1,349

  1,619

  2,239

  2,377

  2,579

  2,934

  Powys

  114

  135

  157

  193

  231

  293

  327

  403

  459

  596

  South Glamorgan

  869

  1,012

  1,013

  1,230

  1,636

  1,992

  2,361

  2,223

  1,782

  2,106

  West Glamorgan

  314

  476

  565

  586

  645

  770

  852

  757

  907

  1,014

  Wales

  4,529

  4,506

  5,107

  5,571

  6,192

  8,199

  9,400

  10,574

  10,183

  11,647

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many outline proposals for the purchase of the Estatecare division of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority he has received to date. [15077]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: None. A feasibility study of the scope for privatisation of the Estatecare Group is still in progress.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has agreed with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency for Agency receipts from the
  188

  Core costs £

  Country child minding service managers £

  1992–93

  33,826

  75,120

  1993–94

  34,670

  113,080

  1994–95

  35,190

  114,776

  An announcement will be made shortly on their applicants for further funding in 1995–96 for both these purposes.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how much money has been made available for TECs in Wales to provide out of school clubs under the schools' child care initiative in the last two years; and how much has been spent on each project supported under this programme; and [14515]

  (2) if he will list all of the out of schools clubs being funded by TECs from the schools' child care initiative budget and the number of children benefiting in each scheme. [14517]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: A total of £153,000 was made available in 1993–94 and £800,000 in 1994–95. A list of the schemes, amounts allocated and child care places available will be placed in the Library of the House. The numbers of children using the schemes vary from day to day.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in each county council area are currently cared for by child minders; and what changes there have been over the last 10 years. [14523]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: Information on the total numbers of children cared for by child minders is not held centrally. The latest information on the number of places for children with registered child minders relates to 31 March 1993. Information for 1984 to 1993 is given in the following table.

  European regional development fund in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the sections of the agency corporate three-year plan containing the table showing these estimates. [15078]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: I discussed the plan with the chairman and the board, but it is not for me to agree the ERDF estimates contained in that plan.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in full the membership of the monitoring committee of the single programme document area of the European regional development fund in Wales. [15417]
  189
  Mr. Redwood
  The membership of the rural Wales and industrial south Wales single programming document monitoring committees is set out in the following list:

  Rural Wales

  Mr. M. J. A. Cochlin (Chair), Welsh Office

  Miss E. N. M. Davies, Welsh Office

  Dr. M. C. Dunn, Welsh Office

  Mr. J. Burns, Department of Employment

  Mr. R. Liddell, DGVI European Commission

  Ms C. Wendt, DGXVI European Commission

  Mr. N. Scott, DGV European Commission

  1Mr. H. V. Thomas, Gwynedd County Council

  1Ms J. Jones. Powys County Council

  1Mr. D. Bown, Dyfed County Council

  Mr. M. Royles, Dwyfor District Council

  Mr. A. Carr, Aberconwy Borough Council

  Mr. 0. Davey, Montgomeryshire District Council

  Mr. H. James, South Pembrokeshire District Council

  Mr. D. LI Evans, Wales Council for Voluntary Action

  Mr. S. White, West Wales TEC

  Mr. W. R. Jones, Barclays Bank plc

  Mr. T. Jones, Farmer

  Prof J. Hughes, Development Board for Rural Wales

  Mr. J. Pride, Wales Tourist Board

  Mrs. E. Allinson, Welsh Funding Councils

  1Two Monitoring Committee places are available to the County Councils arid two of the three County Councils nominees attend meetings.

  Industrial South Wales

  Mr. M. J. A. Cochlin (Chair), Welsh Office

  Miss E. N. M. Davies, Welsh Office

  Dr. M. C. Dunn, Welsh Office

  Mr. J. Burns, Department of Employment

  Mr. R. Royce, DGV European Commission

  Ms. C. Wendt, DGXVI European Commission

  Mr. A. G. Corless, West Glamorgan County Council

  Mr. M. J. Perry, Gwent County Council

  Mr. R. Leadbeter, Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  Mr. M. Boaden, Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council

  Mr. I. K. Lewis, Port Talbot Borough Council

  Mr. G. Byrne, Cardiff City Council

  Ms S. Stephens, Wales Council for Voluntary Action

  Mr. G. Vaughan, Mid Glamorgan TEC

  Mr. R. Thomas, Eversheds Phillips and Buck

  Mr. A. Clegg, Rai1track

  Mr. G. Moore, Welsh Development Agency

  Mr. J. Pride, Wales Tourist Board

  Mrs. F. Pickard, Further and Higher Education Funding Councils

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations the Welsh Office has received on the subject of the funding of voluntary organisations in Wales under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In addition to the hon. Gentleman's letter of 7 March on behalf of the Aberconwy area work group, the Welsh Office has received the following representations on the subject of the funding of voluntary organisations in Wales since the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 received Royal Assent:
  190

  Correspondent

  Date

  Wales Council for Voluntary Action

  11 July 1994

  Clwyd Voluntary Services Council

  27 October 1994

  Cardiganshire Transition Committee

  9 November 1994

  Wales Youth Agency

  November 1994

  Wales MIND

  5 December 1994 and 24 February 1995

  Clwyd Mental Health Alliance

  18 January and 23 February 1995

  West Glamorgan Mental Health Forum

  22 February 1995

  Swansea MIND

  23 February 1995

  Ogwr MIND

  24 February 1995

  NSPCC

  8 March 1995

  Local Government Debt
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list for each county council, district council and for Wales as a whole the amount of long-term debt in March 1994 prices as at(a) 31 March 1993 and (b) 31 March 1994.

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

  Outstanding loan debt at constant 1993–94 prices1

  £ million

  At 31 March 1993

  At 31 March 1994

  Alyn and Deeside

  33.1

  34.2

  Colwyn

  24.4

  25.8

  Delyn

  27.8

  30.0

  Glyndwr

  15.6

  16.2

  Rhuddlan

  23.6

  25.7

  Wrexham Maelor

  65.6

  70.8

  Carmarthen

  35.2

  35.4

  Ceredigion

  20.4

  19.4

  Dinefwr

  28.4

  25.6

  Llanelli

  39.5

  42.4

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  38.8

  40.7

  South Pembrokeshire

  9.8

  10.7

  Blaenau Gwent

  105.4

  102.6

  Islwyn

  58.8

  59.6

  Monmouth

  44.2

  43.9

  Newport

  127.1

  123.1

  Torfaen

  81.9

  80.8

  Aberconwy

  15.9

  18.8

  Arfon

  23.6

  25.8

  Dwyfor

  12.0

  14.7

  Meirionnydd

  7.6

  9.2

  Ynys Mon

  50.5

  51.3

  Cynon Valley

  47.6

  49.4

  Merthyr Tydfil

  59.2

  60.7

  Ogwr

  96.4

  83.2

  Rhondda

  92.6

  92.1

  Rhymney Valley

  70.3

  69.4

  Taff Ely

  36.6

  31.9

  Brecknock

  24.6

  27.0

  Montgomeryshire

  20.2

  21.3

  Radnorshire

  12.6

  12.7

  Cardiff

  189.0

  180.7

  Vale of Glamorgan

  54.7

  55.7

  Lliw Valley

  37.9

  38.2

  Neath

  37.5

  38.2

  Port Talbot

  35.8

  37.4

  Swansea

  126.9

  128.5

  Clwyd

  136.5

  133.5

  Dyfed

  119.4

  116.6

  Gwent

  149.7

  158.2

  Gwynedd

  73.3

  77.7

  191

  Outstanding loan debt at constant 1993–94 prices1

  £ million

  At 31 March 1993

  At 31 March 1994

  Mid Glamorgan

  97.4

  124.9

  Powys

  56.3

  53.9

  South Glamorgan

  154.3

  158.0

  West Glamorgan

  158.6

  161.2

  Wales

  2,776.3

  2,816.8

  1Outstanding loan debt is defined here as debt incurred for capital purposes ie. external debt plus moneys used temporarily to support the credit ceiling. The outstanding loan debt for the joint police authorities has been apportioned to their constituent counties, on the basis of population estimates used in the revenue support grant settlement.

  Youth Training in Wales
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many trainees have been on youth training scheme courses in(a) Wales, and (b) Swansea, in each of the last two years; and how many subsequently found employment.

  Mr. Richards
  Information on youth training in Swansea is not available, but the following table shows the relevant figures for Wales and for the West Wales TEC area, which includes Swansea:

  Youth training in Wales and west Wales

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Number starting youth training/youth credits

  Wales

  15,403

  13,577

  West Wales TEC

  4,520

  4,035

  Percentage of youth training/youth credits leavers who obtained employment

  Wales

  45

  48

  West Wales TEC

  41

  44

  Dental Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many general dental practitioners have resigned from the NHS in Gwynedd over the past two years.

  Mr. Richards
  According to information supplied by the Gwynedd family health services authority, 12 dentists have resigned from the dental list since 1 January 1993. During this period nine dentists have commenced provided general dental services under NHS arrangements.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many NHS dental patients have been deregistered by general dental practitioners in Gwynedd since September 1993.

  Mr. Richards
  From information supplied by the Gwynedd Family Health Services Authority, 6,864 adult patients have been deregistered since the beginning of 192
  September 1993; during that period no children have been deregistered.

  This is a cumulative total and does not indicate how many of those patients subsequently registered with another dentist.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the numbers of dental patients de-registered from the NHS by their dentist during each of 1992, 1993 and 1994 for each family health service authority area in Wales. [15435]

  Mr. Redwood
  From the information supplied by family health services authorities, the numbers of patients de-registered by their dentists is as follows:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Clwyd

  2,335

  568

  6,859

  Dyfed

  225

  1,015

  2,635

  Gwent

  490

  1,073

  2,977

  Gwynedd

  4,960

  3,031

  5,213

  Mid Glamorgan

  31

  86

  581

  Powys

  0

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  151

  3,914

  1,432

  West Glamorgan

  0

  0

  44

  This information

  a) was supplied for management purpose only;

  b) has been collected only since 1 August 1992;

  c) is not statistically validated;

  d) does not indicate how many of these patients subsequently registered with another dentist.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the visits he has made since the start of the current parliamentary Session to the constituencies of other hon. Members without prior warning to those hon. Members, for any purpose connected with his departmental responsibilities. [15025]

  Mr. Redwood
  None that I am aware of.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 610, if he will now publish the letter he has received from the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales concerning the funding of that body. [15396]

  Mr. Redwood
  I do not consider that it would be appropriate to publish routine correspondence with chairmen of non-departmental public bodies.

  Mine Water
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the follow-up report on the study of ferruginous mine water impacts in Wales is to be published.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have today placed copies of this report in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
Lord Dowding Lord Dowding— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Car Crime
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been a reduction in the United Kingdom or in particular regions in the number of crimes involving theft of cars, or breaking into them.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, yes. In the 12 months to June 1994, the number of notifiable offences of vehicle crime recorded by the police in England and Wales fell by 9 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging reply, which confirms press reports. In areas where car crimes have been decreasing, can my noble friend attribute that to better security fittings incorporated in manufacture, to car owners taking more precautions or to the increased likelihood of the thieves being caught through detecting and tracking devices?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can say "yes" on all three counts.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the technology is now in place which could make all vehicle theft—at any rate, of new vehicles—a thing of the past through vehicle control systems? I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that what is really required, as an extension of that, is close co-operation between the countries involved, particularly the countries of Europe, to achieve the complete elimination of the theft of new vehicles.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Viscount is absolutely right. We have to continue to be vigilant because, although I have announced good figures today, we must not be apathetic. Co-operation will play one part and another element will be the development of technology, but we cannot ignore the sophistication of car thieves. They are not simply people who take cars for joy rides. Car thieves now steal cars to order. There is now a great deal of work in terms of intelligence gathering, and co-operation will be very important on that front.
Lord Brougham and Voux: My Lords, how do the United Kingdom's percentages for stolen vehicles and their recovery compare with those for the rest of Europe?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend a precise answer to his question, but I shall write
1122
to him about it. The recovery of vehicles that are stolen for their parts and are therefore dismantled or worse, with their physical appearance being changed completely before they disappear into another country, is particularly difficult, which is why the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is important.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I notice that the Question refers to the United Kingdom, but the Minister's Answer referred only to statistics for England and Wales. Am I to assume that the crime has been eliminated from Scotland?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the good news is that there has been a fall in such crimes in both Wales and Scotland. The had news is that the crime has not been eliminated.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can my noble friend advise me as to what would be the position of a bona fide purchaser of a car when it was discovered that the car that he had purchased in all good faith turned out to be stolen?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if someone has bought stolen goods, ignorance is no defence. The matter would therefore have to be dealt with by the law.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister gave a generally encouraging answer to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, but can she be a bit more precise about the regional differences and about whether the regional decline in such offences coincides in any way with the extent to which police forces have been experimenting with new technology in terms of tracing stolen cars? Furthermore, although this is rather a different question, is not one of the keys to reducing professional car crime the need to control our frontiers and to ensure that stolen cars are not exported to other parts of the world?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on the noble Lord's final question, we feel strongly about the control of frontiers and shall continue to fight for the right to control them. The noble Lord makes a further important point. It is now incumbent upon us all to consider such regional differences. The National Board for Crime Prevention is looking closely at such differences. It includes representatives from the police, motor manufacturers, traders, the rental and leasing sector, consumer and motoring organisations and the insurance industry. All are looking at what can be done. The Home Office will certainly be taking a view on the effectiveness of our police forces. The noble Lord may remember a Question that I answered recently about signs in the rear windows of police vehicles. We are looking again at the effectiveness of such technology.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what percentage of stolen cars are used for what is peculiarly called "joy riding"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, contrary to the view that is at large, it is very few, but it has a disproportionate effect on communities. The police are extremely vigilant

1123
in doing something about it, and the law in this area has been toughened to deal with people—often very young people—who steal cars for joyriding. But it is a very small proportion of the whole.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as the owner of a car that has twice been broken into by the insertion of a screwdriver above the lock. Will the Government consult European motor manufacturers to see whether there are ways in which cars can less easily be broken into?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is a great deal going on in looking at ways and means of making it more difficult for cars to be broken into. The manufacturers are leaving no stones unturned. The Government are encouraging them in that work. Not just that, insurance companies are encouraging manufacturers to do more to prevent people getting unlawful access to cars and to persuade all of us to take more of an interest in car security.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in her reply to my noble friend Lord McIntosh, the Minister said that the Government would fight to retain control of our borders; but a few days ago, in reply to me, she said that the Prime Minister had given the assurance that he would do everything necessary to retain control of our borders. There is a qualitative difference between those two statements. Will she say which is correct?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am entirely happy to confirm what I said the other day. First, I have to say that I am answering a Question about car crime. In relation to this Question that was how I answered. As for protecting our frontiers, I shall repeat that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that he would do whatever was necessary to protect our frontiers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that attitudes can be changed so that stealing a car is not regarded in some quarters as a pastime rather than a crime, since for young people it is a short step from car thefts to serious crimes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am entirely happy to give that assurance. Your Lordships have taken part in the toughening up of sentencing for those who steal cars, and we must continue to be vigilant in that respect.

Broadcasting Standards Council
2.46 p.m.
Lord Palmer Lord Palmer asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the role of the Broadcasting Standards Council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): Yes, my Lords. The Broadcasting Standards Council carries out excellent work in helping maintain and improve standards of what is broadcast on television and radio.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Would he not agree though that, the BSC having consumed some £6.5 million over the past five years, the money could have been rather better spent?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, no. I do not agree with the noble Lord. The council has been particularly active in highlighting and articulating public concern about the portrayal of violence, sexual conduct, and matters of taste and decency on television. We support its work fully in that regard.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the BSC has power to require that independent television companies shall mend their ways when they have been reported upon adversely, but that it has no power even to ask the BBC to do so? That puts the BBC above the law. Would not therefore the work of the BSC be much more valuable if it had the same power over the BBC?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Broadcasting Act 1990 requires broadcasters to reflect the council's code in their programme guidelines. With regard to the BBC, I should point out that the BSC is the only independent complaints body on standards to which the BBC must have regard.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as a recent deputy chairman of the BBC, is the Minister aware that I accept that from time to time all broadcasting institutions will get it wrong? But is he also aware, and does he agree, that from time to time the BSC gets it wrong? The danger of that is that many excellent, challenging programmes may just not be made. In those circumstances, does he believe that there is at least the need for a review of the BSC's role?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government believe that the approach adopted in this country of self-regulation by broadcasters, within the framework of guidelines and a code of practice, is right, and represents the best way to balance the right of freedom of expression with considerations of taste, decency, privacy and fair representation. The BSC's code of practice must be taken into account by programme makers.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at the moment broadcasting may be a little over-regulated? Will he confirm that involved in the regulation of broadcasting at the moment we have the BBC Board of Governors, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council? That is when the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are not interfering in the business of broadcasting companies. Does he think that with some profit we might reduce the number of regulatory authorities in broadcasting?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, makes an important point. That is why the merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council with the

1125
Broadcasting Complaints Commission was proposed in the Government's White Paper last July. We intend to go ahead with that merger in the future.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied that the Broadcasting Standards Council has been effective in the monitoring, let alone curbing, of what is known as "adult entertainment" on Channel 4 in programmes that are advertised reasonably as being devoted to erotica, the sex industry, pornography and adult entertainment? What about public service broadcasting and standards of decency?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in 1993–94, the Broadcasting Standards Council received 2,390 complaints, of which 1,711 were within its remit. Of those complaints, 78 were upheld. It acts on the complaints made to it and we believe that it does a good job.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, has the Minister watched breakfast television? If so, has he noticed the irritating and puerile sexual innuendo which seems to form part of almost every interview or chat between the presenters? Is that not more pernicious than the straightforward portrayal of sex and violence?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand that the Broadcasting Standards Council's survey shows that public attitudes are becoming more tolerant of the portrayal of sexual conduct on television. That is reflected in the council's findings in respect of particular complaints. However, the council is mindful of the offence that such a portrayal can give to some individuals. It is the council's experience that, in general, violence and bad language in broadcasting are matters of much greater concern to the general public.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what does the Broadcasting Standards Council do that cannot be done by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the governors of the BBC, the members of the ITC and the directors of independent television companies?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it does a very different job. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission deals with individual complaints relating to a particular person as regards what has been broadcast about them; the Broadcasting Standards Council oversees standards on television.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, bearing in mind the views of some that the BSC is a worthy but toothless tiger, and also bearing in mind that the voluntarily agreed television watershed of 9 p.m. is one of the few curbs against the excesses of publicity-seeking programme makers, will the Minister explain why a similar voluntary undertaking is not in place in respect of radio broadcasting, as evidenced by the many complaints received on "Feedback", a radio programme on Saturdays?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are concerned about violence shown on television but radio is a slightly different matter. However, the Secretary of State at the Department of National Heritage will meet the chairman of the regulators to discuss action on levels of violence
1126
shown on television, including satellite channels. I shall draw to his attention the noble Viscount's remarks about radio.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the broadcasting media have great influence? Therefore, should not the relatively toothless Broadcasting Standards Council have more power on the lines of the Press Council?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that the Broadcasting Standards Council is toothless. After all, under the 1990 Act broadcasters must take account of its views.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in a society where standards and tastes are diverging rapidly, it is increasingly difficult for the broadcasting authorities to transmit material which does not offend anyone? Does he further agree that, if the wicket-keeper of the Broadcasting Standards Council should be ineffective, there remains a longstop in the power to switch off?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Earl makes an important point. The Broadcasting Standards Council has carried out a number of consultative exercises in the regions. Those have enabled the council to learn more about the expectations and concerns of ordinary viewers of terrestrial television and satellite services.

Sir John Banham
2.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the circumstances under which Sir John Banham resigned as chairman of the Local Government Commission for England.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the structural review of counties has been completed but we want to ask the commission to look at a shortlist of individual districts. The Government believe that these new reviews should be carried out by a reconstituted commission which can look at the cases afresh.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Under what terms of reference was Sir John Banham appointed? In view of the mess in which the commission has been left—it will be very expensive to clear up—will the Minister tell the House whether Sir John carried out those terms of reference? If he did not carry them out correctly, is that not because, talented though he is and a specialist in his own field, the Government would have done better to appoint someone with a knowledge of local government? We might then have got the right answers.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I indicated, we believe that there should be a newly constituted commission with a new chairman because of the move to a completely new approach. We are grateful to Sir

1127
John for his significant contribution as chairman in the establishment of the commission and in carrying through the accelerated review programme to the tight timescale that was set.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Question refers to Sir John Banham and his chairmanship of the Local Government Commission for England, as it was originally set up, and not to any future plans which the Government may have and about which we may hear this afternoon? Will the Minister answer my noble friend's Question and give the House an indication of how much the Banham Commission has cost council tax payers and taxpayers?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am unable to give the noble Lord a figure of the cost of the commission. As he will know, some £50 million has been set aside this year for local government reorganisation. The answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is that Sir John Banham undertook his work on an accelerated timescale and that the Government have broadly accepted the commission's recommendations for the status quo in many shire counties. Later today my right honourable friend will make a Statement on the remaining counties and I shall repeat that Statement in your Lordships' House.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, why then did Sir John Banham feel it necessary to resign? Was not his main offence in the eyes of the Government that he preferred to consult the people rather than to do the bidding of the Government?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Sir John did indeed consult the people and made a good job of it. The Government have accepted many recommendations of the Local Government Commission, certainly those already announced by my right honourable friend.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are glad to hear his relatively commendatory words about Sir John Banham and his expression of the Government's gratitude to him for conducting a task that was practically impossible; namely, to please the Government and at the same time please the many citizens of the country whom he was rightly required to consult? Is it not the case that Sir John did a remarkable job in a short time with great thoroughness and that more than 90 per cent. of his recommendations have been accepted?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Sir John undertook a difficult task and he performed it well. As I indicated, in relation to those recommendations that have been announced, my right honourable friend has agreed broadly with the commission's recommendations.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and the fact that Sir John has done an excellent job, but also in view of the
1128
enormous cost of the exercise, is it not disturbing that the Government are prolonging the process by having this further inquiry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the commission has recommended the status quo in a few of the largest non-metropolitan towns and districts but has recommended unitary status in other similarly sized towns. The Government believe that there should be a reasonable level of coherence. That is why they wish to establish a newly constituted commission with new guidance to look at the case for unitary status in a short list of districts. That was announced on 2nd March.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, bearing in mind the role of the Department of the Environment in all this, will my noble friend confirm or deny the suggestion which is going around Whitehall that the nets outside that building have been put them to catch any Minister who may be tempted to jump out?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the nets certainly remain but, as yet, I do not believe that a Minister has been tempted to jump.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister referred to a "reasonable level of coherence". What does that mean? It does not seem to me to mean anything.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I indicated that the commission has recommended the status quo for a few of the largest districts among the non-metropolitan areas but has recommended unitary status for other towns of very similar size. We believe that the commission should have an opportunity to re-examine that in order to assess the coherence; that is, the similarity.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is the fourth time since, and including, the Heath Government that local government has been disrupted by Conservative governments? Local government has suffered severely from that. If the Government get it right this time, will they, for God's sake, leave it to settle down and get on with doing the job?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand the frustration of the noble Lord and many other noble Lords in this House. We obviously need to make certain that local government is efficient and that it delivers in the most effective way the services which people in the localities require.

The Royal Mail: Newspaper Delivery Charges
3.2 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Post Office is doubling the charge to newsagents for delivery of newspapers and proposes to treble the present charge next year.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the price charged

1129
to newsagents by Royal Mail for delivery of newspapers to households in rural areas is a commercial matter for the Post Office. I understand that no final decision has yet been reached on any revised charges for that service.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, and in particular the reference to no decision having yet been made. That is not what was told to the three newsagents of Kirriemuir by the local area supervisor. Is the Minister aware that in 1989–90, the Post Office made £116 million and in 1993–94 it made £306 million? Is he aware also that the Post Office is a public service and that commercial considerations in country areas surely cannot require the price of delivering newspapers, which is an extremely essential service, to double or perhaps even treble in the near future? Have the Government inflicted that amount of inflation on this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am glad to know that the Questions tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, are stimulated by his newsagents in Kirriemuir. Prices have been held steady for seven years. It is wrong for one part of the Royal Mail to carry out works which are not part of the monopoly and which are subsidised by services which are part of the monopoly. Therefore, it is quite right that charges should be reviewed periodically. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, refers to "double" or "treble". As I told him in my original Answer, no decision has been taken.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind the remarkable role which the free press plays in this country? Should not the Government be rather apprehensive about anything which may be interpreted as even a minor financial threat to that free press?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we have a remarkable free press in this country, but the prices that are charged for the delivery of the service is a matter for the Post Office.
Lord Peston: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the noble Earl is saying that this is a matter solely for the Post Office and is nothing at all to do with the Government, but that he happens to know that the Post Office has not yet made up its mind? Is he saying that it is nothing to do with the Government but they know what is going on?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, must not try to bowl me fast balls like that. I had a great temptation to answer the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, by saying that this is a commercial matter for the Post Office. That was the answer which my noble friend Lord Denham used to give many years ago when he was asked questions about the Post Office. But in this case, I felt that this would be a discourtesy and so I gave a fuller answer. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would not chivy me for my courtesy in giving that full Answer.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am delighted with the noble Earl's reply. I forgot to say how much I echo his thoughts about our press. I am very much with him on that. If the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asks the Question
1130
again when the true facts of the increase are put forward, shall we still be told that the Government know nothing about it or will not say anything about it? I cannot believe that when the facts come out, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will leave this matter alone.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has at heart the interests of the House and will not ask questions of Ministers to which it is not the responsibility of Ministers to reply. I am sure that he will address his questions to the body which is competent to answer them; namely, the Royal Mail.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister has treated this Question rather lightly. The three newsagents of Kirriemuir are merely an illustration of what is happening in country areas. Will the noble Earl admit that Rowland Hill's spirit is not entirely dead? The Post Office has a public duty to provide a service which does not pay because it balances out throughout the country. I should have thought that even this Government would adhere to that principle.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, feels that I am treating this matter lightly. I thought that I was treating it seriously because I gave him a more comprehensive reply than I might otherwise have done. But the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is at fault, which is unusual, because the Post Office has a monopoly for delivering letters where the postage is less than £1. The delivery of newsagents' materials is not subject to a monopoly. It may well be that those who could supply that service would complain if the Post Office provided the service at a subsidised rate.

Petition: Berkshire
3.9 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I beg to present a petition from the Friends of the Royal County of Berkshire which prays that this House, taking due note that a petition expressing opposition to the Local Government Commission's recommendations and signed by many people in Berkshire has been presented in another place by Sir Gerard Vaughan, do reject those recommendations and vote down any order which may be laid to implement them or any similar proposals.
Petition presented.

Business
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Ullswater has already mentioned, he will at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on English local government reorganisation.
Home Energy Conservation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debate, 22nd March
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos set down for tomorrow shall be limited to five hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Pensions Bill has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor collects the voices, perhaps I may venture to point out that this Third Reading is taking place the minimum of three working days after the Report stage. That interval is sufficient for a simple and short Bill, and particularly where the Report stage is little more than a mopping up of the Committee stage. However, that is far from the case with the Bill now before the House.
Important amendments were moved and accepted, some on a vote, with cross-voting on Report, many of which needed at any rate some drafting amendment. Therefore, it is the height of inconvenience to have the Third Reading following so closely in time. After a Report stage, or indeed any other stage, it is usual for your Lordships to write to the Minister and to receive a reply before the next stage. That has been impossible in this case.
We are very much in the hands of, and indebted to, the usual channels which arrange business, especially so that important issues upon which there may be a vote are taken at an early hour. However, I venture to suggest that a grave mistake has been made in this case.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I believe that the House is ill advised if it does not listen to the advice that it receives from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, with even more than its usual attention. However, I venture to suggest to your Lordships that perhaps the noble and learned Lord may like to reconsider what he has just said. It is perfectly true that the minimum interval of three working days has been observed. However, the noble and learned Lord might also like to consider that business managers have
1132
tried to give rather more days, albeit not altogether working days, in between the printing of the Bill in its current version on 14th March and today. That gave seven clear days, although they include only three working days.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord is aware that we have a pressing programme of legislation, despite what the Opposition suggested after the Queen's Speech. Indeed, we have much business to get through the House between now and the Summer Recess. Like me, I hope that the noble and learned Lord is looking forward to an early assumption of the bucket and spade and that he will feel that there has been enough time in this instance, especially in view of the considerable detail with which the Bill has been examined, for him at least to look at what the Government propose in terms of timing with some degree of indulgence.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
Training for trustees
(". Regulations shall require trustees of occupational pension schemes to undertake an approved course of training within three months of appointment and where a person fails to comply with this requirement the Authority shall consider his disqualification under section 26.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are returning yet again to what I regard as an important issue; namely, the training of pension fund trustees. I became even more aware recently of the need to make training mandatory when I was invited to speak last week to a group of union members, most of whom were employee trustees. I spoke about the Bill and was asked to describe what had been happening during its passage through the House.
Those trustees were astonished to find out the very wide range of responsibilities that they would have as a result of the Bill and the penalties involved should they transgress. They clearly had not realised, even though they were individuals who take a keen interest in pension matters, precisely what was involved. They took the view that if they had all that responsibility in law, the least that could be done was to ensure that they were sufficiently trained to be able to deal with it. They did not believe—and neither do I—that it is sufficient to leave that to the voluntary process.
It seems to me that what is required is a provision under which all trustees are required to be trained in their legal duties and responsibilities within a specified time following their appointment. That would ensure that trustees were at least aware of the responsibilities imposed on them by law. Perhaps the new authority could then produce a code of practice in that area in consultation with interested parties. It is essential that that is not left to chance.
The amendment that we are attempting today differs from those previously advanced in that it envisages that regulations will require training to be provided, and it would be up to the authority to determine whether failure to take up such training in individual cases warranted disqualification. It really would not be

1133
sensible to insist that a trustee who might be professionally qualified in the pensions area should have to undergo training similar to that to be imposed on trustees with no such training or background.
As we have said on a number of occasions during discussion of the Bill, we are concerned that the penalties on trustees look fairly formidable. We do not want to discourage people from coming forward to do that necessary work. It is appreciated that there have to he obligations and responsibilities. As has been said so often during the passage of the Bill through the House, it is a question of getting the balance right. If people are to assume such responsibilities with confidence, they must have the necessary training to do so. We cannot be happy leaving that simply to a voluntary process. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment. We want trustees; and, indeed, we rely very heavily on them. The Government have resisted attempts to make the regulator powerful. Therefore, we are relying on trustees, members of the trustee boards, to understand fully what they are doing and to take the necessary action. However, they are also exposed to very considerable penalties. It is only right and proper, therefore, that they should be required to undertake training. Otherwise, they will find themselves confronted with responsibilities for which they have been totally and inadequately equipped and we shall find that people will not be prepared to take such responsibilities. As I said, I support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I believe that the amendment goes too far. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, indicated that some of the people who became trustees were already very experienced in pension matters; indeed, that is the case. But, as I read the amendment—assuming that the regulations are made as the noble Baroness wishes—even experienced people would have to undertake a course. First, that seems to me to be a wasteful proposal; but, secondly, and perhaps more important, if someone experienced in pensions and pensions management is confronted, nonetheless, with the necessity to take a course when he accepts the appointment, he will be discouraged from accepting it. It may well be that the effect of this amendment will be to deprive pension funds of precisely the people who will be the greatest possible use —those already experienced in pensions; by which, of course, I do not always include for this purpose those who have served as Minister of pensions.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. I agree with some of the points that have just been made by the noble Lord on the Benches opposite. However, the Bill will introduce in pensions legislation punitive offences for which individual trustees may be liable. As I said at an earlier stage of this Bill, there are 12 offences which may render a trustee liable to suspension or removal from office. Seventeen offences carry a penalty of fines, 14 of which may be imposed on trustees. Five offences carry a criminal penalty, or a fine, or imprisonment, three of which may be imposed on trustees.
1134
I have considered these offences and I suggest to your Lordships that without adequate training—I am not talking about long training courses—to enable the trustees to understand their responsibilities, those penalties are extremely unfair, justified as they are with the amount of money for pension beneficiaries which is invested. For example, an offence can be committed, and a fine can be imposed, for failure of a trustee to make proper arrangements for member-nominated trustees. That is in the Bill, but trustees will have to know where to look for that offence, and they will have to understand it fully. It is an offence not to have or to maintain a statement of investment principles. That offence may be imposed on all trustees and a fine can be levied. There is an offence of illegal self-investment. Trustees have to know exactly what constitutes illegal self-investment. They need to be trained to understand that, because if they breach that part of the Bill they will have committed a criminal offence and a fine or imprisonment can be imposed. It is an offence not to keep proper books and records. I do not know how many trustees are responsible for keeping proper books or records themselves. They may have professional advisers who do that, but it is the trustees' responsibility at the end of the day to ensure that it is done. If it is not done, a fine can be imposed.
It is an offence to fail to make arrangements for the resolution of disputes. A fine can be imposed if a trustee does not take that duty on board. One could go on and on. A substantial number of breaches of the law can be committed in the pensions field and they can result in suspension from office, removal from office, the payment of a fine or indeed imprisonment. It is an offence to provide false information or to fail to provide information to the authority, compensation board or registrar. What information is that? How will trustees know what information they must provide if they are not trained in the basic rudiments of this Bill? I support this amendment. It asks for the training requirement to be set out in regulations. At Report stage I believe that the Minister touched upon that matter and he may accept this amendment. I hope that he does.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said previously when we discussed this issue, we have no quarrel at all with the principle that trustees should undergo training as soon as possible following their appointment. I made it clear that noble Lords on all sides of the House are at one on this issue. However, we do differ in that we do not see any need or justification for setting up the sort of register of approved training courses that would be necessary under this amendment, nor for requiring the authority to consider whether a trustee should be disqualified if he fails to undergo training within the specified three month period.
I made our position on trustee training very clear when I addressed similar amendments at the Committee and Report stages of this Bill. I said then that we were fully in support of trustees being properly trained. In fact, I believe I went so far as to say that training is essential. This is, then, something on which, as I said, we are all in agreement. However, as I have said before, I do not agree that training should he made compulsory.

1135
This has nothing to do with the importance we place on training. It is simply a realistic and practical view based on the difficulties and costs that would be involved in trying to set up, control and regulate any system of compulsory training.
We have, we believe, gone as far as it is sensible to go by requiring employers to give trustees paid time off for training. In this way we have clearly signalled the importance we attach to training and, at the same time, we have lifted a major obstacle to trustee training by requiring employers to allow paid time off for the purpose. I believe that about 27 providers of trustee training exist at the moment, offering training at basic levels and at more advanced levels. There is an examination: the PMI's Trustee Certificate of Basic Pensions Knowledge, which trustees may take if they wish.
I believe that to go any further and to require someone—in this case OPRA—to specify what courses were and were not appropriate is to go too far. That might in turn require a constant monitoring of the wide range of courses. I referred to 27 courses. If it were required to consider the disqualification of anyone who had not undertaken approved training, OPRA would presumably need to assess individuals' training needs, which would vary widely, and the appropriateness of any non-approved training they had undertaken. Flow could OPRA justify pursuing untrained trustees who might nevertheless be well-qualified, while ignoring those who had been on an approved course but failed to benefit from it? The only logical course open to OPRA would be to establish an examination system to check levels of trustee proficiency. That would be both expensive and intrusive. It would be quite incompatible with the role we envisage for the regulatory authority and would cloud its main purpose which is to enforce compliance with the statutory requirements. All this reinforces the points I made in Committee and on Report. This is a matter for the trustees themselves to sort out and not something which should be made a statutory requirement or brought within a regulatory framework. The Bill gives trustees the key thing they need in order to undertake appropriate training—that is, reasonable time off with pay. It is unnecessary to go further. I believe that to do so would risk us establishing a bureaucracy inside OPRA which would have to monitor and decide which courses were or were not appropriate. I can almost foresee it having to create a consultative curriculum on trustee training.
The next step would be to insist that we made sure the trustees learnt from the courses they attended. That would undoubtedly lead us to create an examinations board for trustees. I believe that sort of road is not worth going down. Where we are is a much better place to stop; that is, ensuring that trustees can have paid time off and ensuring that the courses are available. We should underline—I do so once again—the importance of training and leave it to the trustees to take the reasonable and sensible decisions which I am sure they will take. I see the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, wishes to intervene.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as someone who is professionally involved in education I was struck by the rather cavalier attitude that he took to the quality of courses which people might have to take. Certainly the courses at my university are inspected regularly both by our peers, and now by the Higher Education Funding Council. The noble Lord said earlier that there were 27 providers of training. Does he know that their training is adequate? If so, how does he know? Whose responsibility would it be if a training course were misleading or inadequate?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has made my point for me in his intervention. He has introduced the whole idea of some kind of review of the courses and of some over-arching body which would decide which courses were or were not appropriate. I have the names of some providers of training in front of me, many of whom are serious players in the pensions business. It is for them and for the trustees to make a decision. Frankly, I should have thought that if the trustees are considered able enough to be trustees of a pension fund, they are able enough to judge what is a good course and what is not. Dare I say to the noble Lord that many university students recognise a good course from a bad course in universities around the country?
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I find that response very unsatisfactory and so, I think, do a number of my colleagues on this side of the House. I thought we had drafted this amendment in order to meet some of the objections which have been raised on previous occasions during discussion on this issue. We specify that:
"Regulations shall require trustees of occupational pension schemes to undertake an approved course of training".
We do not specify what would be contained in the regulations. Nor do we say what the approved course of training would be.
We also specify that:
"the Authority shall consider … disqualification".
That was written into the amendment specifically in order to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It does not mean that a trustee should be disqualified automatically if he or she does not take a training course. It is for the authority to decide. Clearly, the authority would not disqualify someone already appropriately qualified. So there is little more to say about that particular intervention.
As regards the comments made by the Minister, does he suggest that we set up some form of elaborate system involving examinations? That is not what is proposed in the amendment. We propose short courses of training. On the other hand, there is no reason why there should not be some means of approving courses. It does not seem to me to be very difficult to do that. If one does not have approved courses, provided independently, one comes up against the argument that it would be entirely inappropriate if the courses could be provided by the people running the scheme because they would not have the necessary independence.

1137
We suggest that approved courses of training should be available which trustees should be compelled to undergo if they are to remain trustees. If, by any chance, somebody is well qualified, obviously he or she would not be disqualified for not taking a separate training course.
I do not find the arguments advanced by the Minister at all acceptable. Training is a key issue in relation to the appointment of trustees and the role of trustees under this extremely important Bill. The response is so unsatisfactory that I should like to take this last opportunity to test the opinion of the House on the matter.
3.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. I) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 158.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Avebury, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Barnett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Birk, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Blackstone, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Meston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Nelson, E.

David, B.

Northfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Porter of Luddenharn, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L. Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ezra, L.

Richard, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Freyberg, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hamwee, B.

Simon, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tope, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tamer of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Whaddon, L.

lnchyra, L.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Addison, V.

Astor, V.

Ailsa, M.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Aldington, L.

Beloff, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blake, L.

Allenby of Megiddo. V.

Blaker, L.

Alport, L.

Blatch, B.

Ampthill, L.

Boardman, L.

Annaly, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Arran, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

1138

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Killearn, L.

Bridges, L.

Kimball, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Butterworth, L.

Kintore, E.

Cadman, L.

Knollys, V.

Caldecote, V.

Knutsford, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lindsay, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Long, V. [Teller]

Camegy of Lour, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnock, L.

Lucas, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Manchester, D.

Chesham, L.

May, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Merrivale, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleridge, L.

Middleton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Courtown, E.

Milverton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Monson, L.

Cross, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Munster, E.

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Northesk. E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dormer, L.

Onslow, E.

Dowding, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Downshire, M.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ely, M.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Erne, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Faithfull, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Quinton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rawlings, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gainford, L.

Rees, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Renwick, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gisborough, L.

Roskill, L.

Goschen, V.

Shannon, E.

Grantchester, L.

Sharpies, B.

Gridley, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Halsbury, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Strafford, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Strange, B.

Hayter, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hertford, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L.

Terrington, L.

Hives, L.

Teviot, L.

Holdemess, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trefgame, L.

Hood, V.

Ullswater, V.

Hothfield, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Ingrow, L.

Warnock, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Local Government Review
3.42 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the review of local government in England.
"In my Statement on 2nd March I set out my aims for the local government review. I announced my decisions for 20 counties, and I also announced that I intended to invite the Local Government Commission to carry out further reviews of a small number of individual districts.
"The honourable Gentleman opposite, Mr. Frank Dobson, asked me to consider adding a small number of other districts to the list; he particularly pressed me to consider Norwich and The Wrekin. I have now decided to add these two districts to the list of those which I shall consider for fresh reviews.
"At the time of my Statement on 2nd March I was not in a position to announce the name of the new chairman of the commission. I am now pleased to announce that Sir David Cooksey, currently Chairman of the Audit Commission, has agreed to become Chairman of the Local Government Commission for England. Sir David's appointment will be for one year initially, by which time we expect the programme of shire district structural reviews to have been completed. Sir David will take up his post in early July.
"My Statement on 2nd March left just 12 counties on which I had not yet announced my decisions. I am pleased to be able to do so today.
"I have decided to accept the commission's recommendations for the counties of Derbyshire and Staffordshire. The former county boroughs of Derby and Stoke-on-Trent will become unitary authorities; the rest of the county will, in each case, remain two tier.
"Similarly, I accept the recommendation for Wiltshire that Thamesdown—that is, Swindon—should become a unitary authority and that the two-tier system should be retained for the rest of the county.
"For East Sussex, the commission recommended a new unitary authority to incorporate the existing boroughs of Brighton and Hove. I know that this recommendation has aroused strong local feelings for and against. On balance, however, I agree that the combined authority is the right solution for the area. The rest of the county will retain the status quo.
"I also propose to accept the commission's recommendations for Devon. The former county boroughs of Plymouth and Torbay will become unitary authorities. Elsewhere in the county the two-tier system will be retained, except that, as I announced on 2nd March, I am considering including
1140
Exeter —which is, of course, another former county borough—on the list of districts to be referred to the commission for fresh reviews.
"Similarly, I accept the commission's recommendation that Nottingham should become a unitary authority and that the rest of Nottinghamshire should remain two tier, subject to possible further reviews of the districts of Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe.
"For Essex, I propose to accept the recommendation that Southend should become a unitary authority. The commission also recommended that the boundary of Southend should be extended to include Southend Airport. I think that this needs further exploration and I may want to ask the commission in due course to look at the matter again.
"Elsewhere in Essex I have already announced that Thurrock and Basildon will be subject to further reviews. With that in mind I do not intend to act on the commission's recommendation for a major boundary change involving Basildon, Brentwood and Rochford. The rest of Essex will remain two tier.
"In Hereford and Worcester, I agree with the commission that the historic county of Herefordshire should be restored on its former boundaries as a single unitary authority; and that Worcestershire should be restored as a county in its own right, retaining the two-tier system throughout the county. The district of Malvern Hills, which was created at the time of the 1974 reorganisation, will be split, as recommended by the commission.
"For Leicestershire, I am minded to agree that the city of Leicester should be given unitary status. I am also minded to agree that the historic county of Rutland should regain its independence as a unitary authority. This is one case where the arguments based on local identity seem to me to be particularly strong.
"I recognise, however, that there are likely to be particular problems with the effective and convenient delivery of local services in this area, particularly with regard to Rutland, whose population is just 33,000. Before I introduce the order to implement these decisions, therefore, I shall want to be satisfied that good practical arrangements can be made for local services. I expect that, at least for some services, some form of joint working with neighbouring authorities may be needed. I shall also want to be satisfied that this can be paid for on the same basis, and within the same financial constraints, as for other reorganised authorities and without imposing unacceptably high costs on the people of Rutland.
"I now turn to three counties where I have decided to depart from the recommendations made by the commission. For Hampshire, the commission recommended that Portsmouth, Southampton and the New Forest should become unitary authorities. I agree with the recommendations for Portsmouth and Southampton. In the case of the New Forest, however, I have concluded that the case for unitary status is not sufficiently made out in a district which has more in common with the many districts recommended to

1141
remain in a two-tier structure. I have decided therefore that in the New Forest, as in the rest of Hampshire, the two-tier structure should be retained.
"Similar considerations have affected my decision for the neighbouring county of Dorset. I agree with the commission that the boroughs of Boumemouth and Poole should be given unitary status. But elsewhere in Dorset I note that the existing authorities are not enthusiastic about the commission's proposals. On balance, I have concluded that the rest of Dorset will be better served by the two-tier system.
"Finally, for Berkshire the commission has recommended the replacement of the county council by a structure of five unitary authorities. I agree that the county council should be abolished. But I disagree with the commission's recommendation that the districts of Bracknell Forest and Windsor & Maidenhead should be combined. I am satisfied that each of the existing districts in the county is capable of operating as a unitary authority and I propose to modify the commission's recommendations accordingly. The county area of Berkshire will be retained, together with the Lord Lieutenancy, but it will no longer have a county council.
"Although my decision for Berkshire follows a different pattern from other counties, I am satisfied that the difference is well justified. I note that it has the support of all the district councils concerned; and that until recently the county council also favoured a unitary structure for the county. I have said previously that different structures may be appropriate in different areas to meet different local circumstances; Berkshire is a case in point.
"I have given a full explanation of the background and reasons for these decisions today in an Answer to the honourable Member for Eastbourne. There are copies in the Library and the Vote Office.
"My officials will now start work on drafting the orders which are needed to put these decisions into effect. The local authorities and their associations will of course be consulted. I hope that the first orders will be ready to bring to the House soon after the local elections on 4th May. In the meanwhile we shall also be consulting on draft guidance to be given to the Local Government Commission for the fresh district-based reviews.
"In my previous Statement I announced that a small number of districts will be referred to the commission for further review and that I was considering whether to refer a limited number of others. Given the need to minimise uncertainty—and for there to be a clear end to the review process—I should perhaps repeat that, apart possibly from the two districts that I mentioned at the beginning of my Statement, I am unlikely to want to add to the list.
"The decisions I have announced today reinforce the pattern which has emerged from the review. In broad terms: abolition of the unloved 'artificial' counties created in 1974, which have never commanded the loyalty of local people; creation of unitary local government in many large non-metropolitan towns and cities which will be well placed to benefit from the extra coherence and
1142
effectiveness that unitary local government can bring; and elsewhere, the two-tier system retained, but with improved co-operation between the tiers.
"With these changes I hope that the House will agree that local government will be in better shape to meet the challenges that undoubtedly lie ahead."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that we all thank the Minister for the Statement which he has just read. It completes the Government's reception of the recommendations from the outgoing Local Government Commission and a series of recommendations which, broadly, we welcome. I am not sure about my position in regard to an interest but perhaps I may make clear that I speak as a former city councillor of Norwich and a former county councillor of Norfolk, as well as vice-president of the ADC.
So far there has come before your Lordships the abolition of the three counties dating from 1974: Cleveland, Avon and Humberside. At the beginning of March the other House was given by the Secretary of State the broad statement of strategy, which was broadly welcomed from the Labour Benches. In it, the Government proposed to restructure the Local Government Commission, give it new guidelines and effectively reinvent county boroughs within a two-tier local government structure for the rest of rural England. In the process they proposed to establish a decent exit strategy from the current shambles. Thirdly, we have the Statement today on the rest of the counties so far affected by the local government review.
We all commiserate with the present Ministers on the mess which they inherited. One is reminded of the phrase from "Yes, Minister". Sir Humphrey Appleby says: "We must do something. This is clearly something, therefore, we must do it". The mess that was left behind has been a local government commission without proper guidance. I have to say that it was because the Ministers at the time refused the amendments from our Benches which would have given proper guidance to the Local Government Commission. When the Minister did give such guidance, it was promptly overturned by the courts. Secondly, not only was the Local Government Commission lacking in proper guidance, despite the Opposition's efforts to give it some; but also the Local Government Commission had a maverick chairman in Sir John Banham. In consequence, over the past two years no decision seems to have borne any relationship to any other decisions. Local authorities, councillors, staff members, local authority associations could none of them predict the outcome of any review.
We do not call for uniformity. After all, local government is about local difference. But in local government we have needed a coherence of approach, a strategy which commands consent, which is workable, which offers value for money and which offers a chance of staying power, stamina, robustness. We hope that, in the light of the strategy announced on 2nd March, today's recommendations and the subsequent smaller districts referred back for review, the forthcoming

1143
settlement of local government will meet those criteria. Of course, we wish the new chairman, Sir David Cooksey, well. The Statement means that we now have the outcome for every shire county, apart from some individual districts on the Government's "A", "B" and "C" list.
I have some points and comments to make. First, I hope that the Secretary of State will now move quickly, that he will lay the statutory instruments for the 13 counties not affected by the individual district reviews. Secondly, as to the recommendations, we support the Minister in pursuing the strategy of county boroughs within a two-tier framework. We are glad to see that Derby City will have unitary status and that the Government are not going for a political fix in the rest of Derbyshire. We support the recommendations for Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton, but anxieties will remain about the New Forest. With a population of 165,000, it remains the largest of the districts not to be included in the review.
As to Wiltshire, I am sure it will be of considerable pleasure to my noble friend Lord Stoddart to hear the results for Swindon, which we support. We also welcome a unitary state for Hertfordshire. We endorse the strategy for Berkshire. Despite the petition today, I believe that we all accept that so far there has been no strong support for Berkshire County Council and until recently the council itself sided with and supported its own demise. If one pulls out Slough and Reading, let alone Newbury, one cannot justify a two-tier octopus-shaped county for the rest of Berkshire.
It is worth reminding ourselves that Essex will probably remain problematic. I am not sure that the Government have yet got it right. Needless to say, we are delighted that Norwich and The Wrekin have, as a result of representations made to Ministers, been included in the areas for further consideration.
Given that we have an outcome similar to what we on these Benches called for in the late 1970s as an organic change, perhaps we may have some assurances from the Minister. The first problem is that some districts not named by the Minister ought, by any criterion, to be considered for further review. We welcome the decision on Norwich and The Wrekin, but what about Oxford and Ipswich? Most of the authorities in the Minister's "C" list are larger, older and more used to self-government than the districts which will go for review. How can one defend reviewing Gloucester with a population of 92,000—a decision which we support—but not Oxford, with a population of 128,000? How can one support re-reviewing Exeter, with a population of 103,000—which we support—but not Ipswich, with a population of 114,000? How do we justify the inclusion of Rushcliffe—a decision which we certainly support—with a population of 103,000? Of course, it does have the charm of being represented by the current Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It would be helpful, first, if the Minister could give an assurance that, so far as possible, some of the outstanding historic county boroughs of a decent size and with strong traditions of self-government should continue to be included in the list, in order that we have
1144
an acceptable exit strategy. Secondly, can the Minister tell us whether this is correct? I believe that an additional 3½ million people are now coming into unitary government. Can the Minister say what the total population of England will be within unitary government, including the existing metropolitan districts and the new ones coming in?
Thirdly, can he give us additional assurances about staffing matters? It has rightly been a major concern on all sides of the House throughout the local government review. Will the Minister reassure us that the existing arrangements so far achieved for Avon, Humberside and Cleveland on staff transfers, redundancy, retirement issues and no-detriment packages will be furthered for the forthcoming reviews? Local authority services are about staff; they are about teachers, home helps and road engineers. The shambles that we have seen over the past two to three years has, sadly, affected local authority services.
Finally, we hope that with the proposals today, within the framework of the strategic settlement that was outlined by the Minister earlier, we shall see a new settlement for local government that will have some stamina and robustness. It would then be helpful if the Minister could say that, in addition to the new structural settlement, local government could enjoy a new financial and constitutional settlement as well. Now that we have, as it were, the physical shape of local government established, it is time for the Minister to settle the rest of the issues associated with local government. That means reviewing the standard spending assessments. It means returning the business rate to local communities. It means the end of capping, and allowing local people—not the Secretary of State—to determine what represents value for money each and every time that they vote (unlike the Secretary of State).
Now is the time to encourage public and private enterprise through municipal schemes. Now is surely the time to rebuild a strong, confident people-focused local government which enhances, as we would all wish, a pluralistic democracy in England today.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As this is primarily an opportunity for questions, I shall refrain from commenting in detail on the content of the Statement as it applies to particular areas. I also feel quite strongly, and perhaps this is the moment to say so, that comment and responses from the remoteness of Westminster—which is how it must appear to those outside this building—are often difficult for people to stomach. Despite all the attempts at local consultation, there must have been quite a feeling among people on the ground that they were being imposed on, indeed dumped on in some cases.
I turn to the consultation on guidance for the re-review. I raised this matter with the Minister who told us on the occasion of the North Yorkshire and Humberside orders that the consultation would take place during April. I ask again whether he feels that that is an appropriate time at which to consult given that councillors and, by definition, local electors will be involved in the district elections in May. How do the

1145
Government intend to ensure that the consultation is effective given the distractions that the consultees will be suffering during that period.
Have the Government considered what explanation they will give to those areas where decisions are delayed because of reconsideration in neighbouring areas? What reassurances will they give as to the process? I take as an example the comment in the Statement that the Secretary of State does not intend to act on the commission's recommendation for a major boundary change in the Basildon area of Essex because decisions in neighbouring areas are still to be taken. The Statement differs a little from the response to the honourable Member for Eastbourne, to which reference was made. It is important that, where a decision has been put on ice, those involved should understand why, in order to avoid a lot of energy being spent on the promotion of options which may not in fact be on the table.
I cannot forbear but to comment on the proposals for Rutland. Hansard will not have recorded the murmur that went round the House in response to the proposal that Rutland should become a unitary authority. It may he a matter of very considerable nostalgia, and that may he all right in its place, though there are some who say that nostalgia is not what it used to be. I look forward to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, may put forward to the order for Rutland to deal with the very thorny issue of joint working, in regard both to working with neighbouring authorities and to payment for it. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance as to the consultation that there will be as to how strategic services will be dealt with. These are not merely a matter of strategic planning, which has featured particularly in the orders we have seen. They relate to trading standards and services for children, to take but two which I know are of interest to noble Lords.
The Minister referred to the drafting of orders to put the decisions into effect. I welcome the fact that the local authorities and the associations will be consulted. I have raised with the Minister, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and other noble Lords, a number of technical details arising out of the orders that have already gone through Parliament. The Minister will he aware of particular concerns. I accept that he answered a number of quite difficult points that I put to him on the occasion of the last order. But he will be aware that the local authority associations remain concerned about a number of transitional matters which they feel have not been properly addressed. I look forward to his reassurance on that point.
The reaction that many people give to the whole issue of the review relates particularly to the cost of it. I wonder whether the Government will shortly be in a position to assess the total costs of what, I have to say, I find a very sad and sorry exercise. Whether the money has been top-sliced from the settlement for the local authorities is not by any means the whole of the issue. That money has come from somewhere and has to be paid.
The Statement concludes with a reference to the challenges that undoubtedly lie ahead. I hope that that is not as ominous a point as it at first appears. I would have welcomed the Government expressing real
1146
confidence in local government and commenting that they felt, following the review, that they would be able to work far more in partnership with local government, regarding it as their agent and administrator. I would be grateful for any reassurances from the Minister on that basis.
Finally, I, too, wish Sir David Cooksey and his colleagues well. Again I take the opportunity of thanking the councillors and the staff in those authorities which will cease to exist in their current form. It must be an extremely tough time for all of them.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am of course grateful to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that she broadly welcomes this Statement, as indeed she indicated that she broadly welcomed the Statement that was made on 2nd March. I am also grateful to hear from both noble Baronesses the welcome and the good wishes to Sir David Cooksey, who will take over the very important job of looking at the new districts from 1st July.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, gave, I believe, a measure of support to what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced in the last two Statements. However, she did comment that the Local Government Commission had not been given proper guidance and that when it did get proper guidance it was overturned in the courts. I am not prepared to comment on that but I believe that what I have been able to indicate to the House today and was indicated previously by my right honourable friend meets with broad agreement on all sides of the House. The noble Baroness indicated that, now that that is out of the way, it is important that the Secretary of State should move quickly. We hope to consult on the draft orders for change in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Durham very shortly. We shall not be laying the draft orders before Parliament until after the local elections in May. Any change in those counties will take place in 1997, elections taking place in May 1996. We hope shortly to consult on those particular draft orders.
We hope that some reorganisations resulting from the new reviews will take place in 1997. But, realistically, some will not take place until 1998, elections having taken place the previous May. The noble Baroness wanted confirmation of the timetable.
The noble Baroness indicated her support for Berkshire. Obviously that is a very difficult decision and one which the Secretary of State was very concerned should be got right. I am glad that basically she endorses that decision.
The noble Baroness also said that she was interested in knowing whether there was a possibility of more districts being put forward for the list that my right honourable friend had already indicated. She mentioned particularly Oxford and Ipswich and gave the numbers which led her to believe that those districts should be put forward for re-review. My right honourable friend has indicated that, if other districts believe that they have a case, they can make their views known. However, we intend to ask the commission to carry out fresh reviews of a short list of districts, which would reflect the views around the House. Given the need for

1147
stability, it is very unlikely that my right honourable friend would wish to give further directions to the commission for the foreseeable future.
The noble Baroness asked about the total population in unitary districts. I am afraid that I do not have that figure in my brief but I shall write to her with the answer. Quite rightly, she was interested and concerned about the staffing arrangements. We are committed to treating the staff fairly. As the noble Baroness knows, there is an independent staff commission set up in England to advise the Secretary of State on reorganisation staffing issues. The staff commission has issued guidance to local authorities about staff transfers and recruitment. We estimate that at least 90 per cent. of staff will simply be employed by successor authorities, including all direct service providers such as teachers, care workers, fire fighters and road menders—road engineers, I stand corrected.
The noble Baroness said that now was the time to review the financial proposals for the funding of local authorities. I believe that to be a completely different subject. I understand her concerns and her wish that we should look at the SSAs; but there may be a better time to go into that and perhaps we can debate it at another time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rather surprised me by saying that she did not want to make a comment from Westminster, as though somehow Westminster was not here, with the rest of us. I certainly would like to indicate that I believe that most noble Lords in the House welcome the Statement I have been able to make.
The noble Baroness asked again about the date of the consultation on the new guidance. I can only repeat what I indicated on a previous occasion; namely, that we hope to consult on the new guidance in April and May. I understand her concerns. I have indicated them to my right honourable friend. I understand the distraction of the local elections. But I hope that we would direct the commission in June or July to carry out the new district reviews. It is essential that we should get on with the business rather than delay the matter. Again, I note her comments.
I hope that the noble Baroness understands about Essex and in particular the concern in Basildon. My right honourable friend indicated on 2nd March that he intended to ask the Local Government Commission to re-review Thurrock and Basildon on their existing boundaries. He noted what the commission was saying about looking at the boundaries of Basildon and would leave that for the time being so that there should not be any problem with Essex. Essex should know exactly where it stands, apart from those two areas of Thurrock and Basildon.
I understand the problems of Rutland. In indicating that he is concerned also with the difficulties of dealing with a district having a population of only 33,000, my right honourable friend wants to be persuaded. The Statement indicates that he is "minded" to agree, which in my terms certainly shows that he has not agreed yet but is minded to agree so long as he can be satisfied that the arrangements about which the noble Baroness is concerned on matters of planning and financing of
1148
services can be done in an effective way and would not put too much cost on people living in Rutland. There is some concern about that.
Finally, perhaps I may touch on the total cost. That will be affected by the decisions that the local authorities take in every individual case. The Government believe that there will be a transitional cost which will affect local areas. The £50 million I mentioned in reply to a question earlier today is not top-sliced. It is additional money which the Government have put forward. But local authorities will have to recover the transitional costs from future savings. In some cases there will be some additional costs for unitary authorities in the long run but it very much depends on how the local authorities themselves decide how they will arrange their affairs.
I believe that we should make certain that what is produced at the end of the exercise is effective government, given to local people at the best possible value for money.
4.18 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for the Statement and in principle support what has been said. I should declare an interest to the extent that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I am vice-president of the Association of County Councils and an ex-chairman of Hampshire County Council. I am delighted with the news that New Forest is to remain in Hampshire.
I feel it right to take this opportunity to wish the great cities of Portsmouth and Southampton well, together with all their officers and members. In 1974 I was asked to stay on in local government to bring those two cities into Hampshire. It is sad to see them now, 20 years or so later, disappear once more into county boroughs. I do not always agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, regarding local government. But in this particular situation I agree with her, two to one. The "one" with which I disagree concerns the New Forest. But I am heartily in support of allowing those local authorities which are now free to do so to get on with their business and their chief officers to do their job without spending 50 per cent. of their time looking at reorganisation.
The other matter with which I agree with the noble Baroness —though I accept, as the noble Viscount said, that it is for another day—is that the Government must consider giving the uniform business rate back to local government.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am pleased to hear what the noble Earl said in relation to Hampshire. I am glad that he approves of the stand taken by my right honourable friend that Portsmouth and Southampton should be returned to county borough status, as he put it; unitary authority status as it will be in the future.
I am glad too that the noble Earl is delighted with the news in relation to the New Forest. That is of particular concern being, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, indicated, the district with the largest population which has not been accorded unitary status. However, it does not have the tradition of unitary local government; it is a largely rural area and it is right to leave it as part of

1149
Hampshire. I take note of what the noble Earl said about the UBR. But that is part of another debate which I suspect we shall have on more than one occasion in the future.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question for clarification. Cambridgeshire was not mentioned in the Statement. However, in the Statement of the Secretary of State on 2nd March he said that he was minded to look at Peterborough, among other cities, as a possible unitary authority, and also at Huntingdonshire. Is that still the position or, as they were not mentioned today, has there been a change?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am happy to indicate that that is exactly the position, as was outlined on 2nd March.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend about Cleveland, which was mentioned by those opposite if not by the Minister. As I understand it, the county council is to be abolished and we are to go to four district councils. But there will remain the Cleveland police, the fire brigade, the probation service, child care and so forth, along with all the charities operating in the area. As far as I know, it has not been decided whether the county will remain as a geographical county without a county council. Can my noble friend say when that will be announced? There is also the question of the lieutenancy and so forth, in which I am obviously interested.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not sure that I shall be able to answer all my noble friend's questions. The order has passed and I confess that I cannot remember all the details of it. However, the police authorities are now independent of local government and will have their own authority area. The fire brigade is relatively the same and the lieutenancy of Cleveland will remain.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for the calm and deliberate way in which he repeated the Statement, but it is worth pointing out to the House why we are in the middle of reorganising local government, The story goes back some 10 years or more to when in local elections the metropolitan county councils were all won for the Labour Party; the Tory Government could not stomach that and had to abolish them. We pointed out at the time that when the shire counties made the same sort of decision the Government would come after them; and they have done. They have either torn the heart out of some of the counties in our fair land or dismembered them.
Although we can sometimes understand local people wanting to obtain more control over their services, in large measure local people have lessened their control over local services, particularly in relation to the police, the fire brigade and other county-wide services which will no longer come under direct effective locally elected control.
While we understand those issues, some of which are more important than others, I am concerned—following 10 years of attack by this Government on the education system—that one of the effects of these further
1150
announcements will be to bring further turmoil and problems for the local education authorities. In answering earlier questions the Minister said that these matters are not for debate this afternoon. But I hope that the Government recognise that tearing the heart out of some county councils and dismembering others will have a major effect on one of the prime services provided by county councils—education. I implore the Government to recognise the effect on the education services. I ask them to take steps, particularly by providing extra financial support to the local education authorities in those areas, to ensure that the education of our children does not suffer.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to be more conservative than most people in this House, who recognise that there is room for diversity and that decisions should be based on the most appropriate structure for each area. The noble Lord appeared to indicate that he wanted no change at all. History, traditions and local preferences are all relevant. The Government's aim remains to create a local government structure that can deliver effective services and help build vigorous self-sustaining communities.
I understand the noble Lord's point in regard to education. However, he should reflect on the amount of money that the Government have injected into the education system over the past three years. Everybody recognises that this year's is a tough settlement, but most authorities have been able to provide the same level of service and education as they provided previously. Much of what the noble Lord said has a rather tangential bearing on my Statement, and we shall have an opportunity of discussing his points in more detail at another time.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, did I detect in my noble friend's interesting Statement a slight switch of policy in that the Government have decided to go for, in the case of the shire counties, a national blueprint of two-tier authorities in the major part of the counties, but in the large towns, particularly those which have been county boroughs, to have unitary authorities? If so, does that not depart from what we were told on the Second Reading of the Bill and from what we have been told in letters from the Prime Minister and Statements by Ministers?
Does not my noble friend realise that that departure affects particularly my county of Kent? There were no county boroughs before, but there has been a reference back—I refer to the Statement of 2nd March—regarding two possible unitary authorities in the north-west of Kent. Exactly the same proposal was put to the citizens of Kent by the commission as a first option and rejected by 70 per cent. of them. Is the Government's new policy designed to impose that blueprint somehow or other without taking any account of local wishes? Will he give us an assurance that under the new guidance local people will have to be consulted and their opinions taken account of?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend indicates that the Government have listened to local opinion. He mentioned the debates which we had when the Local Government Act was being passed when a

1151
blueprint was considered. Now he indicates that we have returned more to a two-tier system. That was recommended by the Local Government Commission, whose duty it was to listen to local views. That is why my right honourable friend has made the decisions that he has made. He wanted to indicate that there should be some coherence in the decisions.
I note what my noble friend says about referring the Medway towns in Kent for re-review by the newly constituted commission, with its new chairman and new guidance. Whatever guidance the commission is given, it is independent and it will certainly take note of local opinion.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. He mentioned Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Those proud counties will be delighted with the Minister's decision to separate them again. He also made an announcement about the Malvern Hills. However, I did not quite gather what will happen with regard to the organisation of the hills. The Minister will know that conservators are appointed for about three years to look after the considerable amount of acreage of the Malvern Hills. Will that be continued or will another organisation have the custody of the very gracious and beautiful hills?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I did indeed indicate that Herefordshire would be returned to its old county boundary, including part of the Malvern Hills district which was part of Herefordshire in 1974. So the unitary authority area of Herefordshire would be as it was. I shall have to take advice on the organisation of the conservators now that that decision has been taken because it effectively means that there is a split in the Malvern Hills district between Worcestershire and Herefordshire. If I may, I shall write to my noble friend with the answer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one or two points with regard to Wiltshire and Berkshire. The Minister's statement about Thamesdown—that is, Swindon—was very welcome to me because this is an opportune moment for the people of that area to consider naming the unitary authority Swindon rather than Thamesdown. Everyone would then know exactly where it was. Is the noble Viscount aware that the people in Swindon will welcome the Statement with the greatest of pleasure? They have been waiting for nearly 25 years to have unitary status. They represent 30 per cent. of the population and provide 40 per cent. of the finance of Wiltshire County Council. I had the honour to represent Swindon for 13 years. I can assure the Minister that I very much welcome the Statement and I feel sure that the people of Swindon, Thamesdown or whatever one likes to call it will also do so.
In the case of Berkshire, I support what the Secretary of State has done in accepting that Berkshire is not a viable unit in itself and that there are six viable unitary authorities there. What is proposed will be welcomed by most people in Berkshire, and it will work. Has he had an indication from the county council, which advocated its own abolition on the basis that the county would be
1152
better governed by unitary authorities, that it will now accept the Secretary of State's decision, although it is perhaps a little early as it has only just received it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am delighted to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I remember from my early days spent in Wiltshire not far from Swindon that the noble Lord represented that proud town for such a long time. I am glad that he welcomes the Statement. It would certainly give me a little more indication of where Thamesdown is if it reverted to the name of Swindon. But that is my personal opinion. I am certain that Wiltshire will also be pleased with the decision.
I am glad that the noble Lord accepts my right honourable friend's decision about Berkshire. I know that he had a long connection with Reading and that he would indicate that a unitary authority in Reading would be the right thing.
During the course of this long-running affair the county council has changed its stance. It would be a question of changing it again if it were really going to welcome the change. Perhaps it is a little early, as it has only just heard the news, for the county council to indicate where it stands. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, indicated that at an earlier stage the county council supported the division into unitary authorities. On that basis there is hope that it may now also support the decision taken by my right honourable friend.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may direct my noble friend's attention once again to Essex. Whereas most people accepted that Southend should have unitary government, it seems slightly bizarre that the Government should want to reopen the issue surrounding Basildon and Thurrock when 69 per cent. of the people in the area voted for a two-tier system. My noble friend Lord Aldington raised a similar point with regard to Kent. Would it not be even more bizarre if we ended up with Basildon and Thurrock being a unitary authority while a proud and historic city like Colchester would be part of a two-tier system? How is it possible to distinguish in this matter? There is a widespread feeling in Essex that the argument has gone on long enough and that Southend should have unitary government and the rest should be left as a two-tier system. That would be a very fair solution.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend has said. I shall report to my right honourable friend all the comments that have been made about the reaction to the Statement today. There is concern and there was concern in the mind of the Local Government Commission when it was considering Basildon and its boundaries. The commission will re-review Basildon and Thurrock to see whether they should have unitary status, although it will be reviewing them only on their existing boundaries. There is a good case for both. My right honourable friend has indicated that those are areas with high populations and that the Local Government Commission should be given the task of looking at them once again. As I said to my noble friend Lord Aldington, the commission will take note of public opinion.

Pensions Bill [H.L.]
4.40 p.m.
Clause 42 ["Blowing the whistle"]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 25, line 37, leave out ("immediately") and insert ("after informing the trustees").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at previous stages we made it clear from these Benches that we were not at all happy with the limited powers of the regulator and that we believed that he should be given greater powers than are afforded him under the Bill. We are particularly unhappy about the fact that the regulator is relying on whistle blowing by the actuary, auditors and members of the trustees, and that it is on their willingness to whistle blow and to draw the attention of the regulator to what they regard as irregularities or potential irregularities that the regulator must rely.
I know well what the Minister will say in reply because he said it at previous stages. I do not suppose that I have been any more successful in changing his mind on this than on any other matter with which we have dealt during the passage of the Bill. However, I should like at least to draw the attention of the House to what seems a most unsatisfactory characteristic of the policy of relying on whistle-blowers. I refer to the fact that they work for the organisation against which they have to blow the whistle. That puts them into a position of conflict of interest which, in my view, is extremely undesirable. It will surely tempt them to turn a blind eye if they possibly can. People will not want to be placed in such a position involving a conflict of interest.
It seems to me that the only way in which the auditor and actuary can honourably blow the whistle against the people for whom they are working and by whom they are paid will be if they inform those people that they are proposing to blow the whistle. I know that objections can be raised that, if they do that, steps will immediately be taken to conceal the material that might show that all is not going well. However, it is not necessarily easy to conceal such evidence. The provisions that I am suggesting would at least put the actuary and the auditor into a position that they can honourably accept so that they can work for an organisation at the same time as revealing to the regulator matters that they consider to be unsatisfactory within that organisation. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support my noble friend in this amendment, which raises a very important issue. I have been in industry all my life—for nearly 50 years—and, whether in the public or the private sector, we have employed auditors. The role of the auditor was not only to perform his audit function but also to advise us when we were doing things which were running counter to the regulations laid down in company law or in other ways. A relationship of trust is therefore built up. I have never experienced a situation in which a company in which I have served, whether publicly or privately owned, did not pay serious attention to its auditor's comments. The last thing that we ever wanted was to have an unfavourable comment when the annual accounts were presented to the shareholders.
1154
Trustees are being asked to serve in a voluntary capacity. That is a difficult situation. If they are to be unaware of the fact that their professional advisers arc likely to blow the whistle, I believe that that relationship of trust between advisers and enterprises could be seriously damaged. If the Government were to propose a similar arrangement to this whereby company auditors could whistle blow without advising their companies in advance, I would regard it as a most reprehensible step.
Like my noble friend Lady Seear, I fail to see how professional advisers can properly undertake their task of responsibility towards those whom they are advising without letting them know in advance if they are doing something which the advisers feel duty bound to refer to the regulator. Most trustees would then immediately set about correcting that difficulty. It is wrong that they should not be given such an opportunity. However, under the clause, I presume that the first the trustees would know about the apprehensions of their professional advisers would be when they received a letter from the regulator stating that he had been advised by the advisers that the trustees had gone wrong. I believe that that is the wrong way to set about this. If we want people to serve as trustees—that is, in a purely voluntary capacity—we must put them in a position of being able to develop trust between themselves and their professional advisers. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will recognise the force of the argument and either accept the amendment today or agree that a similar amendment should be made in another place.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that we on these Benches support the amendment that has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I cannot understand any basis for opposing it. It seems entirely sensible that an auditor or an actuary of any trust scheme must first, before giving a written report to the authority on any prescribed matter, inform the trustees about it. If there is to be any opposition to the amendment, I cannot understand of what it can possibly consist.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the arguments that have been advanced from the Benches opposite. We have discussed this matter previously and, as I have said at earlier stages, I do not consider that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is either necessary or wise.
Clause 42 does not actually prevent the auditor or actuary from informing the trustees that he is making a report to the authority. In fact, under the terms of engagement drawn up under Clause 41, his first duty will be to the trustees. I imagine therefore that it would be very rare for an actuary or auditor, when blowing the whistle to the authority, not to report the matter to the trustees at the same time. However, having said that, we see no case for making it a requirement. After all, it might be the trustees who are responsible for the

1155
misdemeanour. In that case, and depending on the circumstances, it might be totally inappropriate to alert them for fear of prejudicing any investigation.
Turning to the word "immediately" which the amendment seeks to remove, I believe that the word is a necessary part of the clause. Our prime objective must be the security of members' pension entitlements. If there is any reason to believe that the statutory requirements are not being met, it is vital that reports should be made to the authority without delay. I am surprised that noble Lords opposite are suggesting that there might be such a delay. The authority can then investigate concerns at the earliest possible opportunity. Surely that is the best way to ensure that members get the protection and security that they need and deserve.
A trust board which carries out its duties properly and responds rapidly to any notification of something going wrong will have nothing to fear from the authority. It should be able to maintain a constructive relationship with the authority while putting things right, and with its auditors and actuaries, and then benefit from getting a clean bill of health from the authority at the end of the day.
I hope that in light of my explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. However, if she does not, I hope that my noble friends will join me in the Division Lobby.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that is the unsatisfactory answer that I had expected from the Minister. Of course, it is all part of the bigger issue that we discussed so frequently in the earlier stages; that is, the real powers of the regulator and the fact that the regulator has inadequate powers and relies on a system of whistle blowing. That is not the way to achieve the results that the Government say they wish to achieve.
The Government are relying on the whistle blower, and, as the Minister just said, it is early when things are beginning to go wrong that it is important that the regulator should be aware of what is happening. I suggest that the regulator will not receive that information. Whistle blowers will not blow the whistle until they are sure that things are going wrong. Let us imagine a situation in which the auditors, thinking that things are not well, blow the whistle, only to find that they were in error in so thinking. I suggest that that is the end of the relationship between the auditor and that company. If they leave it until they are absolutely sure, they have left it until it is too late.
The whole weakness of the Bill is that the regulator himself has insufficient powers to do the job. However, having realised that the Government Chief Whip has done his job with even more than his usual efficiency on this occasion, I do not propose to waste the time of the House in testing the opinion of the House, because it would not be the opinion of the House; it would be the opinion of the hordes who are in and out of the bar and elsewhere—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Seear: My Lords, well a greater proportion of those on the other side, anyway, who will not have
1156
heard the arguments. I just hope that in another place other people will take up this point and deal with it more effectively. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Other responsibilities of trustees, employers, etc.]:
The Earl of Buckinghamshire The Earl of Buckinghamshire moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 26, line 29, at end insert:
("(1A) Regulations must require the trustees of a trust scheme, except in prescribed circumstances—

(a) to maintain written procedures for the payment, transfer or receipt of cash or other assets, and

(b) to obtain from the auditor at prescribed times in respect of prescribed periods a statement containing the information mentioned in subsection (1B).

(1B) The information referred to in subsection (1A) (b) is—

(a)the opinion of the auditor as to whether or not the procedures mentioned in subsection (1A) (a) are appropriate,

(b) relevant particulars known to the auditor of any actual or apparent failure to comply with those procedures during the prescribed period if the auditor considers the failure to be material,

(c) the steps that have been taken by the auditor to identify any such failure,

(d) the opinion of the auditor as to whether or not further steps are appropriate in the circumstances, and

(e) such other information as may be prescribed.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, on Report I moved an amendment on custody which my noble friend the Minister unfortunately declined to accept. This amendment is another part of the ratchet to prevent fraud. It would require occupational pension schemes to have a financial control system approved by the scheme auditor, and upon which he reports regularly to the trustees. It may seem odd that there is no such requirement under the present law, and even odder that such a requirement was not recommended by the Goode Committee in the light of the Maxwell affair.
The recent Barings difficulties underline the need for all financial institutions and pension schemes that fall into that category to have rigorous financial control systems. Nowhere is that more important than in the case, as I said, of pension schemes.
Although the effects of fraud might to some extent be mitigated by the new compensation scheme, the compensation payable will be less than the whole loss. It is still necessary to do our utmost to put obstacles in the way of fraud to try to reduce the number of cases where it happens and the size of the sums misappropriated.
I am advised that in the current situation there is a considerable difference between schemes in the way financial controls are applied. Some systems provide a much greater level of protection than others. In certain cases, for example, important transactions involving millions of pounds can still be carried out by telephone by one trusted person, and it could be several days before any flaw in the documentation, or any other problem, was picked up.
I tried to deal with that matter on Report in my amendment on custody, but, as I said, that was not accepted. Under this amendment, responsibility for approving the financial control system and reporting upon its operation would be placed firmly upon the scheme's auditors, who are the people in the best position to undertake that task. That would be in addition to their normal audit responsibilities.
In case it may be thought that the amendment would introduce unnecessary bureaucracy, I should like to point out that a financial control system need not necessarily be complex. It would usually necessitate just a few pages of sensible procedures about the signing of cheques, the authorisation of payments, and other such matters, the system being tailor-made to the particular circumstance and designed to avoid too much power being placed in the hands of one or more persons. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as my noble friend explained, the amendment would require trustees to have in place a system of financial controls. Of course, that is not something new. Trustees, as the people responsible under trust law for safeguarding the assets of the pension fund, have always needed to have a sound control system in order to be able to discharge their responsibilities. Indeed, if a scheme did not have adequate financial controls the auditor would presumably say so by qualifying his annual report.
Because it is such a fundamental part of a trustee's duty and because checking that a scheme's financial control systems are satisfactory is a normal part of an auditor's duty, we had not considered it necessary to make specific reference to the matter in the Pensions Bill. Moreover, the Bill itself serves also to reinforce trustees' responsibilities in that respect. We believe, therefore, that this amendment is not necessary to ensure that trustees do exercise control over financial matters.
However, I do recognise the importance of such controls and now that my noble friend has raised it, I will consider carefully whether the position is in fact satisfactory. If, despite my initial view, an amendment along the lines suggested does seem necessary, we will introduce it in another place.
I hope that, in view of what I have said, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his positive reply. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Minimum funding requirement):
Lord Eatwell Lord Eatwell moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 31, line 6, at end insert ("which shall allow determination, calculation and verification either—

(a) on a discontinuance basis, or

(b) on an ongoing basis

and if the trustees or managers of a scheme to which this section applies choose the latter a levy must be paid by them to a central discontinuance fund").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had extensive debates on this question in Committee and on Report. It is essentially a technical matter and not a party political
1158
matter. I shall begin by saying that we on these Benches regard the Government's objectives as entirely laudable. We support them wholeheartedly. The objectives of establishing what is now called a "minimum funding requirement" are to provide the greatest possible protection to the members of pension funds in the event of their company becoming insolvent. That is the role of this requirement.
The fundamental problem that we have faced all along is that the scale of the contributions required, and the type of assets in which those contributions are invested—whether they be gilts or equities—will be different when the fund is valued on a discontinuance or wind-up basis from when it is valued on an ongoing basis. Our problem has been to devise the best security for members on either one or other of those two bases of valuing a fund.
The Government began by imposing a funding standard defined on a discontinuance basis. That is essentially a sort of snapshot approach. It is important to realise that that is at odds with the investment strategy which has been pursued by successful pension funds over the past 30 years. That investment strategy has been based on well over 80 per cent. of contributions being invested in equities, but the very nature of the equity market is that it is subject to fluctuation—sometimes large fluctuation—consequently, using a discontinuance or wind-up criterion, funding will often not be adequate, even though on an ongoing basis the funding is more than adequate. If a discontinuance approach were enforced the result would be that funds would necessarily have to adapt to a different investment strategy, with the result, as Goode recognised, that serious problems could be created. It is worth quoting from the Goode Report on that matter. At paragraph 4.4.31 the report states that a minimum funding requirement of this type,
"could force intrinsically healthy schemes to reduce benefits and increase contributions substantially in order to be able to meet liabilities on a hypothetical discontinuance which in the ordinary way would be very unlikely to occur. A scheme's investment managers might feel constrained to move from an equity based to a fixed-interest or index-linked portfolio so as to be certain of covering its wind-up liabilities, with the likelihood that over the long term it would lose both income and the prospects of capital growth, and benefits would go down".
That is the fundamental problem with the discontinuance approach.
The Government, having decided to back this particular horse, have tried to tackle the problems created by the discontinuance approach by, on the one hand, watering it down and, on the other, by moving steadily towards an ongoing approach. That has seriously weakened the discontinuance approach without, I suggest, producing a truly coherent alternative.
Perhaps we may look at the watering down. The Government have decided to define liabilities on the basis of the so-called cash equivalence of benefits of the pension fund determined with respect to the interest rates on long-term gilts. This cash equivalence, as has been mentioned since Second Reading, will not be

1159
enough to purchase an insured annuity; that is, the scheme will not by this definition be truly solvent. The pension is not protected.
Secondly, the Government weakened the position still further by permitting very large schemes to evaluate 25 per cent. of their liabilities to existing pensioners with respect to the rate of return on equities, which is typically higher than on gilts. This lowered the cash equivalence further and meant that the pension was less well protected.
Having weakened the criterion, the Government then moved slowly towards an ongoing basis. They proposed that asset values should be smoothed over defined periods to try to avoid the arbitrariness of evaluating an equity portfolio on a snapshot basis. It is not at all clear that that will work. On Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, argued that it would not. I can see it working only if the period over which the smoothing takes place is defined with respect to best actuarial techniques for ongoing funds; that is, if it becomes an ongoing fund and the discontinuance argument is abandoned.
The fourth change was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in a letter to my noble friend Lady Hollis. He said, with respect to large schemes, that,
"if their sponsoring employer went into liquidation, [they] would have to be run on as closed funds. They would have the administrative infrastructure to do so. They would, realistically, be able to run on as closed funds, delivering pension benefits as they fall due—reliably and cost efficiently".
Quite so; that is an ongoing basis and not a wind-up.
Finally, the Government renamed the previous minimum solvency requirement "the minimum funding requirement". Throughout consideration of the Bill, the Government's actions have been an implicit admission that a minimum funding requirement defined on a discontinuance basis will introduce major distortions and create significant difficulties often for well-run funds. That was pointed out in Committee and on Report by the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Clark.
It must always be remembered that the discontinuance funding criterion specified in the Bill is to be applied to thousands of well-run funds in an attempt to catch the few rogues and incompetents in the industry. There is also the obvious danger that the minimum funding requirement, defined in discontinuance terms, will become the standard funding requirement, confirming the prediction of the Goode Report of higher contributions and lower benefits.
As I said, we entirely accept the Government's objective and we support it. We want to have the best possible protection for pensioners. The amendment proposes that pension funds be permitted to apply to the regulator on terms to be defined in regulations to define their minimum funding requirement either on a discontinuance basis, if that is most appropriate to that fund, or on an ongoing basis. The appropriateness could be decided in consultation with the regulator. Therefore, the clause would make available the ongoing approach and the advantages of that approach are obvious.
But what are the disadvantages of the ongoing approach? I have talked about the disadvantage of the discontinuance basis. The key disadvantage of the ongoing approach is that, given the fluctuations in the equity market, a pension fund which adopts a minimum funding requirement on an ongoing basis may be inadequately funded at the snapshot moment when the employer ceases trading. As has been mentioned several times in our debates, that is highly unlikely in the case of a fund that is run on a basis of the best actuarial practice. On several occasions the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, told us that government surveys have discovered that well-run funds typically will not suffer from the problem, but it is a possibility.
The way to deal with the problem is by the provision of a central discontinuance fund, which might, for example, be a government agency. In the event of company insolvency, it can keep the fund going so that it achieves its smooth, medium-term valuation. It avoids the folly of a pension fund being forced to wind up at just the moment when the markets are in such a state that wind-up is to the maximum disadvantage of the members.
Perhaps we may consider the disadvantages of a central discontinuance fund. What are the arguments against it? An argument that has been put forward is that a central discontinuance fund will mean that well-run funds will subsidise badly-run funds. That is nonsense. The case is that a company has ceased to trade. Such a company may have a fund which is run perfectly well and competently; it is a free-standing element. We have heard in debates about companies which have ceased to trade and have left pension funds behind them; for example, public sector companies, when privatised, ceased to trade as a public sector company and their pensions fund were left behind. No one has suggested that those pension funds were run badly. They have continued as closed funds. The argument about the well-run fund subsidising the badly-run fund is nonsense.
Secondly, it has been argued that this is in some way an alternative to a minimum funding requirement. That too is nonsense. The two issues need to go together; we want a minimum funding requirement defined on an ongoing basis and then, in the unhappy event of the employer ceasing to trade at just the moment when the stock market is down, a central discontinuance fund keeping the fund going until the market recovers. Therefore, one will avoid the nonsense of winding up the pension fund at the worst possible moment.
A third argument made against a central discontinuance fund is that it might be unable to meet its obligations. That is provided for in the amendment by those pensions funds which opt for valuation on an ongoing basis being required to make a contribution. Given the Goode prediction that on an ongoing basis general pension funds' contributions will be lower and benefits higher, the small contribution to sustain the central discontinuance fund seems to be a reasonable price to pay.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned on Report the problem of the heterogeneity of liabilities of various funds which might be amalgamated into the

1161
central discontinuance fund. I suggest that it is not a problem. The central discontinuance fund could provide a standard set of benefits, the scale of which would be linked to the minimum funding requirement. The central discontinuance fund could also have the additional benefit that, as the Government Actuary proposed, the scheme could be used as a device for facilitating mobility between occupational pension schemes, which surely is the fundamental weakness of the entire occupational pensions industry.
This is a belts and braces amendment. It is designed to maximise security while minimising disruption. It makes available the two approaches; that is, discontinuance and ongoing. As will be clear, I have doubts about the strength of the discontinuance criterion as now applied by the Government and as watered down. However, I am prepared to believe that the Government are doing their best on this matter. I believe that they have made the best of a bad job with respect to the discontinuance requirement. Indeed, it may be appropriate for some funds.
If the amendment were accepted it would give members confidence in their pension funds without reducing the value of their pensions. It would allow employers to adopt the most efficient funding strategy for their pension funds. As is often the case in moving amendments, I am totally at a loss as to why the Government should possibly resist this amendment. In their amendments to the late and—perhaps I may suggest—unlamented minimum solvency requirement, the Government have moved steadily towards valuation on an ongoing basis. The approach which we have adopted is based on the recommendations of the Government Actuary. It also has wide support in the industry. I wish that the Government would accept the logic of their own position and support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. He has pointed to a fundamental issue in our deliberations. As we have noted as we have gone through our considerations on the pension industry, it contributes some 30 per cent. to investments on the Stock Exchange. It is of vital importance that that contribution to our industrial welfare should continue. We must reconcile continued investment . in the industrial strength of the country on the one hand and the security of pensioners on the other.
The noble Lord has drawn a distinction quite rightly between the discontinuance basis of valuing pension funds which could jeopardise the continued investment in equities and minimise the risk which they take in their investments and the ongoing basis which runs the risk that, at a particular point in time when a business ceases to operate, the valuation of their investment in the Stock Exchange might be very low.
I believe that the noble Lord has suggested a quite ingenious way out. It is a way out which many other countries have adopted. The Government would be well advised to take this seriously and to reconcile those two issues: maintenance of the investment of pension funds in the equity market on the one hand and safeguarding
1162
the security of pensioners or members of schemes on the other. I hope that the Minister will take this matter very seriously.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has made a very interesting case. I declare my interest as a trustee of a major pension fund and as a former trustee of the parliamentary pension fund. That fund could never be valued on a discontinuance basis, or at least I hope that it would not be, otherwise some of us in this House would be uneasy.
This is a very complex issue and the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for the clear way in which he has explained the amendment. His argument for giving an option for the fund to be either on a discontinuance basis or an ongoing basis is one with which I certainly go along. I hope that the Minister will agree to look with some care at that matter. I hope that he will not ask us to dismiss it today.
However, I do not go along with the idea of establishing a discontinuance fund. That adds an unnecessary piece of bureaucracy and will impose costs of one kind or another on other schemes. I should be very uneasy about that. I endorse the idea of giving an option to the fund to decide whether it wishes to be on an ongoing basis, which I favour, or on a discontinuance basis, about which I am uneasy. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will indicate that amendments will be brought forward in another place to cover paragraphs (a) and (b) but that he will not accept the last three lines of the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on bringing forward what is a very clever amendment. Indeed, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on his conduct as regards the whole debate on the Pensions Bill.
Having said that, I call this the Morton's Fork amendment because I think you are damned if you do and damned if you do not. I find myself in some difficulty because, rather like my noble friend Lord Finsberg, there are some superficial attractions to the amendment.
On the surface the amendment provides a straight choice between funding for discontinuance and funding for ongoing liabilities. If the latter is chosen, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, the company would be asked to pay a levy into a central discontinuance fund. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, defined discontinuance liabilities when he was describing the impact of the minimum funding requirement but I am not entirely sure that I understand what he means in that context about discontinuance liabilities. If it means funding to meet the liabilities of a defined benefit plan, we are back into the old discussions about how to meet those liabilities, given the impossibility of the market at present to provide that as a means of liquidating the liabilities on a wind-up.
There are major difficulties in funding for discontinuance liabilities. That goes back and is linked to investment policy. It would lead inexorably towards

1163
investing almost totally in gifts. Future increased pension liabilities would be matched by index-linked gifts but it would not be possible, if funding for discontinuance liabilities, to invest for growth. On that basis, the results of that investment policy are likely to lead to an increased and volatile cost about which companies are not likely to feel very comfortable.
The next stage of the amendment deals with funding for future liabilities on an ongoing basis. That is something with which we are very much more familiar and comfortable. Defined benefit plans are linked to salary inflation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, it is possible to justify more easily a high equity content in investment policy. But your Lordships should be aware that it is technically possible to be solvent on an ongoing basis and insolvent on a discontinuance basis. That is a very important point to grasp.
If one follows the ongoing basis of funding, the solution is to cover the insolvency situation by the payment of a premium, as I understand it, to a central discontinuance fund. I shall be interested to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, agrees that there is a selection against the central discontinuance fund because the company will be able to opt for the basis on which it wishes to proceed. Therefore, there could be selection and an increase in what I describe loosely as a moral hazard.
On the surface, that second option seems to be attractive. You can invest for growth via equities; and you are not faced with a minimum funding requirement which requires an injection of cash or funds when things go wrong. On Report the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, mentioned Finland and Japan as examples of countries which had central discontinuance funds. While that is true, I suggest that the USA may be a more relevant example at which to look in relation to that type of fund. It goes under the initials of the PBGC.
In the US, the PBGC is under very serious scrutiny at present within Congress. Your Lordships can perhaps take a considerable amount of comfort from an article which I recently read which said that the PBGC's deficit is 2.9 billion US dollars. It goes on to say that there is none. It seems that, even in the US, the actuaries cannot agree what is a deficit and what is a surplus. I am not sure whether that is a matter of comfort to your Lordships. It seems to me that the whole issue is quite difficult to grasp.
I appreciate that the noble Lord's amendment is offered in a constructive and probing manner to my noble friend the Minister. However, I believe that there are considerable dangers in going down that route. I do not believe that it has been fundamentally researched. Although I am quite sure that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, will produce a considerable number of articles from my colleagues in the actuarial profession, I believe that there are difficulties with it.
1164
I can commend to your Lordships an article from The Brookings Review entitled, "Avoiding the Next Guaranteed Bailout". I should like to read to the House a short extract from it. In essence, there are issues in it about which we should be aware. The article says:
"Government as we have come to know it—that mother of all insurance agencies—has expanded far beyond the confines of the welfare state. In fact, we now live in what can be more accurately described as a modem insurance state. The purpose of the PBGC and the plethora of other programs like it is the very political, but limited, goal of shifting risk".
When talking about the PBGC the article asks:
"How much do claims exceed expected revenues?".
The answer is:
"No one knows. Companies are permitted to use actuarial assumptions that greatly understate the cost of retirement benefits, and even the limited information required by the PBGC becomes available only after long delays. Not surprisingly, the agency has discovered that the unfunded liabilities accumulated by terminating plans tend to be much larger than plan sponsors previously reported".
I am quite sure that when we put in—if we ever do—a central discontinuance fund, we shall of course get it right without any problems. However, there are some major difficulties connected with such a fund.
I have also found another quote which I quite like. It is one from Schumpeter. Just to show off, I should tell your Lordships that Schumpeter taught that capitalism is an evolutionary process of creative destruction.
When looking at the amendment, I hope that we do not drive our own pension funds into imminent destruction. It is an interesting amendment. However, I should prefer my noble friend to stick with his own policy but accept in full the amendment put forward on Report by my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston as a means of coping with the matter of the injection of funds at awkward times.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate on a very difficult and complex subject. Listening carefully today to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who accused me of moving a little towards him, I almost began to detect, unlike at the Committee and Report stages, that he was moving a little towards the minimum funding requirement. Indeed, perhaps the noble Lord is thinking that we might meet somewhere in the middle. I have no great objection to meeting in the middle, so long as it is not a muddled middle and so long as the objectives which I believe we both have to ensure security in pension schemes are not compromised by trying to find a comprise between two ideas which does not really exist on a firm basis.
I believe that the noble Lord continued to imply today—as, indeed, he did on the two previous occasions when we debated the matter—that we have moved from a position of offering an absolute guarantee to little more than an arbitrary test and that somehow that test would manage to increase costs and drive down funding levels. We have today been offered further glimpses into exactly what the noble Lord intends. To be fair to him, I believe that the noble Lord has gone a good deal further as regards putting clothes on his proposals than he did in Committee.

1165
Interestingly, the merits of the best practice approach, which underlines what the noble Lord feels we ought to do, were that it,
"would provide extremely good protection against the possibility of employer insolvency".
It seems to me that hidden behind the noble Lord's tentative proposals was a recognition of my central argument that any measure to improve security must look at the position of the scheme on discontinuance in some way. Therefore, I believe that we may at least be agreed on that point.
It remains for us to consider the most appropriate way of providing security on discontinuance. I have already, several times, given extensive explanations and descriptions of what the Government's proposals will achieve. During the preparation of the Bill the minimum funding requirement has been debated widely by actuaries, employers, investment managers and financial advisers. It has been tested; we have carried out detailed analysis, and we have published our findings. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, seems prepared to dismiss all of that and suggest that there is a better alternative. The noble Lord certainly seemed to derive some enjoyment when we changed the title, as we were requested to do by a great many people in the field, to a minimum funding requirement.
This afternoon I should like to look at the alternative which is before us. I take it that the amendment is now a serious policy proposal and no longer the tentative idea that it seemed to be during the earlier stages of our discussion. We need to examine what it would mean for members, for employers and, ultimately, for taxpayers. I suspect that, deep down, there may be other matters which ought to concern general taxpayers.
As I understand the amendment, schemes would appear to have a choice—to fund either on a discontinuance basis or on an ongoing basis. I wonder whether the noble Lord is saying that, if they choose discontinuance, they would have to hold sufficient assets to buy out all benefits with insurance company non-profit annuities. During his speech on the issue last week and again today he argued that that was an unrealistic proposition. He quoted the Government Actuary as saying that it was unrealistic. Indeed, the Government Actuary seems to figure a good deal in our debates, although he is usually quoted against me. "Your actuary" are normally the words used. But I did not notice them today.
The noble Lord has no need to argue the point: the Government have always agreed, as did the PLRC. However, what puzzles me now is why it is proposed in the amendment that there should be a choice. Presentationally, it may look fair and reasonable to offer a choice. But, seriously, what kind of choice is there between option (a) and (b) if everyone agrees that (a) is unrealistic?
I turn now to option (b). If schemes were to decide to take the ongoing funding option—if, indeed, and as I have mentioned, they have any option—they must also pay a levy to a central fund. The noble Lord has told us that ongoing funding, if it is to provide security for members, must require contributions to be paid
1166
according to best actuarial practice. It would be interesting to know what he understands by "best practice".
We know from our consultation exercise on the minimum funding proposals that there are schemes that are weakly funded on an ongoing basis. But they and their actuarial advisers may well take the view that they do in fact adopt "best practice" when deciding on their funding levels. "Best actuarial practice", depending on your point of view, might range from very prudent assumptions to the most optimistic. So a statutory best practice, if prudent, would increase costs for some schemes—potentially considerably. Moreover, if more optimistic or aggressive assumptions were used it would drive down funding levels and make schemes less secure. Either way, there would be no clear idea of what members should, as a minimum, expect if the worst happened and their employer went out of business.
Any central fund would have to set transfer terms to be able to pay pensions as they became due. Those transfer terms would no doubt become a statutory basis for ongoing funding. Who knows what the cost implications of that might be? The basis would presumably need to be fairly rigorous to ensure that the central fund itself was fully protected. Otherwise there would be a greater risk of it being unable to pay benefits and of taxpayers being expected to make up a shortfall.
What would it mean for members if their scheme was not able to pay the transfer terms? The noble Lord referred to a report that the Government Actuary made to the PLRC in December 1992 on the idea of a central discontinuance fund. He failed, however, to mention that the Government Actuary had pointed out that if the central fund were to operate effectively there would need to be a system of strict supervision of all schemes. The report said:
"it would be essential for the system to be backed by adequate supervision to ensure that schemes were soundly administered and financed and that funding was targeted at an appropriate level".
The last GAD survey of occupational pension schemes indicated that there are some 37,500 defined benefit schemes. A new external system set up to investigate all pension schemes, including supervision of their funding levels and investments, would surely be very expensive to administer.
The Government Actuary also suggested that an insurance system could be set up to protect against schemes being underfunded and unable to pay transfer terms. This again would require detailed investigation of each scheme. To avoid the risk of schemes being purposely underfunded, knowing that the central fund was there as a safety net, premiums would have to create the right incentives. Thus, weakly funded schemes would be charged higher premiums than the more secure schemes. When deciding the appropriate premium, judgment would need to be made about the adequacy of the scheme's ongoing funding level, taking account of the nature of the scheme's liabilities and how risk averse the trustees were in setting investment policy. Judgment might also need to be made about the financial or trading position of the employer company.

1167
One could go on building a more and more elaborate system of protection and controls. But how much would it all cost? Would employers be prepared to pay a levy to support a supervisory machinery that would be many times more intrusive than OPRA? Is what we have here really a backdoor means of achieving the intrusive regulatory authority which the Opposition failed to persuade your Lordships we should have in OPRA itself? What would be done to control costs? Should well run schemes be expected to bail out weaker schemes? And who, finally, would be expected to stand behind a central fund set up by statute? The answer is the taxpayer may be expected to back all this, and we would have to question how reasonable that would be.
At the Report stage I referred to the central discontinuance fund in America. My noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire has referred to some other problems that have arisen with the central discontinuance fund in America. These are all serious matters. Last week I was accused of presenting a caricature of the central discontinuance fund. I suspect that happened because I chose America rather than Finland or Japan. I deny that. The idea of a central discontinuance fund clearly was developed as a means of protecting scheme members and has been seriously considered. But so have a lot of other ideas. The minimum funding requirement we now propose is an honest attempt to ensure that pensions in payment will continue as expected, and that younger members will have a means of securing their accrued pension rights and indeed building on them with future contributions.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, suggested that a minimum funding requirement on a discontinuance basis will lead to higher funding levels for most schemes. I am afraid I think that is based on a misconception. Ongoing funding will normally include discretionary benefits and a past service reserve to reflect the fact that further service will increase the value of past rights. The survey we conducted last year showed that the minimum statutory requirement for most schemes would be below their ongoing funding level. Therefore, our proposal for an MFR will not increase costs for most schemes. However, what it will do—by contrast to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—is to provide a greater degree of certainty for the members of schemes that the rights they have accrued at any point in time will be adequately secured.
I am sure I do not need to remind your Lordships of the importance of maintaining a balance between costs and a fair degree of security. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said when we debated these clauses in Committee that we needed to ensure that we maintain the right balance. I suggest that the amendments before us today would not maintain and secure that proper balance and that the minimum funding requirement is the position we have reached after—as I have explained —the announcement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State last December. I hope that went some way to help with the problem identified on a number of occasions by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—namely, the shift from equities to gilts—and also the concern some noble Lords have expressed
1168
about valuing on one single day, which has now been removed. We are also allowing for a much longer time period to restore a fund to the minimum funding requirement.
We are proceeding carefully on this issue and listening carefully to what people are saying. We are changing and amending provisions as we did last December. I am sure that is the sensible way to proceed. I hope I have persuaded your Lordships that the ingenious proposal put so eloquently, as always, by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is not one that should seduce us. I invite the noble Lord after this excellent debate—I have no doubt there will be a few more comments from him—to withdraw his amendment. But if he wishes to put it to the test, I hope that my noble friends will support the minimum funding requirement as we have outlined it in the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that somewhat obscure reply. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. I wish to draw out a couple of points because I regard this matter as an enormously serious technical matter which affects pension funds and the pension future of millions of people. This is not a party political matter; it is a matter where we have tried to tease out the complicated technical issues.
It is important to remember what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said in bringing out the implications of the introduction of the Government's discontinuance system for the macro-economy and for the performance of the equity market. That is an important point. It would be appropriate in another place to hear Treasury Ministers speak on this matter. It is not a matter for the Department of Social Security; it is a matter for the Treasury. It is worrying that the macro-economic issues have been ignored.
I wish to refer in particular to the point brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, who said, with respect to the parliamentary fund of which he used to be a trustee, that it would not have to be valued on a discontinuance basis, presumably because we have confidence in the mother of parliaments. But the point is, under this Bill it will have to be valued on a discontinuance basis even though we can be totally confident that it will never be discontinued. That is the fundamental problem with the Bill.
As regards the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, I have also read the article in the Brookings Review. That article is opposed to defined benefit schemes altogether. We are trying to devise ways in which defined benefit schemes can be maintained with appropriate security. Therefore, I do not feel that the position I have mentioned would be acceptable, given the success and importance of occupational pension schemes within the British system.
As regards the difficulties of the American PBGC, as I pointed out on Report a lot of those were due to companies which were still solvent dumping pension funds on the PBGC. That could be prevented here simply by relating use of the central discontinuance fund

1169
to corporate insolvency or ceasing to trade. I am afraid that I found the Minister's comments extremely muddled. He said that the whole purpose of the Government's approach was to provide, in his words, "security on discontinuance", but he then attacked me for writing into the amendment that there should be a discontinuance basis, and went back to talking about insured annuities which we dropped long ago—when I say "we" I refer to us as a collective House—in discussing this whole problem. I could not work out what the devil he was trying to say.
As regards an ongoing basis, he said that an ongoing basis, as defined, may raise some contributions and lower others. Of course it would. We want to catch those rogues who are not paying enough and they will have to raise their contributions. The Minister also said that I had argued that under the Government's discontinuance approach funding costs would rise. I did not argue that; it was the Goode Report which argued that funding costs would rise.
I am afraid that I do not believe that the Minister or the Department of Social Security have really grasped what the issue is about. There is no evidence in his argument of a clear understanding of the problems of evaluating ongoing pension funds, such as the parliamentary pension fund, which will have to obey a discontinuance criterion. That is the nonsense of the Bill and of applying only the discontinuance criterion.
The amendment I put forward sought to provide the regulator and the industry with the option of defining a funding requirement in a way that would provide security for pensioners and be appropriate to maintaining efficiency in the provision of adequate pensions.
I hope that the Minister and his honourable and right honourable friends in another place will come back to the issue and consider it very carefully. The provision has been amended considerably since we began considering the Bill, and I am grateful to the Government for that. However, I feel that they still have not got it right and will need to return to the matter. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 [Equal treatment rule: supplementary]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 35, line 46, leave out ("a description or category of") and insert ("an").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, after that tour de force I turn to a very minor amendment. I shall be brief. We seek clarification. The effect of the amendment would be to set a time limit for claims of six months from the date of leaving the employment to which the scheme relates. The reason for tabling the amendment is not that we believe that the time limit should be even more stringent than that proposed by the Government; we simply have some doubts as to what the Government intend.
So far as our legal advisers can tell, the words "description or category of employment" do not appear in any other employment legislation. What is meant by
1170
it? Does it mean moving from part-time to full-time employment, or from the banking to the retail sector? What will the Government do to ensure that women are not inadvertently caught by time limits as they move jobs or, as the Government have it, move description or category of employment? We should be grateful if the Minister can help us. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I would be wrong if I assumed that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to my speech as a tour de force. I suspect that it was her noble friend's speech which she regarded as a tour de force. I am happy to try to explain what on the surface appears to the noble Baroness to be legalistic wording. As she explained, the amendment seeks to simplify the wording of Clause 57(4) (c) concerning the period for bringing claims under the equal treatment rule. It would refer to,
"an employment to which the scheme relates"
rather than to,
"a description or category of employment to which the scheme relates".
Clause 57(4) (c) was inserted at Report stage and is intended to replace Section 2(4) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 for the purposes of Clause 57. As noble Lords will know, much of the equal treatment provisions are to be read as one with the Equal Pay Act. However, in this instance we were concerned that without this particular change there might have been confusion about the operation of Section 2(4) of the Equal Pay Act in the context of pensions.
I have some sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness because it appears to have the benefit of simplifying the rather legalistic wording of the original. However, we have concluded that the original wording is the most appropriate. We have taken that wording from the definition of an occupational pension scheme in Section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. The definition is framed so as to include not only schemes which are operated by one employer solely for the benefit of his own employees but also schemes which provide benefits for groups of employees who may not have the same employer, such as sectoral or industry-wide schemes.
We believe that we should keep to the current wording of Clause 57(4) (c), both for consistency with the Pension Schemes Act and, more importantly, to ensure that all scheme members are treated in the same way regardless of the nature of the scheme. I hope that with that explanation of why we feel that the rather more complex wording is best, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We shall study it. With the permission of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 60 [Equal treatment rule: effect on terms of employment, etc.]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 37, line 14, at end insert:
() In section 4(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (victimisation of complainants etc.)

(a) in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), after "Equal Pay Act 1970" there is inserted "or sections 56 to 59 of the Pensions Act 1995", and

(b) at the end of paragraph (d) there is added "or under sections 56 to 59 of the Pensions Act 1995'.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to move the amendment. As those noble Lords who are season ticket holders will know, it is normally my noble friend Lord Lucas who moves government amendments. In this case I am moving the amendment because it results from a weakness highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in Committee. I undertook to consider the points that she raised, and I an) pleased to be able to redeem that pledge this afternoon.
As the noble Baroness explained at the time, the purpose of the amendment is to bring the equal treatment provisions of the Bill within the ambit of Section 4(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. That section currently deals with protection against discrimination by way of victimisation in relation to persons bringing proceedings under the Sex Discrimination Act or Equal Pay Act. The amendment would extend that protection to those bringing claims for equal treatment under Clauses 56 to 59 of the Bill.
I congratulate the noble Baroness on spotting the need for the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are obviously delighted that the Minister has responded to our point. I claim no credit for the amendment which, needless to say, is an extremely technical one. I only wish that the Minister's conciliatory stance had been so generously extended to many of the other amendments on which we sought to persuade him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 [Preferential liabilities on winding up]:
The Earl of Buckinghamshire The Earl of Buckinghamshire moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 41, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert:
("(b) any liability for—

(i) pensions, or other benefits, entitlement to payment of which has arisen, or

(ii) increases to pensions if entitlement to payment of the pensions has arisen before this section comes into force and the rules of the scheme would, apart from this section, require assets of the scheme to be applied in satisfying the liability for those increases before satisfying the liabilities mentioned in paragraph (c),").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 7 is intended to protect the position of those who are already drawing their pension on the date when the provisions within the Bill come into force. I should like your Lordships to consider the situation on the winding up of a pension scheme in a few years' time
1172
when, regrettably, them is not enough money to meet everyone's benefits in full. Such circumstances may continue to arise, even though the new minimum funding test should help to reduce the number of occasions when they occur.
At present, if those unfortunate circumstances arise, the trust deed of a pension scheme is the document which sets out the order in which the claims on the funds are to be satisfied. Those people who are higher up the queue will usually receive more than those who are lower down. Indeed, most trust deeds give priority to those who are already drawing their pension at the date of the wind up. This should usually enable those pensioners to receive not only their pension at the current level of payment but also any future guaranteed increases which are provided under the scheme.
Frequently, the pensioners' benefits, including future guaranteed increases, particularly in smaller schemes or when the benefits were bought out at times when the markets were right, have been secured by purchasing a suitable insurance policy out of the fund's assets. The future increases thus purchased are not intended to improve the position of a member and his spouse but merely to maintain whatever protection is guaranteed by the scheme against the threat of inflation to their present standard of living.
As I understand it, under the Bill as currently drafted, future pension increases would come at the bottom of the priority clauses, together with some other benefits. The effect would be that a pensioner could still be reasonably sure of continuing to draw his pension at the current level, but he could possibly lose the future guaranteed increases which he would receive if the scheme were wound up now. When I raised this matter on Report the Minister made it clear that the Government continue to favour the principle that if a scheme which is wound up is under funded pensioners may have to share some of the pain from which they have previously been insulated. I am uneasy about that. I do not share the Government's view on the point. I still believe that a preferable principle is to continue to give full priority to those people on pension including future increases in pensions.
Quite apart from being fairer, the provision would also avoid the practical difficulty inherent in my noble friend's proposal in relationship to those schemes which have purchased annuities from insurance companies in the trustees' names when a member retires. The Minister has not explained how the trustees would be able to achieve the reallocation of moneys from such pensioners to active employees if the insurance company refuses, as is likely, to make such a refund.
However, even though I do not agree with the Government's decision on this point of principle, on the assumption that they will have thought through all the means of overcoming the practical difficulties to which I referred, I agree that that is the position to which we shall hold. However, I cannot accept—I feel strongly about it—any suggestion that the new principle should be applied to those people who are already on pension at the date the new provisions come into force. I believe

1173
that that will be a totally unacceptable diminution of the pension expectations of those people in the event of a wind up. Indeed, I believe that it reflects a major attack, made retrospectively, on their pension and property rights.
I was therefore pleased to hear the Minister's statement at Report. He said that the clause as currently drafted would not represent any retrospective worsening of anyone's accrued rights and that no one's pension expectations would be reduced by the clause. I take it that he accepts that at the date the provisions come into force existing pensioners should not have their position worsened on future wind up. The Minister may wonder why I have elaborated on the whole discussion. It is because I believe that he may well have overreached his brief. I wish to give him the opportunity to put the matter right.
The amendment makes clear that the provision would not distort the principle favoured by the Minister so far as concerns future pensions but would conserve the rights of those people who are already on wind up before the provisions come into force. I believe that the amendment is the only fair way to do that. I hesitate to think how we shall cope with the health warnings regarding the possible difficulties of pensioners on such wind ups. What will go into the booklet may well be different from what will go into the scheme rules. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl. It is similar to an amendment to, I think, Clause 66 which I moved unsuccessfully at an earlier stage. I expressed some concern about what seemed to be a worsening of the position of pensioners on wind up. I felt that pensioners ought to have consideration. If one is in employment it might be argued that one has some possibility of improving one's position. However, once one is on a pension, that really is it unless one has increases which are payable under the rules of the scheme.
The noble Earl has thought up an ingenious method of protecting the position of people who are pensioners at the time that the legislation comes on to the statute book. It seems to me entirely legitimate. As the noble Earl said, the Minister gave the impression that no one's expectations would be worsened as a result. of the legislation. I fear that they may be unless we have a provision of this kind somewhere in the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend's amendments are intended to protect pensioners whose pensions are in payment before the Bill takes effect. They would cover cases where the scheme rules afford their indexation a higher priority than that provided under the new priority order proposed in the Bill.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the way in which the clause is intended to fit with the minimum funding requirement. The intention is to ensure that when a scheme winds up, all of the members are treated fairly. If the scheme is fully funded to the level of the minimum funding requirement, all of the members should receive the full actuarial value of their accrued
1174
rights, including the right to indexation, should the scheme wind up. But there will be circumstances where schemes wind up less than 100 per cent. solvent on the statutory minimum funding basis or are otherwise unable to meet their liabilities in full.
Obviously, we hope that schemes will not wind up in a position where they are unable to secure the benefits promised under the scheme. We believe that the minimum funding requirement and the wide range of other measures for enhancing scheme security incorporated in the Bill will minimise the chances of schemes winding up in this position. But we live in the real world, and we must cater for those cases where things do go wrong despite our best endeavours.
A scheme which does not meet in full the statutory minimum funding requirement will not be able to meet all of its liabilities on wind up. That is when the priority order will come into play and ensure that there is an equitable distribution of assets. It is only right that pensioners should receive some priority over active members. That is why we propose that they should, if possible, suffer no reduction in their income. That is reflected in the priority order we propose.
However, to go further and give priority to indexation for all pensions in payment would place at risk the rights of other members. We have to ensure that the assets are shared fairly. We believe that this can best be done by protecting pensions in payment first, then protecting the basic pension entitlement of all other scheme members, then sharing out whatever assets remain for the benefit of all scheme members.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend would give added protection to those scheme members who are pensioners when the Bill comes into effect. As I hope I have made clear, this would not cause problems for a scheme that is fully funded when it winds up. Indeed, the provision would not be needed. However, as I have just explained, where a scheme is underfunded the protection my noble friend seeks to give to some pensioners could be achieved only at the expense of other scheme members, including members who will become pensioners after the Bill comes into effect and others who could well be approaching retirement age when the scheme winds up. Such individuals may be no more able than existing pensioners to make good the loss. The real difficulty with most schemes' current wind up rules is that they can produce a step, or series of steps, usually around retirement age. Thus one member may receive his full entitlement while a colleague only six months younger can lose 40 per cent or 50 per cent. of the pension rights he can legitimately expect. Our proposal produces a smoother and more equitable distribution.
It is also important to recognise that the valuation base we propose for the minimum funding requirement will be more appropriate for protecting pensioners and those approaching retirement. As members get older so their rights will be more largely valued by reference to gilt returns. This will give them an entitlement which has greater certainty of being able to deliver their promised benefits.

1175
Let me conclude by saying this. The clause will not affect anybody's pension rights as such. What may change is the degree of certainty that those rights will be delivered. Pensioners may indeed have to share in any losses whereas they have previously been insulated. So while their rights will remain the same, the distribution between the various members will, I believe, be fairer.
Overall, our proposals will produce a fairer and more equitable result while giving a degree of priority and extra protection to pensioners and older non-pensioners. They are consistent with the principle underlying the minimum funding requirement and other scheme security measures. These aim to secure the rights of all scheme members at all times irrespective of whether they are pensioners, deferred members or active members, and regardless of when they became or may become pensioners.
I understand what my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire says and the concerns he expressed. However, I hope that he will understand from the explanation given that we are attempting to be fair to all scheme members and at the same time remove a problem. As I mentioned, people just short of retirement can face a quite considerable drop in their pension entitlement; and they will have absolutely no time in reality to make up for that drop.
We believe that re-ordering the priorities in the way that we propose, still giving pensions in payment the first priority, is the sensible way to proceed. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he would clarify something he said just now. He stated that rights would stay the same but certainty would diminish. As I understand it, if I am to be paid £100 with a probability of 90 per cent., that is worth £90. If I am to be paid with only a probability of 50 per cent., it is only worth £50. If the Minister is saying that my right will be protected but the amount of money I am likely to receive will be diminished, I am rather unimpressed. It seems to me that his argument that the position of existing pensioners is protected does not stand careful examination.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is why I made a distinction between the rights, which do not change, and the situation which would occur if, when the scheme was wound up, it was under-funded. I fully admit that in those circumstances pensioners would not receive the same protection on indexation as they currently do. I put forward the argument that there are other people in the fund whose position must be considered. It is particularly important for those close to retirement who find themselves in the situation that we can envisage, which could be quite serious. I believe that the clause in the Bill re-ordering the priorities will in some way protect pensioners but it will also give perhaps some protection, in the worst scenario, at marginal expense, to pensioners regarding indexation. It will give them the bulk of the protection, but it will also
1176
look after the interests of those who are not yet pensioners but who are near pension age and who may well find themselves severely disadvantaged.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and following what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, what use is a right if it means that one will not receive the money?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the right is there but it depends on the situation at the time of the winding up of a pension scheme. If the pension is fully funded then the right can be carried out. If the pension is under-funded, I suggest that the rights stay the same; all the pension rights remain and those of active members stay the same. However, as the schemes are constructed at present, active members perhaps of the age of 59 or 64, just short of pension age, have their rights severely restricted under the current arrangement. I suggest that looking sensibly at the situation on winding up and trying to be fair to everyone, the rights remain the same but in the worst case scenario the pensioner may find that his or her indexation has to take second place to looking after the rights of other members of the scheme.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I wish to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. The Minister is in some difficulty over the amendment and his justification for not taking greater note of it. He has not answered the question on the immediate annuities which have been purchased and how they are unlocked , from insurance companies in such situations. Although I did not mention the point in moving the amendment, there will be an implication for members as to whether they should take the transfer value prior to retirement and whether the Government will amend the regulations or provisions of previous Bills on taking transfer values just before one retires.
There was no response from the Minister on the health warning. I could imagine it being inserted in a pension booklet: "With a bit of luck we may have a pension for you and with even greater luck we will give you indexation on the guaranteed basis, but don't count on it".
I find the whole manner of dealing with the matter extremely disappointing. It is retrospective legislation. It is retrospective in the manner in which it tries to undo what the Government believe is an unfairness in the current trust deeds. It would be sensible of the Minister to consider the points that I have made. He could then take them further in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 9:
Before Clause 115, insert the following new clause:
Residential care: needs of spouse where occupational pension paid
(" .—(I) In section 22(4) of the National Assistance Act 1948 (assessment by local authority of resident's personal requirements) after "appropriate" there shall be inserted "and in particular, where

1177
the person is in receipt of benefits from an occupational pension scheme a local authority shall have regard in calculating his personal requirements to the needs of his spouse living other than in accommodation provided under this Part and to the usual standard of living of that spouse".
(2) The Secretary of State shall, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants out of money provided by Parliament to pay any expenses of local authorities incurred because a local authority calculates the personal requirements of a person in receipt of benefits from an occupational pension scheme to take account of the needs of his spouse.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to the issue of residential care for the third time. Among elderly people the two greatest fears are crime, on the one hand, and, on the other, their health so deteriorating that they need residential care but cannot afford the cost. Ten thousand men and 5,000 women with occupational pensions are in residential care. At the moment if a man—and it is usually a man—has been nursed at home but develops Alzheimer's disease he will need residential care. If he has an occupational pension then it is likely that the whole of it will be taken in fees for his care. His wife, left behind at home, becomes dependent on a state category B pension of just £35 a week. She has nursed him lovingly, she has now lost him to a savage illness. She has probably lost her own health through nursing him and she now loses virtually her entire income. She would be better off if she were widowed. She would keep half of her husband's occupational pension. As regards his state pension, she would be better off if she were divorced. She would then be entitled to the full state pension of £57 a week; that is £20 more.
However, because she has kept him going, she is not widowed and has stayed loyal to him and not walked away, she has received blow upon blow. After all, the occupational pension belongs to her husband, officially and technically, but we recognise that the couple built it up together. In every moral sense short of the legal and technical sense, the pension belongs to them both. But through necessity he has had to take it all, leaving her with nothing.
At the Report stage we on these Benches pressed amendments that would allow the trustees to split the occupational pension in such a situation. Then the wife left at home would also be entitled to have the single person's state pension. We were narrowly defeated; in part because Members from all sides of your Lordships' House who care about disability were attending the All-Party Disablement Group meeting. The monitors did not alert them to the Division and it is not clear whether those monitors were working. The Members therefore missed the Division.
Those Members of your Lordships' House would not have heard the Minister repeat his essentially sole argument against the amendment. It was that local authorities had the discretion to remit part of the fees and that they should use that discretion. I do not wish to put it too harshly, but he said that it was their problem and not the Government's.
The Minister is a conscientious man. I wish that he had talked to his right honourable friends not just in the Department of Health—as I believe he has done because I am sure that he is concerned about the problem—but
1178
also in the Department of the Environment. Had he done so, he would have found that the Department of Health empowers local authorities to remit fees. He might also have found that the Department of the Environment punishes them if they do so.
It is true that under the 1948 legislation local authorities have the power to remit but in practice, within the framework of the DoE, they cannot use that power. Why? First, because of the financial situation of local authorities. They are right up against the cap imposed by the DoE. Half a dozen local authorities are already going through that cap. The Minister says that it is an "I told you so" situation. What does he expect when, in order to stand still to meet inflation, local authorities would have needed an increase in the revenue support grant of over 2 per cent? They actually received an increase of ½ per cent. That means a cut in real term1½of per cent. without a single elderly person being cared for—and our population is ageing.
In consequence, the weekend survey of the Association of Directors of Social Services, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, reports that over 80 per cent. of local authorities are making cuts in social services budgets of up to 10 per cent. And how are they to do so? First, they will restrict eligibility for some social services; secondly, they will have to reduce investment in home and domiciliary care, thus subverting care in the community; thirdly—and this is particularly germane to this amendment—they will have to increase charges above inflation to compensate for a grant that did not match inflation; and, fourthly, they will have to limit the amount of care that each client is entitled to and allowed to receive, however needy that client may be.
Every one of those cuts that the ADSS has identified and local authorities will have to make hits the group of people to which this amendment refers. Cuts in services at home add to the pressure on the wife who is the carer. Increased charges—including, for example, in Norfolk, £8 an hour for home help services—or full residential costs will directly affect those going into residential care. In Gloucester, elderly people have announced that they are taking the county council to court in order to seek the restoration of services that have been cut in the context of the present financial stringency. In this context, local authorities are increasing charges, cutting services and reducing the amount available for each individual. How on earth does the Minister expect local authorities to remit, by discretion, part of their fees?
That is bad enough. But the situation is worse still. Local authorities' standard spending assessments have been adjusted to reflect what the DoE thinks ought to be included for additional income from charges such as these. If local authorities therefore do not increase charges, and indeed, as the Minister suggests they should, actually remit charges, they will then be punished by the DoE with a local SSA settlement.
I therefore hope that today the Minister will not repeat the sole argument that he adduced in Committee and on Report that local authorities have the discretion to remit charges, unless he tells us what advice he will give to them in this situation. What statutory service should they cut to make possible a discretionary remission in

1179
fees? And will the Minister then protect them from the punitive effects of the standard spending settlement, which assumes an increase in the very charges that the Minister says they should remit? I hope that the Minister addresses this issue rather than yet again uttering platitudes about discretion.
Hence I have tabled this amendment. Its wording is drawn from Section 50(ME) of the 1990 community care Act. It requires all local authorities to exercise discretion so that the spouse at home would receive an adequate income. As that will lead to a fall in income from charges, the standard spending adjustment--as the additional grants are referred to in the words of the community care Act—should be adjusted accordingly. This amendment would therefore do precisely what the Minister has been calling on local authorities to do; namely, to remit charges on the basis of need, and a local authority would not be punished in consequence. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support this amendment. It has been moved with such ability and in great detail by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and I do not intend to repeat the arguments that she put forward so clearly. I wish to say this to the Minister. If he finds it difficult to accept the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I believe he will accept that this is a problem of great severity.
We must all know from our own personal experience—and the Minister is an understanding man; he realises what these problems entail—that this is a very real problem for a great many people. As one of the older Members of this House, I recognise that a great many of us are living too long. There is not much that we are prepared to do about that, but many of us who live too long get odder and odder, more and more difficult and more in need of care. To be serious, we all know that there are hideous cases of women —it is mainly women—who go on struggling with people who have diseases such as Alzheimer's which get worse and worse, and then have to resort to residential care. It cannot be right that, having had to move their husband into a residential institution, they are then left in abject poverty.
If the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness are not such as the Minister can accept—I hope that he will, but experience suggests that he may not be able to—I beg him, before the Bill goes to another place, to treat this as a very serious problem and try to think of other ways, in consultation with other departments, in which this serious problem can be dealt with. Whenever I hear that three government departments are involved in a problem my heart sinks. One is bad enough; two is dreadful; and three is quite unthinkable. I recognise that that is the Minister's problem as well as ours. But it is also his problem to try to overcome difficulties of this
1180
kind. I am certain that he will not deny the seriousness of the problem. If he cannot accept our solution, will he tell us what is his solution?
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, 1, too, support this amendment. Once again, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has very clearly outlined all the awful problems that face couples should one partner need to go into long-term care.
At the weekend, I read that at least one local authority in the Midlands is charging residents in its homes interest on bills that they cannot pay until the cash is raised from the sale of their property. They are able to clock up interest immediately if the resident agrees to a charge on his or her home. I understand that if the resident refuses to agree, then of course the local authority cannot charge interest. I do not know whether that is true, but it is quite frightening. After all, we all grow old; and perhaps many of us will end up in long-term care, unable to look after ourselves.
From what I can see, residential homes in London cost upwards of £400 a week. Modest savers, even with pensions, could not possibly find that sort of money for care and have anything like enough left over for the spouse who is left in the family home. Most people have paid tax all their working lives. Under this system their modest savings could quite easily disappear, not within years but within months. Quite honestly, having talked to many people, that is hardly an incentive to save for old age. With the best will in the world, and even with an extremely good pension, I do not see how people could possibly save enough to pay that sort of money for residential care.
I read an article in one newspaper today which stated that some £15 million is given by the Government for AIDS related research and only £1.5 million for dementia and Alzheimer's. Some half-a-million people suffer from Alzheimer's. So far the disease mainly affects the elderly. It is unfashionable, is it not, but I feel that somehow there ought to be some redress in the balance: an enormous sum goes in one direction and such a pitiful amount in another. The more research that we do into the disease, the less chance there is that many of us might end up in long-term care, facing the problems that the noble Baroness has already outlined. Along with others in this House, I hope that the whole subject will be looked at again sympathetically.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this amendment seeks to address an issue that we discussed at length both in Committee and at Report stage. Indeed, at Report stage we decided upon the matter in a Division. The issue is how the position of the spouse left at home can be adequately safeguarded when the other spouse has an occupational pension and is admitted to residential accommodation.
The earlier amendment sought to specify how the pension should be allocated between the spouses in those circumstances. The amendment now before us tackles the issue from the other end. It seeks to specify how the local authority should meet the needs of the spouse at home in calculating the personal requirements of a spouse in residential care for the purpose of assessing his or her liability for charges.

1181
I appreciate that in drafting the current amendment the noble Baroness has sought to meet some of the concerns expressed in our earlier debates. Nevertheless, our view remains that amending legislation to address this particular issue is neither necessary nor desirable. Replacing the current discretionary arrangements by statutory prescription would introduce an unwelcome element of inflexibility and, in my view, would not achieve the objective of certainty which the noble Baroness indicated she wants. Moreover, by addressing in isolation one detailed aspect of the charging system for residential accommodation it could well create anomalies elsewhere.
Under the present discretionary arrangement, the guidance says that,
"it would be reasonable for the local authority to take into account factors such as—"
I stress the following words—
"the usual standard of living of the spouse at home, and if the spouse has higher than average outgoings, for whatever reason".
Again, those last three words "for whatever reason" are worthy of note. The guidance goes on to state that,
"the weight to be attached to these considerations will be for the authority themselves to determine".
The noble Baroness's amendment, on the other hand, is far more prescriptive and far less flexible. It would require the local authority in calculating the resident's personal requirements to have regard to the needs of the spouse at home and to his or her usual standard of living. The phrase "have regard to" sounds on the face of it innocuous enough, although I can see the prospect of a legal argument about precisely what the authority would be required to do to discharge its responsibility in that regard. What about needs? How would they be defined for this purpose? Would they cover "higher than average outgoings", as the guidance suggests? If so, what sort of outgoings? How would the resources of the spouse at home—if they have capital, for example—be treated? What would be the relationship between the requirement to have regard to need, on the one hand, and the requirement to have regard to the usual standard of living, on the other. I can envisage cases in which applying the latter requirement could produce anomalies and patently unacceptable results.
The noble Baroness may say that these matters can safely be left undefined, given that all that the local authority has to do is have regard to these Matters. I doubt whether in reality things would turn out quite like that. Once the provisions are set in statute, the scope for argument as to how precisely each of those expressions should be interpreted is potentially considerable.
There is a more specific problem with the amendment. Unlike the present discretionary arrangement, it covers only occupational pensions. I imagine it does that because the noble Baroness knew that she could only cover occupational pensions to get within the scope of the Bill. But, as the Department of Health guidance recognises, similar situations can arise—though much less often, I fully accept—where the resident is the sole recipient of a couple's income which is not an occupational pension. It is also true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, reminded the House, that there are some problems that have been raised on
1182
the question of capital, especially if the capital is in the form of a house. To introduce a measure confined solely to occupational pensions into the National Assistance Act, as this amendment does—the National Assistance Act is a wide-ranging Act and provides for all adults, not just pensioners—could be regarded as not only inappropriate but also unfair and discriminatory.
As I said the last time we debated this matter, I recognise that there is a real issue here. I am still waiting on specific cases where, if I may put it bluntly and quickly, the local authority has taken all the pension and told the spouse at home to go along to the benefits office and claim income support. Certainly, I should be very interested to see cases like that.
I am trying to be as reasonable as I can but the noble Baroness produced her usual sob song for local authorities. It always amazes me how the first thing a local authority cuts or threatens to cut, as local authorities do year after year when they get their support grant statement, is home helps. They never look at any of the other things. They always promise huge increases in council tax. Certainly in Scotland, it never transpires that way. By some miracle they always manage to be a long way short of their original fears. But still I am amazed—it is something I have noticed over 15 years, I think—that local authorities are always saying that they must cut home helps. It is not for them to cut out some of the glossy pamphlets and leaflets that I and other noble Lords receive in the post on subjects which are not directly the responsibility of local government but are much more politically motivated, at least in Scotland—the amazing nuclear free zone committees which take up time, expense and manpower in order to pursue an objective which has long since been abandoned, even by the Labour Party. I am always amazed at how local authorities manage to attack the home help system whenever they are asked to live within their budgets and be reasonable.
I do not want to go too far down that path, although the noble Baroness has tempted me greatly in that regard. I do want to say to her, as I have said before—I hope that she will accept that I am genuine on this matter—that I gave a clear, unequivocal commitment to the House at Report and Committee stages that I would pass on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health the points that have been made. She is indeed considering these issues; the one directly in front of us from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and other issues related to that particular age group, and the question of residential care. She is considering them. I believe that that consideration should to be in the context of the overall structure of the arrangements for charging for residential care. To seek to introduce separate statutory provision to deal with that issue in isolation would, I believe, be ill considered.
On that basis—certainly once again I shall talk to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and bring the points that have been made to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health—and saying once again that I would be very interested to receive some documented evidence that local authorities have indeed behaved in the way I suggested earlier. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her

1183
amendment, having put it to the test on the last occasion. If she does not, because she believes that some people did not quite get here in time on the last occasion, I hope that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry that as we come to the end of the Bill an answer by the Minister on an issue which causes so much distress to so many elderly people in such traumatic situations should have received such a reply. I would call it frivolous if that were not lighthearted. It was a scornful reply by the Minister in which, at various points, he uttered phrases such as the sob stories of local authorities or said that up in Scotland they had the money for nuclear-free zones. I wonder what world the Minister is living in. It is clear that he knows little about local government and cares even less about the problems it faces in trying to address the very real problems affecting elderly people.
At the core of the problem is the Minister insisting that local authorities have a discretion to do what he thinks they should do. I do not believe that anybody denies—I certainly have not argued—that they do not have that discretion in law. My argument was contemptuously brushed aside by the Minister in what I thought was the shabbiest of all the answers we have received at any stage of the Bill. I mean it. The Minister is an honourable man but he has let himself down tonight. No one is challenging that local authorities have a discretion in law. The argument I was trying to put and which the Minister did not even begin to address but contemptuously brushed aside with references to nuclear-free zones, for heaven's sake!—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was answering the point the noble Baroness made about local authorities and that particular sob story, not the difficulties of the people whom she had in mind with this amendment. I believe that it was a perfectly fair point in response to her view of local government, which some of us have watched for 15 years. We have heard exactly the same thing said year on year but still all the pet projects are able to be funded.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister is saying that when 80 per cent. of directors of social services are having to make cuts even in their statutory services, it is a sob story and that it is a pity that real people are affected. That is a very unfortunate reply.
I repeat that nothing the Minister said in his answer tonight gives local authorities any help in addressing a problem that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and others in your Lordships' House made clear, is a worrying and growing problem that, despite the Minister's contemptuous response, will not go away. It is a fact that many people who go into residential care must now take the whole of their occupational pensions
1184
with them to pay their fees, leaving the wife behind near destitute. The question is: what can be done about it? That is what the Minister should have addressed.
As I say, local authorities have a discretion in law which they cannot in practice exercise. That is the point of the amendment. We do not need to change their powers; we need to ensure that they can exercise them. They cannot exercise those powers because the settlement for local authorities has not been funded. What is more, even if they were not being capped, as virtually every local authority in the country is, they would still be punished by a reduced settlement in the standard spending assessments if they did not raise charges accordingly.
Perhaps the Minister does not know about standard spending assessments. I should have thought that he would. But it is a fact that, twice over, local authorities are unable financially to exercise the discretion that we do not challenge they have in law. It must make sense that local authorities can only do their job if they have a settlement which at least maintains their current spending levels in real terms and not, as we have seen, a cut on the one hand and a penalty in standard spending assessments on the other.
It is a pity that the Minister knows so little about local government and cares even less about the services that it has to provide, while at the same time telling local authorities that they must exercise a discretion which even he admits that they are failing to exercise because they cannot do so. Meanwhile, while the Minister brushes the issue aside, elderly women who have lovingly nursed their husbands are left near destitute through no fault of their own and through no fault of local government.
I shall receive no sympathetic hearing from the Minister tonight. But I hope that in the other House, where departments with more relevant experience of local government will be aware of these issues, the issue will be pursued and addressed properly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 126 [Minimum contributions towards appropriate personal pension schemes]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 81, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) In subsection (I), for "41(1)" there is substituted "42B(1)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11. This is a simple amendment. It deals with the different levels of rebates for contracted-out personal pensions and occupational money pension schemes.
I raised this matter on Report and the response from the Minister was that, as personal pensions are more expensive to manage, there must be a higher level of subsidy in order to make them a realistic choice. Personal pensions are a more expensive form of retirement provision; yet in all other sectors of the economy, if consumers choose a more expensive product, they are expected to pay for it. With retirement pensions, if consumers choose the more expensive product, then the Government pay the difference. It is

1185
not as though the additional subsidy goes towards providing the pension; it goes to the financial institution providing the pension to cover its extra costs. Furthermore, that money comes from the national insurance fund, which means that the subsidy comes out of general taxation. The total cost is £300 million, which means that a large amount of money is involved.
The insurance industry has many products. Why then are personal pensions different from other financial products where it is left to the market to provide choice? When debating the central discontinuance fund earlier this afternoon, we were told how careful the Government are with taxpayers' money. What is it then about personal pensions that is different so that that care no longer applies? It seems to me that it is a case where the market is being rigged. As the market rigging costs £300 million a year of taxpayers' money, I make no excuse for returning to the matter yet again. It is an unsound basis for personal pensions and I hope that the Minister can satisfy our doubts. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, these are familiar amendments for those who have been regular attenders at our debates. They seek to ensure that those contracting out via a personal pension scheme receive the same levels of age-related rebates as those in money-purchase occupational schemes. The amendments would restrict the choice of pension provision available to many people, and would impose a burden of greater SERPS expenditure on the workforce in the next century.
I have explained in previous debates why it is essential that the rebates set for each type of scheme reflect the charges associated with such schemes. If the rebate were insufficient to replace the SERPS given up by contracting out, it would not be best advice to contract out of SERPS at all. That in turn would lead to increased expenditure on SERPS in the future, and reduce the choice of pension provision available to the individual.
Additionally, the rebates for personal pensions and occupational pensions will be paid at different times, with occupational schemes receiving some of the rebate earlier than personal pensions. At Report and Committee stages I outlined this: that members of money-purchase occupational schemes and their employers would receive part of the rebate during the course of the tax year as a reduction in national insurance contributions and the balance would be payable at the end of the tax year. Personal pensions will receive the whole rebate at the end of the tax year and that requires different levels of rebate to take into account the extra investment return available to the occupational scheme by investing the rebate earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, conceded during the debate at Report stage that personal pensions play a vital role in extending choice. That is true only if the rebates are set at the amount required to produce a pension equivalent to SERPS. If the rebate is insufficient to do this, then personal pensions do not offer any sort of choice at all. He also argued that people opting for personal pensions should bear the costs themselves. For many people, personal pensions are the only alternative
1186
to SERPS available. I do not believe that those people should be penalised simply because their employer does not offer a contracted-out occupational pension scheme. We are committed to offering everyone the widest choice of pension provision possible, and the rebate must be set at a level to ensure that personal pensions remain a viable option.
The issue of the level playing field has been raised many times during these debates. These amendments would actually slant the playing field rather than levelling it, though I might share with the noble Lord a view that somebody once put to me; that is, that there is no such thing as a level playing field, otherwise why do the teams change ends at half time? But as a Scotsman perhaps I should not talk about team games after last Saturday.
Different allowances in the rebate for expenses are essential to ensure that the pension produced by different types of schemes is equivalent to the SERPS given up. The expense allowance in the rebate for personal pensions is necessary to compensate for the additional costs of administering fully individualised pensions. If that were set too low, the playing field would be tilted towards SERPS. There is no question here of subsidising excessive expenses. The Government Actuary—who is a friend of the party opposite, or at least they keep quoting him—will be asked, in advising on the levels of age-related rebates, to make allowances for the reasonable costs and charges of the more efficient pension providers.
This is the third time we have debated these amendments. I am sorry that I disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, by repeating the same argument. In my view, if one's argument is soundly based there is no reason to change it, and I believe that the argument is soundly based. The line I have taken is consistent and I hope that our position is clear. We are committed to choice in pension provision and personal pensions are an essential part of that choice.
To restrict the level of the rebate for personal pensions would simply mean that those plans were not viable and the choice of pension provision would be reduced. In some cases, as I have explained, people would be offered no choice of pension provision at all. I hope, not with a great deal of confidence, that, having explained it on three occasions, the noble Lord might feel able to agree with me this time and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain why the Government feel it appropriate to subsidise a more expensive and less efficient provision in order that that more expensive and less efficient provision can be available? If I wish to travel up to Cambridge this evening I have a choice of going by car or by train. Each would involve a different price. However, I could be taken by horse-drawn carriage—by large numbers of well bred black horses. That would be rather expensive and rather inefficient. But no doubt on the Government's logic they would be very happy to subsidise the process so that I would then have the extra choice.

1187
It is a ludicrous argument that one should provide less efficient services but ensure that those less efficient and more expensive services are provided by charging the taxpayer. The taxpayer has to provide. The Minister made no attempt to answer the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Haskel. Why do the Government subsidise an admittedly more expensive and less efficient service?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am interested that the noble Lord has decided to intervene rather than allow his noble friend to carry on the discussion which we have had now for the third time. I have explained the matter three times: first, there is SERPS forgone. It is an important principle if they do opt out to make sure that the SERPS forgone is covered. Secondly, I explained that money purchase schemes, by the way they receive their rebate, get their money quicker than do personal pensions. Thirdly, as I have also explained, the costs of administering fully individualised pension schemes are higher. That has to be taken into account as well. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, shakes his head. The conclusion is quite simple and there is a divide between us. The party opposite is not keen on personal pensions.
Lord Eatwell: Taxpayers' subsidies!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it depends which way one looks at it. We are looking at it from the point of view of the individual and making sure that if the individual opts out he does so with sufficient resources to ensure that his personal scheme gives the equivalent of the SERPS given up. That is the position.
This whole debate has been going on for a few years since we introduced personal pensions. I believe that approved personal pensions are a positive addition to the armoury of pension provision—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There you are, my Lords. You are hearing the objection that the party opposite has to personal pensions. I am glad that from their sedentary positions they have indicated that. We believe that it is an important part of the array of choices available to an individual and, in particular, available to an individual whose employer does not provide a pension scheme.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it is only since I came to your Lordships' House that I have learnt about level playing fields. In the industry I come from we know only about level battlefields.
In many cases it is just not best to contract out of SERPS. It is only because of this artificial subsidy which the Government give out of taxpayers' money that makes it worth while to contract out of SERPS. Let the insurance companies find a way of cutting costs and making the personal pension schemes competitive instead of the taxpayer paying for it. So far as concerns those whose only alternative is a personal pension, let the insurance companies deal with that market.
1188
There seems to be an inconsistency here. However, I shall not take the matter further. I am sure that it will be picked up in another place, possibly by the people on the Treasury Bench. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 12:
Before Clause 150, insert the following new clause:
("Life assurance for pensions or divorce
—(1) The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph (1) (f) of section 23 there is inserted—
"(g) an order requiring either party to the marriage who is the member of a pension scheme:—

(i) to nominate the other party or a child of the family for benefits under the scheme as may be specified;

(ii) to effect such policy or policies of life assurance for the benefit of the other party or of a child of the family as may be specified for the purpose of compensating the other party or child against loss of widow's or dependant's benefits under the scheme;

(iii) to nominate the other party or a child of the family as a beneficiary under any existing policy or policies of life assurance as may be specified for the same purpose; and

(iv) to make such contributions to the scheme and pay such premiums in respect of any such policy for such term as may be specified:"

(3) In section 23(2) the word "and" is omitted where it first appears, and after "(f)" there is inserted "and (g)"
(4) After subsection (6) of section 23 there is inserted—
"(7) Any order made under subsection (1) (g) above may contain such directions for notification to the trustees or administrators of any pension scheme and for compliance with any conditions for the implementation and maintenance of any life assurance (including medical examination) and other directions as the court thinks fit."
(5) After paragraph (2) (f) of section 31 there is inserted
"(g) any order made under section 23(1) (g) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Report stage amendments were approved to give wider power to the divorce courts to consider actual or potential pension rights and benefits. Those amendments appear in the Bill at present rather disjointedly as Clauses 85 and 150. To add to the confusion, each clause introduces a new Section 25B to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, something which I hope will be tidied up later in the passage of the Bill. Meanwhile, Amendment No. 12 is intended to take matters one short step further before the Bill leaves this House by giving effect to a specific recommendation of the excellent PMI report on pensions and divorce.
It is primarily to enable the court to require a pension scheme member who is a party to a divorce to take out life assurance for the benefit of the other party or for the benefit of a child in order to protect against loss of widows' benefits or loss of dependants' benefits under the scheme or schemes concerned. This amendment endeavours to provide various options. The first is to require the member to nominate the spouse or ex-spouse or children to the trustees of the scheme for

1189
consideration for benefits in the event of death. Depending on the nature of those benefits and the effect of divorce under the terms of the scheme and on the attitude of the trustees, such a nomination may be enough to protect those involved.
In other cases, a nomination may not be enough; for example, where the scheme does not treat an ex-spouse as a dependant or where another spouse and other children may also make claims against the scheme or where trustees make clear that they are not going to be bound in the future exercise of their discretion. For that problem it is proposed that the court should henceforth have a power to require the other spouse to take out life assurance or to use existing policies, if there are any. The latter may be useful if there is a possibility that the scheme member's health may make new insurance hard or expensive to obtain.
The amendment proposed to Section 23(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act would enable such an order to be made before the actual decree of divorce. It can be important to try to get cover in place at an early stage in proceedings if there is a risk of the scheme member dying while he is domiciled abroad, leaving his spouse or ex-spouse without having achieved a substantive order from the court and without leaving her with rights to claim against his estate under the Inheritance (Provisions of Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
Since a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Milne in 1981 it has been well recognised, with some regret by the courts, that there is no power in the present matrimonial legislation to order a spouse to take out a life policy. This amendment endeavours to fill that gap, at least so far as concerns loss of pension benefits. I hope it is an uncontroversial amendment, building as it does a little further on what was done in respect of divorce cases on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this is a starred amendment, for which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is not in any way to be blamed because there have been only three working days since Report stage. The noble Lord the Leader of the House managed to convince himself—but possibly not all of your Lordships—that that meant three working days plus a weekend which, of course, it does not because your Lordships do not spend the whole of every weekend at your desks in Westminster.
As this is a starred amendment, I confess that I am not fully conversant with what it does. It may need tidying up at some later stage. It does not go as far as I think that the law should go; namely, to arm the courts with the widest discretion to deal with pension rights as is just in the circumstances.
On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, moved what was then Amendment No. 225, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, moved an amendment that was more specific. I hope that I may say without impertinence that I am an avowed admirer of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but I am afraid that her amendment did no more than restate the existing law, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, with the encouragement of all the other practitioners with whom he had discussed the matter. The amendment
1190
did no more than restate the existing law because the existing law states that the court must have regard to the pension rights—that is, the accrual of a pension—of one party and its deprivation, by divorce, to the other.
The amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, does not go the whole way, but it does go some way and it should certainly be accepted. The crucial case is where the only matrimonial asset is a pension right. If there are abundant finances so that a financial provision can be made, or if there is abundant property so that a property adjustment order may he made, there is no difficulty. If the finance and the property are sufficient to offset the loss of a pension right, there is no difficulty. The whole difficulty which must be faced but which has not, I am afraid, been faced by the Government is when the pension right is virtually the only matrimonial asset.
The most extraordinary cases can occur under the 1969 Act, which was consolidated in 1973. By that extraordinary Act —that deplorable Act—a husband may brutalise his wife; he may be flagrantly unfaithful to her; he may leave her for another woman but, at the end of five years, he may cast her off even though she has performed substantially all the responsibilities of a wife. That is most extraordinary, but the matter does not rest there. Not only can a husband cast off his wife, but he can deprive her by casting her into penury. There are certain women in those positions who do not choose to divorce their husbands. There may be conscientious objections or it may be that they do not wish to lose the pension rights, but the 1969 Act took no cognisance of that. Regardless of whether or not a wife had conscientious objections; whether a wife would be deprived of the only remaining matrimonial asset; whether her husband had behaved with flagrant brutality and profligacy; whether a wife had substantially performed her matrimonial responsibilities, she could be repudiated at the end of five years' separation.
While the matrimonial law remains in that state—the latest proposals show no sign of improvement—the least that we can do is to see that a wife is not ill-treated financially and property-wise as well as in the marital home. The amendment goes some way to rectifying that situation. It is the very least that can be done and I hope that your Lordships will accept the amendment.
Discount Chelmsford: My Lords, as far as I recollect, under the terms of most occupational pension schemes if one party to the marriage is a member of an occupational pension scheme, that scheme will provide not only a pension, but life assurance also. It is also my recollection that the general advice is that if the scheme member dies in employment, which is when life assurance is paid, the question of to whom the benefits should be paid is usually left, for tax reasons, to the trustees. Most schemes, however, will allow members to submit requests about who they would like the beneficiary to be. The trustees will consider that request if the member dies during employment.
If a party to divorce does not have a pension fund which includes life assurance, it may be that the state of his health is such that he cannot obtain life assurance. If

1191
such an amendment is to be made to the Bill, I believe that some thought needs to be given about the practical capability of the member to buy life assurance.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I had not intended to speak at this stage, but I am prompted to do so by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I was very surprised by what he said on two matters. The first was his general complaint about having Third Reading today, which he said was three working days plus a weekend after Report. That is something of which we are all aware. I would be surprised if that had not been agreed through the usual channels. That is the way in which the business of the House is conducted. There is no reason whatever for the noble and learned Lord to blame the Leader of the House who no doubt—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness may recollect that I said that it probably had been so arranged.
Baroness Young: My Lords, if I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, I am sorry, but that certainly was not clear from what he said.
The second point that I should like to raise with the noble and learned Lord is his comment that the amendment that I moved on Report did nothing but restate the existing law. I am not in a position to argue matters of law with a lawyer, but the noble and learned Lord's view on this matter certainly does not seem to be shared by the Lord Chancellor, whose advice I took. If the existing law was working we would not need the amendment. The fact of the matter is that whether it is the existing law or not, it is not working. The evidence that has been produced from the limited research that has already been carried out into this matter seems to support that case.
If the noble and learned Lord is satisfied with the way things are, perhaps I might say to him that, as a distinguished lawyer, he should address his legal colleagues. What are they doing about all this? What are the solicitors doing? Are they aware of what the law is and, if they are aware, why are they not doing something about it? This is not a matter for me. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will take up this matter through his professional bodies so that we can have some redress. We certainly need the amendment that has been made to be properly enforced by the courts. I hope that that will happen when the Bill becomes law, having completed its passage through both Houses.
The legal profession has a great deal to answer for in all of this. It is unsatisfactory, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take up that point with his colleagues. We have made an advance with the Bill, and I am glad to acknowledge the help I have received from my noble friends.
On the amendment, I listened carefully to what my noble friend had to say. We all have a great deal of sympathy with him about these proceedings. I find it difficult to take a completely new issue on Third Reading, especially when I have not had the time to discuss it, as I should like to do before commenting, and
1192
because it raises a new issue which one would clearly have to take up at considerable length with pension companies, and so forth. Having raised the issue and made the point, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has explained, the amendment seeks to provide the courts with powers to compensate the party to a marriage for the loss of benefits which she (or he; more likely she, as we have all agreed) would have received on the death of the other party if there had been no divorce. Similarly, it seeks to provide powers for the courts to ensure that dependent children do not lose any benefits to which they might otherwise have been entitled.
I do not want to argue with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the various merits of divorce law reform over the years, but what I shall say to him, if I dare, is that his hope that the courts were already taking pensions into account on divorce—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, what I said was that they are under a duty to have regard to them. Where there are no other assets, they are unable to deal with pension rights at the moment. Merely having regard to them does not transfer property.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was going to say to the noble and learned Lord that the preliminary results of the research project which I mentioned in Committee and on Report when speaking to the amendments on this matter show that in something like two-thirds of divorce cases, where the husband had pension entitlement, the pension rights were never discussed in the proceedings. Whether or not that is not having regard to, it seems to me a firm indication that, even if the noble and learned Lord is right about what they should have been doing, they do not appear to have been doing it. That was the point that I was happy to take on board from my noble friend Lady Young in her amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, does the Minister not see that there is no need to have regard to the pension rights if there are sufficient other assets? So it is not surprising that in two-thirds of the cases it was unnecessary to refer to them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not want to have a debate about this issue, but I should have thought that in the vast number of cases the pension rights are a major asset in the divorce. Even if they are not, they are an important asset which has to be taken into account with the house, other property and financial rights. The preliminary findings that in two-thirds of the divorce cases where the husband had pension rights the pension rights were never even discussed, even to the extent of deciding that they were not relevant, are worrying. It is a worry that is shared widely.
Also, in negotiation on the divorce settlement, the partner with pension rights may be persuaded to take out a life insurance policy for the benefit of the other

1193
partner. If he or she agrees to do so, the court has the power to ensure that the other partner has sufficient periodical payments to pay the premiums. If the partner who effects the policy is to pay the premiums, the courts may be able to ensure that they are secured. Property, for example, may be given as security. But it would not be appropriate to give the courts a power to require the man (or in a minority of cases the woman) who is the pension scheme member to take out a life insurance policy, as envisaged by subsection (2) (g) (ii) of the amendment. To do so would mean that the individual concerned would be expected to do something which was not wholly within his or her control.
Insurance companies could not be compelled to accept an application, which might be refused on grounds of health or for other reasons, or the company may exact an unreasonably high premium for such an insurance. Such a requirement could give rise to disputes about whether the individual had made reasonable efforts to secure life insurance, and that might mean that insurance companies would need to be represented in court.
Subsection (2) (g) (iii) of the amendment appears to be unworkable as it seems to have the effect of altering the terms of an existing life policy, which might not be feasible. Subsection (2) (g) (i) of the amendment would allow the court to order the pension scheme member to nominate the other party to the marriage or any dependent children to receive death benefits from the pension scheme to which they would otherwise not be entitled. That could mean overriding the provisions of the trust deed and potentially increasing the liabilities on the pension scheme.
Any additional benefits which would have to be paid under that paragraph, and any additional contributions which the member was required to make to the scheme under subsection (2) (g) (iv), would be restricted by Inland Revenue rules on the total death benefits which a scheme can pay and the total contributions which an individual may make to a scheme.
The interaction of subsection (4) with the amendments already accepted on Report mean that an order could be made against a scheme which would contravene the provision of the trust deed or indeed of provisions of pensions legislation or tax law. The amendments already adopted by the House on Report represent a considerable improvement in the position of divorced women, although we did not all agree on the best way forward. To paraphrase the remarks made on that occasion by my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, it makes sense to take one step at a time.
This is a complex area. My goodness, the whole issue of divorce is difficult. Pensions, as those noble Lords who have been here for the past seven or eight days know, are difficult enough. To combine the two makes for a difficult mixture. I must caution the House strongly against accepting an amendment which at best is unworkable and at worst could have potentially adverse consequences for schemes and for the parties to a divorce.
1194
In view of what I have said about the powers already available to the courts if they wish to exercise them, the problems which the amendment would introduce and the significant progress that we have already made with settlement on divorce, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will feel able to withdraw the amendment, having raised what is undoubtedly a difficult problem and one which I believe is too complex to be resolved at this late stage of the Bill.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I thank in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his support. I am sure that he at least will know that for many of us the weekend comprises two rather long working days. I would have liked to have brought the amendment to the House at an earlier stage, but it was necessary to see how matters developed in relation to pensions on divorce before deciding whether, and to what extent, it might be necessary to do so.
There is much to be said for the argument advanced by the noble and learned Lord for an altogether more robust and straightforward power to deal with pensions on divorce. Unfortunately, the Government have avoided that, and I respectfully agree with what the noble and learned Lord said about the effect of the amendments which have been accepted. My view, for what it is worth, is that they do little more than add some emphasis to the existing law.
In response to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I feel obliged to spring to the defence of the legal profession. We all know what the law can do and we all know its shortcomings. However, as a number of research documents have revealed, in many cases the existing law does not allow the courts to do what they would want to do. That is not a shortcoming of the legal profession but a shortcoming of the existing legal framework. That was recognised by those with considerable expertise; that is, members of the committee of the PMI which dealt with the matter. Those experts, dealing with English and Scottish law, recognised the shortcomings in those jurisdictions.
As things stand, practitioners must try hard to deal as best they can with the disparities in pension positions on divorce. It is not always possible to do so. Of course, it is sometimes possible to make requests or nominations to the trustees of a pension fund, which may or may not be honoured. The amendment is designed to deal with the cases in which the other party is not prepared to make a request or where the trustees are not prepared to indicate their response to such a request when the time comes. For that reason the PMI recommended the practical alternatives, which I have endeavoured to set out in the amendment.
Of course the court will have a discretion. Of course the court will not simply impose an obligation on a party to take out extremely expensive insurance or impose an obligation when it is unlikely that the individual concerned will be insured. The court will retain a discretion and will make an informed decision based on a knowledge of the likely costs and the practicalities of insuring the individual concerned. There is no question of unreasonable compulsion in this situation. With reference to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady

1195
Young, this is by no means a new issue. It may be a new issue in the context of the Bill but it was canvassed thoroughly in the PMI report. Perhaps it is unfortunate that the Government have only now indicated what they perceive to be practical difficulties.
I believe that it is a serious and reasonable proposal and will allow the question of the loss of pension rights and benefits to be dealt with efficiently and relatively painlessly; is many cases as it is presently done by agreement rather than by any measure of compulsion.
The Minister said that we can proceed only one step at a time. I had hoped that this short extra step could have been taken in the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. Evidently, that will not be possible and perhaps it must be taken in a more robust way when we consider a wider programme of divorce law reform. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An amendment (privilege) made.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. Perhaps I may say a few words at the end of a long period during which we have considered the Bill. We have examined it in detail in Committee, on Report and again today on Third Reading.
Many of your Lordships have taken part in our debates but perhaps I can extend particular thanks to those of your Lordships who have been season-ticket holders for these proceedings. They have participated in our deliberations, often late at night, and become immersed in some of the fearsome complexities which can arise on pensions. So perhaps I may give particular thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis, Lady Turner, Lady Dean and Lady Seear. On occasions I felt a little like John Knox before he wrote a certain pamphlet. I also give particular thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell, Lord Haskel, Lord Monkswell and Lord Ezra, and to my noble friends Lord Dean of Harptree and Lord Buckinghamshire.
On, or rather at, my own side, I would particularly like to extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Lucas, who has moved most of the amendments standing in my name and generally given me great support during our debates. I also place on record our thanks to the bodies which together constitute the Joint Working Group on Occupational Pension Schemes and all the many other organisations which have been involved off-stage. We have not always agreed with all the points that have been made but we do value their contributions. We place great importance on the role of these organisations and on the effective consultation which we have been able to enjoy. This is essential to make these complex provisions work and we shall be consulting further on the detailed regulation-making powers and the way in which they will be applied.
I give special thanks to my officials, not only those who have been here as season-ticket holders but also to all those behind the scenes. A complicated and lengthy
1196
Bill such as this one requires many, many weeks of dedicated work and a rapid immersion course on some very complex issues. I am grateful for their patience in explaining these matters to me and in explaining all the, sometimes, ingenious amendments put down by your Lordships. I am sure that I can also thank them on behalf of those of your Lordships who met me and the team to discuss various aspects of this Bill.
As I said on Second Reading, this Bill is a major piece of legislation which will set the framework for pensions provision well into the next century. It is in everyone's interest to make sure that it achieves our aims of providing security, equality and choice in pensions and, in this way, encourage people to make their own provision for their retirement.
During our debates, we have listened carefully to various concerns expressed by your Lordships and I hope that I have been able to explain and clarify our intentions. We have also been able to make a number of useful amendments to the Bill and I have made commitments to revisit some of the points of concern. I shall make sure that the commitments I have given are fully honoured in another place.
I was particularly happy to be able to accept the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the selection of the members of the pensions compensation board. This improved the Bill and also gave the noble Baroness such obvious pleasure in having an amendment accepted after, as she said, 24 years in this House. I am not sure whether that was the champagne moment in our deliberations.
We have, I believe, made one very significant addition to the Bill in the new clause moved so ably by my noble friend Lady Young. My noble friend led a number of your Lordships in the successful effort to persuade my noble and learned fellow clansman the Lord Chancellor and me of the need to take action to help women (and occasionally men) on divorce. I have no wish to rehearse the arguments but I am confident that in future courts in England and Wales will use the powers that we have given them to deal justly with both parties to divorce on the matter of pensions. My noble friend deserves not only our congratulations but also those of the many women who will benefit from this provision. I am sure my noble friend will not mind me saying that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, played her part in arguing for these changes.
We also debated a number of other issues which were not originally included in the Bill but which are clearly of great concern to your Lordships. They were pressed skilfully and with great determination and, in some cases, despite my sage advice to the contrary.
It has been very clear that, as regards the main components of the Bill, we are all pulling in the same direction, irrespective of where we sit in your Lordships' House. So while we have not been able to agree on everything that we have discussed, I believe that we are generally trying to achieve much the same thing. We can all take satisfaction from the constructive way in which we have been able to debate these issues over many hours and the significant measure of agreement that we have been able to achieve, That was sometimes lost by those who watched the debates

1197
because they saw us bring into the public domain only those parts of the Bill about which we disagreed. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, when we discussed the Bill on Second Reading, we felt that we were perhaps discussing three Bills in one: first, in the light of Maxwell, to deliver a pension promise to protect occupational pensions from insolvency and fraud. We sympathised with its purposes but doubted whether the promise would be fully delivered.
The second Bill aimed to equalise the state pension age. In that regard, we sought to persuade the Minister to support a flexible decade in order to offer better protection to women. We recognised also that woven throughout the Bill was a third shadowy Bill. That is the Bill that we do not not really know about because it is in the back pocket of the Secretary of State—a Bill of regulations. We sought to bring that into the light.
Looking back, we failed to spell out and strengthen the role of the regulator and to give it state funding. We failed to separate advisers to both employers and the trustees and, despite the persuasive arguments of my noble friend Lady Dean and the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, to make mandatory the independent custody of assets. We are sure that the Government were wrong on both of those issues.
No one doubts that the Bill is much better than nothing but it is still not enough and on many of the issues, the jury is still out.
As regards trustees, many of us are convinced that the Government have short-changed member trustees. They refused not only to increase the percentage for defined benefit schemes but, notoriously and contrary to Goode, they refused to increase their numbers on money purchase schemes. They refused also to add a pensioner representative as of right, despite the urging of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Many employee trustees may still be vulnerable to an impressive employer. They are still vulnerable to unfair balloting procedures and, despite the urgent pressure from my noble friend Lady Turner, in some cases they are still vulnerable to the problem of unfair dismissal. In that sense, it remains an employers' Bill.
As regards protecting pension schemes not from fraud but from insolvency, some of our worries have grown as the Bill has progressed and as employers' organisations have lobbied, in some cases all too successfully, to reduce the solvency standard. That is now a funding standard but it is one standard that is asked to carry two disparate functions: that of the ongoing nature of the scheme; and that of winding-up. In some of the most significant speeches in the course of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Eatwell alerted us to the need to uncouple those functions, while my noble friend Lord Haskel sought to set the responsibility of fund managers in the wider context of corporate governance. I am sure that that issue will occupy the Government in the months to come.
The second Bill within the Bill dealt with the equalisation of the state pension age and the position of women in SERPS. Although we did not persuade the Government of the merits of the flexible decade, at least
1198
in relation to SERPS we ensured that women who worked five years longer would not necessarily suffer a lower pension as a result, The 44 best years amendment, which aligned SERPS with the national insurance rules, was of course to the gain of women and lower paid men.
My noble friend Lady Gould tried to persuade the Government to reform HRPs. My noble friends Lady Lockwood and Lord Monkswell tried to persuade the Government as to the benefits of alternative and more flexible retirement dates. My noble friend Lady Turner continued to remind the House of the importance for women both of SERPS and the GMP.
In the course of the debates, we teased out from the Minister the department's reading of European judgments as they affect the Bill.
The third Bill within the Bill dealt with the hidden regulations which, with the help in particular of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, we did something to bring that into the light, as the Government have agreed to offer the affirmative procedure where the scrutiny committee drew attention to procedural problems. We can only hope that the luxurious abundance of regulatory powers which are left to the Secretary of State will come splendidly into use on the next change of government.
As the Financial Times rather plaintively complained, the Bill addressed issues which not all of us had foreseen as far back as last Christmas would take the prominence that they did; particularly important were pensions and divorce and war widows although, sadly, not those in residential care. Never has the phrase at the start of the Bill:
"About pensions and for other connected purposes",
been used so vigorously and with such intent.
We are all delighted with the success of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on the Cross-Benches, who remedied an injustice to war widows. Like the Minister, I too wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on spearheading a gallant and successful effort to reform some of the issues associated with pension laws on divorce. In consequence, the courts will now have the option to earmark as well as to offset pension assets in relation to matrimonial property. I very much hope that the Minister and the Bill team will now tidy up some of the loose ends which undoubtedly remain—for example, the situation of a former wife after the death of her husband—perhaps by completing the move towards pension splitting. But of course, that is for the other place.
I was especially pleased that after that victory, which was worked for on all sides of the House, so many noble Lords who were on the losing side that day made it clear that they felt that the House of Lords had perhaps reached the right decision, despite their position on the vote. We hope that the pension industry and the good sense of the department and its team will combine to do what we all know to be right, decent and sensible on those issues.
The amendment which I feel most sad about losing was the amendment moved in relation to residential care. We made a last effort on that today. I am sorry that it turned into a rather acrimonious debate but I am

1199
sure that we all recognise that there are real problems to be addressed. They can be addressed only by the three relevant departments working together closely and harmoniously. We hope that that will be done in the other place.
I turn now to the most agreeable part of the speech on this Motion; namely, to express our thank-those. First, like the Minister, I wish to thank those organisations outside the House led by the TUC, the NAPF and the Law Society as well as many individual lawyers and actuaries who have helped my noble friends and I. I wish to thank also the pressure group organisations such as the Alzheimer's Disease Society, Age Concern and Fair Shares, which is a new pressure group that has helped enormously to highlight the issues of pensions on divorce.
The second thank-you, which is perhaps less customary, is expressed to those newspaper journalists, often women and often editing the personal and financial pages of the quality press, who have reported so many of our debates, especially on pensions on divorce, with such style, attention and accuracy. They did much to focus our minds and, perhaps at least as important, to focus our votes. I am grateful to them.
Thirdly, we thank the Minister who was almost always courteous and almost always well-informed and good humoured, except when he was not. Nevertheless, it is the view around the House that on this Bill, we were lucky to have him. I pay special tribute to the way in which he was kind enough to arrange departmental briefings with his staff which proved to be always helpful and even on some occasions useful. They were much appreciated. We had our allies and colleagues on all sides of the House; for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the Liberal Benches. Their staunch good sense and very real experience cut through so many of the issues for us. From the Cross Benches and Conservative Benches we had the steady voices of those noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
I am sure that your Lordships will not be surprised that I wish to conclude by giving special thanks to those on the Front Bench on this side of the House. Their personal expertise was, in my view, unrivalled. My noble friends Lady Turner and Lady Dean are both former members of the Occupational Pensions Board. They dealt with issues of regulation and trusteeship to which they brought unrivalled, personal knowledge. My noble friend Lord Haskel raised the key issues of corporate governance within which the Bill is embedded. My noble friends Lady Lockwood and Lady Gould dealt with issues of which they have special and relevant experience; that is, issues relating to women and equal opportunities and the issues raised by the Fawcett Society.
Throughout the proceedings on the Bill we have had the sturdy support of my noble friend Lord Monkswell and, as I believe almost everyone has recognised, my noble friend Lord Eatwell has contributed significant and magnificent speeches on solvency which have taken the debate very much further forward. The skill of my noble friend Lord McIntosh in addressing the
1200
Government's amendments proved invaluable in picking them up on some of the points that they were trying to make. In my, admittedly, relatively short time in your Lordships' House, I cannot remember a Bill where so much knowledge, experience and expertise has lain in the membership of the House on such an extensive, significant but nonetheless technically very difficult Bill. I owe everyone my deep gratitude.
I believe that we now leave behind with pleasure the word "balance"—indeed, may it never cross our lips again for at least a month—and the phrase "level playing field" which I personally vow not to use for at least the next fortnight. We now pass the baton on to the other place. I can assure the Minister that he has heard nothing yet.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in supporting what has been said, I shall be very brief. That is partly because a great deal has already been said and partly because, as must be all too plain to your Lordships, I have very little voice left with which to say anything. No doubt that will be a great relief to the Minister.
I shall start at the bad end. I must say that, in some ways, the process has been something of a disappointment. After all, we have been dealing with a pension Bill. Of course, there have been some useful gains; but, on the main points of the Bill, I remain unconvinced that it will carry out the job that it sets out to do. We on these Benches have stressed the inadequacy of the regulator. The fact that the Government were not even prepared to put down a statement as to what the authority was supposed to do was a bad start. In our view, the powers of the regulator are inadequate and insufficient. Reliance on whistle blowing is not the right way to approach the subject. As the Bill is meant to be a safeguard to pensions and the regulator is meant to be the major instrument for that safeguarding, it is sad that the legislation leaves this House in as feeble a state as, in our view, it does.
However, having said that, there have been most satisfactory successes. It is so long ago that I had in fact forgotten about my triumph until the noble Lord kindly reminded me. I must admit that that cheered me up no end. I just hope that the Government will not allow that as well as the other successes—for example, as regards war widows and pensions after divorce—to be destroyed when the Bill reaches another place. It would be very sad indeed if, after such all-party support and all the effort that has gone into it, such changes were reversed in another place. I very much hope that that will not happen. They are satisfactory changes that we have been able to secure.
In some ways, it has been an extremely interesting Bill and a very agreeable Bill on which to work. I say that because during the proceedings most of us forgot party alignments; indeed, we have been working across parties, trying to reach good solutions to immensely difficult problems. It demonstrates again that when party issues are at a low level and when interest in the topic and the desire to find the right solution comes

1201
uppermost, your Lordships' House operates at its very best. To that extent, it has certainly been an enjoyable experience.
I should also like to thank the Minister. I am aware that the noble Lord was confronted with, as he remarked, a monstrous regiment of women and that it was pretty tough for him, especially with the Scottish tradition. I could not resist that. Indeed, he found it pretty heavy going, to put it mildly. However, on the whole, the Minister stood up to the feminine opposition pretty well. But, more seriously, we are most grateful to the Minister for the time he gave us by arranging separate interviews of long duration to deal with questions we raised and also for giving us access on those occasions to his expert advisers. It is a great problem for the Opposition that we have so little opportunity to receive such advice. Moreover, not all of us are financed in such a way that we can buy the advice from outside. Therefore, the Minister's efforts to ensure that we got that advice and to make time himself to see us and discuss matters is something for which we on these Benches are most grateful. I hope that that is a good precedent for future Bills.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, although I have had little to do with the considerable detail of such an important Bill, I should still like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for his forbearance, for his time and consideration and for the courtesy with which he listened to me. In particular, I should like to thank the Minister for the sensitive way he handled my amendments. I should also like to thank the two noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Seear, for their generous support, for the amount of time they spared me and for the enormous help they gave me thus enabling me to carry through an amendment.
However, above all, I should like to thank the House for its patience and especially all those who have supported me during the past few weeks. I am extremely grateful to all of them. Finally, I should like to wish the Bill a speedy passage through another place.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House. I thought for one horrible moment that I was being taken back to start all over again on another Second Reading speech. But I am grateful for the compliments that all three Members of your Lordships' House have paid me. For a moment, I could not quite recognise myself in some of those speeches. However, I should like to extend my thanks in that respect.
I should especially like to thank the two noble Baronesses, who, through me, have thanked the officials who have been so helpful to all of us on the Bill. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I believe that it is sensible, whenever possible, to have meetings to ensure that we all understand exactly what is going on—and that applies especially in a Bill of this nature.
In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for his kind remarks. Occasionally, I believe that I was less than helpful to him; but the noble Lord probably realises that he sometimes shared that experience with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Seear.
1202
Having said that, we can all enjoy an early evening for the first time in nine days of sitting. I hope that the Bill will now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Miners' Welfare Act 1952 (Transfer of Functions of Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation) Order 1995
7.37 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing the draft order to the House, it is appropriate to recall the commitment that the House made to the future of coal industry social welfare during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994.
At the outset, I hope it will be helpful if I say a few words about the arrangements that the directors, who are also known sometimes as "the Council" of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation (CISWO)—a Companies Act company—and the trustees, who include all the directors of the company, have been making to ensure a secure and sound future for miners' social welfare services.
In short, instead of having a Companies Act company at the centre of those arrangements the aim is to have a charitable trust—the CISWO trust. I understand that the acronym CISWO is pronounced "KISWO" in Wales but "CISWO" in the North of England.
Noble Lords: "SISWO"!
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I come from the North of England I shall call it CISWO and I make no apologies for that.
Towards that end, CISWO resolved on 10th March that the company—that is, itself—should be wound up. The specific purpose of the draft order before the House tonight is to enable the transfer of CISWO's functions to that trust in accordance with Section 12(3) of the Miners' Welfare Act 1952. The assets will follow on the liquidation of CISWO.
Section 12(3) provides that if a resolution is passed or an order made for the winding up of CISWO, any functions of that organisation shall be transferred to such a body or person as may be prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State. Such a resolution was passed on 10th March, and I ask noble Lords to support the decisions taken by the CISWO directors and trustees of the CISWO trust, by affirming the draft order before the House tonight.
There is a long tradition of social welfare in this country's mining communities. As a statutory arrangement it stretches back to the Mining Industry Act 1920, although its antecedents go back long before that date. It has been the concern of this House and of the Government that the core services provided should continue after the privatisation of the coal industry. Coal industry social welfare embraces a wide range of

1203
activities. To take just a few examples, them are some 4,000 to 5,000 annual placements at convalescent homes; holidays for the seriously disabled, and recreation and recuperation at day centres such as at the popular Miners' Centre for the Disabled at Pontefract. Each year there are nearly 12,000 counselling sessions or visits by CISWO's team of 17 social workers, supported by an army of volunteer helpers. CISWO organises sports, competitions and recreational activities—in part through company sponsorship—for the disabled as well as the able-bodied. CISWO provides administrative support to independent miners' welfares; to convalescent homes and trusts—including the Coal Industry Benevolent Trust and the Miners' Welfare National Education Fund.
It was clear from debates in this House last year that these services, and especially those services for the disabled, the old and the infirm, are greatly valued. The Government took careful note of the depth of support for existing services. Noble Lords may recall that our approach involves funding of £17 million; £5 million taking the form of an annual payment of £1 million for five years by the new coal companies, and £12 million taking the form of capital endowments from British Coal.
I am sure that some noble Lords would have liked CISWO's successor to receive more money, but we believed that the settlement provided a sound and sensible basis for meeting the central concerns for CISWO's support to the old, infirm and disabled. We are encouraged that CISWO, mindful of the opportunities open to it when it becomes a national charity, is laying plans with local and regional organisations and private companies for future programmes and sponsored activities.
It has been accepted that CISWO's place is in the voluntary sector. Noble Lords did not, I believe, dissent from this arrangement. But we should remind ourselves why. Essentially, charitable status is a more flexible arrangement. As a Companies Act company, CISWO presides over 400 miners' welfares, area trusts and convalescent homes, each of which is an independent charity. Yet CISWO itself does not enjoy the benefits of charitable status. The change of status increases the range of options for making the best use of what resources are now available.
CISWO will in the future be looking further to a wide range of sources of support and funding. As a charity CISWO will be best placed to do this. The directors of CISWO independently set up a trust in 1991, though that has lain dormant since. They, however, agreed at a meeting held on 15th February this year to a supplemental trust deed. Following the making of the order for which the approval of your Lordships' House is being sought tonight—and which was approved in the other place on Tuesday, 14th March—the CISWO trust will now be able to perform all the functions up until now carried out by the company.
Continuity of strategic direction and service is essential. It is therefore reassuring that the eight existing trustees (and former directors of CISWO Ltd.) will remain as trustees: that is, four British Coal members and four trade union members. The supplemental deed
1204
also puts in place new arrangements for the governance of the trust. There will in all be twelve trustees: four representing employers, four representing employees and four general trustees. Current trustees fill the employer and employee categories. Anticipating CISWO's evolution as a major charity in the voluntary sector, four general trustees will be appointed to complement the skills of the other trustees, so that the trust may derive added value from the experience of the current British Coal and trade union interests.
The first general trustees will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and their successors by the trustees at the time. We are consulting the existing trustees on whom to appoint. We are seeking people with experience of voluntary sector management and organisation; financial management; delivery of regional and local health, welfare or social services; public relations and publicity. Noble Lords will be well aware that the role of trustee places substantial obligations and responsibilities on individuals. I am pleased to note that the former CISWO directors, who have guided and supported the activities of CISWO over the years, are prepared to continue their commitment, and give their time and energies to the future development of coal industry social welfare.
There was also some concern on a separate issue in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill last year and in another place earlier this month on the issue of recreational land. That issue, legally speaking, is entirely distinct from the question of the approval of the draft order before your Lordships' House. But nonetheless I think it is appropriate to mention it. That concern was that British Coal land used by miners' welfares, and by local communities, for sport and recreation should continue to be used for those purposes. I emphasise here that I am talking about British Coal land, not CISWO land. Ministers gave assurances that the Government's objective was that British Coal land currently in active use for sports and recreation would wherever possible be retained for those purposes. That remains our position. CISWO and the National Playing Fields Association are closely involved in our discussions with British Coal about this matter.
There is also concern about allotments in many of the pit communities, and that has been raised in another place quite recently. We are actively pursuing with British Coal the future for the allotments and, as of now, no decisions have been taken.
In conclusion, I would say, as I mentioned earlier, that the charitable trust is now in place. It is the essential complement to the winding up of CISWO and the transfer of its assets and its functions. I believe that CISWO can look forward to the future with confidence. It has a substantial secure income, committed trustees and staff, and widespread support in this House and in the coalfields. It should continue to flourish, providing its services as effectively in the future as it has for many years past. I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.

1205
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee.] —(Lord Inglewood.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall be brief. First, I thank the noble Lord for introducing the order. Secondly, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the miners themselves. Long before the welfare state, the miners had introduced essentially their own mini welfare state in many areas. One should not forget what they achieved in health, in education, in providing libraries and in so many other areas. We are at the end of an era and I wish to place on record that some of us have not forgotten what the miners achieved in their great years.
There are three or four points of a substantive nature that I wish to raise. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, anticipated me by saying he knows that noble Lords feel that the funding package should have been more generous. He would not be pursuing his role correctly if he had not said that he thinks it is as generous as it can be, and I would not be acting out my part fully if I did not say that I think it could have been more generous. However, both our comments are on record. I feel that a little more money could have been found to provide more certainty about what is likely to take place.
The noble Lord referred to land. His honourable friend in the other place spoke on this matter on 14th March and was forthright on the subject of land. He said categorically that,
"The land under the control of CISWO will remain under its control unless it reaches a particular agreement with the National Playing Fields Association for that organisation to look after the land. Any terms and arrangements would have to be satisfactory with such an agreement".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/95; col. 787.]
I do not wish to read out everything his honourable friend said but he did add,
"The Government have given assurances that the land will be maintained for recreational use".
He further added that that was rather complex and it could not all be sorted out at that time. Will the noble Lord confirm that the statements, which to me read like an absolute guarantee—there are no ifs or buts about what his honourable friend said about the land—are still valid? Will he also confirm that between 14th March and today there has been no backsliding, and that what his honourable friend said in another place about the land can be accepted as absolutely the case, with no ifs or buts?
The Minister's honourable friend was slightly less committed in the case of allotments, although he seemed fairly committed. In particular, he pointed out that he would have nothing but trouble if he could not give a definite commitment on allotments. I understood the noble Lord himself to say much the same today.
An issue which was raised in the other place—and I understand why—was the fact that part of the future cost will be borne for five years by the three relevant companies. Can we he assured, since we are now discussing a charity, that those companies will certainly
1206
produce an appropriate covenant format which is as tax efficient as possible in order to maximise the benefit to the charity?
The other point which was raised in another place and which I did not feel was answered satisfactorily is what happens if one of the contributing companies defaults on its obligation to pay? I do not say that the companies will default. None of us would remotely hope that reputable companies, as these are supposed to be, would default. Nonetheless, there is a technical question to which I would like an answer.
There is nothing wrong with the drafting of the order, which is admirably brief. However, I draw the attention of the Minister and the House to paragraph 2 of the order. It does not set out the aims and objectives of the charitable trust to which it refers. Can the Minister say whether the new trust differs in any material respect from CISWO, as it was constituted under the Miners' Welfare Act 1952, apart from the fact that it is now constituted as a charity? If there are any variations between the 1952 trust and the new trust can the Minister give particulars of the changes? It may be that that is so technical that the Minister cannot answer now and may have to write to me. That is the only point of substance that I have to raise.
I have a feeling that this will be the last time that we shall debate any matter of this kind. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart that I come to the end of my remarks. An era has ended in this country. A great industry, in its original form, is no more. This part of the industry, in terms of what the miners did, is certainly no more.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as the House will know, I expressed concern about the future of the coal industry and CISWO during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill. I am not entirely happy with the partial outcome of the talks between the Government, British Coal and CISWO so far. I do not think that everything has yet been finalised.
I ask, first, is the funding package really acceptable to CISWO? There will be a total sum of £17 million in the form of a charitable trust, £5 million (an annual payment of £1 million for five years) paid by the new coal companies, and £12 million in capital endowments from British Coal. Will that sum adequately cover the costs of securing the future of all those services which cater for CISWO's disabled—the old and the infirm—bearing in mind the wide range of welfare services and social welfare and benefits provided for more than 500,000 beneficiaries? We have had assurances only in respect of five years. There is also concern regarding the maintenance of the miners' convalescent homes, which the Minister mentioned.
Can we be assured of the continuation of the welfare trusts which provide recreation and sporting facilities in our coalfields, not only for miners but for everyone? We have to bear in mind the large numbers of unemployed and increasing numbers of part-time workers. As most have more leisure time there is a greater and growing demand for recreation and sports of all kinds in our mining communities. CISWO has built up and maintained a network of activities covering all sports

1207
cricket, football, bowls, angling, athletics and social clubs. One wonders at what level those will be maintained in the future.
That leads me to a more serious concern—the disposal of British Coal land. Forty per cent. of the miners' welfare organisations lease all or some of their land from British Coal. It is valuable land, including sports grounds, in all the coalfields. Speculators will be interested in developing those prime sites. How will they be safeguarded?
The Minister and my noble friend Lord Peston have already mentioned the many acres of allotments which may well come under the same threat. In Yorkshire alone almost 200 acres of land are leased by miners' welfare schemes from British Coal.
The changes proposed in the management of CISWO also worry me. Previously it was a balanced representation of management and men, union and Coal Board, with an alternating chairmanship. Under this proposal the trustees are made up of three groups—four employees, four from the employers and another four with general expertise. Therefore, the CISWO element may well lose out in relation to its future policy requirements since it is bound to be in a minority on the new board.
Furthermore, can the Minister allay anxieties about land leased for recreation and community purposes from the corporation? He mentioned the subject during the course of his contribution to the debate. Can existing users be given long-term leases and, if and when necessary, the leases transferred to, say, the National Playing Fields Association? That would be a useful safeguard, both for our recreation facilities and as a curb on the speculators.
I notice, of course, that the future financial backing of CISWO will in part depend on the new coal companies. I take up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Peston that there will be a total annual contribution from the mine owners of £1 million a year. What if any one of them fails to make that contribution? Is there any penalty or sanction for financial failure?
In the wake of a catalogue of pit closures it was inevitable that CISWO and British Coal had to examine the future of CISWO; a splendid national organisation which has served the miners, their families and the coalfield communities extremely well. I hope that it will not be unduly shackled in the years to come, because I believe that it still has a great task before it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I repeat two matters which have been raised by my noble friends. They are very important issues and I do so to emphasise their importance.
First, my noble friend Lord Peston concluded on a fundamentally important matter; namely, are the objectives of the new charity the same as the previous objectives of CISWO? I see that the Minister is agreeing with that. It is as well to have that on the record.
The second point is one which my noble friend Lord Mason raised—the question of grants. We said during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill that we did not
1208
believe that they were adequate. We repeat that now. While there may be little hope of any increase at this stage, or indeed at a later stage, we feel that the point has to be made yet again.
The Minister very properly recounted some of the benefits which have accrued to the mining community through CISWO. I am very glad that my noble friend on the Front Bench also mentioned what was in existence before CISWO. Everything was done by the miners themselves. That is something which those of us who come from mining families or mining districts regard as a major achievement under very difficult conditions. We remember the low pay and the difficulties associated with the mining industry at that time. One hopes that those achievements will not be forgotten in the coming years and, perhaps more importantly, in the initial stages. My noble friend Lord Mason gave figures which are on the record. However, we hope that that is not necessarily the end of the matter.
Perhaps I may refer to one aspect which is important to many of us with families in the mining industry. The Minister did not refer to the matter but I know that he will agree with me. Many of us who had the good fortune to undertake higher education received grants from CISWO. The grants were sufficiently important to make the difference between receiving or not receiving higher education. I hope that when considering what will happen in the future the trustees will bear that factor in mind.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether I am right on this aspect. I ask from sheer ignorance on my part. When CISWO becomes a charitable trust, will the bulk of the money, if not all of it, simply come from any outside organisation, body, person or individuals who can make a contribution to what will be the trust? I do not know enough about the legal side of charities to say whether that is the case.
As I understand it, the appointment of four general trustees will be made by the Government. I note that the Minister agrees. The character, nature and type of person are crucially important in the initial stages. Those factors will set the tone for the charity. Perhaps I may say this to the House. Under CISWO, and in pre-CISWO days of miners' welfare, there were two guiding principles regarding the administration of the scheme. First, there was the spirit of CISWO—the knowledge of exactly what was involved in providing help, and the good work which was carried out. Secondly, there was flexibility. That has not been referred to in this short debate. However, I hope that the board of trustees will make flexibility one of the most important guiding principles for the future.
I repeat what my noble friend said: that for all of us from the mining industry it is sad that today we come to what is, in effect, the end of an era. However, having said that, one hopes that the spirit of CISWO (that spirit will now come from the Government) will continue. There is a great deal to do and we look forward to the Government doing it.
8 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, this has been a useful debate. It has reaffirmed, I believe, a consensus in this

1209
House that, by transferring CISWO to the charitable sector and providing the financial settlement debated during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994, we are creating a solid basis for its work to continue and indeed thrive. CISWO now has the opportunity and freedom to build on the settlement by extending its fundraising activities and taking full advantage of its charitable status.
A number of noble Lords have indicated a degree of sadness that this is the end of an era. I fully understand that. Indeed, it is the end of an era. However—this is an important point—it is not the end of CISWO. Just as CISWO became statutory in the 1920s—I briefly alluded to the history before that period—CISWO now has a future. It will be able to contribute to the communities, as it has in the past, albeit through a different mechanism.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked for confirmation that there has been no backsliding between this House and another place about land matters. I can give him that assurance. He then asked about the funding for the coal industry's element. The private coal companies will enter covenants to provide that funding. While nothing on this earth is absolutely certain, that seems to me to provide the necessary assurance.
Regarding the change from being a company under the Companies Act to becoming a charity, the purposes of the charitable trust reflect the purposes of the CISWO deed. If anything, that change (as I hope that I made clear earlier) will provide greater flexibility and possibilities for the work that is to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, referred to contributions. It will, of course, be easier for people to contribute tax-effectively because of the tax benefits relating to a charity. The order should assist in that regard. The noble Lord also raised the point on trustees. As we see it, the crucial point about the Secretary of State's trustees is that they will bring skills which will be needed in the new era. But clearly it is a joint enterprise and the trustees cannot possibly be effective unless they share the aspirations and spirit of the existing trustees. I believe that we can agree on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, asked whether we believe the funding package to be acceptable in the circumstances. It is our belief that in the current environment what we provide will enable the core activities to be properly dealt with in the future. He also commented about the land. We are confident that the steps we are endeavouring to bring forward will come to fruition and that we shall be able to achieve the kind of endeavours that he wishes to see.
In opening the debate, I commended the commitment given and pledged for the future by the directors of CISWO who are now the trustees of the CISWO trust. Noble Lords will not wish me to omit to mention the advisers and staff of CISWO, led by its chief executive, Mr. Vernon Jones. During this time of change, their contribution has been great, and is recognised as such. CISWO has been maintaining its complex and dynamic range of services, which have been well appreciated over the years. Yet during recent months, the advisers and staff have carried much additional work, preparing
1210
for the transfer of activities from the company to the trust and making plans for future programmes as a charitable trust.
A special tribute must equally be paid to the many supporters and voluntary helpers in the coalfield communities who so effectively help to deliver CISWO's services and the services provided by convalescent homes and day centres. Their work is vital. It is well appreciated and long may it continue.
I commend the order. It represents the next chapter in CISWO's history.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (Release of Prisoners etc.) Order 1995
8.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the draft orders provide that in the case of sentences of less than 10 years the Secretary of State must release the person where the Parole Board for Scotland so recommends. It might be helpful to noble Lords if I describe more fully the effect of the orders. I should mention that similar, but not identical, provisions are already in place in England and Wales.
Section 20(3) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 provides that the Secretary of State for Scotland may, after consultation with the Parole Board for Scotland, make an order by virtue of which, in relation to such class of case as may be specified in the order, certain provisions relating to long-term prisoners will be read as requiring, rather than enabling, the Secretary of State to act upon the recommendation of the board. At present the Secretary of State has no power to release a prisoner except on the recommendation of the Parole Board; but he may refuse to accept such a recommendation. The Kincraig Committee, which examined the parole system and reported in 1989, concluded that there should be no change in the formal role of the Secretary of State.
However, as the Kincraig Committee noted, in practice the Secretary of State rarely intervenes in the decisions of the board. He has generally done so only in connection with the more serious offences; for example, offences involving serious violence, terrorism or drugs. In their response to the Kincraig proposals, the Government announced that they would seek powers to enable the Secretary of State to delegate to the board responsibility for release decisions and these powers were taken in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.
Under the provisions of that Act only those prisoners who are sentenced to four years or more will be eligible for consideration for parole after serving half their sentence. However, there are in the system prisoners

1211
who qualify to be considered for parole at one third of sentence under the provisions of the earlier Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989. The principle of the 1993 Act was that for any prisoner sentenced before its commencement the existing provisions would remain in force.
We therefore took powers in Section 18 of the 1989 Act, as amended by Section 134 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to enable the Secretary of State to exercise essentially the same order-making power in relation to prisoners sentenced before the commencement of the 1993 Act. The operative date for that purpose was 1st October 1993.
That is why there are two orders before your Lordships this evening. Together the orders ensure that all eligible prisoners are treated on the same basis, whether their release is considered under the 1989 Act or under the 1993 Act. The orders propose that, in cases where prisoners are serving a sentence of less than 10 years' imprisonment, the board's recommendation for parole must be implemented by the Secretary of State. Any recommendation for parole involving a sentence of 10 years or more will continue to require the approval of the Secretary of State.
The orders also provide that, where such prisoners have been released on licence, the Secretary of State will be required to revoke the licence and recall the person to prison if the Parole Board so recommends. However, the Secretary of State will retain his power to recall any prisoner if it is not expedient to refer the case to the board for its recommendation. He would then refer the case to the board as soon as possible to consider whether to direct the prisoner's re-release.
It might be helpful if I gave some indication of the scale of cases which will be affected by these orders. In 1994 the Parole Board for Scotland considered 815 cases, of which 692 were determinate sentence prisoners being considered for early release. Of these, 628 were serving sentences of between four and 10 years. In fact, in 1994 only 368 of the 628 considered were actually given the benefit of early release on parole. Because the Secretary of State has not historically intervened often in the board's recommendations, we would not expect the orders themselves to result in an increase in the rate of prisoners being released on parole.
I am confident that the time is now right to entrust this greater authority to the board. We have made very significant changes to the parole scheme since the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act was enacted. We have made the scheme much more open and accountable and have strengthened the proper independence of the board.
The board now has 16 members and I would like to pay tribute both to the recently appointed chairman, Mr. Ian McNee, and to the other members for the conscientious way in which they carry out their functions. The board has an onerous workload which it discharges efficiently against tight deadlines. I believe that it is well placed to exercise the significant responsibilities placed on it by these orders, and I conclude by requesting that they receive your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
8.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full explanation of the orders and the additional points he made about the numbers of people who were considered for parole. Nevertheless, I wish to make several points. Basically I disapprove of secondary bodies, with no representation possible, making important decisions like these. I do not mind such bodies giving advice to the Secretary of State since we cannot expect him to examine every case in great detail. However, in certain cases it will be important for further representations to be made by some outside voice. I am thinking more of Members of another place who may represent the families of prisoners who feel that a member of the family has not, for some reason, been fairly treated. The family may take the view that the Parole Board was automatically unsympathetic towards the type of offence with which the prisoner was involved or even that the members of the board were not totally impartial.
The Minister said that the Secretary of State rarely interferes with a decision of the Parole Board and that would be fine if all things were equal. However, there are always exceptional cases. I wish to know whether the system whereby the Secretary of State occasionally has to interfere in a case works well. On what basis does he interfere? Is it because of representations from other people, particularly Members of Parliament, who may in some cases be approached by relatives of the person in prison? Members of Parliament or others may wish to make an appeal to the Secretary of State in special cases.
Another point which I feel is important is the following. I am grateful to the Scottish Council for Single Homeless for writing to me. It made the first representations some time ago. This is not in the sphere of the Minister; it is more in the sphere of the Department of Social Security. It is obviously an important consideration for the prison service and the Government that when single prisoners are released now, housing benefit is not given, as was the case some time ago. They now have a maximum of 13 weeks which is not long for a prisoner to establish himself. Research carried out by the Scottish prison service and a survey carried out by SACRO Grampian both show that housing is the most significant concern for prisoners when they leave prison. Up to 20 per cent., many of whom are single, leave prison without a permanent address to go to. I hope that the Minister is aware of the problem of housing for prisoners.
Of particular importance is the knowledge that housing benefit can be available for up to 52 weeks. That can ensure that someone leaving prison has a secure base to which to return and it may well reduce the chances of re-offending. I am sure that the Minister is much better acquainted with the workings of the legal and prison systems in Scotland than I, although I have some knowledge of them. I cannot help thinking that it must be much more economic to pay a prisoner housing benefit for a little longer and give him or her a chance—

1213
we are also talking about women prisoners—to establish themselves. Then the ex-prisoners will not be so likely to re-offend. I know that housing is not included in the order, but housing provision is obviously an important part of whether a prisoner makes a go of being released on parole.
Therefore, I hope that, if not now perhaps later, the Minister will let me know whether the Government are considering representations on the special case of prisoners being allowed longer on housing benefit. There is an economic as well as a humanitarian basis to it.
Otherwise, there has been some advance in the past few years in the parole system and from that point of view I welcome the two orders.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I too address my thanks to the Minister for the way in which he introduced these two orders, of which we were pre-warned in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act. In the future parole will in effect be granted, amended and revoked by the Parole Board. Curiously, the Secretary of State has removed from himself the possibility of discretion in this matter.
However, I certainly approve of the fact that the Secretary of State has retained the powers of emergency revocation of parole licences under Section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act. That is appropriate because, reflecting on my time in the social work department, it often took a while to come to a decision to recommend that parole be revoked, A lot of time will have passed before the application for that to happen is made. Therefore, given that time lag, the emergency powers are quite sensible. The provisions in this order are fine, with the proviso that the Parole Board is well selected and representative—and given that it is indeed well supervised and scrutinised. Presumably, the Parole Board will also enjoy the transfer of blame to a degree when things go wrong.
I thank the Minister for clearing up the question of eligibility, The diminishing number of prisoners who were eligible for parole at one-third of sentence will to a degree have been a little worried about that. But my memories are that few people were actually given parole at one-third of sentence; it was usually half sentence before they were liberated. As a result of this order, parole reports will continue to be prepared with the usual two principles in mind; namely, to avoid the public being exposed to serious risk of harm, and to ensure a good chance of rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation is difficult in prison: when you enter a prison you have to learn how to live in a prison. In some respects rehabilitation starts only when you get out—though I must admit that I am very impressed with the work of those who are involved in sentence planning, which was recently introduced to the Scottish Prison Service. A lot of consultation is required before someone can be released on parole. Obviously that involves negotiations and discussions in the prison and also in the home area. It must also involve agencies such as housing, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and the DSS. This reminds
1214
me very much of what we discussed last week in relation to the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill. A very sound aftercare plan is required before someone can be released into the community if that person is to succeed. Parole will continue to be regulated by a social worker using conditions imposed by the Parole Board, but will be agreed to by the parole licensee on a rather reluctant basis.
I have one or two more comments to make. There has always been some concern about the time that it takes to come to a decision regarding parole. That should be available at least two months before a possible liberation date is achieved. I know that there are very many reports to be done, and missed appointments cause delays. But the prisoner lives in a considerable vacuum and it puts him under a lot of stress. I have even met prisoners who have deliberately not asked for parole because they cannot handle the stress of waiting for the decision.
Secondly, there are some prisoners who do not particularly like social workers. That is usually because of past recommendations and/or failed supervision arrangements. I believe that the trend of moving back to specialist social workers dealing with offenders will get round that. In addition, there is nothing like going to meet the person in prison before he is released. I have done it, and I know that it has considerable benefits.
It is also important to stress right at the start what the recall or revocation conditions will be, because sometimes people build up quite fantastic ideas about how easy it is to get recalled. In fact, it is quite difficult.
Finally, parole is the most powerful incentive available in a long-term prison to ensure good conduct. Not only is that good for the prison and the staff; it is also good for the prisoners, who make the effort the give up offending behaviour.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly to the contributions that have been made. I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for the broad welcome that they have extended to these orders. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will he gratified to know that the noble Lord thinks he is an appropriate person to take decisions. But more generally there is an appreciation that it is desirable in those cases of under 10 years that I have indicated that the greater independence of the Parole Board should be asserted. I can certainly give an undertaking to the noble Earl that the independence that is properly vested in the board is a principle that will be studiously maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was quite properly concerned to ensure that if there were representations to be made by a particular member of another place or someone elsewhere with regard to the eligibility for parole of a particular prisoner, they should be heard. I can give him the clear reassurance that any representations made by Members of Parliament, or others, will be carefully examined and considered. Indeed, if the noble Earl were to look to the Parole Board (Scotland) Rules of 1993, he would see that there are now in place very much clearer and much more open requirements in relation to what will go before the

1215
Parole Board. The prisoner will have a dossier which will reveal to him exactly what reports will be put before the Parole Board. That will be some four weeks before they are to be considered. It will allow him to make written representations about why he or she should be given early release on parole. I am sure that the noble Earl will accept that that is a desirable change.
So far as the single homeless are concerned, certainly the question of supported accommodation for released prisoners is a matter that will always be of concern to the board. The board is unlikely to recommend any early release unless the prisoner has a proper home or a supported hostel place to return to. I recognise, as he does, the desirability of ensuring that there is sufficient provision for that. The matter of housing benefit is a rather different issue relating to a rather different point.
Finally—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister one question relating to the subject of single people. I am sorry if he thinks that I am intruding. I happen to be the chairman of an organisation in Greater Manchester called SELCARE. I inherited it from the former distinguished Member of this House, Lord Rhodes. Our organisation has properties which we are able to offer to people as somewhere to go if they are viewed as suitable for release into the community. Is anything else like that in being? I am sorry to intervene, but I wanted to put that question to the Minister because our organisation works very well in our situation.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord should certainly not apologise for intervening.
1216
What he says on these matters is always to be regarded very carefully, given his personal involvement in a number of very worthwhile schemes. Whether our schemes work as well as those for which he has a responsibility, I am not sure. But certainly, as I understand it, there are a number of very good schemes in place. If, by means of such schemes, people can be placed, so much the better. That would certainly help any prisoner who is otherwise regarded as capable of facing up to what would be responsibilities in the community once he or she is released. I feel that we were on a slightly different point from the benefit point, which often has to do with giving up houses that otherwise are held empty for a long period.
Finally, the noble Earl was concerned that parole decisions come too late. The new procedures are designed to ensure that the parole decision will come at least six weeks before the parole qualifying date. This should allow adequate time for pre-release arrangements to be made by social workers. If there are prisoners who do not have sufficient regard for them, I hope that the change in arrangements will redress the balance there.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 (Release of Prisoners etc.) Order 1995
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move. Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before nine o'clock.

  European Union Secretariat
  European Union Secretariat
  Hong Kong: Annual Report
  Hong Kong: Annual Report
  British Transport Police
  British Transport Police
  London Heliport Study Report
  London Heliport Study Report
  Armed Forces Careers Information Offices
  Armed Forces Careers Information Offices
  Public Expenditure: Authorisation by Parliament
  Public Expenditure: Authorisation by Parliament
  Local Government Commission Final Recommendations
  Local Government Commission Final Recommendations
  Foetal Tissue
  Foetal Tissue